BUS3041 WK2 Project

BUS3041 Week 2 Project Rubric Course: BUS3041-Managerial Communications SU02

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 the key

focal points of the code

of ethics.

/ 10Did not identify key focal

points of the code of

ethics.

Unsupported with

research.

Identified key focal points

of the code of ethics.

Lacked credible research

support.

Described key focal points

of the code of ethics.

Weakly supported with

research.

Summarized key focal

points of the code of

ethics.

Sufficiently supported

with research.

Summary of key focal

points of the code of

ethics was compelling and

showed 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

Analyzed whether the

firm urges all its employs

to uphold the code.

/ 10Did not identify whether

the firm urges all its

employs to uphold the

code.

Unsupported with

research.

Identified whether the

firm urges all its employs

to uphold the code.

Lacked credible research

support.

Described whether the

firm urges all its employs

to uphold the code.

Weakly supported with

research.

Analyzed whether the firm

urges all its employs to

uphold the code.

Sufficiently supported

with research.

Analysis of whether the

firm urges all its employs

to uphold the code was

compelling and showed

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

Assessed how the code

reflects the firm’s values

and culture.

/ 10Did not identify the firm’s

values and culture.

Unsupported with

research.

Identified the firm’s values

and culture.

Lacked credible research

support.

Described the firm’s

values and culture.

Weakly supported with

research.

Assessed how the code

reflects the firm’s values

and culture.

Sufficiently supported

with research.

9-10 Points

Assessment of how the

code reflects the firm’s

values and culture was

compelling and actionable

with well-developed

logical progression.

Well supported by

research.

Total / 50

Overall Score

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

Recommended at least

three improvements for

the code of ethics.

/ 10Did not identify

improvements for the

code of ethics.

Unsupported with

research.

Identified improvements

for the code of ethics.

Lacked credible research

support.

Described improvements

for the code of ethics.

Weakly supported with

research

Recommended at least

three improvements for

the code of ethics.

Sufficiently supported

with research.

Recommendation of at

least three improvements

for the code of ethics was

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

Wrote in a clear, concise,

and organized manner;

demonstrated ethical

scholarship in accurate

representation and

attribution of sources

(i.e., APA); and displayed

accurate spelling,

grammar, and

punctuation.

Communication: Use of

tone, word choice,

audien

/ 10Submission contains no

discernible overall intent

in author’s selection of

ideas.

Errors in basic writing

conventions are

sufficiently numerous to

prevent reader

comprehension.

No attempt at

Academic/APA formatting

in presentation

Submission contains

random presentation of

ideas, which prevents

understanding the

majority of author’s overall

intent.

Errors in basic writing

conventions are

sufficiently numerous to

prevent reader

comprehension of majority

of the work.

Academic/APA format is

attempted, but errors are

significant.

Ideas are presented in a

way that forces the reader

to make repeated

inferences in order to

identify and follow the

author’s overall intent.

Errors in basic writing

conventions interfere

with, but do not prevent,

reader comprehension.

Academic/APA format is

attempted but errors are

distracting.

The reader can follow the

author’s overall intent as

stated.

The reader noticed a few

errors in basic writing

conventions but these few

errors do not interfere

with reader

comprehension.

Using Academic/APA

format, accurately. Errors

are noticeable but minor.

The writer’s overall

argument and language

are clear and tightly

focused, leaving the

reader with no room for

confusion about author’s

intent.

Text is basically error free,

so that a reader would

have to purposely search

to find any errors that may

be present.

Using Academic/APA

format proficiently. Text is

basically error free.

No Submission 0 points minimum

Emerging (F through D range) 1 point minimum

Satisfactory (C range) 35 points minimum

Proficient (B range) 40 points minimum

Exemplary (A range) 45 points minimum