Discussion 7

profilerhodestown27
Rubric7.docx
Home>Human Resource Management homework help>Discussion 7

Superior Criteria

Excellent Criteria

Satisfactory Criteria

Marginal Criteria

Unsatisfactory Criteria

Not Submitted

Element 1a: Initial Post - Summary of Challenges

4 (8%)

Student provides a thorough and detailed summary of the challenges Netflix is facing within the case study. Several sources and examples support summary.

3.8 (7.6%)

Student provides a thorough and detailed summary of the challenges Netflix is facing within the case study. Several sources and examples support summary. There are one or two minor errors in summary.

3.4 (6.8%)

Student provides a summary of some of the challenges Netflix is facing within the case study. Some sources and examples support summary.

3 (6%)

Student provides a cursory or incomplete summary of the challenges Netflix is facing within the case study. Few sources or examples support summary.

2 (4%)

Does not meet minimal standards.

0 (0%)

Did not submit element.

Element 1b: Initial Post - Impact of Disruptive Technology

4 (8%)

Student presents a thorough and detailed evaluation of whether disruptive technology has a primarily positive or negative impact on Netflix's challenges, and includes strong rationale. Several sources and examples support evaluation.

3.8 (7.6%)

Student presents a thorough and detailed evaluation of whether disruptive technology has a primarily positive or negative impact on Netflix's challenges, and includes strong rationale. Several sources and examples support evaluation. There are one or two minor errors in evaluation.

3.4 (6.8%)

Student presents an evaluation with some details of whether disruptive technology has a primarily positive or negative impact on Netflix's challenges, and includes some rationale. Some sources and examples support evaluation.

3 (6%)

Student presents a cursory or incomplete evaluation with vague or missing details of whether disruptive technology has a primarily positive or negative impact on Netflix's challenges, and includes some rationale. Some sources and examples support evaluation.

2 (4%)

Does not meet minimal standards.

0 (0%)

Did not submit element.

Element 1c: Initial Post - Whom Disruptive Technology Benefits and Adversely Affects

4 (8%)

Student presents a thorough and detailed analysis, in line with his/her argument, of whom disruptive technology benefits and whom it adversely affects. Several sources and examples support analysis.

3.8 (7.6%)

Student presents a thorough and detailed analysis, in line with his/her argument, of whom disruptive technology benefits and whom it adversely affects. Several sources and examples support analysis. There are one or two minor errors in analysis.

3.4 (6.8%)

Student presents an analysis, with some details, in line with his/her argument, of whom disruptive technology benefits and whom it adversely affects. Some sources and examples support analysis.

3 (6%)

Student presents a cursory or incomplete analysis, with vague or missing details in regards to his/her argument, of whom disruptive technology benefits and whom it adversely affects. Few sources or examples support analysis.

2 (4%)

Does not meet minimal standards.

0 (0%)

Did not submit element.

Element 1d: Initial Post - Surviving or Taking Advantage of Disruptive Technology

4 (8%)

Student presents a thorough and detailed explanation of two strategies for either surviving or taking advantage of disruptive technology. Several sources and examples support explanation.

3.8 (7.6%)

Student presents a thorough and detailed explanation of two strategies for either surviving or taking advantage of disruptive technology. Several sources and examples support explanation. There are one or two minor errors in explanation.

3.4 (6.8%)

Student presents an explanation with some details of two strategies for either surviving or taking advantage of disruptive technology. Some sources and examples support explanation.

3 (6%)

Student presents a cursory or incomplete explanation of two strategies for either surviving or taking advantage of disruptive technology. Few sources or examples support explanation.

2 (4%)

Does not meet minimal standards.

0 (0%)

Did not submit element.

Element 1e: Initial Post - Improving Leadership Competencies

4 (8%)

Student presents a thorough and detailed explanation delineating the measures he/she will take to improve his/her leadership competencies.

3.8 (7.6%)

Student presents a thorough and detailed explanation delineating the measures he/she will take to improve his/her leadership competencies. There are one or two minor errors in explanation.

3.4 (6.8%)

Student presents an explanation delineating some of the measures he/she will take to improve his/her leadership competencies. Some details may be missing or unclear.

3 (6%)

Student presents a cursory or incomplete explanation delineating few of the measures he/she will take to improve his/her leadership competencies.

2 (4%)

Does not meet minimal standards.

0 (0%)

Did not submit element.

Element 2: Response to Colleagues' Postings

15 (30%)

Responses are excellent and fully contribute to the quality of interaction by offering constructive critique, suggestions, in-depth questions, additional resources, and stimulating thoughts and/or probes to more than two peers fully addressing the direction prompts.

