Community Teaching Work Plan Proposal

Note: This is an individual assignment. Applying what you have learned thus far, develop a community teaching proposal designed to address the needs of your community.

Select one of the following as the focus for the teaching plan:

1. Primary Prevention/Health Promotion HAND WASHING PREVENTING ILLNESS/INFECTION.  TEACHING DONE IN A RURAL HEALTH CLINIC CALLED (OMNI FAMILY HEALTH CLINIC).
2. Secondary Prevention/Screenings for a Vulnerable Population
3. Bioterrorism/Disaster
4. Environmental Issues

Complete the “Community Teaching Work Plan Proposal.” This will help you organize your plan and create an outline for the written assignment.

1. After completing the teaching proposal, review the teaching plan with a community health and public health provider in your local community.
2. Request feedback (strengths and opportunities for improvement) from the provider.
3. Complete the “Community Teaching Experience” form.

APA format is required for essays only. Solid academic writing is always expected. For all assignment delivery options, 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.

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 not required to submit this assignment to Turnitin.

ASSIGNMENT 2 Community Teaching Plan: Community Teaching Work Plan Proposal 

	1 Unsatisfactory 0.00%	2 Less than Satisfactory 75.00%	3 Satisfactory 83.00%	4 Good 94.00%	5 Excellent 100.00%
80.0 %Content
30.0 %Identification of Focus for Community Teaching	Focus of community teaching is not identified or is incomplete.	Focus of community teaching is unclear or inconsistent with Functional Health Patterns (FHP) assessment findings.	Focus of community teaching is clear, but rationale for selection is not included.	Focus of community teaching is clear, with a detailed explanation of rationale for selection.	Focus of community teaching is clear, consistent with Functional Health Patterns (FHP) assessment findings, and supported by explanation of rationale.
50.0 %Detailed and Comprehensive Community Teaching Work Plan Proposal	Community teaching proposal is omitted or incomplete.	Community teaching proposal is unclear or inconsistent with Functional Health Patterns (FHP) assessment findings, demographic, or the scope of community-based resources.	Community teaching proposal is clear with a complete summary of each area listed in the assignment criteria.	Community teaching proposal is clearly described and is well supported by evidence from current literature and statistical/demographic data published on the community. There is a detailed summary of all required areas of the work plan.	Community teaching proposal is detailed and comprehensive, with supportive evidence and a detailed description of barriers and strategies to overcome barriers. Evidence from current literature and statistical/demographic data published on the community thoroughly supports the proposal in all required areas of the work plan.
15.0 %Organization and Effectiveness
10.0 %Organization of Proposal, Paragraph Development and Transitions	Organization of proposal is disjointed. Paragraphs and transitions consistently lack unity and coherence. There are no apparent connections between ideas. Transitions are inappropriate or lacking.	Some degree of organization is evident. Some paragraphs and transitions may lack logical progression of ideas, unity, coherence, and/or cohesiveness.	Paragraphs are generally competent, but ideas may show some inconsistency in organization and/or in their relationships to each other.	A logical progression of ideas between paragraphs is apparent. Paragraphs exhibit a unity, coherence, and cohesiveness.	Proposal is well-organized and logical. Ideas progress and relate to each other. Paragraph and transition construction guide the reader.
5.0 %Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)	Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice and/or sentence construction are used.	Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register), sentence structure, and/or word choice are present.	Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are used.	Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. A variety of sentence structures and effective figures of speech are used.	Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.