Follow the instructions put the writing in headings APA Style Include Heading1. Your name and where you are from. Heading 2. Information pataining to your professional career Head 3. Any per

Rubric_Week_1_shared

Grid View
List View

	Exemplary	Very Good	Proficient	Opportunity for Improvement	Unacceptable
Element 1: Initial Post	8 (40%) Student presents a thorough and detailed introduction that includes relevant details on his/her professional background, provides several examples of how he/she will draw upon personal and professional experiences to enhance his/her own learning, demonstrate through relevant examples his/her commitment to sharing relevant experiences with classmates, and demonstrate through relevant examples his/her commitment to pursing a graduate degree.	7.44 (37.2%) Student presents an introduction that includes relevant details on his/her professional background, provides examples of how he/she will draw upon personal and professional experiences to enhance his/her own learning, demonstrate through examples his/her commitment to sharing relevant experiences with classmates, and demonstrate through examples his/her commitment to pursing a graduate degree.	6.8 (34%) Student presents an introduction that includes some details on his/her professional background, provides a few examples of how he/she will draw upon personal and professional experiences to enhance his/her own learning, his/her commitment to sharing relevant experiences with classmates, and his/her commitment to pursing a graduate degree.	6 (30%) Student presents a cursory introduction that includes few details on his/her professional background, and/or provides a few examples or missing details of how he/she will draw upon personal and professional experiences to enhance his/her own learning, his/her commitment to sharing relevant experiences with classmates, and his/her commitment to pursing a graduate degree.	0 (0%) Not submitted or little to no evidence of addressing the criterion.
Element 2a: Written Communication - Initial Post	1.4 (7%) Writing is clear, logical, well-organized and appropriate. Work is free from spelling and grammar/syntax errors. Tone is professional and free from bias (i.e., sexism, racism). There are no errors.	1.3 (6.51%) Writing is mostly clear, logical, and organized. Few, if any spelling and grammar/syntax issues are noted. Overall, a few sections need additional editing, but generally, work appears proofread. Tone is professional and free from bias (i.e., sexism, racism). There are one or two minor errors.	1.19 (5.95%) The main points are clear and organized. Some spelling, grammar/syntax issues are noted. Tone is professional and free from bias (i.e., sexism, racism).	1.05 (5.25%) There are key sections that lack organization or logical flow. Many spelling, grammar/syntax issues are noted. Work requires additional proofreading.	0 (0%) Not submitted or little to no evidence of addressing the criterion.
Element 2b: Written Communication - Responses to Peers	1.4 (7%) Writing is clear, logical, well-organized and appropriate. Work is free from spelling and grammar/syntax errors. Tone is professional and free from bias (i.e., sexism, racism). There are no errors.	1.3 (6.51%) Writing is generally clear, logical, and organized. Few, if any spelling and grammar/syntax issues are noted. Overall, a few sections need additional editing, but generally, work appears proofread. Tone is professional and free from bias (i.e., sexism, racism). There are one or two minor errors.	1.19 (5.95%) The main points are clear and organized. Some spelling, grammar/syntax issues are noted. Tone is professional and free from bias (i.e., sexism, racism).	1.05 (5.25%) There are key sections that lack organization or logical flow. Many spelling, grammar/syntax issues are noted. Work requires additional proofreading.	0 (0%) Not submitted or little to no evidence of addressing the criterion.
Element 3a: Relevance - Initial Post	2 (10%) Student effectively and directly integrates discussion/assignment content with relevant and compelling personal experiences, additional research, or current events from credible news sources. Specifically adds a new and/or different insight or perspective on the subject area(s) being discussed or treated in the assignment.	1.86 (9.3%) Student offers personal experiences, additional research, or current events from credible news sources, discussing their relevance, but does not specifically add new or different insights or perspectives on the subject areas(s) being discussed or treated in the assignment.	1.7 (8.5%) Student offers some examples of how the content of the discussion/application applies to real-world scenarios with general discussion of why those examples are relevant.	1.5 (7.5%) Student offers brief or cursory descriptions of personal experiences, additional research, or current events from credible news sources.	0 (0%) Not submitted or little to no evidence of addressing the criterion.
Element 3b: Relevance - Responses to Peers	2 (10%) Student effectively and directly integrates discussion/assignment content with relevant and compelling personal experiences, additional research, or current events from credible news sources. Specifically adds a new and/or different insight or perspective on the subject area(s) being discussed or treated in the assignment.	1.86 (9.3%) Student offers personal experiences, additional research, or current events from credible news sources, discussing their relevance, but does not specifically add new or different insights or perspectives on the subject areas(s) being discussed or treated in the assignment.	1.7 (8.5%) Student offers some examples of how the content of the discussion/application applies to real-world scenarios with general discussion of why those examples are relevant.	1.5 (7.5%) Student offers brief or cursory descriptions of personal experiences, additional research, or current events from credible news sources.	0 (0%) Not submitted or little to no evidence of addressing the criterion.
Element 4a: Formal and Appropriate Documentation of Evidence, Attribution of Ideas (APA Citations) - Initial Post	1 (5%) Student demonstrates full adherence to scholarly or credible reference requirements and adheres to APA style with respect to source attribution and references. There are no APA errors.	.93 (4.65%) Student demonstrates full adherence to scholarly or credible reference requirements and adheres to APA style with respect to source attribution and references. There are one or two minor errors in APA style or format.	.85 (4.25%) Student addresses guidelines for scholarly or credible references and/or APA style with respect to source attribution and references. Some errors in APA format and style are evident.	.75 (3.75%) Student demonstrates inconsistent adherence to scholarly reference requirements and/or inconsistent adherence to APA style with respect to source attribution and references. Significant and/or numerous errors in APA format and style are evident.	0 (0%) Not submitted or little to no evidence of addressing the criterion.
Element 4b: Formal and Appropriate Documentation of Evidence, Attribution of Ideas (APA Citations) - Responses to Peers	1 (5%) Student demonstrates full adherence to scholarly or credible reference requirements and adheres to APA style with respect to source attribution and references. There are no APA errors.	.93 (4.65%) Student demonstrates full adherence to scholarly or credible reference requirements and adheres to APA style with respect to source attribution and references. There are one or two minor errors in APA style or format.	.85 (4.25%) Student addresses guidelines for scholarly or credible references and/or APA style with respect to source attribution and references. Some errors in APA format and style are evident.	.75 (3.75%) Student demonstrates inconsistent adherence to scholarly reference requirements and/or inconsistent adherence to APA style with respect to source attribution and references. Significant and/or numerous errors in APA format and style are evident.	0 (0%) Not submitted or little to no evidence of addressing the criterion.
Element 5: Engagement in Discussion via Responses	3.2 (16%) Responses contribute appropriate and useful ideas and maintain the logical flow of the discussion. There are at least two responses to different colleagues or the Instructor. The student engages in the ideas being shared by comparing posts, sharing a relevant experience, or exploring alternatives.	2.98 (14.88%) Responses contribute ideas and maintain the logical flow of the discussion. There are at least two responses to different colleagues or the Instructor. The student engages in the ideas being shared by comparing posts, sharing a relevant experience, or exploring alternatives. Some additional detail would have been helpful.	2.72 (13.6%) Responses somewhat contribute to the quality of interaction by comparing posts, sharing a relevant experience, or exploring alternatives to at least two responses to different colleagues or the Instructor.	2.4 (12%) Responses do not fully contribute to the quality of interactions due to minimal engagement, responding off-topic, or not extending the conversation.	0 (0%) Not submitted or little to no evidence of addressing the criterion.

