Cost-Volume-Profit Analysis

Written Communication Assessment: Guideline

1

Did not meet expectations

2

Met expectations

3

Exceeded expectations

Writing Conventions (grammar, word use, punctuation, mechanics)

Frequent grammatical errors and misspellings inhibit readability, Informal language, abbreviations and

slang are used

Few grammatical errors and misspellings (e.g. three or fewer per page) Correct verb tense used Paragraphs flow from one to another Active voice pervasive

Free of grammatical errors and misspellings

Effective verb tense used Uses phrases and construction that delight as

well as inform the reader

Primarily active voice

Overall Effectiveness of

Piece (professional appearance, expression

and format)

Not formatted to

Specifications, Lacking professional appearance

Formatting is generally correct, acceptable

professional appearance.

Assigned format followed explicitly: Exceptional

professional appearance

Levels

Criteria

1

Did Not Meet Expectations

2

Met Expectations

3

Exceeded Expectations

Clarity

Writing is not clear. It is difficult to understand points

being made. The writing lacks

transitions, and few examples and/or illustrations are provided to support explanation or recommendations.

Writing is generally well organized and understood.

Transitions are used to facilitate

clarity. Some examples and/illustrations are used to support explanation or recommendations.

Writing is succinct, precise, effectively organized and

without ambiguity.

Transitions, explanation and elaboration are extensive to elucidate points. Detailed illustrations

and/or examples are used to support explanation or

recommendations.

Relevance

Critical issues/questions are omitted or ignored in the

writing.

Most of the critical issues/questions are addressed in the writing.

All critical issues/questions are addressed completely in the writing

Depth of

Discussion

Ignores bias; Omits arguments

Misrepresents issues; Excludes data; Includes but does not detect inconsistencies of information; Ideas contain

unnecessary gaps, repetition

or extraneous details; Sees no arguments and overlooks differences

Detects bias; Recognizes

arguments; Categorizes content; Paraphrases data;

Sufficient detail to support conclusions and/or

recommendations

Analysis includes insightful

questions; Refutes bias; Discusses issues thoroughly; Critiques content; Values Information ; Examines inconsistencies; Offers extensive detail to support conclusions and recommendations; Suggests solutions or implementation

Breadth of

Discussion

Omits arguments or perspectives; Misses major

content areas/concepts;

Presents few options

Covers the breadth of the topic without being superfluous

Considers multiple perspectives;

Thoroughly delves into the

issues/questions; Thoroughly discusses facts relevant to the issues

Integration of all Elements of

Reasoning

Fails to draw conclusions or

conclusions rely on author’s

authority rather than strength of presentation; Draws faulty conclusions; Shows intellectual dishonesty

Formulates clear conclusions with adequate support

Assimilates and critically reviews information, uses

reasonable judgment, and provides balanced, well

justified conclusions

Internal

Consistency

There is little integration across the sections of the

paper. Several inconsistencies or contradictions exist. Few of the issues, recommendation and explanations make sense

and are well integrated.

Sections of the paper are generally well linked/connected.

Only minor contradictions exist. Most of the issues,

recommendations and explanations make sense and are well integrated.

All sections of the paper are linked. There are no contradictions in the writing. All issues,

recommendations and explanations make sense and are well integrated