The Condescending Dental Hygienist

A level

B level

C level

D level

• Adherence to guidelines (assignment requirements) and citations
• Writing, organization, and proofreading
• Case Study Summary
• Content for questions 1; 3-7 (10 points each)

Thorough and accurate adherence to guidelines; responds to all guidelines; includes all mandatory elements for the assignment; proper citations and complete; correct and placed correctly in text. (15 pts)

Majority of work displays accurate adherence to guidelines; responds to most guidelines; includes majority of mandatory elements; majority of citations complete, correct and placed correctly in text. (12 pts)

Some evidence of adherence to guidelines; some presence of mandatory elements; numerous incomplete citations, incorrect and placed incorrectly in text. (10.5 pts)

Insufficient adherence to guidelines; omits numerous mandatory elements; fails to respond to critical guidelines for content; if evidence offered, poorly cited in terms of completeness, accuracy and placement in text. (9 pts)

Wide variety of sentence structures; excellent word usage, spelling, grammar, and punctuation; clear evidence of proofreading. (10 pts)

Good sentence variety; adequate use of wording, spelling, grammar, and punctuation; good evidence of proofreading. (8 pts)

Inconsistent sentence variety; often inadequate in wording, spelling, grammar, and punctuation; weak evidence of proofreading. (7 pts)

Writing lacks sentence variety; significant deficiencies in wording, spelling, grammar, and punctuation; lacks evidence of proofreading.(6 pts)

Excellent, very clear description of the case, paraphrased with appropriate in text citations. (15 pts)

Good description of the case, paraphrased with proper in text citations. (12 pts)

Weak description with limited, inconsistent use of in text citations. (10.5 pts)

Summary lacks appropriate details and in text citations. (9 pts)

Thorough, specific, accurate responses to questions demonstrating critical thinking and use of principles discussed in the text and lectures; evidence to support responses. (60 pts)

Good discussion and responses to questions; demonstrating critical thinking and use of principles discussed in the text and lecture; with evidence of sources used to support responses. (48 pts)

Weak responses to questions and discussion; weak evidence of critical thinking with insufficient evidence of sources used to support responses. (42 pts)

Discussion and responses to questions do not demonstrate an understanding of the concepts; lacks critical thinking and no evidence of source consulted to support responses. (36 pts)