| Course Code |
Class Code |
Assignment Title |
Total Points |
| NRS-428VN |
NRS-428VN-O503 |
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 |
|
|
| 1
|
|
| 5.0% |
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% |
