IDS100ProofreadingChecklistTemplate.docx

IDS 100 Proofreading Checklist Template

In this module, you are to proofread your drafted presentation as you await your instructor’s feedback on the draft you submitted in Module Six. For this assignment, you will first review the Project 3 Rubric Table. You will then use the provided proofreading checklist (based on the critical elements in the Project 3 Presentation Guidelines and Rubric) to proofread your presentation and do a “check” to be sure that you included and addressed each of the critical elements in your presentation.

This checklist, along with the feedback you receive from your instructor on the draft of your presentation that you submitted in Module Six, will help you make any necessary changes and final revisions to your presentation before submitting it for final review in Module Eight.

For this assignment, complete the following steps:

Review the prompt for this assignment and the Project 3 Rubric Table (below).

Complete the proofreading checklist (which is after the rubric table).

Project 3 Rubric Table

Critical Elements

Exemplary

Proficient

Needs Improvement

Not Evident

Value

Introduction

Meets “Proficient” criteria and explanation communicates thoughtful reflection about choice (100%)

Introduces topic by identifying it and explaining choice (85%)

Identifies topic but explanation of choice is cursory (55%)

Does not identify topic and explain choice (0%)

16

First Lens

Meets “Proficient” criteria and examples provided are especially insightful in illustrating the topic through the lens (100%)

Explains topic through first lens by identifying it and choosing details and examples relevant to that lens (85%)

Explains topic through first lens by identifying it and choosing details and examples relevant to that lens, but explanation is cursory, contains inaccuracies, or includes details and examples that are not lens-relevant (55%)

Does not explain topic through first lens by identifying it and choosing lens-relevant details and examples (0%)

16

Second Lens

Meets “Proficient” criteria and examples provided are especially insightful in illustrating the topic through the lens (100%)

Explains topic through second lens by identifying it and choosing details and examples relevant to that lens (85%)

Explains topic through second lens by identifying it and choosing details and examples relevant to that lens, but explanation is cursory, contains inaccuracies, or includes details and examples that are not lens-relevant (55%)

Does not explain topic through first lens by identifying it and choosing lens-relevant details and examples (0%)

16

Convergence and Divergence

Meets “Proficient” criteria, and insights communicate thoughtful reflection on the lenses and their relation to the topic (100%)

Explains similarities and differences in how the lenses relate to the topic, focusing on the view through both lenses (85%)

Explains similarities and differences in how the lenses relate to the topic, focusing on the view through both lenses, but is cursory, overly generalized, or contains inaccuracies (55%)

Does not explain similarities and differences in how the lenses relate to the topic (0%)

16

Further Exploration

Meets “Proficient” criteria, and demonstrates a keen insight about the value of further exploration of the topic (100%)

Articulates further exploration for topic exploration (85%)

Articulates further exploration for topic exploration but is cursory or illogical (55%)

Does not articulate further exploration for topic (0%)

16

Conclusion

Meets “Proficient” criteria, and reflection is thoughtful and thorough in addressing the research process (100%)

Reflects on learning from the research process focusing on the benefits of looking at a topic from various lenses (85%)

Reflects on lessons learned during the research process but response is cursory or lacks sufficient detail (55%)

Does not reflect on the research process (0%)

16

Articulation of Response

Submission is free of errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, and organization and is presented in a professional and easy-to-read format (100%)

Submission has no major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization (85%)

Submission has major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that negatively impact readability and articulation of main ideas (55%)

Submission has critical errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that prevent understanding of ideas (0%)

4

Total

100%

Proofreading Checklist

Prompt: Now that you have reviewed the rubric that your instructor will be using to grade your final presentation, review each slide of your presentation. Then, in the proofreading checklist, fill in the blank cells in the table provided to indicate whether you addressed each critical element within the slide. Once you are done, save this document and submit it to your instructor for grading. Then revise your drafted presentation as needed to address any areas that you noticed were lacking or not evident in your review.

Note that the proofreading checklist assignment is pass/fail.

Critical elements in rubric

Questions to ask yourself when reviewing each slide

Yes

No

Notes

You may use this space to keep any notes for yourself about areas that you would like to revisit on your presentation and work to improve before submitting the final version of your presentation to your instructor.

Introduction

1. Did I introduce my chosen topic by identifying it?

2. Did I explain why I chose it?

3. Did I include a thoughtful reflection about my choice?

First Lens

1. Did I explain my chosen topic through my first lens by identifying it?

2. Did I include details and examples relevant to that lens?

3. Are the examples I provided especially insightful in illustrating the topic through the lens?

Second Lens

1. Did I explain my chosen topic through my second lens by identifying it?

2. Did I include details and examples relevant to that lens?

3. Are the examples I provided especially insightful in illustrating the topic through the lens?

Convergence and Divergence

1. Did I explain similarities in how the lenses related to my chosen topic?

2. Did I explain differences in how the lenses related to my chosen topic?

3. Did I discuss the view of my topic through both of my two chosen lenses?

Further Exploration

1. Did I articulate the next steps I would take to explore my topic?

Conclusion

1. Did I reflect on the research process?
2. Did I explain the benefits of looking at a topic from various lenses?

Articulation of Response

1. Are there any errors in my work related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax or organization?

2. Did I include my “References” slide as the final slide in my presentation?

3. Is my presentation presented in a professional and easy-to-read format?