Health Policy Brief (one-page leave behind) Assignment. Please follow the instructions, sample and rubric.
|
Criteria |
Exemplary 93-100% |
Accomplished 85-92% |
Developing 80-84% |
Beginning 0-79% |
|
|
Initial Submission of Bill Title / Number & representative Via discussion board
5% |
Complete Title and bill number & representative submitted via submissions tab |
Submits Bill title & number, and representative via submissions tab; But bill title is written in layman terms. |
Submits 2 of the 3 criteria: 1. title 2. Bill number 3. representative |
Submits 0 to 1 of the criteria: 1. title 2. Bill number 3. representative |
|
|
Summary/Introduction
20% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brief overview of policy is discussed and: 1. indicates a thorough understanding of the bill. 2. is clearly stated with supporting details. |
Brief overview of policy is discussed and:
|
Brief overview of policy is discussed and: 1. indicates vague understanding of the bill. 2. is clearly stated with limited supporting details. |
Brief overview of policy is discussed and: 1. does not indicate understanding of the bill. 2. No supporting details. |
|
|
Background
25%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion of the problem includes supporting details and shows significant insight Includes clear discussion of history of the policy issue. |
Discussion of problem includes some supporting details and shows some insight. Includes some discussion of history of the policy issue.
|
Discussion of problem is vague with limited supporting details. Includes limited discussion of history of the policy issue. |
Problem is not discussed and/or without supporting details. Does not include discussion of history of the policy issue. |
|
|
Evidence
15% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion of evidence is logical, well-articulated and includes appropriate evidence/data. |
Discussion of evidence is somewhat logical, well-articulated and includes appropriate evidence/data. |
Discussion of evidence is vague with limited evidence/data. |
Discussion of evidence is not discussed and/or lacks supporting details. |
|
|
Recommendation(s) 10% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clearly and succinctly articulates recommendation(s). |
Somewhat clearly and succinctly articulates recommendation(s). |
Recommendation(s) is vague. |
Missing recommendation(s).
|
|
|
Reference(s)
5% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Includes professional reference (s) on the brief |
Includes reference, but it is not from a professional source. |
Does not include reference on the brief (automatic 0 points) |
Does not include reference on the brief (automatic 0 points) |
|
|
Visual appearance 10% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leave behind (Policy Brief) is very well organized and visually appealing. |
Leave behind (Policy Brief) is somewhat well organized and visually appealing |
Leave behind (Policy Brief) meet s only one of the criteria: 1. well-organized 2.visually appealing |
Leave behind (Policy Brief) unorganized and not visually appealing |
|
|
Writing Quality 5% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brief shows above exemplary writing style and clear standard English; Basically free from grammar, punctuation, and spelling errors. 0-1 APA errors |
Brief shows average writing style and clear standard English; Basically free from grammar, punctuation, and spelling errors. 2-3 APA errors |
Brief shows below average writing style and clear standard English; Basically free from grammar, punctuation, and spelling errors. 2-3 APA errors |
Brief shows poor writing style; Multiple grammar, punctuation, and spelling errors.
3-4 APA errors |
|
|
Submits to legislator 5%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Provides evidence of submission of REVISED brief to legislator |
Does not provide evidence of REVISED submission to legislator (automatic 0 points) |
Does not provide evidence of REVISED submission to legislator (automatic 0 points) |
Does not provide evidence of REVISED submission to legislator (automatic 0 points) |
May 2020