Management Consulting Template
Assessment Rubrics:
|
Written Communication Assessment 20% |
|||
|
|
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 |
|
Critical Thinking Assessment 80% |
||||||
|
Intellectual Standards |
||||||
|
Elements of Reasoning |
Clarity |
Relevance |
Depth |
Breadth |
Integration |
Consistency |
|
Information (situation analysis; important data, facts, observations for analysis and decision making) |
1 2 3 |
1 2 3 |
1 2 3 |
1 2 3 |
1 2 3 |
1 2 3 |
|
Concepts (theories, principles, models to be applied in the analysis or exercise) |
1 2 3 |
1 2 3 |
1 2 3 |
1 2 3 |
1 2 3 |
1 2 3 |
|
Points of View (important stakeholders to consider in the analysis and resulting decision(s)) |
1 2 3 |
1 2 3 |
1 2 3 |
1 2 3 |
1 2 3 |
1 2 3 |
|
Assumptions (presuppositions, values or beliefs that must be explicitly stated) |
1 2 3 |
1 2 3 |
1 2 3 |
1 2 3 |
1 2 3 |
1 2 3 |
|
Implications (potential +/- outcomes or consequences of decisions or strategies) |
1 2 3 |
1 2 3 |
1 2 3 |
1 2 3 |
1 2 3 |
1 2 3 |
|
Interpretation (articulation of conclusions, interpretation, recommendation based on information, concepts, POV, assumptions and Implications) |
1 2 3 |
1 2 3 |
1 2 3 |
1 2 3 |
1 2 3 |
1 2 3 |
Critical Thinking and Written Analyses Rubric – Scale Description
|
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 |
Values: Level 1: 10%, Level 2: 50% and Level 3: 100%