| Course Code | Class Code | Assignment Title | Total Points |
| HLT-313V | HLT-313V-O500 | Benchmark Assignment - Performance Management Plan Proposal | 200.0 |
| 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% |
| Organizational Goals | 10.0% | Proposal does not include a discussion of organizational goals. | Proposal includes a discussion with specific organizational goals, but elements are missing or the submission is otherwise incomplete. | Proposal includes a basic discussion with specific organizational goals. Minimal detail and/or support are provided. | Proposal includes a complete discussion with specific organizational goals. Proposal incorporates most essential details and provides appropriate support. | Proposal includes a clear and thorough discussion with specific organizational goals. Proposal analyzes supporting evidence insightfully and provides specific examples with relevance. Level of detail is appropriate. |
| Outline of Organizational Objectives | 10.0% | Proposal does not include an outline of organizational objectives. | Proposal includes an outline of organizational objectives, but elements are missing or the submission is otherwise incomplete. | Proposal includes an outline and brief evaluation of organizational objectives. Minimal detail and/or support are provided. | Proposal includes an outline and brief evaluation of organizational objectives. Proposal incorporates most essential details and provides appropriate support. | Proposal includes an outline and brief evaluation of organizational objectives. Proposal analyzes supporting evidence insightfully and provides specific examples with relevance. Level of detail is appropriate. |
| Rationale (C1.4) | 10.0% | Proposal does not include an evaluation of the use of the interdisciplinary approach. | Proposal includes an evaluation of the use of the interdisciplinary approach, but elements are missing or the submission is otherwise incomplete. | Proposal includes an evaluation of the use of the interdisciplinary approach. Minimal detail and/or support are provided. | Proposal includes an evaluation of the use of the interdisciplinary approach. Proposal incorporates most essential details and provides appropriate support. | Proposal includes an evaluation of the use of the interdisciplinary approach. Proposal analyzes supporting evidence insightfully and provides specific examples with relevance. Level of detail is appropriate. |
| Quality and Process Outcomes (C5.3) | 10.0% | Proposal does not include a description of the importance of quality and process outcomes within the scope of practice. | Proposal includes a description of the importance of quality and process outcomes within the scope of practice, but elements are missing or the submission is otherwise incomplete. | Proposal includes a description of the importance of quality and process outcomes within the scope of practice. Minimal detail and/or support are provided. | Proposal includes a description of the importance of quality and process outcomes within the scope of practice. Proposal incorporates most essential details and provides appropriate support. | Proposal includes a description of the importance of quality and process outcomes within the scope of practice. Proposal analyzes supporting evidence insightfully and provides specific examples with relevance. Level of detail is appropriate. |
| Summary of Relevant Performance Measures | 8.0% | Proposal does not include a summary of relevant performance measures. | Proposal includes a summary of relevant performance measures, but elements are missing or the submission is otherwise incomplete. | Proposal includes a summary of relevant performance measures. Minimal detail and/or support are provided. | Proposal includes a complete summary of relevant performance measures. Proposal incorporates most essential details and provides appropriate support. | Proposal includes a clear and thorough summary of relevant performance measures. Proposal analyzes supporting evidence insightfully and provides specific examples with relevance. Level of detail is appropriate. |
| Performance Baseline | 7.0% | Proposal does not identify or include a performance baseline. | Proposal identifies a performance baseline, but elements are missing or the submission is otherwise incomplete. | Proposal identifies and includes a performance baseline. Minimal detail and/or support are provided. | Proposal identifies and includes a performance baseline. Proposal incorporates most essential details and provides appropriate support. | Proposal identifies and includes a performance baseline. Proposal analyzes supporting evidence insightfully and provides specific examples with relevance. Level of detail is appropriate. |
| Performance Evaluation | 8.0% | Proposal does not include a discussion of a method of performance evaluation. | Proposal includes a discussion of a method of performance evaluation, but elements are missing or the submission is otherwise incomplete. | Proposal includes a basic discussion of a method of performance evaluation. Minimal detail and/or support are provided. | Proposal includes a complete discussion of a method of performance evaluation. Proposal incorporates most essential details and provides appropriate support. | Proposal includes a clear and thorough discussion of a method of performance evaluation. Proposal analyzes supporting evidence insightfully and provides specific examples with relevance. Level of detail is appropriate. |
| Definition and Discussion of Success | 7.0% | Proposal does not include define or include a discussion of success for the organization. | Proposal includes a definition and/or a discussion of success for the organization, but elements are missing or the submission is otherwise incomplete. | Proposal includes a basic definition and discussion of success for the organization. Minimal detail and/or support are provided. | Proposal includes a complete definition and discussion of success for the organization. Proposal incorporates most essential details and provides appropriate support. | Proposal includes a clear and thorough definition and discussion of success for the organization. Proposal analyzes supporting evidence insightfully and provides specific examples with relevance. Level of detail is appropriate. |
| Organization and Effectiveness | 20.0% |
| Thesis Development and Purpose | 7.0% | Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim. | Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear. | Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose. | Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose. | Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. 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 progression. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative. | Clear and convincing argument 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) and/or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied. | Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but 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 | 10.0% |
| Paper Format (Use of appropriate style for the major and assignment) | 5.0% | Appropriate template is not used appropriately or documentation format is rarely followed correctly. | Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken; lack of control with formatting is apparent. | Appropriate template is used, and 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) | 5.0% | 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% |
FBooker
Rubric_Print_Format2.xlsx
