Identification of Focus for Community Teaching
Benchmark – Community Teaching Plan: Community Teaching Work Plan Proposal
| 1 Unsatisfactory 0.00% | 2 Less than Satisfactory 75.00% | 3 Satisfactory 83.00% | 4 Good 94.00% | 5 Excellent 100.00% | ||
| 80.0 %Content | ||||||
| 30.0 %Identification of Focus for Community Teaching | Focus of community teaching is not identified or is incomplete. | Focus of community teaching is unclear or inconsistent with Functional Health Patterns (FHP) assessment findings. | Focus of community teaching is clear, but rationale for selection is not included. | Focus of community teaching is clear, with a detailed explanation of rationale for selection. | Focus of community teaching is clear, consistent with Functional Health Patterns (FHP) assessment findings, and supported by explanation of rationale. | |
| 50.0 %Detailed and Comprehensive Community Teaching Work Plan Proposal | Community teaching proposal is omitted or incomplete. | Community teaching proposal is unclear or inconsistent with Functional Health Patterns (FHP) assessment findings, demographic, or the scope of community-based resources. | Community teaching proposal is clear with a complete summary of each area listed in the assignment criteria. | Community teaching proposal is clearly described and is well supported by evidence from current literature and statistical/demographic data published on the community. There is a detailed summary of all required areas of the work plan. | Community teaching proposal is detailed and comprehensive, with supportive evidence and a detailed description of barriers and strategies to overcome barriers. Evidence from current literature and statistical/demographic data published on the community thoroughly supports the proposal in all required areas of the work plan. | |
| 15.0 %Organization and Effectiveness | ||||||
| 10.0 %Organization of Proposal, Paragraph Development and Transitions | Organization of proposal is disjointed. Paragraphs and transitions consistently lack unity and coherence. There are no apparent connections between ideas. Transitions are inappropriate or lacking. | Some degree of organization is evident. Some paragraphs and transitions may lack logical progression of ideas, unity, coherence, and/or cohesiveness. | Paragraphs are generally competent, but ideas may show some inconsistency in organization and/or in their relationships to each other. | A logical progression of ideas between paragraphs is apparent. Paragraphs exhibit a unity, coherence, and cohesiveness. | Proposal is well-organized and logical. Ideas progress and relate to each other. Paragraph and transition construction guide the reader. | |
| 5.0 %Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) | Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice and/or sentence construction are used. | Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register), sentence structure, and/or 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. | |
| 5.0 %Format | ||||||
| 2.0 %Proposal template is applied correctly. | Template is not used appropriately or documentation format is rarely followed correctly. | Template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken; lack of control with formatting is apparent. | Template is used, and formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present. | Template is fully used; There are virtually no errors in formatting style. | All format elements are correct. | |
| 3.0 %Research Citations (In-text citations for paraphrasing and direct quotes, and reference page listing and formatting, as appropriate to assignment) | 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 guide is usually correct. | In-text citations and a reference page are complete. The documentation of cited sources is free of error. | |
| 100 %Total Weightage |
