Good day! With reference to this ticket, the power point. The slide 14 is blurry. I can barely see it. Could you work on it and make clear. and one more thing, there is no conclusion page or rather summary page. Looking forward to hearing from soon. Thank you so much for all your work. Its all perfect. I dont have more words to say.

5.0 %Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) No submission. Slide errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but are not overly distracting to the reader. Writer is clearly in control of standard, written academic English. 5.0 %Evaluating and Documenting Sources (in-text citations for paraphrasing and direct quotes, references page listing and formatting, as appropriate to assignment and style) No submission. Contains no title slide, no references section, and no correctly cited references within the body of the presentation. Title slide is incomplete or inaccurate. References section includes sources, but many citation errors. Citations are included within the body of the presentation but with many errors. Title slide has minor errors. References section includes sources, but they are not consistently cited correctly. Citations are included within the body of the presentation but with some errors.

10.0 %Language Use and Audience Awareness (includes sentence construction, word choice, etc.) No submission. 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. Some distracting inconsistencies in language choice (register) and/or word choice are present. The writer exhibits some lack of control in using figures of speech appropriately. Language is appropriate to the targeted audience for the most part. The writer uses a variety of sentence constructions, figures of speech, and word choice in distinctive and creative ways that are appropriate to purpose, discipline, and scope.

10.0 %Layout No submission. The layout is cluttered, confusing, and 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 inappropriate contrasting colors. Poor use of headings, subheadings, indentations, or bold formatting is evident. The layout shows some structure, but appears cluttered and busy 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, or lack of appropriate indentations of text. 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, or busy background detracts and does not enhance readability. 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.

Co-Teaching Professional Development 1 No Evidence 0.00% 2 Nominal Evidence 69.00% 3 Unacceptable Evidence 74.00% 4 Acceptable Evidence 87.00% 5 Target Evidence 100.00% 100.0 %Criteria 70.0 %Content No submission. Description and analysis lack a clear point of view and logical sequence of information. Description and analysis are vague in conveying information and do not create a strong sense of relationship to each other. Description and analysis are generally competent, but ideas may show some inconsistency in organization and/or in their relationships to each other. Thorough, detailed description of co-teaching models given. Comprehensive analysis of correlating strategies provided. The project gives the audience a clear sense of the main idea.

No submission. Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice and/or sentence construction are employed. Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) and/or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied. Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed. The writer is clearly in command of standard, written academic English. 5.0 %Research Citations (in-text citations for paraphrasing and direct quotes, and references page listing and formatting, as appropriate to assignment and style) No submission. No references page and no citations are included. References page is present, but citations are inconsistently used. References page is included. Sources are appropriately documented, although some errors may be present. In-text citations and a references page are complete. The documentation of cited sources is free of errors. 100 %Total Weightage

10.0 %Paragraph Development and Transitions No submission. Paragraphs and transitions consistently lack unity and coherence. No apparent connections between paragraphs. Transitions are inappropriate to purpose and scope. Organization is disjointed. Some paragraphs and transitions may lack logical progression of ideas, unity, coherence, and/or cohesiveness. Some degree of organization is evident. Paragraphs are generally competent, but ideas may show some inconsistency in organization and/or in their relationships to each other. There is a sophisticated construction of paragraphs and transitions. Ideas progress and relate to each other. Paragraph and transition construction guide the reader. Paragraph structure is seamless. 5.0 %Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)

Please use rubric on the assignment page to do the assignment. Thank You. Rubric: Conflict Resolution Action Plan Response 1 No Evidence 0.00% 2 Nominal Evidence 69.00% 3 Unacceptable Evidence 74.00% 4 Acceptable Evidence 87.00% 5 Target-level Evidence 100.00% 100.0 %Criteria 70.0 %Content Subject Knowledge No submission. Response is inadequate and no support is provided. Response is adequate with little support. Detailed response provided based on chosen model for conflict resolution or problem solving. Response is supported with some evidence. Thorough, comprehensive response provided based on chosen model for conflict resolution or problem solving. Response supported with evidence. 10.0 %Thesis Development and Purpose No submission. Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim. Thesis and/or main claim are insufficiently developed and/or vague; purpose is not clear. Thesis and/or main claim are apparent and appropriate to purpose. Thesis and/or main claim are comprehensive; contained within the thesis is the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.