{"id":19003,"date":"2024-04-02T17:42:25","date_gmt":"2024-04-02T17:42:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/questions\/infectious-microorganisms-and-caring-for-the-suffering-a-nurses-role-powerpoint-presentation-rubric\/"},"modified":"2024-04-02T17:42:25","modified_gmt":"2024-04-02T17:42:25","slug":"infectious-microorganisms-and-caring-for-the-suffering-a-nurses-role-powerpoint-presentation-rubric","status":"publish","type":"questions","link":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/questions\/infectious-microorganisms-and-caring-for-the-suffering-a-nurses-role-powerpoint-presentation-rubric\/","title":{"rendered":"Infectious Microorganisms and Caring for the Suffering- A Nurse\u2019s Role PowerPoint Presentation – Rubric"},"content":{"rendered":"

\n
Assessment Description<\/div>\n
\n
\n

The concept of contagious disease caused by microorganisms is first seen in the Old Testament. The biblical roots of microbiology are not a surprise when we consider the contributions of Louis Pasteur, the father of modern microbiology. Pasteur’s swan-necked flask experiments not only disproved the theory of spontaneous generation (i.e., life evolved from nonliving matter), but also set the foundation for the law of biogenesis: life comes from preexisting life.<\/p>\n

Conduct research of microbial pathogens\/infectious agents. Refer to Part IV \u2013 Infections Diseases (Chapters 21\u201327) in Nester’s Microbiology: A Human Perspective<\/em> With Connect<\/em> and other online scientific journals\/articles (e.g., .edu, .gov, .org websites).<\/p>\n

Select any one microorganism (i.e., bacteria, virus, fungus, protozoa, or prion) and create a PowerPoint presentation (minimum of 10 slides) that addresses the following criteria:  <\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Title slide (clearly present your topic and your name)<\/li>\n
  2. Causative agent and structure<\/li>\n
  3. Diseases, signs, and symptoms<\/li>\n
  4. Pathogenesis and virulence<\/li>\n
  5. Epidemiology<\/li>\n
  6. Diagnosis<\/li>\n
  7. Treatment, control, and prevention<\/li>\n
  8. Microbe in the news (highlight one reliable news article about your microorganism)<\/li>\n
  9. Christian worldview on caring for the suffering (provide a relevant Bible verse\/passage and briefly discuss the significance of microbes from a biblical perspective)<\/li>\n
  10. Reference slide (Use a minimum of three references; only use reliable sources)<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Reliable sources include:<\/strong> The course textbook, other books from major publishers, newspapers, peer reviewed articles, peer reviewed journals, PhD dissertations and research, public libraries [GCU library], scholarly articles, isolated studies or academic research, professional organizations’ websites, educational institutions’ websites, and government websites.<\/p>\n

    Unreliable sources include:<\/strong> Wikipedia, blogs, forums, self-published books, questionable sites created by nonprofessional organizations, and sites that provide biased information.<\/p>\n

    While APA style is not required for the body of this assignment, solid academic writing is expected, and documentation of sources should be presented using APA formatting guidelines, which can be found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. <\/p>\n

    This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.<\/p>\n

    You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. A link to the LopesWrite technical support articles is located in Class Resources if you need assistance.<\/p>\n

    <\/p>\n

    Rubric: <\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/h1>\n

    Rubric Criteria<\/h4>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    <\/div>\n
    Collapse All <\/span>Rubric Criteria<\/span>Collapse All<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/h1>\n
    Causative Agent and Structure<\/h5>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    <\/span>7 <\/span>points<\/span><\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/h1>\n
    Criteria Description<\/h6>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    <\/div>\n

    Causative Agent and Structure<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/h1>\n

    5. Target<\/h5>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    7 <\/span>points<\/span><\/div>\n

    The student comprehensively provides exemplary knowledge of naming the organism using binomial nomenclature, and lists key characteristics of the organism, with extensive details and examples. Subject knowledge is excellent.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/h1>\n

    4. Acceptable<\/h5>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    5.95 <\/span>points<\/span><\/div>\n

    The student provides a detailed description of naming the organism using binomial nomenclature, and lists key characteristics of the organism, with supporting details and examples. Subject knowledge appears to be good.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/h1>\n

    3. Approaching<\/h5>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    5.25 <\/span>points<\/span><\/div>\n

    The student appropriately names the organism using binomial nomenclature, and lists key characteristics of the organism, with supporting details and examples. Subject knowledge appears to be basic.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/h1>\n

