Week 5 Project
MKT3010 Week 3 Project Rubric Activity: Week 3 Project
Course: MKT3010-Marketing Management SU01
Name: Sandra Villarreal
Criteria No Submission 0 points
Emerging (F through D range) (1–6) 6 points
Satisfactory (C range) (7) 7 points
Proficient (B range) (8) 8 points
Exemplary (A range) (9–10) 10 points
Criterion Score
Summarized key
details about
the selected
scenario
including details
about the firm
and/or product
line.
8 / 10Did not identify scenario or details
about firm or
product line.
Unsupported with
research.
Identified scenario,
firm, and product
line.
Lacked credible
research support.
Outlined scenario,
firm, and product
line.
Weakly supported
with research.
Summary of key
details about
scenario, firm, and
product line was
compelling, with
well-developed
logical progression.
Well supported by
research.
Criteria No Submission 0 points
Emerging (F through D range) (1–20) 20 points
Satisfactory (C range) (21–23) 23 points
Proficient (B range) (24–26) 26 points
Exemplary (A range) (27–30) 30 points
Criterion Score
Summarized
scenario, firm, and
product line.
Sufficiently
supported with
research
Criteria No Submission 0 points
Emerging (F through D range) (1–20) 20 points
Satisfactory (C range) (21–23) 23 points
Proficient (B range) (24–26) 26 points
Exemplary (A range) (27–30) 30 points
Criterion Score
Assessed which
of Michael
Porter’s basic
strategies will
be used to
market this
product and
why.
28 / 30Did not identify stages in the
consumer decision
making process.
Unsupported with
research.
Identified
strategies.
Lacked credible
research support.
Described
strategies.
Weakly supported
with research.
Assessed
strategies.
Sufficiently
supported with
research
Assessment of
strategies was
compelling, with
well-developed
logical progression.
Well supported by
research.
Criteria No Submission 0 points
Emerging (F through D range) (1–27) 27 points
Satisfactory (C range) (28–31) 31 points
Proficient (B range) (32–35) 35 points
Exemplary (A range) (36–40) 40 points
Criterion Score
Criteria No Submission 0 points
Emerging (F through D range) (1–27) 27 points
Satisfactory (C range) (28–31) 31 points
Proficient (B range) (32–35) 35 points
Exemplary (A range) (36–40) 40 points
Criterion Score
Defended
selection of
target markets.
31 / 40Did not identify improvements to
the product line or
estimated cost.
Unsupported with
research.
Identified target
markets.
Lacked credible
research support.
Defended target
markets.
Sufficiently
supported with
research
Defense of target
markets was
compelling and
showed well-
developed logical
progression.
Well supported by
research.
Criteria No Submission 0 points
Emerging (F through D range) (1–27) 27 points
Satisfactory (C range) (28–31) 31 points
Proficient (B range) (32–35) 35 points
Exemplary (A range) (36–40) 40 points
Criterion Score
Described target
markets.
Weakly supported
with research.
Criteria No Submission 0 points
Emerging (F through D range) (1–27) 27 points
Satisfactory (C range) (28–31) 31 points
Proficient (B range) (32–35) 35 points
Exemplary (A range) (36–40) 40 points
Criterion Score
Justified the
stages in the
consumer
decision making
process for
selected
product.
35 / 40Submission contained no
discernible overall
intent in author’s
selection of
ideas.
Identified stages in
the consumer
decision making
process.
Lacked credible
research support.
Outlined stages in
the consumer
decision making
process.
Weakly supported
with research.
Justification of
stages in the
consumer decision
making process for
selected product
was compelling and
actionable, with
well-developed
logical progression.
Well supported by
research.
Criteria No Submission 0 points
Emerging (F through D range) (1–27) 27 points
Satisfactory (C range) (28–31) 31 points
Proficient (B range) (32–35) 35 points
Exemplary (A range) (36–40) 40 points
Criterion Score
Justified stages in
the consumer
decision making
process for
selected product.
