Master Schedule Creation

Criteria

Excellent

Good

Developing

Needs Improvement

Failure

Creation of 12 month master schedule

5 points

Comments reflect a highly accomplished level of analysis, synthesis, evaluation and logical reasoning of the case material and case study facts resulting in an accurate, thorough, and soundly reasoned schedule.

(4.5-5.0

4.25 points

Comments reflect a thorough level of analysis, synthesis, evaluation and reasoning of the case material and case study facts resulting in accurately reasoned conclusions but may 1-2 areas which were underdeveloped.

( 4.0 - 4.49)

3.75 points

Comments reflect a satisfactory level of analysis, synthesis, evaluation and reasoning of the case material and case study facts resulting in mostly correct conclusions and thereby showing 3-4 areas of inaccuracy or underdeveloped schedule entries.

(3.5-3.99)

3.25 points

An attempt was made but the comments reflect an unsatisfactory level of analysis, synthesis, evaluation and reasoning of the case material and case study facts, resulting in conclusions that are thereby showing 5 or areas of inaccuracy or underdeveloped schedule entries.

(3.0-3.49)

0 points

No attempt was made at the schedule or the inaccuracies or schedule entries reflect an unsatisfactory level of analysis, synthesis, evaluation and reasoning of the case material and case study facts, resulting in failure to draw little to no conclusions.

(0-2.99)

Detailed explanation as to how the schedule entries were concluded

5 points

Presents exceptionally well-supported conclusions with evidence from the readings/case facts; application of the ideas was insightful and accurate

(4.5-5.0)

4.25 points

Presents thorough well-supported conclusions with evidence from the readings/case facts; application of the ideas was good but needed more detail in 1-2 entry conclusions.

(4.0-4.49)

3.75 points

Presents satisfactory arguments mostly supported conclusions with evidence from the readings/case facts; application of the ideas was good but needed more detail in 3-4 entry conclusions.

(3.5-3.99)

.25 points

Arguments are frequently illogical and unsubstantiated; Limited use of facts in case study and essential information presented in course readings. More than 5 entries were without detail.

(3.0-3.49)

0 points

No or minimal attempt was made to explain the schedule attempted or arguments lack meaningful explanation or support of ideas. Does not provide facts presented in case study.

(0-2.99)

Attention to Instructions

2 points

Demonstrates exceptional understanding of requirements responding completely to each aspect of assignment including minor aspects of the assignment such as using third person writing, required use of course readings, and assignment format.

(1.8-2.0)

1.7 points

Demonstrates excellent understanding of requirements; missed one minor aspect of assignment.

(1.6-1.79)

1.5 points

Demonstrates satisfactory understanding of requirements; missed a key element or two minor aspects of assignment.

(1.4-1.59)

1.3 points

Fails to show a firm understanding of requirements; missed two key elements or several minor aspects of assignment.

(1.2-1.39)

0 points

Fails to demonstrate understanding of assignment requirements.

(0-1.19)

Writing Mechanics

2 points

Strictly adheres to standard usage rules of written English, including but not limited to capitalization, punctuation, run-on sentences, missing or extra words, stylistic errors, spelling and grammatical errors. No errors found. No contractions or jargon used.

(1.8- 2.0)

1.7 points

Excellently adheres to standard usage of mechanics: conventions of written English, including capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. One to three errors found.

(1.6- 1.79)

1.5 points

Satisfactorily adheres to standard usage rules of mechanics: conventions of English, including capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. Four to 10 errors found.

(1.4- 1.59)

1.3 points

Minimally adheres to standard usage rules of mechanics: conventions of written English, including capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. More than 10 errors found.

(1.2-1.39)

0 points

Does not adhere to standard usage rules of mechanics: conventions of written English largely incomprehensible; or errors are too plentiful to count.

(0-1.19)

Adherence to APA style (6th ed.)

1 point

No APA style or usage errors; Proper citation of source material is used throughout paper; Reference titles follow APA with only the first word, the first word after a colon and proper nouns capitalized.

(0.90-1.0)

0.85 points

Attempts in-text citations and reference list but one or two APA style errors noted or fails to use APA citations when appropriate 1-2 times.

(0.80-0.89)

0.75 points

Attempts in-text citations and reference lists; APA style errors are noted throughout document; Fails to use APA citations when appropriate 3 times in document.

(0.70-0.79)

0.65 points

Attempts in-text citations and reference lists; Fails to use APA citation when appropriate 4-5 times; or presents only 1-2 in-text citations and reference list in a paper that requires APA citations throughout the document.

(0.60-0.69)

0 points

No attempt at APA style; or attempts either in-text citations or reference list but omits the other.

(0-0.59)