    2. Insufficient<\/h5>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    4.55 <\/span>points<\/span><\/div>\n

    The student outlines a few components for naming the organism using binomial nomenclature, and lists characteristics of the organism, but element details are lacking.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/h1>\n

    1. Unsatisfactory<\/h5>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    0 <\/span>points<\/span><\/div>\n

    The student includes little to no information for naming the organism using binomial nomenclature or characteristics of the organism. Subject knowledge is not evident.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/h1>\n

    Diseases Signs and Symptoms, Pathogenesis and Virulence<\/h5>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    <\/span>7 <\/span>points<\/span><\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/h1>\n
    Criteria Description<\/h6>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    <\/div>\n

    Diseases Signs and Symptoms, Pathogenesis and Virulence<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/h1>\n

    5. Target<\/h5>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    7 <\/span>points<\/span><\/div>\n

    The student comprehensively describes the organism. Presentation describes the symptoms, pathogenesis, and virulence of the organism, and justifications are accurate and appropriate.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/h1>\n

    4. Acceptable<\/h5>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    5.95 <\/span>points<\/span><\/div>\n

    The student provides a detailed description of the organism. Presentation provides a detailed description of the symptoms, pathogenesis, and virulence of the organism, and justifications are accurate.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/h1>\n

    3. Approaching<\/h5>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    5.25 <\/span>points<\/span><\/div>\n

    The student appropriately describes the organism. Presentation provides a description of the symptoms, pathogenesis, and virulence of the organism, with supporting details and examples.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/h1>\n

    2. Insufficient<\/h5>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    4.55 <\/span>points<\/span><\/div>\n

    The student outlines a few components of the organism. Presentation includes little information on the symptoms, pathogenesis, and virulence of the organism, with few supporting details and examples.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/h1>\n

    1. Unsatisfactory<\/h5>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    0 <\/span>points<\/span><\/div>\n

    The student provides an incomplete description of the symptoms, pathogenesis, and virulence information of the organism. Subject knowledge is not evident.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/h1>\n

    Epidemiology, Diagnosis, Treatment and Prevention<\/h5>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    <\/span>7 <\/span>points<\/span><\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/h1>\n
    Criteria Description<\/h6>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    <\/div>\n

    Epidemiology, Diagnosis, Treatment and Prevention<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/h1>\n

    5. Target<\/h5>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    7 <\/span>points<\/span><\/div>\n

    The student thoughtfully analyzes and evaluates the epidemiology, diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of the organism. The student draws warranted, judicious, and nonfallacious conclusions. The student not only formulates a clear example, but also acknowledges objections and rival positions.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/h1>\n

    4. Acceptable<\/h5>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    5.95 <\/span>points<\/span><\/div>\n

    The student clearly assesses the epidemiology, diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of the organism. Analysis is direct, competent, and appropriate of the criteria. The student formulates a clear example.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/h1>\n

    3. Approaching<\/h5>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    5.25 <\/span>points<\/span><\/div>\n

    A surface-level explanation of the epidemiology, diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of the organism is offered. The student expresses a plan.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/h1>\n

    2. Insufficient<\/h5>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    4.55 <\/span>points<\/span><\/div>\n

    The student ignores or superficially explains the epidemiology, diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of the organism. The student draws unwarranted and\/or fallacious conclusions, and formulates a vague example.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/h1>\n

    1. Unsatisfactory<\/h5>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    0 <\/span>points<\/span><\/div>\n

    Analysis of the epidemiology, diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of the organism is not outlined, or outlined poorly. The student fails to formulate an example.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/h1>\n

    Microbe in the News Research Article<\/h5>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    <\/span>3.5 <\/span>points<\/span><\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/h1>\n
    Criteria Description<\/h6>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    <\/div>\n

    Microbe in the News Research Article<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/h1>\n

    5. Target<\/h5>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    3.5 <\/span>points<\/span><\/div>\n

    Research article is supportive of the rationale presented. Source is distinctive. Research addresses all of the issues stated in the assignment criteria.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/h1>\n

    4. Acceptable<\/h5>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    2.98 <\/span>points<\/span><\/div>\n

    Research article is timely and relevant, and addresses all of the issues stated in the assignment criteria.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/h1>\n

    3. Approaching<\/h5>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    2.63 <\/span>points<\/span><\/div>\n

    Research article is adequate. Source is standard in relevance, quality of outside source, and\/or timeliness.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/h1>\n

    2. Insufficient<\/h5>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    2.28 <\/span>points<\/span><\/div>\n

    Research article is used to support the assignment. Limited research is apparent.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/h1>\n

