| Course Code | Class Code | Assignment Title | Total Points |
| NUR-647E | NUR-647E-O500 | Benchmark - Learning Styles | 50.0 |
| Criteria | Percentage | No Submission (0.00%) | 1: Unsatisfactory (75.00%) | 2: Less Than Satisfactory (80.00%) | 3: Satisfactory (88.00%) | 4: Good (92.00%) | 5: Excellent (100.00%) | Comments | Points Earned |
| Content | 75.0% |
| A 4-Hour Class That Would Accommodate the Learning Style of Each of the Students | 15.0% | None | Student barely designs a 4-hour class that does not accommodate the learning style of each student. | Student minimally designs a 4-hour class that would accommodate the learning style of each student. | Student designs a 4-hour class but does not clearly accommodate the learning style of each student. | Student clearly designs a 4-hour class but does not clearly accommodate the learning style of each student. | Student clearly designs a 4-hour class that would clearly accommodate the learning style of each student. |
| Learner Objectives for the Course | 15.0% | None | Student incorrectly composes the learner objectives for the class design, using the Bloom taxonomy and the A, B, C, D format for objectives with many errors. | Student minimally composes the learner objectives for the class design, using the Bloom taxonomy and the A, B, C, D format for objectives with some errors. | Student composes the learner objectives for the class design, using the Bloom taxonomy and the A, B, C, D format for objectives with few errors. | Student clearly composes the learner objectives for the class design using the Bloom taxonomy appropriately and the A, B, C, D format for objectives, but not expertly. | Student clearly composes the learner objectives for the class design, expertly using the Bloom taxonomy appropriately and the A, B, C, D format for objectives. |
| Outline the Class Content and Agenda | 10.0% | None | Student barely outlines the class content and agenda and the result is substantially unorganized. | Student minimally outlines the class content and agenda, but result is somewhat unorganized. | Student outlines the class content and agenda, but neither is clear. | Student clearly outlines the class content or agenda, but not both. | Student clearly outlines the class content and agenda. |
| Learning Activities and Rationale for the Learning Activities Selected for the Group of Students | 15.0% | None | Student barely describes the learning activities and explains the rationale for the learning activities selected for the group of students. | Student minimally describes the learning activities and explains the rationale for the learning activities selected for the group of students. | Student describes the learning activities and explains the rationale for the learning activities selected for the group of students. | Student clearly describes the learning activities and explains the rationale for the learning activities selected for the group of students, but description is not always comprehensive. | Student clearly and comprehensively describes the learning activities and explains the rationale for the learning activities selected for the group of students. |
| Strategies to Assess Learning Based on the Learner Objectives | 15.0% | None | Student barely describes the strategies to assess learning based on the learner objectives. There is no logical connection between the assessment strategies and the learner objectives. | Student minimally describes the strategies to assess learning based on the learner objectives. There is little logical connection between the assessment strategies and the learner objectives. | Student describes the strategies to assess learning based on the learner objectives. There is a logical connection between the assessment strategies and the learner objectives. | Student clearly describes the strategies to assess learning based on the learner objectives. Description is not always comprehensive. There is a logical connection between the assessment strategies and the learner objectives, although the connection is not evident without description. | Student clearly and comprehensively describes the strategies to assess learning based on the learner objective. A logical connection is evident between the assessment strategies and the learner objectives. |
| Scholarly References | 3.0% | None | Selection of literature is irrelevant and insufficient. References do not meet stated criteria, or use evidence-based sources when available. Only course materials are used. | Selection of sufficient and relevant literature (published within the last 5 years) is weak. No scholarly, peer-reviewed references are used (other than course materials). Only course materials are used. | Selection of sufficient and relevant literature (published within the last 5 years) is fair. At least one scholarly, peer-reviewed reference is used (other than course materials). Evidence-based sources are not used, when available. | Selection of sufficient and relevant literature (published within the last 5 years) is only partial. At least two scholarly, peer-reviewed references are used (other than course materials) Evidence-based sources are used, when available. | Selection of sufficient and relevant literature (published within the last 5 years) is only excellent. At least three scholarly, peer-reviewed references are used (other than course materials) Evidence-based sources are used, when available. |
| Length | 2.0% | None | Adherence to assignment length criteria is unacceptable (less than or more than 50% of stated criteria). | Adherence to assignment length criteria is poor (within 50% of stated criteria). | Adherence to assignment length criteria is weak (within 25% of stated criteria). | Adherence to assignment length criteria is adequate (within 10% of stated criteria). | Adherence to assignment length criteria is excellent (within stated criteria). |
| Organization and Effectiveness | 20.0% |
| Thesis Development and Purpose | 8.0% | None | Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim. | The main thesis claims are insufficiently developed or vague; purpose is not clear. | The main thesis claims are apparent and appropriate to purpose. | The main thesis claims are clear and forecast the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive, reflective of the arguments, and appropriate to the purpose. | The main thesis claims are comprehensive. The essence of the paper is contained within the thesis. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear. |
| Paragraph Development and Transitions | 7.0% | None | Paragraphs and transitions consistently lack unity and coherence. No apparent connections between paragraphs are established. Transitions are inappropriate to purpose and scope. Organization is disjointed. | Some paragraphs and transitions may lack logical progression of ideas, unity, coherence, or cohesiveness. Some degree of organization is evident. | Paragraphs are generally competent, but ideas may show some inconsistency in organization or in their relationships to each other. | A logical progression of ideas between paragraphs is apparent. Paragraphs exhibit a unity, coherence, and cohesiveness. Topic sentences and concluding remarks are appropriate to purpose. | There is a sophisticated construction of paragraphs and transitions. Ideas progress and relate to each other. Paragraph and transition construction guide the reader. Paragraph structure is seamless. |
| Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) | 5.0% | None | Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice and sentence construction are used. | Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register), sentence structure, and word choice are present. | Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are used. | Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. A variety of sentence structures and effective figures of speech are used. | Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English. |
| Format | 5.0% |
| APA Format | 4.0% | None | Correct APA format is not evident in the paper. | Correct APA format is infrequently used in the paper: cover page, margins, double-spacing, font size, and all other elements of APA. | Correct APA format is inconsistently used in the paper: cover page, margins, double-spacing, and all other elements of APA. | Correct APA format is mostly used in the paper: cover page, margins, double-spacing, font size, and all other elements of APA. | Correct APA format is consistently used in the paper: cover page, margins, double-spacing, font size, and all other elements of APA, such as headings and pagination. |
| Research Citations (In-text citations for paraphrasing and direct quotes, and reference page listing and formatting, as appropriate to assignment) | 1.0% | None | No reference page is included. No citations are used. | Reference page is present. Citations are inconsistently used. | Reference page is included and lists sources used in the paper. Sources are appropriately documented, although some errors may be present. | Reference page is present and fully inclusive of all cited sources. Documentation is appropriate and style is usually correct. | In-text citations and a reference page are complete. The documentation of cited sources is free of error. |
| Total Weightage | 100% |
Alonsa
Rubric_Print_Format23.xlsx
