Community teaching evaluation

Community Teaching Plan: Teaching Experience Paper - Rubric Total 100 points

Criterion 1. Unsatisfactory 2. Less Than

Satisfactory 3. Satisfactory 4. Good 5. Excellent

Thesis Development and

Purpose

Thesis Development and

Purpose

0 points

Paper lacks any discernible

overall purpose or organizing

claim.

3.25 points

Thesis is insufficiently

developed or vague. Purpose

is not clear.

3.75 points

Thesis is apparent and

appropriate to purpose.

4.25 points

Thesis is clear and forecasts

the development of the

paper. Thesis is descriptive

and reflective of the

arguments and appropriate

to the purpose.

5 points

Thesis is comprehensive and

contains the essence of the

paper. Thesis statement

makes the purpose of the

paper clear.

Community Response to

Teaching Provided

Community Response to

Teaching Provided

0 points

Community response to

teaching is omitted.

9.75 points

Community response to

teaching is partially

summarized. More

information is needed.

11.25 points

A summary of the

community response to

teaching is presented. Some

areas are unclear. More

information is needed for

support or clarity.

12.75 points

A description of community

response to teaching is

generally presented. Some

information is needed for

support or clarity.

15 points

A detailed description of

community response to

teaching is presented.

Epidemiological Rationale

for Topic

Epidemiological Rationale for

Topic

0 points

Epidemiological rationale for

the topic is omitted.

9.75 points

Epidemiological rationale is

unclear or incorrect.

11.25 points

Epidemiological rationale is

summarized and provides

some support for the topic.

More information or

evidence is needed for

support.

12.75 points

Epidemiological rationale is

provided and provides

general support for the topic.

Some detail is needed for

clarity.

15 points

Strong epidemiological

rationale is provided and

demonstrates support for the

topic presented.

Mechanics of Writing

(includes spelling,

punctuation, grammar,

language use)

Mechanics of Writing

(includes spelling,

punctuation, grammar,

language use)

0 points

Surface errors are pervasive

enough that they impede

communication of meaning.

Inappropriate word choice or

sentence construction is

used.

3.25 points

Frequent and repetitive

mechanical errors distract

the reader. Inconsistencies in

language choice (register) or

word choice are present.

Sentence structure is correct

but not varied.

3.75 points

Some mechanical errors or

typos are present, but they

are not overly distracting to

the reader. Correct and

varied sentence structure

and audience-appropriate

language are employed.

4.25 points

Prose is largely free of

mechanical errors, although

a few may be present. The

writer uses a variety of

effective sentence structures

and figures of speech.

5 points

Writer is clearly in command

of standard, written,

academic English.

Comprehensive Summary

of Teaching Plan

Comprehensive Summary of

Teaching Plan

0 points

Summary of community

teaching plan is omitted.

9.75 points

Summary of community

teaching plan is incomplete.

Overall, the teaching plan is

unclear.

11.25 points

Summary of community

teaching plan is offered, but

some elements are vague.

Some rationale or evidence is

needed for clarity and

support.

12.75 points

Community teaching plan is

clear with a detailed

summary of each

component. Minor rationale

is needed for clarity or

support.

15 points

Focus of community teaching

is clear, consistent with

community teaching plan,

detailed, and well supported.

The presentation

demonstrates an ability to

create effective teaching

plans relative to a

population.

Argument Logic and

Construction

Argument Logic and

Construction

0 points

Statement of purpose is not

justified by the conclusion.

The conclusion does not

support the claim made.

Argument is incoherent and

uses noncredible sources.

3.25 points

Sufficient justification of

claims is lacking. Argument

lacks consistent unity. There

are obvious flaws in the logic.

Some sources have

questionable credibility.

3.75 points

Argument is orderly but may

have a few inconsistencies.

The argument presents

minimal justification of

claims. Argument logically,

but not thoroughly, supports

the purpose. Sources used

are credible. Introduction

and conclusion bracket the

thesis.

4.25 points

Argument shows logical

progression. Techniques of

argumentation are evident.

There is a smooth

progression of claims from

introduction to conclusion.

Most sources are

authoritative.

5 points

Clear and convincing

argument presents a

persuasive claim in a

distinctive and compelling

manner. All sources are

authoritative.

Criterion 1. Unsatisfactory 2. Less Than

Satisfactory 3. Satisfactory 4. Good 5. Excellent

Evaluation of Teaching

Experience

Evaluation of Teaching

Experience

0 points

Evaluation of teaching

experience is omitted or

incomplete.

13 points

Evaluation of teaching

experience is unclear or

underdeveloped. The

narrative is not written in a

manner that evaluates the

experience.

15 points

Evaluation of teaching

experience is summarized.

Some aspects are vague.

More detail is needed to fully

illustrate an assessment of

the experience.

17 points

Evaluation of the teaching

experience is generally

presented. Some detail is

needed for clarity.

20 points

A comprehensive evaluation

of teaching experience is

presented. Insight into self-

appraisal in regard to

teaching is demonstrated.

Areas of Strength and

Improvement

Areas of Strength and

Improvement

0 points

Areas of strength and

improvement are omitted.

9.75 points

Areas of strength and

improvement are partially

discussed.

11.25 points

Areas of strength and

improvement are generally

discussed.

12.75 points

Areas of strength and

improvement are discussed.

15 points

Areas of strength and

improvement are thoroughly

discussed. The author

demonstrates insight into

personal strengths and areas

where improvement would

be beneficial.

Documentation of Sources

Documentation of Sources

(citations, footnotes,

references, bibliography,

etc., as appropriate to

assignment and style)

0 points

Sources are not documented.

1.95 points

Documentation of sources is

inconsistent or incorrect, as

appropriate to assignment

and style, with numerous

formatting errors.

2.25 points

Sources are documented, as

appropriate to assignment

and style, although some

formatting errors may be

present.

2.55 points

Sources are documented, as

appropriate to assignment

and style, and format is

mostly correct.

3 points

Sources are completely and

correctly documented, as

appropriate to assignment

and style, and format is free

of error.

Paper Format (use of

appropriate style for the

major and assignment)

Paper Format (use of

appropriate style for the

major and assignment)

0 points

Template is not used

appropriately, or

documentation format is

rarely followed correctly.

1.3 points

Appropriate template is

used, but some elements are

missing or mistaken. A lack

of control with formatting is

apparent.

1.5 points

Appropriate template is

used. Formatting is correct,

although some minor errors

may be present.

1.7 points

Appropriate template is fully

used. There are virtually no

errors in formatting style.

2 points

All format elements are

correct.