Linkden

profileashnajulii
LinkedInsummaryrubric.docx

LinkedIn summary rubric

LinkedIn summary rubric

Criteria

Ratings

Pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAudience

30 to >27.0 pts

Superior

Excellent match of document to intended audience needs. An ethical approach to the communication situation.

27 to >24.0 pts

Strong

Adequate match of document to intended audience needs. An ethical approach to the communication situation.

24 to >21.0 pts

Competent

Some mismatches of document to intended audience needs. An ethical approach to the communication situation

21 to >18.0 pts

Weak

Significant mismatches of document to intended audience needs. Questionable ethics.

18 to >0 pts

Failing

Failure to match intended audience needs. Unethical aspects.

30 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePurpose

15 to >14.0 pts

Superior

States the intended purpose clearly.

14 to >12.0 pts

Strong

States the intended purpose mostly clearly.

12 to >11.0 pts

Competent

States the intended purpose, but not clearly.

11 to >9.0 pts

Weak

States the intended purpose in a way that confuses the reader or is illogical.

9 to >0 pts

Failing

Does not state the intended purpose.

15 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeStructure

15 to >14.0 pts

Superior

Follows structural conventions for the genre. Uses clear headings and transitions. Arranges parts logically.

14 to >12.0 pts

Strong

Follows structural conventions for the genre. Uses mostly clear headings and transitions. Arranges parts logically.

12 to >11.0 pts

Competent

Follows structural conventions for the genre. Uses a few unclear headings and transitions. Includes a few minor illogical arrangements.

11 to >9.0 pts

Weak

Fails to follow some structural conventions for the genre. Uses ambiguous or nondescriptive headings and transitions. Includes significant illogical arrangements that cause difficulty in reading.

9 to >0 pts

Failing

Fails to follow significant structural conventions for the genre. Fails to use headings and transitions successfully. Arranges parts illogically.

15 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeStyle

25 to >23.0 pts

Superior

Clear and succinct prose. Excellent matching of level of formality and technicality to audience. Gender- and culture-appropriate language.

23 to >20.0 pts

Strong

Almost always clear and succinct prose. Good matching of level of formality and technicality to audience. Gender- and culture-appropriate language.

20 to >18.0 pts

Competent

Somewhat unclear or wordy prose. Mostly good matching of level of formality and technicality to audience. Gender- and culture-appropriate language.

18 to >15.0 pts

Weak

Significantly unclear or wordy prose. Clear mismatches of level of formality and technicality to audience. Some problems with sexist or racist language.

15 to >0 pts

Failing

Unclear and wordy prose throughout. Extensive mismatches of level of formality and technicality to audience . Significant problems with sexist or racist language.

25 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeEditing

15 to >14.0 pts

Superior

No grammatical errors or 1-2 minor typographical errors that do not disrupt the document flow.

14 to >12.0 pts

Strong

Fewer than 2 grammatical, mechanical, or typographical errors per page. Errors do not affect usability.

12 to >11.0 pts

Competent

3-4 grammatical, mechanical, or typographical errors per page. Errors mildly affect usability

11 to >9.0 pts

Weak

5-6 grammatical, mechanical, or typographical errors per page. Errors affect usability.

9 to >0 pts

Failing

Over 8 grammatical, mechanical, or typographical errors per page. Errors make the document fail in its goals.

15 pts

Total Points: 100