SEC-501 Assignment
GRADUATE LEVEL WORK!!!
Research the development/progression of the academic standards in your state.
Write a 750-1000-word summary describing the teaching and learning changes your state will or has experienced through shifts in required standards. Be sure to name your state standards.
Continue your summary with a 100-250-word reflection evaluating your summary, and discuss the score you would give yourself and why, for each of the criteria listed in the respective rubric. The objective to evaluate your own summary provides knowledge to understand and create effective rubrics.
Prepare this assignment according to the APA guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required.
This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion
Rubic_Print_Format
| Course Code | Class Code | |||||||
| SEC-501 | SEC-501-O500 | Academic Standards in Your State Essay | 100.0 | |||||
| Criteria | Percentage | No Submission (0.00%) | Insufficient (69.00%) | Approaching (74.00%) | Acceptable (87.00%) | Target (100.00%) | Comments | Points Earned |
| Category | 100.0% | |||||||
| Summary of Teaching and Learning Changes | 40.0% | Not addressed. | Essay has little or nothing to do with teaching and learning changes your state will or has experienced through shifts in required standards. | Essay inadequately summarizes teaching and learning changes your state will or has experienced through shifts in required standards. | Essay clearly summarizes teaching and learning changes your state will or has experienced through shifts in required standards. | Essay skillfully and convincingly summarizes teaching and learning changes your state will or has experienced through shifts in required standards. | ||
| Word Reflection Evaluating Summary | 30.0% | Not addressed. | Word reflection has little or nothing to do with evaluating the summary. | Word reflection inadequately evaluates the summary. Reflection provides inadequate supporting details. | Word reflection clearly evaluates the summary. Reflection provides basic, appropriate supporting details. | Word reflection skillfully and convincingly evaluates the summary. Reflection provides several distinctive supporting details. | ||
| Organization | 15.0% | Not addressed. | Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. Argument is illogical. Conclusion does not support the claims made. | Purpose statement is vague, and claims do not thoroughly support it. Argument and conclusion are orderly, but present unconvincing justification of claims. | Purpose statement and conclusion are clear. Argument shows logical progression. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. | Purpose statement and related conclusion are clear and convincing. Information is well organized and logical. Argument presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. | ||
| Research Citations | 10.0% | Not addressed. | Reference page includes errors and/or inconsistently used citations. Sources are not credible. | Reference page lists sources used in the paper. Sources are appropriate and documented, although errors are present. | In-text citations have few errors. References used are reliable, and reference page lists all cited sources with few errors. | In-text citations and a reference page are complete and correct. Sources are credible. The documentation of cited sources is free of error. | ||
| Mechanics | 5.0% | Not addressed. | 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. Inconsistent language and/or word choice are present. Sentence structure is lacking. | 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, as well as some practice and content-related language. | Submission is nearly/completely free of mechanical errors and has a clear, logical conceptual framework. Word choice reflects well-developed use of practice and content-related language. Sentence structures are varied and engaging. | ||
| Total Weightage |
-
Rating:
/5
