Ethics and CSR Project

Written Analysis and Critical Thinking criteria 

Criteria 

1-5

Did Not Meet Expectations

6-8

Met Expectations

9-10

Exceeded Expectations

Format

Major APA issues. Frequent 

grammatical errors 

and misspellings 

inhibit readability Informal language, abbreviations and slang are used

Minor APA issues. Few grammatical errors 

(3 or fewer per page) 

Correct verb tense used 

Paragraphs flow from 

one to another Active 

voice pervasive

No APA issues. 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

Introduction

No introduction or no clear distinction between the introduction and the rest of the text. No thesis statements.

Topic introduced and divided with a reasonable length in relation to the paper. Some elements of thesis statement.

General topic well introduced. Division of topic is clear. Thesis statement well formulated. Appropriate length of introduction in relation to the paper.

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 no ambiguity. Transitions, explanation and elaboration are extensive to elucidate points. Detailed illustrations and/or examples are used to support explanation & 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 writing 

Depth of 

Discussion

Ignores bias; Omits arguments 

Misrepresents issues; Excludes data; Includes but does not detect inconsistency of 

information; Ideas contain 

unnecessary gaps, repetition or extraneous details 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/ 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  relevant facts

Integration 

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 

Internally Consistent

There is little integration across the sections of the paper. Several inconsistencies or contradictions exist. Few of the issues, recommendation and explanations make sense; not 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 

Conclusion

Basic conclusion. No effective summary of what was presented in the text.

Summarized most of the significant elements presented, Open to new perspective. Some take away lesson.

Summarized all the most significant elements presented in a concise, rich style. Clear link with the thesis statement. Open to new perspective. Clear take away lesson.

Overall effectiveness

Not formatted to Specifications, Lacking professional appearance

Formatting is generally 

correct, acceptable 

professional appearance.

Assigned format followed 

explicitly: Exceptional 

professional appearance

Quality of original analysis highlighting formal aspects.