1500words in 23hours Community Teaching Experience

Course Code Class Code

NRS-428VN NRS-428VN-O502

Criteria Percentage

Content 80.0%

Comprehensive Summary of Teaching Plan 15.0%

Epidemiological Rationale for Topic 15.0%

Evaluation of Teaching Experience 20.0%

Community Response to Teaching Provided 15.0%

Areas of Strength and Improvement 15.0%

Organization, Effectiveness, and Format 20.0%

Thesis Development and Purpose 5.0%

Argument Logic and Construction 5.0%

Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling,

punctuation, grammar, language use) 5.0%

Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the

major and assignment) 2.0%

Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes,

references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to

assignment and style) 3.0%

Total Weightage 100%

Assignment Title

Community Teaching Plan: Teaching Experience Paper

Unsatisfactory (0.00%)

Summary of community teaching plan is omitted.

Epidemiological rationale for the topic is omitted.

Evaluation of teaching experience is omitted or incomplete.

Community response to teaching is omitted.

Areas of strength and improvement are omitted.

Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing

claim.

Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The

conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is

incoherent and uses noncredible sources.

Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede

communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or

sentence construction is used.

Template is not used appropriately, or documentation

format is rarely followed correctly.

Sources are not documented.

Total Points

100.0

Less Than Satisfactory (65.00%)

Summary of community teaching plan is incomplete. Overall,

the teaching plan is unclear.

Epidemiological rationale is unclear or incorrect.

Evaluation of teaching experience is unclear or

underdeveloped. The narrative is not written in a manner

that evaluates the experience.

Community response to teaching is partially summarized.

More information is needed.

Areas of strength and improvement are partially discussed.

Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not

clear.

Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks

consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some

sources have questionable credibility.

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.

Appropriate template is used, but some elements are

missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is

apparent.

Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as

appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous

formatting errors.

Satisfactory (75.00%)

Summary of community teaching plan is offered, but some

elements are vague. Some rationale or evidence is needed

for clarity and support.

Epidemiological rationale is summarized and provides some

support for the topic. More information or evidence is

needed for support.

Evaluation of teaching experience is summarized. Some

aspects are vague. More detail is needed to fully illustrate an

assessment of the experience.

A summary of the community response to teaching is

presented. Some areas are unclear. More information is

needed for support or clarity.

Areas of strength and improvement are generally discussed.

Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose.

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.

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.

Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although

some minor errors may be present.

Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and

style, although some formatting errors may be present.

Good (85.00%)

Community teaching plan is clear with a detailed summary of

each component. Minor rationale is needed for clarity or

support.

Epidemiological rationale is provided and provides general

support for the topic. Some detail is needed for clarity.

Evaluation of the teaching experience is generally presented.

Some detail is needed for clarity.

A description of community response to teaching is generally

presented. Some information is needed for support or clarity.

Areas of strength and improvement are discussed.

Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper.

Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and

appropriate to the purpose.

Argument shows logical progression. Techniques of

argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of

claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are

authoritative.

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.

Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no

errors in formatting style.

Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and

style, and format is mostly correct.

Excellent (100.00%) Comments

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.

Strong epidemiological rationale is provided and

demonstrates support for the topic presented.

A comprehensive evaluation of teaching experience is

presented. Insight into self-appraisal in regard to teaching is

demonstrated.

A detailed description of community response to teaching is

presented.

Areas of strength and improvement are thoroughly

discussed. The author demonstrates insight into personal

strengths and areas where improvement would be beneficial.

Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the

paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper

clear.

Clear and convincing argument presents a persuasive claim in

a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are

authoritative.

Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic

English.

All format elements are correct.

Sources are completely and correctly documented, as

appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of

error.

Points Earned