Sufficiently
supported with
research.
Criteria No Submission 0 points
Emerging (F through D range) (1–27) 27 points
Satisfactory (C range) (28–31) 31 points
Proficient (B range) (32–35) 35 points
Exemplary (A range) (36–40) 40 points
Criterion Score
Justified where
improvements
should be made
to the product
line and
estimated cost.
35 / 40Errors in basic writing conventions
were sufficiently
numerous to
prevent reader
comprehension.
Identified
improvements to
the product line
and estimated cost.
Lacked credible
research support.
Described
improvements to
the product line
and estimated cost.
Weakly supported
with research.
Justification of
improvements to
the product line
and estimated costs
were compelling
and actionable,
with well-
developed logical
progression. Well
supported by
research.
Criteria No Submission 0 points
Emerging (F through D range) (1–6) 6 points
Satisfactory (C range) (7) 7 points
Proficient (B range) (8) 8 points
Exemplary (A range) (9–10) 10 points
Criterion Score
Communication:
Use of tone,
word choice,
audience,
transitions, and
progression of
ideas
10 / 10Did not identify strategies.
Unsupported with
research.
Submission
contained random
presentation of
ideas, which
prevents
understanding the
majority of author’s
overall intent.
Ideas were
presented in a way
that forced the
reader to make
repeated inferences
in order to identify
and follow the
author’s overall
intent.
The reader could
follow the author’s
overall intent as
stated.
Justified
improvements to
the product line
and estimated cost.
Sufficiently
supported with
research
The writer’s overall
argument and
language were
clear and tightly
focused, leaving
the reader with no
room for confusion
about author’s
intent.
Criteria No Submission 0 points
Emerging (F through D range) (1–6) 6 points
Satisfactory (C range) (7) 7 points
Proficient (B range) (8) 8 points
Exemplary (A range) (9–10) 10 points
Criterion ScoreCriteria No Submission 0 points
Emerging (F through D range) (1–6) 6 points
Satisfactory (C range) (7) 7 points
Proficient (B range) (8) 8 points
Exemplary (A range) (9–10) 10 points
Criterion Score
Mechanics: Use
of grammar,
sentence
structure, and
spelling.
10 / 10Did not identify target markets.
Unsupported with
research.
Errors in basic
writing conventions
were sufficiently
numerous to
prevent reader
comprehension of
majority of the
work.
Errors in basic
writing conventions
interfered with, but
did not prevent,
reader
comprehension.
The reader noticed
a few errors in
basic writing
conventions but
these few errors
did not interfere
with reader
comprehension.
Criteria No Submission 0 points
Emerging (F through D range) (1–13) 13 points
Satisfactory (C range) (14–15) 15 points
Proficient (B range) (16–17) 17 points
Exemplary (A range) (18–20) 20 points
Criterion Score
Text was basically
error free, so that a
reader had to
purposely search to
find any errors that
may be present.
Total 174 / 200
Criteria No Submission 0 points
Emerging (F through D range) (1–13) 13 points
Satisfactory (C range) (14–15) 15 points
Proficient (B range) (16–17) 17 points
Exemplary (A range) (18–20) 20 points
Criterion Score
Academic/APA
Formatting: Use
of citations,
references, and
structural
formatting
including such
elements as title
page, running
head, page
numbers,
introduction,
headings (as
appropriate),
and conclusion.
17 / 20No attempt at Academic/APA
formatting in
presentation.
Academic/APA
format attempted,
but errors were
significant.
Academic/APA
format attempted
but errors were
distracting.
Used
Academic/APA
format proficiently.
Text was basically
error free.
Used
Academic/APA
format, accurately.
Errors were
noticeable but
minor.
Overall Score
No Submission 0 points minimum
Emerging (F through D range) 1 point minimum
Satisfactory (C range) 140 points minimum
Proficient (B range) 160 points minimum
Exemplary (A range) 180 points minimum