| Course Code | Class Code | Assignment Title | Total Points |
| HCI-600 | HCI-600-O500 | Addressing Challenges With Interoperability | 115.0 |
| Criteria | Percentage | 1: Unsatisfactory (0.00%) | 2: Less Than Satisfactory (74.00%) | 3: Satisfactory (79.00%) | 4: Good (87.00%) | 5: Excellent (100.00%) | Comments | Points Earned |
| Content | 70.0% |
| Problem With the Lack of Interoperability | 20.0% | A description of the problem with the lack of interoperability witnessed in the health care delivery environment is not included. | A description of the problem with the lack of interoperability witnessed in the health care delivery environment is incomplete or incorrect. | A description of the problem with the lack of interoperability witnessed in the health care delivery environment is included but lacks supporting details. | A description of the problem with the lack of interoperability witnessed in the health care delivery environment is complete and includes supporting details. | A description of the problem with the lack of interoperability witnessed in the health care delivery environment is extremely thorough and includes substantial details. |
| Analysis of Workflow and Structure | 30.0% | An analysis of the workflow and structure related to the problem to identify its root cause is not included. | An analysis of the workflow and structure related to the problem to identify its root cause is incomplete or incorrect. | An analysis of the workflow and structure related to the problem to identify its root cause is included but lacks supporting details. | An analysis of the workflow and structure related to the problem to identify its root cause is complete and includes supporting details. | An analysis of the workflow and structure related to the problem to identify its root cause is extremely thorough and includes substantial details. |
| Potential Solution | 20.0% | A description of the recommended solution to the problem is not included. | A description of the recommended solution to the problem is incomplete or incorrect. | A description of the recommended solution to the problem is included but lacks supporting details. | A description of the recommended solution to the problem is complete and includes supporting details. | A description of the recommended solution to the problem is extremely thorough and includes substantial details. |
| Group 2Organization and Effectiveness | 20.0% |
| Thesis Development and Purpose | 7.0% | Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim. | Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear. | Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose. | Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose. | Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear. |
| Argument Logic and Construction | 8.0% | 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. |
| Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) | 5.0% | 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. |
| Format | 10.0% |
| Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment) | 5.0% | 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. |
| Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style) | 5.0% | 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. |
| Total Weightage | 100% |
Michelle_Michy
20200523034009week_6_rubric1.xlsx