    1. Unsatisfactory<\/h5>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    0 <\/span>points<\/span><\/div>\n

    No outside source is used to support the assignment.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/h1>\n

    Christian Worldview<\/h5>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    <\/span>3.5 <\/span>points<\/span><\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/h1>\n
    Criteria Description<\/h6>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    <\/div>\n

    Christian Worldview<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/h1>\n

    5. Target<\/h5>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    3.5 <\/span>points<\/span><\/div>\n

    Presentation includes a relevant Bible verse\/passage and clearly articulates the significance of infectious microorganisms from a biblical perspective.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/h1>\n

    4. Acceptable<\/h5>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    2.98 <\/span>points<\/span><\/div>\n

    Presentation includes a relevant Bible verse\/passage and discusses the significance of infectious microorganisms from a biblical perspective.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/h1>\n

    3. Approaching<\/h5>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    2.63 <\/span>points<\/span><\/div>\n

    Presentation includes a relevant Bible verse\/passage and attempts to discuss the significance of infectious microorganisms from a biblical perspective.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/h1>\n

    2. Insufficient<\/h5>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    2.28 <\/span>points<\/span><\/div>\n

    Presentation includes a relevant Bible verse\/passage, but the significance of infectious microorganisms from a biblical perspective is not discussed.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/h1>\n

    1. Unsatisfactory<\/h5>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    0 <\/span>points<\/span><\/div>\n

    Presentation does not include a relevant Bible verse or passage.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/h1>\n

    Presentation of Content<\/h5>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    <\/span>28 <\/span>points<\/span><\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/h1>\n
    Criteria Description<\/h6>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    <\/div>\n

    Presentation of Content<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/h1>\n

    5. Target<\/h5>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    28 <\/span>points<\/span><\/div>\n

    The content is written clearly and concisely. Ideas progress naturally and relate to each other. The project includes motivating questions and advanced organizers. The project gives the audience a clear sense of the main idea.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/h1>\n

    4. Acceptable<\/h5>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    23.8 <\/span>points<\/span><\/div>\n

    The content is written with a logical progression of ideas and supporting information, exhibiting a unity, coherence, and cohesiveness. Includes persuasive information from reliable sources.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/h1>\n

    3. Approaching<\/h5>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    21 <\/span>points<\/span><\/div>\n

    The presentation slides are generally competent, but ideas may show some inconsistency in organization and\/or in their relationships to each other.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/h1>\n

    2. Insufficient<\/h5>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    18.2 <\/span>points<\/span><\/div>\n

    The content is vague in conveying a point of view, and does not create a strong sense of purpose. Includes some persuasive information.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/h1>\n

    1. Unsatisfactory<\/h5>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    0 <\/span>points<\/span><\/div>\n

    The content lacks a clear point of view. Includes little persuasive information. Sequencing of ideas is unclear.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/h1>\n

    Layout<\/h5>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    <\/span>3.5 <\/span>points<\/span><\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/h1>\n
    Criteria Description<\/h6>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    <\/div>\n

    Layout<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/h1>\n

    5. Target<\/h5>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    3.5 <\/span>points<\/span><\/div>\n

    The layout is visually pleasing and contributes to the overall message with appropriate use of headings, subheadings, and white space. Text is appropriate in length for the target audience and to the point. The background and colors enhance the readability of the text.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/h1>\n

    4. Acceptable<\/h5>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    2.98 <\/span>points<\/span><\/div>\n

    The layout background and text complement each other and enable the content to be easily read. The fonts are easy to read and point size varies appropriately for headings and text.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/h1>\n

    3. Approaching<\/h5>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    2.63 <\/span>points<\/span><\/div>\n

    The layout uses horizontal and vertical white space appropriately. Sometimes the fonts are easy to read, but in a few places the use of fonts, italics, bold, long paragraphs, color, and\/or busy background detracts and does not enhance readability.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/h1>\n

    2. Insufficient<\/h5>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    2.28 <\/span>points<\/span><\/div>\n

    The layout shows some structure but appears cluttered, busy, and\/or distracting, with large gaps of white space or a distracting background. Overall readability is difficult due to lengthy paragraphs, too many different fonts, dark or busy background, overuse of bold, and\/or lack of appropriate indentations of text.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/h1>\n

    1. Unsatisfactory<\/h5>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    0 <\/span>points<\/span><\/div>\n

    The layout is cluttered, confusing, and\/or does not use spacing, headings, and subheadings to enhance the readability. The text is extremely difficult to read with long blocks of text, small point size for fonts, and\/or inappropriate contrasting colors. Poor use of headings, subheadings, indentations, and\/or bold formatting is evident.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/h1>\n

