Executive Summary

Does Not Meet Standard

Meets The Standard

Exceeds Standard

Far Exceeds Standard

NCO Common Core Competency

Points:

1.6 (3.2%)

Did not identify or explain the NCO Common Core Competency with enough detail to convince the reader that the writer performed adequate research.

Feedback:

Points:

5.6 (11.2%)

The NCO Common Core Competency identified is accurate but at times unclear; key components are present but not fully rounded out with detail and facts. The supporting documentation is basic, and supporting information has minimal detail.

Feedback:

Points:

6.4 (12.8%)

The NCO Common Core Competency is identified and explained appropriately and the writer added additional information related to the required component to support NCO Common Core Competency.

Feedback:

Points:

8 (16%)

The NCO Common Core Competency is clearly identified and succinctly explained. The writer provided supporting information on the NCO Common Core Competency providing a clear and complete description.

Feedback:

Accuracy

Points:

1.6 (3.2%)

There were no references made from the case study/vignette or the references made contained fallacies or were out of context.

Feedback:

Points:

5.6 (11.2%)

Chose appropriate references from the case study/vignette to support the topic.

Feedback:

Points:

6.4 (12.8%)

Used references from the case study/vignette in a way that supported the topic for maximum impact on the relevant topic.

Feedback:

Points:

8 (16%)

Chose references from the case study/vignette significantly impacting the topic. Expertly tied the topic to references chosen.

Feedback:

Syntax and Mechanics

Points:

1.7 (3.4%)

There are five to six grammatical, spelling, and punctuation errors that make the paper unreadable or hard to follow.

Feedback:

Points:

5.95 (11.9%)

Sentences and paragraphs are adequate in style and structure. There are three to four grammatical, spelling, and punctuation errors. Less than five passive voice sentences excluding directly quoted material.

Feedback:

Points:

6.8 (13.6%)

Sentences and paragraphs are well written. There are one or two grammatical, spelling, and punctuation errors. Less than three passive voice sentences, excluding directly quoted material.

Feedback:

Points:

8.5 (17%)

Sentences and paragraphs are clear, concise, well written and free of passive voice excluding directly quoted material. Facilitates a logical flow of thoughts and ideas.

Feedback:

Organization

Points:

1.7 (3.4%)

Written work does not progress logically and ideas are not fully developed. Transitions between paragraphs and ideas are often missing or incomplete. Lack of cohesion within paragraphs makes it difficult to follow the paper's flow.

Feedback:

Points:

5.95 (11.9%)

Written work, per assignment directions, progresses logically and ideas formed. Transitions between paragraphs and ideas are sufficient.

Feedback:

Points:

6.8 (13.6%)

Written work, per assignment directions, progresses logically and ideas are complete. Transitions between paragraphs and ideas are smooth. Paragraphs are developed. Reader can follow the paper’s flow.

Feedback:

Points:

8.5 (17%)

Written work, per assignment directions, progresses logically and ideas are well developed and cohesive. There is a clear beginning, middle, and end. Paragraphs are well developed; transitions are seamless. Easy to follow.

Feedback:

Research

Points:

1.7 (3.4%)

Sources outside of the case study/vignette are not relevant or credible.

Feedback:

Points:

5.95 (11.9%)

Source is credible and relevant from outside of the case study/vignette. Used relevant quotes to support work.

Feedback:

Points:

6.8 (13.6%)

Sources are scholarly, credible and relevant from outside of the case study/vignette. Used more than one source.

Feedback:

Points:

8.5 (17%)

Sources are scholarly, credible and relevant from outside of the case study/vignette. Used three or more sources. Sources ranged in diverse material such as scholarly journals relevant professional manuals, white papers, and published research from leading authorities.

Feedback:

Directly Quoted Material

Points:

1.7 (3.4%)

25% or more directly quoted material.

Feedback:

Points:

5.95 (11.9%)

16-24% directly quoted material.

Feedback:

Points:

6.8 (13.6%)

10-15% directly quoted material.

Feedback:

Points:

8.5 (17%)

09% or less directly quoted material.