Exemplary

Very Good

Proficient

Opportunity for Improvement

Unacceptable

Element 1: Initial Post

8 (40%)

Student presents a thorough and detailed introduction that includes relevant details on his/her professional background, provides several examples of how he/she will draw upon personal and professional experiences to enhance his/her own learning, demonstrate through relevant examples his/her commitment to sharing relevant experiences with classmates, and demonstrate through relevant examples his/her commitment to pursing a graduate degree.

7.44 (37.2%)

Student presents an introduction that includes relevant details on his/her professional background, provides examples of how he/she will draw upon personal and professional experiences to enhance his/her own learning, demonstrate through examples his/her commitment to sharing relevant experiences with classmates, and demonstrate through examples his/her commitment to pursing a graduate degree.

6.8 (34%)

Student presents an introduction that includes some details on his/her professional background, provides a few examples of how he/she will draw upon personal and professional experiences to enhance his/her own learning, his/her commitment to sharing relevant experiences with classmates, and his/her commitment to pursing a graduate degree.

6 (30%)

Student presents a cursory introduction that includes few details on his/her professional background, and/or provides a few examples or missing details of how he/she will draw upon personal and professional experiences to enhance his/her own learning, his/her commitment to sharing relevant experiences with classmates, and his/her commitment to pursing a graduate degree.

0 (0%)

Not submitted or little to no evidence of addressing the criterion.

Element 2a: Written Communication - Initial Post

1.4 (7%)

Writing is clear, logical, well-organized and appropriate. Work is free from spelling and grammar/syntax errors. Tone is professional and free from bias (i.e., sexism, racism). There are no errors.

1.3 (6.51%)

Writing is mostly clear, logical, and organized. Few, if any spelling and grammar/syntax issues are noted. Overall, a few sections need additional editing, but generally, work appears proofread. Tone is professional and free from bias (i.e., sexism, racism). There are one or two minor errors.

1.19 (5.95%)

The main points are clear and organized. Some spelling, grammar/syntax issues are noted. Tone is professional and free from bias (i.e., sexism, racism).