    Language Use and Audience Awareness<\/h5>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    <\/span>3.5 <\/span>points<\/span><\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/h1>\n
    Criteria Description<\/h6>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    <\/div>\n

    Includes sentence construction, word choice, etc.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/h1>\n

    5. Target<\/h5>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    3.5 <\/span>points<\/span><\/div>\n

    The writer uses a variety of sentence constructions, figures of speech, and word choice in distinctive and creative ways, as appropriate to purpose, discipline, and scope.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/h1>\n

    4. Acceptable<\/h5>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    2.98 <\/span>points<\/span><\/div>\n

    The writer is clearly aware of audience, uses a variety of appropriate vocabulary for the target audience, and uses figures of speech to communicate clearly.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/h1>\n

    3. Approaching<\/h5>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    2.63 <\/span>points<\/span><\/div>\n

    Language is appropriate to the targeted audience for the most part.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/h1>\n

    2. Insufficient<\/h5>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    2.28 <\/span>points<\/span><\/div>\n

    Some distracting inconsistencies in language or word choice are present. The writer exhibits some lack of control in using figures of speech appropriately.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/h1>\n

    1. Unsatisfactory<\/h5>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    0 <\/span>points<\/span><\/div>\n

    Inappropriate word choice and lack of variety in language use are evident. Writer appears to be unaware of audience. Use of primer prose indicates writer either does not apply figures of speech, or uses them inappropriately.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/h1>\n

    Mechanics of Writing<\/h5>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    <\/span>3.5 <\/span>points<\/span><\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/h1>\n
    Criteria Description<\/h6>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    <\/div>\n

    Includes spelling, capitalization, punctuation, grammar, language use, sentence structure, etc.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/h1>\n

    5. Target<\/h5>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    3.5 <\/span>points<\/span><\/div>\n

    No mechanical errors are present. Appropriate language choice and sentence structure are used throughout.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/h1>\n

    4. Acceptable<\/h5>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    2.98 <\/span>points<\/span><\/div>\n

    Few mechanical errors are present. Suitable language choice and sentence structure are used.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/h1>\n

    3. Approaching<\/h5>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    2.63 <\/span>points<\/span><\/div>\n

    Occasional mechanical errors are present. Language choice is generally appropriate. Varied sentence structure is attempted.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/h1>\n

    2. Insufficient<\/h5>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    2.28 <\/span>points<\/span><\/div>\n

    Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors are present. Inconsistencies in language choice or sentence structure are recurrent.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/h1>\n

    1. Unsatisfactory<\/h5>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    0 <\/span>points<\/span><\/div>\n

    Errors in grammar or syntax are pervasive and impede meaning. Incorrect language choice or sentence structure errors are found throughout.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/h1>\n

    Documentation of Sources<\/h5>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    <\/span>3.5 <\/span>points<\/span><\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/h1>\n
    Criteria Description<\/h6>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    <\/div>\n

    Citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/h1>\n

    5. Target<\/h5>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    3.5 <\/span>points<\/span><\/div>\n

    Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of errors. A minimum of three references are provided, and all sources are authoritative.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/h1>\n

    4. Acceptable<\/h5>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    2.98 <\/span>points<\/span><\/div>\n

    Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct. A minimum of three references are provided, and all sources are authoritative.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/h1>\n

    3. Approaching<\/h5>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    2.63 <\/span>points<\/span><\/div>\n

    Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present. A minimum of three references are provided, and most sources are authoritative.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/h1>\n

    2. Insufficient<\/h5>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    2.28 <\/span>points<\/span><\/div>\n

    Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors. A minimum of three references are not provided and\/or some of the sources are noncredible.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/h1>\n

    1. Unsatisfactory<\/h5>\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    0 <\/span>points<\/span><\/div>\n

    Sources are not documented and\/or there is substantial evidence of plagiarism.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n


    <\/div>\n


    <\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/h1>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Assessment Description The concept of contagious disease caused by microorganisms is first seen in the Old Testament. The biblical roots of microbiology are not a surprise when we consider the contributions of Louis Pasteur, the father of modern microbiology. Pasteur’s swan-necked flask experiments not only disproved the theory of spontaneous generation (i.e., life evolved from […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":[],"disciplines":[40],"paper_types":[],"tagged":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/questions\/19003"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/questions"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/questions"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=19003"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/questions\/19003\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=19003"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"disciplines","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/disciplines?post=19003"},{"taxonomy":"paper_types","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/paper_types?post=19003"},{"taxonomy":"tagged","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tagged?post=19003"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}