Capstone Strategy Playbook for Exceptional Results: Description of the Playbook
edashallk
RubricDetail.htmlRubric Detail
Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric's layout.
Content
Name: WMBA_6990_Week8_Assignment_Rubric
| Exemplary | Very Good | Proficient | Opportunity for Improvement | Unacceptable | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Element 1: Strategy Title and Cover Page | Points: 3 (3%) Student provides a logical Strategy Title that communicates the project effectively on a cover page to his/her Strategy Playbook. Feedback: | Points: 2.79 (2.79%) Student provides a logical Strategy Title that mostly communicates the project effectively on a cover page to his/her Strategy Playbook. Feedback: | Points: 2.55 (2.55%) Student provides a logical Strategy Title that somewhat communicates the project effectively on a cover page to his/her Strategy Playbook. Feedback: | Points: 2.25 (2.25%) Student provides a Strategy Title that vaguely communicates the project on a cover page to his/her Strategy Playbook. Feedback: | Points: 0 (0%) Not submitted or little to no evidence of addressing the criterion. Feedback: |
| Element 1a: Executive Summary: Summary of Key Highlights and Most Critical Findings | Points: 5 (5%) Student provides a thorough and detailed evaluation summarizing the most important findings based on his/her evaluation of the critical issues in the playbook, defends conclusions based on a rationale supported by evidence and experience, and evaluates issues facing the company to develop his/her final set of key highlights and most critical findings using objective criteria, including justifying all assumptions. Feedback: | Points: 4.65 (4.65%) Student provides an evaluation summarizing the most important findings based on his/her evaluation of the critical issues in the playbook, defends conclusions based on a rationale supported by evidence and experience, and evaluates issues facing the company to develop his/her final set of key highlights and most critical findings using objective criteria, including justifying all assumptions. One or two details are missing. Feedback: | Points: 4.25 (4.25%) Student provides an evaluation of the key highlights and important findings based on the critical issues he/she presented in his/her playbook supported with some rationale as to why he/she has identified the final set of key highlights and critical findings, and builds a compelling argument intended to influence decisions that will be made by the CEO, senior leadership, or business owner. Feedback: | Points: 3.75 (3.75%) Student provides a cursory explanation identifying a few of the more important findings, and supports his/her selections with little or no rationale. Feedback: | Points: 0 (0%) Not submitted or little to no evidence of addressing the criterion. Feedback: |
| Element 1b: Executive Summary: Recommendations to the CEO, Senior Leadership, or Business Owner | Points: 5 (5%) Student presents a thorough and detailed explanation of well-reasoned, preliminary recommendations to the CEO/business owner that addresses the most critical issues potentially facing the organization’s future, makes specific connections between the recommendations and the issues they address, and states assumptions and limitations of the recommendations. Feedback: | Points: 4.65 (4.65%) Student presents a thorough and detailed explanation of well-reasoned, preliminary recommendations to the CEO/business owner that addresses the most critical issues potentially facing the organization’s future, makes specific connections between the recommendations and the issues they address, and states assumptions and limitations of the recommendations. Response is comprehensive but missing one or two details. Feedback: | Points: 4.25 (4.25%) Student presents an explanation of preliminary recommendations to the CEO/business owner that addresses the issues facing the organization and makes a compelling case as to why the recommendations will be effective in addressing the most critical issues. Feedback: | Points: 3.75 (3.75%) Student presents a description of few preliminary recommendations meant to help the organization and provides vague or missing details on why the recommendations were suggested or to which issues they pertain. Feedback: | Points: 0 (0%) Not submitted or little to no evidence of addressing the criterion. Feedback: |
| Element 1c: Executive Summary: Recommendations - Priorities and Road Map | Points: 5 (5%) Student presents an explicit and thorough explanation of his/her prioritized order of recommendations, including a road map that shows what additional analyses and actions would need to be completed, why, and by whom, in order to develop a more full and robust set of actionable recommendations. Feedback: | Points: 4.65 (4.65%) Student presents an explicit and thorough explanation of his/her prioritized order of recommendations, including a road map that shows what additional analyses and actions would need to be completed, why, and by whom, in order to develop a more full and robust set of actionable recommendations. Response is comprehensive but missing one or two details. Feedback: | Points: 4.25 (4.25%) Student presents an explanation with some details of his/her prioritized order of recommendations, including a road map that shows what additional items would need to be completed to develop a more full and robust set of actionable recommendations. Feedback: | Points: 3.75 (3.75%) Student presents a cursory explanation with vague or missing details of his/her prioritized order of recommendations, including a road map that shows a few additional items to develop some actionable recommendations. Feedback: | Points: 0 (0%) Not submitted or little to no evidence of addressing the criterion. Feedback: |
