| Course Code | Class Code | Assignment Title | Total Points |
| STG-390 | STG-390-O500 | Benchmark - Contemporary Issues in Science and Technology Section 3: Possible Feasible Solutions | 85.0 |
| Criteria | Percentage | Unsatisfactory (0.00%) | Less than Satisfactory (65.00%) | Satisfactory (75.00%) | Good (85.00%) | Excellent (100.00%) | Comments | Points Earned |
| Group 1 | 90.0% |
| Possible Feasible Solution | 25.0% | The student does not provide a possible feasible solution. | The student provides a possible solution, but the information provided is overly generalized and may contain errors or missing components. The solution may not be feasible. | The student provides a possible feasible solution, but it is not fully described or not fully feasible. | The student provides a clear possible solution and the feasibility is evident. | The student provides a clear possible feasible solution, and does so in a comprehensive and insightful way. |
| Justification for the Chosen Solution (C3.3) | 25.0% | The student does not provide justification for the chosen solution. | The student provides a justification, but it is overly generalized and it may contain errors or missing components. | The student provides a justification, but it provides a surface-level analysis and explanation. | The student clearly provides a justification. The justification is direct, competent, and appropriate. | The student thoughtfully provides a justification, and does so in a comprehensive and insightful way. |
| Explanation of the Decision-Making Process for Choosing the Solution. (Includes ethical, social, and economic considerations, and explains what steps were implemented to ensure that the decision was moral and ethical including Biblical citations with explanations of the application.) | 20.0% | The student does not address the decision-making process. | The student provides an explanation of the decision-making process, but the information provided is overly generalized and may contain errors or missing components. | The student provides an explanation of the decision-making process, but the information is a surface-level explanation. | The student clearly provides an explanation of the decision-making process. Analysis is direct, competent, and appropriate. | The student thoughtfully provides an explanation of the decision-making process, and does so in a comprehensive and insightful way. |
| Professional Organization Guidance | 20.0% | The student does not address the guidance provided by the professional organization(s). | The student provides an explanation of the guidance provided by the professional organization(s), but the information provided is overly generalized and may contain errors or missing components. | The student provides an explanation of the guidance provided by the professional organization(s), but the information is a surface-level explanation. | The student clearly provides an explanation of the guidance provided by the professional organization(s). Analysis is direct, competent, and appropriate. | The student thoughtfully provides an explanation of the guidance provided by the professional organization(s), and does so in a comprehensive and insightful way. |
| Group 2 | 5.0% |
| 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 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. |
| Group 3 | 5.0% |
| Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment) | 3.0% | 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) | 2.0% | 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% |
biolablaq
Rubric_Print_Format4.xlsx
