|
|
1
Unsatisfactory
0.00%
|
2
Less than Satisfactory
74.00%
|
3
Satisfactory
79.00%
|
4
Good
87.00%
|
5
Excellent
100.00%
|
|
75.0 %Content
|
|
|
15.0 %Policy outlined in a clear and concise manner (Comp 1.4)
|
Policy outlined is not clear or concise.
|
Policy outlined is insufficient or vague.
|
Policy outlined is appropriate. Some elements are missing for clearness and conciseness.
|
Policy outlined is clear with virtually no errors in outline.
|
Policy outlined is clear and concise.
|
|
|
15.0 %Background of the issue.
|
Background of the issue is missing.
|
Background of the issue is vague and inconsistent.
|
Background of the issue is present.
|
Background of the issue is present and clear.
|
Background of the issue is clear and concise.
|
|
|
15.0 %Discussion about alternatives for the issue.
|
Discussion about alternatives for the issue is missing.
|
Discussion about alternatives for the issue is vague, inconsistent, and not supported by research.
|
Discussion about alternatives for the issue is present and supported by research.
|
Discussion about alternatives for the issue is present, clear, and supported by research.
|
Discussion about alternatives for the issue is clear, concise, and supported by research.
|
|
|
15.0 %Financial analysis
|
Financial analysis is missing.
|
Financial analysis is vague and inconsistent.
|
Financial analysis is present.
|
Financial analysis is present and clear.
|
Financial analysis is clear and concise.
|
|
|
15.0 %Evidence-based recommendation for action
|
Evidence-based recommendation for action is missing.
|
Evidence-based recommendation for action is vague, inconsistent, and not supported by research.
|
Evidence-based recommendation for action is present and supported by research.
|
Evidence-based recommendation for action is present, clear, and supported by research.
|
Evidence-based recommendation for action is clear, concise, and supported by research.
|
|
|
10.0 %Organization and Effectiveness
|
|
|
5.0 %Argument Logic and Construction
|
Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources.
|
Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility.
|
Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis.
|
Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative.
|
Clear and convincing argument that presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.
|
|
|
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 or sentence construction is used.
|
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied.
|
Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed.
|
Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech.
|
Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.
|
|
|
15.0 %Format
|
|
|
8.0 %Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)
|
Template is not used appropriately or documentation format is rarely followed correctly.
|
Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent.
|
Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present.
|
Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style.
|
All format elements are correct.
|
|
|
7.0 %Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style)
|
Sources are not documented.
|
Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.
|
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present.
|
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct.
|
Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error.
|
|
|
100 %Total Weightage
|
|
|