Community Teaching Plan: Teaching Experience Paper
ChuksbogusRuburiccommunity.xlsx
Rubic_Print_Format
Course Code | Class Code | Assignment Title | Total Points | |||||
NRS-428VN | NRS-428VN-O502 | Community Teaching Plan: Teaching Experience Paper | 100.0 | |||||
Criteria | Percentage | Unsatisfactory (0.00%) | Less Than Satisfactory (65.00%) | Satisfactory (75.00%) | Good (85.00%) | Excellent (100.00%) | Comments | Points Earned |
Content | 80.0% | |||||||
Comprehensive Summary of Teaching Plan | 15.0% | Summary of community teaching plan is omitted. | Summary of community teaching plan is incomplete. Overall, the teaching plan is unclear. | Summary of community teaching plan is offered, but some elements are vague. Some rationale or evidence is needed for clarity and support. | Community teaching plan is clear with a detailed summary of each component. Minor rationale is needed for clarity or support. | 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. | ||
Epidemiological Rationale for Topic | 15.0% | Epidemiological rationale for the topic is omitted. | Epidemiological rationale is unclear or incorrect. | Epidemiological rationale is summarized and provides some support for the topic. More information or evidence is needed for support. | Epidemiological rationale is provided and provides general support for the topic. Some detail is needed for clarity. | Strong epidemiological rationale is provided and demonstrates support for the topic presented. | ||
Evaluation of Teaching Experience | 20.0% | Evaluation of teaching experience is omitted or incomplete. | Evaluation of teaching experience is unclear or underdeveloped. The narrative is not written in a manner that evaluates the experience. | Evaluation of teaching experience is summarized. Some aspects are vague. More detail is needed to fully illustrate an assessment of the experience. | Evaluation of the teaching experience is generally presented. Some detail is needed for clarity. | A comprehensive evaluation of teaching experience is presented. Insight into self-appraisal in regard to teaching is demonstrated. | ||
Community Response to Teaching Provided | 15.0% | Community response to teaching is omitted. | Community response to teaching is partially summarized. More information is needed. | A summary of the community response to teaching is presented. Some areas are unclear. More information is needed for support or clarity. | A description of community response to teaching is generally presented. Some information is needed for support or clarity. | A detailed description of community response to teaching is presented. | ||
Areas of Strength and Improvement | 15.0% | Areas of strength and improvement are omitted. | Areas of strength and improvement are partially discussed. | Areas of strength and improvement are generally discussed. | Areas of strength and improvement are discussed. | Areas of strength and improvement are thoroughly discussed. The author demonstrates insight into personal strengths and areas where improvement would be beneficial. | ||
Organization, Effectiveness, and Format | 20.0% | |||||||
Thesis Development and Purpose | 5.0% | Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim. | Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear. | Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose. | Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose. | Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear. | ||
Argument Logic and Construction | 5.0% | Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources. | Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility. | 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. | Argument shows logical progression. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative. | Clear and convincing argument presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative. | ||
Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) | 5.0% | Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used. | 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. | 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. | 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. | Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English. | ||
Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment) | 2.0% | Template is not used appropriately, or documentation format is rarely followed correctly. | Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent. | Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present. | Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style. | All format elements are correct. | ||
Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style) | 3.0% | Sources are not documented. | Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors. | Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present. | Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct. | Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error. | ||
Total Weightage | 100% |