14.25 (28.5%)

Responses are very good and fully contribute to the quality of interaction by offering constructive critique, suggestions, in-depth questions, additional resources, and stimulating thoughts and/or probes to at least two peers mostly addressing the direction prompts.

12.75 (25.5%)

Responses are good and somewhat contribute to the quality of interaction by offering constructive critique, suggestions, in-depth questions, additional resources, and stimulating thoughts and/or probes to at least two peers somewhat addressing the direction prompts.

11.25 (22.5%)

Responses are weak and do not fully contribute to the quality of interaction by offering constructive critique, suggestions, in-depth questions, additional resources, and stimulating thoughts and/or probes to at least one peer minimally addressing the direction prompts.

7.5 (15%)

Does not meet minimal standards.

0 (0%)

Did not submit element.

Element 3: Written Delivery Style & Grammar

7.5 (15%)

Student consistently follows APA writing style and basic rules of formal English grammar and written essay style. Student communicates in a cohesive, logical style. There are no spelling or grammar errors.

7.12 (14.25%)

Student consistently follows APA writing style and basic rules of formal English grammar and written essay style. Student communicates in a cohesive, logical style. There are one or two minor errors in spelling or grammar.

6.38 (12.75%)

Student mostly follows APA writing style and basic rules of formal English grammar and written essay style. Student mostly communicates in a cohesive, logical style. There are some errors in spelling or grammar.

5.62 (11.25%)

Student does not follow APA writing style and basic rules of formal English grammar and written essay style and does not communicate in a cohesive, logical style.

3.75 (7.5%)

Does not meet minimal standards.

0 (0%)

Did not submit element.

Element 4: Formal and Appropriate Documentation of Evidence, Attribution of Ideas (APA Citations)

7.5 (15%)

Student demonstrates full adherence to scholarly reference requirements and adheres to APA style with respect to source attribution, references, heading and subheading logic, table of contents and lists of charts, etc. There are no APA errors.

7.12 (14.25%)

Student demonstrates full adherence to scholarly reference requirements and adheres to APA style with respect to source attribution, references, heading and subheading logic, table of contents and lists of charts, etc. There are one or two minor errors in APA style or format.

6.38 (12.75%)

Student mostly adheres to scholarly reference requirements and/or mostly adheres to APA style with respect to source attribution, references, heading and subheading logic, table of contents and lists of charts, etc. Some errors in APA format and style are evident.

5.62 (11.25%)

Student demonstrates weak or inconsistent adherence scholarly reference requirements and/or weak or inconsistent adherence to APA style with respect to source attribution, references, heading and subheading logic, table of contents and lists of charts, etc. Several errors in APA format and style are evident.

3.75 (7.5%)

Does not meet minimal standards.

0 (0%)

Did not submit element.

Name: DDBA_8006_Week_7_Discussion_Rubric

Superior Criteria

Excellent Criteria

Satisfactory Criteria

Marginal Criteria

Unsatisfactory

Criteria

Not Submitted

Element 1a: Initial

Post

-

Summary of

Challenges

4

(8%)

Student provides a

thorough and detailed

summary of the

challenges Netflix is

facing within the case

study. Several

sources and

examples support

summary.

3.8

(7.6%)

Student provides a

thorough and detailed

summary of the

challenges Netflix is

facing within

the case

study. Several

sources and

examples support

summary. There are

one or two minor

errors in summary.

3.4

(6.8%)

Student provides a

summary of some of

the challenges Netflix

is facing within the

case study. Some

sources and

examples support

summary.

3

(6%)

Student provides a

cursory or incomplete

summary of the

challenges Netflix is

facing within the case

study. Few sources

or examples support

summary.

2

(4%)

Does not meet

minimal standards.

0

(0%)

Did not submit element.

Element 1b: Initial

Post

-

Impact of

Disruptive

Technology

4

(8%)

Student presents a

thorough and detailed

evaluation of whether

disruptive technology

has a primarily

positive or negative

impact on Netflix's

challenges, and

includes strong

rationale. Sever

al

sources and

examples support

evaluation.

3.8

(7.6%)

Student presents a

thorough and detailed

evaluation of whether

disruptive technology

has a primarily

positive or negative

impact on Netflix's

challenges, and

includes strong

rationale. Several

sources

and

examples support

evaluation. There are

one or two minor

errors in evaluation.

