| Course Code | Class Code |
| ECS-501 | ECS-501-O501 | Benchmark - Advocating for Students and Families | 300.0 |
| Criteria | Percentage | 1: No Submission (0.00%) | 2: Insufficient (69.00%) | 3: Approaching (74.00%) | 4: Acceptable (87.00%) | 5: Target (100.00%) | Comments | Points Earned |
| Category | 100.0% |
| Audience Appropriateness and Overall Purpose COE: 5.1 | 10.0% | Not addressed. | The presentation is not appropriate for its intended audience. | The presentation is not completely appropriate for its intended audience. | The presentation is appropriate for its intended audience. | The presentation content is engaging, well-suited for the intended audience of professional colleagues, and insightfully informs professional practice. |
| Early Detection | 5.0% | Not addressed. | The importance of detecting possible exceptionalities in Pre-K through Grade 3 children is lacking evidence or is inaccurate. | The importance of detecting possible exceptionalities in Pre-K through Grade 3 children could be presented more clearly or convincingly. | The importance of detecting possible exceptionalities in Pre-K through Grade 3 children is accurate and reasonably described. | The importance of detecting possible exceptionalities in Pre-K through Grade 3 children is clear and compelling. |
| Laws or Policies Related to Identifying or Providing Services to Children COE: 5.2 | 10.0% | Not addressed. | Very few of the laws or policies included relate to identifying or providing services to children. | Not all of the laws or policies included relate to identifying or providing services to children. | Includes at least three laws or policies related to identifying or providing services to children. | Includes at least three of the more significant laws or policies related to identifying or providing services to children. |
| Role as Advocate COE: 5.6 | 15.0% | Not addressed. | Most or all of the reasons presented for advocating for students and families do not explain how advocacy optimizes learning opportunities for young children, strengthens learning environments, or advances the early childhood profession. | Reasons presented for advocating for students and families are lacking substance, or do not adequately relate advocacy to optimizing learning opportunities for young children, strengthening learning environments, or advancing the early childhood profession. | Includes at least three realistic ways in which advocating for students and families optimizes learning opportunities for young children, strengthens learning environments, and advances the early childhood profession. | Includes at least three convincing ways in which advocating for students and families optimizes learning opportunities for young children, strengthens learning environments, and advances the early childhood profession. |
| Guidance and Direction to Paraeducators, Tutors, and Volunteers COE: 5.7 | 15.0% | Not addressed. | Most or all of the talking points presented are unclear, or present inaccurate or irrelevant information for adequately informing paraeducators, tutors, and volunteers about some of the more important legal and ethical practices regarding students who may have exceptionalities and how to interaction with their families. | Not all of the talking points presented are clear, or some only loosely relate to informing paraeducators, tutors, and volunteers about some of the more important legal and ethical practices regarding students who may have exceptionalities and how to interact with their families. | Includes 3-5 adequately described talking points to inform paraeducators, tutors, and volunteers about some of the more important legal and ethical practices regarding students who may have exceptionalities and how to interact with their families. | Includes 3-5 clear and concise talking points to inform paraeducators, tutors, and volunteers about some of the more important legal and ethical practices regarding students who may have exceptionalities and how to interact with their families. |
| Ethical Analysis COE 5.3 | 15.0% | Not addressed. | The statement regarding how the advocacy role of early childhood educators promotes compassion, justice, and concern for the common good of students, families, and colleagues or the statement regarding how this role reflects the GCU College of Education's Professional Disposition of Advocacy is lacking logic or relevance. | The statement regarding how the advocacy role of early childhood educators promotes compassion, justice, and concern for the common good of students, families, and colleagues or the statement regarding how this role reflects the GCU College of Education's Professional Disposition of Advocacy could be more fully developed. | Includes a reasonable statement regarding how the advocacy role of early childhood educators promotes compassion, justice, and concern of the common good for students, families, and colleagues and reflects the GCU College of Education's Professional Disposition of Advocacy. | Includes an accurate and insightful statement regarding how the advocacy role of early childhood educators promotes compassion, justice, and concern for the common good of students, families, and colleagues and reflects the GCU College of Education's Professional Disposition of Advocacy. |
| Organization and Cohesiveness | 10.0% | Not addressed. | The presentation lacks a clear point of view and logical sequence of information. Sequencing of ideas is unclear. | Vague in conveying a point of view or does not create a strong sense of purpose. | The presentation consists of a reasonable progression of ideas and supporting information, exhibiting general, coherence, and cohesiveness. | The presentation gives the audience a clear sense of the main idea. Ideas universally progress and relate to each other. The logical progression of ideas and supporting information clearly exhibit unity, coherence, and cohesiveness. |
| Research Citations (in-text citations, reference page, and type of sources) COE: 5.5 | 5.0% | Not addressed. | Many citations are missing where needed. References page includes numerous errors. Sources may not be credible. | Some citations may be missing or the citations do not support the submission. References page may include errors. Sources may not be appropriate for the submission. | In-text citations and References page have few errors. Sources are credible and appropriate for the submission. | In-text citations and References page are complete and error-free. Sources are credible and appropriate for the submission. The sources strongly support the submission. |
| Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, and language use) | 15.0% | Not addressed. | Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction are used. | Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistent language or word choice is present. Sentence structure is lacking. | Submission includes some mechanical errors, but they do not hinder comprehension. A variety of effective sentence structures are used, as well as some practice and content-related language. | Submission is virtually free of mechanical errors. Word choice reflects well-developed use of practice and content-related language. Sentence structures are varied and engaging. |
| Total Weightage | 100% |
rnixon@123
Rubric_Print_Format13.xlsx
