| Course Code | Class Code | Assignment Title | Total Points |
| COM-312 | COM-312-O101 | Mediation | 180.0 |
| Criteria | Percentage | Unsatisfactory (0.00%) | Less Than Satisfactory (65.00%) | Satisfactory (75.00%) | Good (85.00%) | Excellent (100.00%) | Comments | Points Earned |
| Content | 70.0% |
| Did the mediation go as planned? | 25.0% | Discussion on whether the mediation went as planned is not present. | Discussion on whether the mediation went as planned is weak or incomplete. | Discussion on whether the mediation went as planned is done at a cursory level. | Discussion on whether the mediation went as planned is supported by evidence and is mostly convincing | Discussion on whether the mediation went as planned is supported by well researched readings and discussion is insightful |
| What about this process was particularly challenging? Were you able to remain neutral? | 25.0% | Discussion of the mediation process is not presented. | Discussion of the mediation process is present but incomplete. | Discussion of the mediation process is present but done at a cursory level. | Challenges presented are discussed and the ability to remain neutral has been explained but not as thoroughly as could have been. | Challenges presented are discussed and the ability to remain neutral has been explained thoroughly. |
| How would this have been different if this were a real mediation and not a role play? | 20.0% | Proposal of how this would have been different if this were a real mediation and not a role play is not presented. | Proposal of how this would have been different if this were a real mediation and not a role play is presented but incomplete. | Proposal of how this would have been different if this were a real mediation and not a role play is presented but done at a cursory level. | Proposal of how this would have been different if this were a real mediation and not a role play is clearly presented. Discussion is convincing. | Proposal of how this would have been different if this were a real mediation and not a role play is clearly presented. Discussion is insightful. |
| Organization and Effectiveness | 20.0% |
| Thesis Development and Purpose | 7.0% | Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim. | Thesis and/or main claim are insufficiently developed and/or vague; purpose is not clear. | Thesis and/or main claim are apparent and appropriate to purpose. | Thesis and/or main claim are clear and forecast the development of the paper. It is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose. | Thesis and/or main claim are comprehensive. The essence of the paper is contained within the thesis. 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 and/or sentence construction are used. | Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register), sentence structure, and/or word choice are present. | Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are used. | Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. A variety of sentence structures and effective figures of speech are used. | 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. |
| Research Citations (In-text citations for paraphrasing and direct quotes, and reference page listing and formatting, as appropriate to assignment and style) | 5.0% | No reference page is included. No citations are used. | Reference page is present. Citations are inconsistently used. | Reference page is included and lists sources used in the paper. Sources are appropriately documented, although some errors may be present. | Reference page is present and fully inclusive of all cited sources. Documentation is appropriate and citation style is usually correct. | In-text citations and a reference page are complete and correct. The documentation of cited sources is free of error. |
| Total Weightage | 100% |
schnitzel90
MediationRubric.xlsx
