1 No Evidence 0.00% | 2 Nominal Evidence 69.00% | 3 Unacceptable Evidence 74.00% | 4 Acceptable Evidence 87.00% | 5 Target Evidence 100.00% |
---|
100.0 %Category | |
35.0 %Initiative Proposal | No submission. | Essay has little or nothing to do with an educational initiative. | Inadequate discussion regarding educational initiative. Letter is overly simplistic, and few details are given. | Clear discussion regarding educational initiative. Letter provides basic description of proposed initiative. | Skillful and convincing discussion regarding proposed educational initiative. Letter provides distinctive details and is persuasively written. |
30.0 %Description of Initiative Process | No submission. | Description does not include how proposal could become initiative. | Includes vague description about how proposal could become initiative. | Includes adequate description about how proposal could become initiative. | Includes well defined description about how proposal could become initiative under AZ law. |
15.0 %Organization | No submission. | 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. |
10.0 %Research Support | No submission. | Errors and/or inconsistencies regarding the use of examples or citations from other sources. Sources are not credible. | Minimal errors and/or inconsistencies regarding the use of examples or citations from other sources. Sources are credible. | Examples or citations from other sources used effectively. References used are from case law, the U.S. Constitution, assigned or other readings. | Examples or citations from other sources used well and are dispersed appropriately. References used are a balanced mixture of examples from relevant case law, the U.S. Constitution, assigned or other readings. |
10.0 %Mechanics | No submission. | 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. |
100 %Total Weightage | |