RATING - INDICATOR	Indicator Not Met (Not Acceptable)	Indicator Partially Met (Acceptable)	Indicator Met (Target)	Total Score	Instructor’s Comments
Rationale	Candidate does not give a clear and acceptable rationale for his/her choice in an emersion project. The information provided lacks clarity and cohesiveness, as well as not directly related to course content. 0-5 points	Candidate provides a rationale for his/her choice in an emersion project. However, the candidate fails to directly link his/her summary of the emersion event to the content covered in the course. Information provided lacks specificity and clarity in linking the chosen project to specific information regarding student differences. 6-15 points	Candidate provides a clear rationale for his/her choice in selecting an emersion event to attend. The rationale provided is sound and has been clearly linked to the course content. The candidate has established a logical rationale for his/her selection of the event and specific information regarding student differences discussed in class. 16-20 points	/20
Summary of the Event	Candidate does not give a clear and cohesive description of the emersion event. The information provided is fragmented, lacks important description and is unacceptable for submission. 0-10 points	Candidate provides a clear summary of the emersion event, including specific description of details of the event as outlined in the assignment guidelines. The summary addresses most criteria for this assignment but lacks in articulating the relevance of the emersion topic to the course content pertaining to student differences. 11-20 points	Candidate provides a clear and cohesive summary of the emersion event, including specific description of details of the event as outlined in the assignment guidelines. The summary articulates a clear and meaning relevance of the emersion topic to the course content pertaining to student differences. 21-30 points	/30
Impact and/or Expansion of Knowledge of Diversity	Candidate does not give a clear and cohesive description of the impact of his/her participation in the emersion event. The information provided is fragmented, lacks important description and is unacceptable for submission. 0-10 points	Candidate provides a clear description of the impact(s) of the event as a result of his/her participation. Reflections articulate the impact on the candidate in terms of working with diverse PreK-12 students, families, and colleagues; as well as potential impact toward his/her role as a teacher leader within his/her respective field. Additional specificity in his/her description of potential impacts were lacking in the reflections. 11-20 points	Candidate provides a clear and cohesive description of the impact(s) of the event as a result of his/her participation. Reflections clearly articulate the impact on the candidate in terms of working with diverse PreK-12 students, families, and colleagues; as well as projecting a clear vision of the impact on his/her role as a teacher leader. Reflections provide clear evidence of the candidate’s knowledge obtained through this event and his/her vision for further use of the knowledge/skills in his/her respective field. 21-30 points	/30
Overall Quality of Product	Product has multiple grammatical and syntactic errors. The information throughout the product lacks clarity and cohesiveness and is unacceptable for submission. 0-5 points	Product has clearly addressed all of the criteria outlined for this assignment. However, the final product does not appear to have been proofed for grammatical and syntactic errors by the candidate, detracting from the overall quality of the product. 6-15 points	Product has clearly addressed each of the criteria outlined for this assignment. The final product is of professional quality, follows all standard APA formatting, and is representative of Masters’ level scholarship. 16-20 points	/20

Total Score: /100

Final Grade: _______

Instructor’s Comments: