| Course Code | Class Code | Assignment Title | Total Points |
| ELM-305 | ELM-305-O501 | Fluency Strategies | 35.0 |
| Criteria | Percentage | No Submission (0.00%) | Insufficient (65.00%) | Approaching (75.00%) | Acceptable (85.00%) | Target (100.00%) | Comments | Points Earned |
| Criteria | 100.0% |
| Case Scenario 1: Mary | 25.0% | Not addressed. | The academic goal may be missing from the narrative. Analysis identifies an inadequate approach to build fluency skills for reading based on Mary’s learning goal. A description of how to implement the chosen approach, including the number and length of sessions required, is lacking sufficient detail or is inappropriate. Analysis includes an irrelevant explanation of why the chosen approach is beneficial for Mary, along with a rationale for the number and length of sessions. | Analysis identifies an adequate approach to build fluency skills for reading based on Mary’s learning goal. A simple description of how to implement the chosen approach, including the number and length of sessions required is provided. Analysis includes an appropriate explanation of why the chosen approach is beneficial for Mary, along with a rationale for the number and length of sessions. | Analysis identifies a relevant approach to build fluency skills for reading based on Mary’s learning goal. A sound description of how to implement the chosen approach, including the number and length of sessions required is provided. Analysis makes connections of why the chosen approach is beneficial for Mary, along with a rationale for the number and length of sessions. | Analysis identifies an appropriate, thoughtful approach to build fluency skills for reading based on Mary’s learning goal. A thorough description of how to implement the chosen approach, including the number and length of sessions required is provided. Analysis includes a clear, insightful justification of why the chosen approach is beneficial for Mary, along with a rationale for the number and length of sessions. |
| Case Scenario 2: Emma | 25.0% | Not addressed. | The academic goal may be missing. Analysis identifies an inadequate approach to build fluency skills for reading based on Emma’s learning goal. A description of how to implement the chosen approach, including the number and length of sessions required is lacking sufficient detail or is inappropriate. Analysis includes an irrelevant explanation of why the chosen approach is beneficial for Emma, along with a rationale for the number and length of sessions. | Analysis identifies an adequate approach to build fluency skills for reading based on Emma’s learning goal. A simple description of how to implement the chosen approach, including the number and length of sessions required is provided. Analysis includes an appropriate explanation of why the chosen approach is beneficial for Emma, along with a rationale for the number and length of sessions. | Analysis identifies a relevant approach to build fluency skills for reading based on Emma’s learning goal. A sound description of how to implement the chosen approach, including the number and length of sessions required is provided. Analysis makes connections of why the chosen approach is beneficial for Emma, along with a rationale for the number and length of sessions. | Analysis identifies an appropriate, thoughtful approach to build fluency skills for reading based on Emma’s learning goal. A thorough description of how to implement the chosen approach, including the number and length of sessions required is provided. Analysis includes a clear, insightful justification of why the chosen approach is beneficial for Emma, along with a rationale for the number and length of sessions. |
| Case Scenario 3: Daniel | 25.0% | Not addressed. | The academic goal may be missing. Analysis identifies an inadequate approach to build fluency skills for reading based on Daniel’s learning goal. A description of how to implement the chosen approach, including the number and length of sessions required is lacking sufficient detail or is inappropriate. Analysis includes an irrelevant explanation of why the chosen approach is beneficial for Daniel, along with a rationale for the number and length of sessions. | Analysis identifies an adequate approach to build fluency skills for reading based on Daniel’s learning goal. A simple description of how to implement the chosen approach, including the number and length of sessions required is provided. Analysis includes an appropriate explanation of why the chosen approach is beneficial for Daniel, along with a rationale for the number and length of sessions. | Analysis identifies a relevant approach to build fluency skills for reading based on Daniel’s learning goal. A sound description of how to implement the chosen approach, including the number and length of sessions required is provided. Analysis makes connections of why the chosen approach is beneficial for Daniel, along with a rationale for the number and length of sessions. | Analysis identifies an appropriate, thoughtful approach to build fluency skills for reading based on Daniel’s learning goal. A thorough description of how to implement the chosen approach, including the number and length of sessions required is provided. Analysis includes a clear, insightful justification of why the chosen approach is beneficial for Daniel, along with a rationale for the number and length of sessions. |
| Research Citations | 5.0% | Not addressed. | Reference page includes errors and/or inconsistently used citations. Sources are not credible. | Reference page lists sources used in the paper. Sources are appropriate and documented, although errors are present. | In-text citations have few errors. References used are reliable and reference page lists all cited sources with few errors. | In-text citations and a reference page are complete and correct. Sources are credible. The documentation of cited sources is free of error. |
| Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, and language use) | 20.0% | Not addressed. | Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction are used. | Submission includes mechanical errors, but they do not hinder comprehension. Effective sentence structures are used, as well as some practice and content-related language. | Submission is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. A variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech are used, as well as appropriate 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% |
mdavis_1
Rubric_Print_Format17.xlsx
