First Submission = 45 points; Peer Review = 40 points; Final Submission = 40 points Learning Objectives: 1) To demonstrate your knowledge of how social determinants impact an outcome of interest among families, youth, and/or communities, 2) To critique the professional writing of a peer, and 3) To author a peer-reviewed, targeted, educational publication designed to inform the reader of a major social issue and accessible resources Description (Source – EDIS website): The typical EDIS publication is a fact sheet. It should contain language that is both technically accurate and at the same time free of jargon, academic terminology and burdensome vocabulary. It should be accessible and interesting to people without a college degree (unless written for a specialized audience as part of a broader Extension program). A good EDIS fact sheet should include: a) An introduction that frames the problem, identifies the target audience, provides the rationale for the document, and defines how it should be used. A short abstract may be useful. b) An educational section that demonstrates the application of knowledge regarding the relationship between the identified social determinant and the outcome of interest. c) A summary that reminds the reader of the key points and directs them to supplemental information. Include relevant resources, especially Extension resources, that may be useful for the reader. d) Numbered and captioned photographs and illustrations that add to the visual appeal of the publication and illustrate key points. Citations and a literature cited section, such as used in peer-reviewed publications, is not required but may be valuable for documents intended for technical subject matter and professional audiences that expect references to be cited. Format: The standard format for EDIS education publications is 8-1/2 x 11-inch printed pages, laid out using a standard EDIS template. Use Times New Roman or Calibri font (12 inch). Your document should be single spaced, with spacing between lines set to 0 and your margins set to 1 inch on each side. Your final product should be 2-4 pages. Submit your final paper in Canvas and bring a hard copy to class for each submission. First Submission – Total Points Possible: 45 Sections Developing Competent Proficient Exemplary I. Introduction (Points possible: 10) II. Applying Concepts (Points possible: 18) III. Summary/Resources (Points possible: 10) IV. References/Visuals (Points Possible: 7) Total Points Assessment criteria for each category: Exemplary: Publication reflects outstanding level of knowledge and ability to express oneself professionally in written form (using non-technical language, if applicable) to educate the targeted audience. Publication is well-formed with recent and relevant evidence from the literature to substantiate all claims. Student demonstrates evidence of reflecting upon course content through depth of thought and the ability to synthesize course materials. Proposal is grounded in an accurate understanding of the course content and clearly reflects a thorough review of the course material and relevant literature. Proposal addresses each section and is free from grammatical/spelling errors. Proficient: Publication reflects above average level of knowledge and ability to express oneself professionally in written form (using non-technical language, if applicable) to educate the targeted audience. Publication is sufficient, however it may contain unsubstantiated claims and/or assumptions and gaps in knowledge. Student demonstrates above average understanding of course content and synthesizes most of the literature. Publications contains most of the major sections and has very minor grammatical/spelling errors. Competent: Publication reflects acceptable level of knowledge and ability to express oneself professionally in written form (using non-technical language, if applicable) to educate the targeted audience. Publication is acceptable and has some evidence to support claims, however it also contains a few gaps in understanding or unsubstantiated assumptions. Student demonstrates acceptable understanding of course content and synthesizes some of the literature. Publication is missing some key sections and/or has several grammatical/spelling errors. Developing: Publication reflects low levels of knowledge and/or ability to express oneself professionally in written form (using non-technical language, if applicable) to educate the targeted audience. Publication is lacking key elements, based on unsupported assumptions, or provides limited evidence to support claims. Student demonstrates limited understanding of course content and summarizes instead of synthesizes most of the literature. Publication fails to address most prompts and has significant grammatical/spelling errors. 3 | P a g e Grading Rubric for AskIFAS/EDIS Assignment Peer Review – Total Points Possible: 40 Sections Developing Competent Proficient Exemplary I. Comprehensiveness (Points possible: 15) There were very few comments provided, or the comments provided did not address the grading criteria The review was not very comprehensive and comments addressed only some aspects of the grading criteria. The review was somewhat comprehensive, and comments addressed most aspects of the grading criteria. The review was extremely comprehensive, providing detailed comments on all aspects of the grading criteria. II. Encouragement (Points possible: 10) The comments were discouraging. The reviewer only focused on criticisms. The tone was harsh or disrespectful. The comments were not encouraging and might even be considered discouraging. The reviewer had mostly negative things to say, although an attempt might have been made to be positive. The tone was ambiguous. The comments were mostly encouraging, but the reviewer didn’t really acknowledge positive aspects of the paper (even if they also provided criticism). The tone was usually respectful, but not always. The comments were encouraging, acknowledged positive aspects of the paper, (even if they also provided criticism), and were respectful in tone. III. Value (Points possible: 15) The comments instruct the peer to make changes to the paper that do not align with the grading criteria for the final paper. The comments do not provide a lot of direction to help improve the peer’s work and may not be aligned with the grading criteria for the final paper. The comments provide good suggestions for improving the peer’s work and are mostly in line with the grading criteria for the final paper. The comments provided a lot of great suggestions for improving the peer’s work and are in line with the grading criteria for the final paper. Total Points Final Submission – Total Points Possible: 40 Sections Developing Competent Proficient Exemplary I. Responsiveness (Points possible: 10) II. Acceptability (Points possible: 10) III. Overall Publication (Points possible: 20) Total Points Assessment criteria for each category: Exemplary: Writer was extremely responsive to feedback provided by the instructor and peer reviewer. Publication has a high probability of acceptability for publication in its current state. Publication reflects outstanding level of knowledge and ability to express oneself professionally in written form (using nontechnical language, if applicable) to educate the targeted audience. Publication is well-formed with recent and relevant evidence from the literature to substantiate all claims. Student demonstrates evidence of reflecting upon course content through depth of thought and the ability to synthesize course materials. Proposal is grounded in an accurate understanding of the course content and clearly reflects a thorough review of the course material and relevant literature. Proposal addresses each section and is free from grammatical/spelling errors. Proficient: Writer was generally responsive to feedback provided by the instructor and peer reviewer. Publication has a good probability of acceptability for publication in its current state. Publication reflects above average level of knowledge and ability to express oneself professionally in written form (using non-technical language, if applicable) to educate the targeted audience. Publication is sufficient, however it may contain unsubstantiated claims and/or assumptions and gaps in knowledge. Student demonstrates above average understanding of course content and synthesizes most of the literature. Publications contains most of the major sections and has very minor grammatical/spelling errors. Competent: Writer demonstrated sufficient responsiveness to feedback provided by the instructor and peer reviewer. Publication has a moderate probability of acceptability for publication in its current state. Publication reflects acceptable level of knowledge and ability to express oneself professionally in written form (using non-technical language, if applicable) to educate the targeted audience. Publication is acceptable and has some evidence to support claims, however it also contains a few gaps in understanding or unsubstantiated assumptions. Student demonstrates acceptable understanding of course content and synthesizes some of the literature. Publication is missing some key sections and/or has several grammatical/spelling errors. Developing: Writer was not very responsive to feedback provided by the instructor and peer reviewer. Publication has a low probability of acceptability for publication in its current state. Publication reflects low levels of knowledge and/or ability to express oneself professionally in written form (using non- 5 | P a g e technical language, if applicable) to educate the targeted audience. Publication is lacking key elements, based on unsupported assumptions, or provides limited evidence to support claims. Student demonstrates limited understanding of course content and summarizes instead of synthesizes most of the literature. Publication fails to address most prompts and has significant grammatical/spelling errors.