3.4

(6.8%)

Student presents an

evaluation with some

details of whether

disruptive technology

has a primarily

positive or negative

impact on Netflix's

challenges, and

includes

some

rationale. Some

sources and

examples support

evaluation.

3

(6%)

Student presents a

cursory or incomplete

evaluation with vague

or missing details of

whether disruptive

technology has a

primarily positive or

negative impact on

Netflix's challenges,

an

d includes some

rationale. Some

sources and

examples support

evaluation.

2

(4%)

Does not meet

minimal standards.

0

(0%)

Did not submit element.

Element 1c: Initial

Post

-

Whom

Disruptive

Technology Benefits

and Adversely

Affects

4

(8%)

Student presents a

thorough and detailed

analysis, in line with

his/her argument, of

whom disruptive

technology benefits

and whom it

adversely affects.

Several sources and

examples support

analysis.

3.8

(7.6%)

Student presents a

thorough and detailed

analysis, in line with

h

is/her argument, of

whom disruptive

technology benefits

and whom it

adversely affects.

Several sources and

examples support

analysis. There are

3.4

(6.8%)

Student presents an

analysis, with some

details, in line with

hi

s/her argument, of

whom disruptive

technology benefits

and whom it

adversely affects.

Some sources and

examples support

analysis.

3

(6%)

Student presents a

cursory or incomplete

analysis, with vague

or missing details in

regards to his/her

argument, of who

m

disruptive technology

benefits and whom it

adversely affects.

Few sources or

2

(4%)

Does not meet

minimal standards.

0

(0%)

Did not submit element.

Superior Criteria Excellent Criteria Satisfactory Criteria Marginal Criteria

Unsatisfactory

Criteria

Not Submitted

Element 1a: Initial

Post - Summary of

Challenges

4 (8%)

Student provides a

thorough and detailed

summary of the

challenges Netflix is

facing within the case

study. Several

sources and

examples support

summary.

3.8 (7.6%)

Student provides a

thorough and detailed

summary of the

challenges Netflix is

facing within the case

study. Several

sources and

examples support

summary. There are

one or two minor

errors in summary.

3.4 (6.8%)

Student provides a

summary of some of

the challenges Netflix

is facing within the

case study. Some

sources and

examples support

summary.

3 (6%)

Student provides a

cursory or incomplete

summary of the

challenges Netflix is

facing within the case

study. Few sources

or examples support

summary.

2 (4%)

Does not meet

minimal standards.

0 (0%)

Did not submit element.

Element 1b: Initial

Post - Impact of

Disruptive

Technology

4 (8%)

Student presents a

thorough and detailed

evaluation of whether

disruptive technology

has a primarily

positive or negative

impact on Netflix's

challenges, and

includes strong

rationale. Several

sources and

examples support

evaluation.

3.8 (7.6%)

Student presents a

thorough and detailed

evaluation of whether

disruptive technology

has a primarily

positive or negative

impact on Netflix's

challenges, and

includes strong

rationale. Several

sources and

examples support

evaluation. There are

one or two minor

errors in evaluation.

3.4 (6.8%)

Student presents an

evaluation with some

details of whether

disruptive technology

has a primarily

positive or negative

impact on Netflix's

challenges, and

includes some

rationale. Some

sources and

examples support

evaluation.

3 (6%)

Student presents a

cursory or incomplete

evaluation with vague

or missing details of

whether disruptive

technology has a

primarily positive or

negative impact on

Netflix's challenges,

and includes some

rationale. Some

sources and

examples support

evaluation.

2 (4%)

Does not meet

minimal standards.

0 (0%)

Did not submit element.

Element 1c: Initial

Post - Whom

Disruptive

Technology Benefits

and Adversely

Affects

4 (8%)

Student presents a

thorough and detailed

analysis, in line with

his/her argument, of

whom disruptive

technology benefits

and whom it

adversely affects.

Several sources and

examples support

analysis.

3.8 (7.6%)

Student presents a

thorough and detailed

analysis, in line with

his/her argument, of

whom disruptive

technology benefits

and whom it

adversely affects.

Several sources and

examples support

analysis. There are

3.4 (6.8%)

Student presents an

analysis, with some

details, in line with

his/her argument, of

whom disruptive

technology benefits

and whom it

adversely affects.

Some sources and

examples support

analysis.

3 (6%)

Student presents a

cursory or incomplete

analysis, with vague

or missing details in

regards to his/her

argument, of whom

disruptive technology

benefits and whom it

adversely affects.

Few sources or

2 (4%)

Does not meet

minimal standards.

0 (0%)

Did not submit element.