Assignment: Programmatic Competencies

Assignment: Programmatic Competencies

Permalink: https://collepals.com/assignment-progr…tic-competencies/ ‎

Details:

Choose a victim who has been highlighted in the news. The victim chosen is Rebecca Garde

Conduct research on the case and what happened to the victim. In 750 -900 words, do the following:

1. Summarize the case.
2. Describe specific victimology theories that fit the scenario of the person chosen.
3. Describe what protections and/or legal resources were available for the victim.
4. Discuss the conditions that may have existed, or environmental factors, that led to the person chosen becoming a victim.
5. Describe what resources the victim is using or has used. If he or she did not use a specific resource for victims, what would you recommend for the victim?

Use two to three scholarly resources to support your explanations.

Prepare this assignment according to the 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.

You are required to submit this assignment to Turnitin. Please refer to the directions in the Student Success Center.

This benchmark assignment assesses the following programmatic competencies: 5.5: Evaluate the impact of crime on the victim and the community.

We use the common rubric (unmodified) to assess final portfolios in our classes and on the programmatic level. The vertical columns represent rhetorical elements, and the horizontal rows represent levels of competence. The rhetorical elements try to be inclusive of the various features you might teach students to consider in their work, but of course they’re not exhaustive. Similarly, the levels of competence try to represent different stages in communicators’ development, but learning rarely fits neatly into six distinct steps.

Please note that the levels of competence are intended to reflect levels common to all communicators. “Mature,” therefore, doesn’t mean “Mature for English 1101” but “Mature when compared to any communication anywhere.” First-year students at Georgia Tech are not likely to produce work that consistently falls into the “Basic” category, and they’re not likely to do work that ranks as “Exemplary.” Additionally, because the rubric represents such a broad range of ability, the levels of competence don’t correlate neatly with grades. Unless you’re introducing a form of communication unfamiliar to most college students, “Basic” communication in English 1101 and English 1102 probably deserves an F, and “Beginning” communication probably won’t escape the D or C range. “Developing” communication, however, might rate a C or low B, and “Competent” communication might rate a B or a low A. However, a student might produce work that achieves a “Competent” in one category and “Beginning” in another; how you balance these differences is up to you. You should determine how you relate the rubric to grades in your class, creating connections between levels of competence and grades that make sense in the context of your assignments.

Please share the rubric with your students and help them to interpret it. You should adapt it to your assignments, adjusting the descriptive language in cells to match your expectations, but keep in mind that we’ll use the standard language for programmatic assessment. You might also encourage students to use the rubric when reflecting on their work and/or when they’re reviewing each other’s work during peer review activities.

Programmatic Assessment: The Portfolio

In fall 2009, a new portfolio assessment replaced a system involving diagnostic essays written at the beginning and end of the semester. The old “pre/post” system didn’t reflect our program’s emphases on process and multimodality; after a year-long review of available options, a campus-wide committee chaired by Brittain Fellow Melissa Graham Meeks determined that a portfolio would be the best way to capture representations of the work students do in our courses. Then, in spring 2014, after a semester-long assessment process of more than a year’s worth of portfolios, a team of Brittain Fellows identified a series of weaknesses in the current portfolio system and developed a model that would better allow instructors and the program to assess student development and achievement. In the fall of 2015, we moved to an electronic portfolio system on the Mahara platform.