| Course Code | Class Code | Assignment Title | Total Points |
| ADM-530 | ADM-530-O500 | Benchmark – Policy Memo | 110.0 |
| Criteria | Percentage | Unsatisfactory (0.00%) | Less than Satisfactory (74.00%) | Satisfactory (79.00%) | Good (87.00%) | Excellent (100.00%) | Comments | Points Earned |
| Content | 75.0% |
| Policy outlined in a clear and concise manner (C 1.4) | 15.0% | Policy outlined is not clear or concise. | Policy outlined is insufficient or vague. | Policy outlined is appropriate. Some elements are missing for clearness and conciseness. | Policy outlined is clear with virtually no errors in outline. | Policy outlined is clear and concise. |
| Background of the issue. | 15.0% | Background of the issue is missing. | Background of the issue is vague and inconsistent. | Background of the issue is present. | Background of the issue is present and clear. | Background of the issue is clear and concise. |
| Discussion about alternatives for the issue. | 15.0% | Discussion about alternatives for the issue is missing. | Discussion about alternatives for the issue is vague, inconsistent, and not supported by research. | Discussion about alternatives for the issue is present and supported by research. | Discussion about alternatives for the issue is present, clear, and supported by research. | Discussion about alternatives for the issue is clear, concise, and supported by research. |
| Financial analysis | 15.0% | Financial analysis is missing. | Financial analysis is vague and inconsistent. | Financial analysis is present. | Financial analysis is present and clear. | Financial analysis is clear and concise. |
| Evidence-based recommendation for action | 15.0% | Evidence-based recommendation for action is missing. | Evidence-based recommendation for action is vague, inconsistent, and not supported by research. | Evidence-based recommendation for action is present and supported by research. | Evidence-based recommendation for action is present, clear, and supported by research. | Evidence-based recommendation for action is clear, concise, and supported by research. |
| Organization and Effectiveness | 10.0% |
| Argument Logic and Construction | 5.0% | 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 or sentence construction is used. | Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied. | Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed. | Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech. | Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English. |
| Format | 15.0% |
| Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment) | 8.0% | 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. |
| Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style) | 7.0% | Sources are not documented. | Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors. | Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present. | Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct. | Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error. |
| Total Weightage | 100% |
amblackman25
Rubric_Print_Format-PolicyMemo.xlsx