1.05 (5.25%)

There are key sections that lack organization or logical flow. Many spelling, grammar/syntax issues are noted. Work requires additional proofreading.

0 (0%)

Not submitted or little to no evidence of addressing the criterion.

Element 2b: Written Communication - Responses to Peers

1.4 (7%)

Writing is clear, logical, well-organized and appropriate. Work is free from spelling and grammar/syntax errors. Tone is professional and free from bias (i.e., sexism, racism). There are no errors.

1.3 (6.51%)

Writing is generally clear, logical, and organized. Few, if any spelling and grammar/syntax issues are noted. Overall, a few sections need additional editing, but generally, work appears proofread. Tone is professional and free from bias (i.e., sexism, racism). There are one or two minor errors.

1.19 (5.95%)

The main points are clear and organized. Some spelling, grammar/syntax issues are noted. Tone is professional and free from bias (i.e., sexism, racism).

1.05 (5.25%)

There are key sections that lack organization or logical flow. Many spelling, grammar/syntax issues are noted. Work requires additional proofreading.

0 (0%)

Not submitted or little to no evidence of addressing the criterion.

Element 3a: Relevance - Initial Post

2 (10%)

Student effectively and directly integrates discussion/assignment content with relevant and compelling personal experiences, additional research, or current events from credible news sources. Specifically adds a new and/or different insight or perspective on the subject area(s) being discussed or treated in the assignment.

1.86 (9.3%)

Student offers personal experiences, additional research, or current events from credible news sources, discussing their relevance, but does not specifically add new or different insights or perspectives on the subject areas(s) being discussed or treated in the assignment.

1.7 (8.5%)

Student offers some examples of how the content of the discussion/application applies to real-world scenarios with general discussion of why those examples are relevant.

1.5 (7.5%)

Student offers brief or cursory descriptions of personal experiences, additional research, or current events from credible news sources.

0 (0%)

Not submitted or little to no evidence of addressing the criterion.

Element 3b: Relevance - Responses to Peers

2 (10%)

1.86 (9.3%)

1.7 (8.5%)

Student offers some examples of how the content of the discussion/application applies to real-world scenarios with general discussion of why those examples are relevant.

1.5 (7.5%)

Student offers brief or cursory descriptions of personal experiences, additional research, or current events from credible news sources.

0 (0%)

Not submitted or little to no evidence of addressing the criterion.

Element 4a: Formal and Appropriate Documentation of Evidence, Attribution of Ideas (APA Citations) - Initial Post

1 (5%)

Student demonstrates full adherence to scholarly or credible reference requirements and adheres to APA style with respect to source attribution and references. There are no APA errors.

.93 (4.65%)

Student demonstrates full adherence to scholarly or credible reference requirements and adheres to APA style with respect to source attribution and references. There are one or two minor errors in APA style or format.

.85 (4.25%)

Student addresses guidelines for scholarly or credible references and/or APA style with respect to source attribution and references. Some errors in APA format and style are evident.

.75 (3.75%)

Student demonstrates inconsistent adherence to scholarly reference requirements and/or inconsistent adherence to APA style with respect to source attribution and references. Significant and/or numerous errors in APA format and style are evident.

0 (0%)

Not submitted or little to no evidence of addressing the criterion.

Element 4b: Formal and Appropriate Documentation of Evidence, Attribution of Ideas (APA Citations) - Responses to Peers

1 (5%)

Student demonstrates full adherence to scholarly or credible reference requirements and adheres to APA style with respect to source attribution and references. There are no APA errors.

.93 (4.65%)

.85 (4.25%)

Student addresses guidelines for scholarly or credible references and/or APA style with respect to source attribution and references. Some errors in APA format and style are evident.

.75 (3.75%)

0 (0%)

Not submitted or little to no evidence of addressing the criterion.

Element 5: Engagement in Discussion via Responses

3.2 (16%)

Responses contribute appropriate and useful ideas and maintain the logical flow of the discussion. There are at least two responses to different colleagues or the Instructor. The student engages in the ideas being shared by comparing posts, sharing a relevant experience, or exploring alternatives.

2.98 (14.88%)

Responses contribute ideas and maintain the logical flow of the discussion. There are at least two responses to different colleagues or the Instructor. The student engages in the ideas being shared by comparing posts, sharing a relevant experience, or exploring alternatives. Some additional detail would have been helpful.

2.72 (13.6%)

Responses somewhat contribute to the quality of interaction by comparing posts, sharing a relevant experience, or exploring alternatives to at least two responses to different colleagues or the Instructor.

2.4 (12%)

Responses do not fully contribute to the quality of interactions due to minimal engagement, responding off-topic, or not extending the conversation.

0 (0%)

Not submitted or little to no evidence of addressing the criterion.