| Element 1d: - Risks and Mitigation Strategies | Points: 5 (5%) Student provides a thorough and detailed explanation of the major risks of both taking action on his/her final set of recommendations, what could happen if the organization fails to address the issues it faces or follow the recommendations, ideas for mitigating the identified risks, a convincing case as to why such approaches would be effective, and justifies assumptions. Feedback: | Points: 4.65 (4.65%) Student provides an explanation of the major risks of both taking action on his/her final set of recommendations, what could happen if the organization fails to address the issues it faces or follow the recommendations, ideas for mitigating the identified risks, a convincing case as to why such approaches would be effective, and justifies assumptions. One or two details are missing. Feedback: | Points: 4.25 (4.25%) Student provides an explanation identifying the risks of both taking action on his/her final set of recommendations as well as what could happen if the organization fails to address the issues it faces or follow the recommendations, and explains ideas for mitigating the identified risks. Feedback: | Points: 3.75 (3.75%) Student provides a cursory description of a few risks to the organization. Feedback: | Points: 0 (0%) Not submitted or little to no evidence of addressing the criterion. Feedback: |
| Element 2a: Format of Executive Summary - Beginning | Points: 5 (5%) Student begins the Executive Summary with a clear and compelling statement of its purpose and presents a succinct cohesive summary that focuses on the main outcomes of his/her strategy review and Strategy Playbook development. Student makes it clear why he/she chose to highlight the content and topics and provides supporting details and examples. Feedback: | Points: 4.65 (4.65%) Student begins the Executive Summary with a clear statement of its purpose and presents a succinct cohesive summary that focuses on the main outcomes of his/her strategy review and Strategy Playbook development. Student addresses why he/she chose to highlight the content and topics and provides some supporting detail. Feedback: | Points: 4.25 (4.25%) Student begins the Executive Summary with a clear statement of its purpose and presents a summary that focuses on the main outcomes from his/her strategy review and Strategy Playbook development. Feedback: | Points: 3.75 (3.75%) Student summarizes a few main points from his/her strategy review and playbook, but does not create an Executive Summary aligned with the expectations for this type of business communication document. Feedback: | Points: 0 (0%) Not submitted or little to no evidence of addressing the criterion. Feedback: |
| Element 2b: Format of Executive Summary - Ending | Points: 5 (5%) The Executive Summary is clear, organized, and concise (less than 4 paragraphs). Student writes in nontechnical language and defines any language that may not be familiar to his/her audience. A logical flow is maintained throughout the Executive Summary, and a brief conclusion at the end of the summary that enables the reader to synthesize the information provided is presented. Feedback: | Points: 4.65 (4.65%) The Executive Summary is organized and concise (less than 4 paragraphs). Student writes in nontechnical language and defines any language that may not be familiar to his/her audience. A logical flow is maintained throughout the Executive Summary, and a brief conclusion at the end of the summary that enables the reader to understand the information provided is presented. Feedback: | Points: 4.25 (4.25%) The Executive Summary is concise (less than 4 paragraphs). Student mostly writes in nontechnical language and defines any language that may not be familiar to his/her audience. A logical flow is maintained throughout the Executive Summary, including a brief conclusion at the end of the summary. Feedback: | Points: 3.75 (3.75%) The Executive Summary includes a brief conclusion at the end of the summary. Work is vague and lacks detail. Feedback: | Points: 0 (0%) Not submitted or little to no evidence of addressing the criterion. Feedback: |
| Element 3: Reference List | Points: 7 (7%) An annotated bibliography of the references that follows APA style guidelines is included. Feedback: | Points: 6.51 (6.51%) An annotated bibliography of the references that follows APA style guidelines is included. Annotated bibliography is comprehensive with one or two minor errors. Feedback: | Points: 5.95 (5.95%) An annotated bibliography of the references that partially follows APA style guidelines is included. Feedback: | Points: 5.25 (5.25%) A few references are provided. Feedback: | Points: 0 (0%) Not submitted or little to no evidence of addressing the criterion. Feedback: |
| Element 4: Strategy Map or other Playbook Summary Diagram | Points: 15 (15%) Student provides a thorough and detailed analysis including an easy to read strategy map or other playbook summary diagram depicting the information most important to the organization in a logical, straightforward graphical manner and strategy map follows a balanced scorecard or cascade logic identifying issues ranging from mission and vision to specific operational items. Feedback: | Points: 13.95 (13.95%) Student provides a thorough and detailed analysis including an easy to read strategy map or other playbook summary diagram depicting the information most important to the organization in a logical, straightforward graphical manner and strategy map follows a balanced scorecard or cascade logic identifying issues ranging from mission and vision to specific operational items. One or two details are missing. Feedback: | Points: 12.75 (12.75%) Student provides a strategy map or other playbook summary diagram. Feedback: | Points: 11.25 (11.25%) Student provides a cursory strategy map or other playbook summary diagram that appears to be a rough draft or is incomplete. Feedback: | Points: 0 (0%) Not submitted or little to no evidence of addressing the criterion. Feedback: |
| Element 5: Appendices | Points: 15 (15%) Student provides an edited, synthesized, integrated compilation of all previous playbook entries from each week's Capstone Forum with the appendix providing transitional language and analysis to create logic and flow across the separate entries so that it appears to be a single narrative. Feedback: | Points: 13.95 (13.95%) Student provides an edited, synthesized, integrated compilation of all previous playbook entries from each week's Capstone Forum with the appendix providing transitional language and analysis to create logic and flow across the separate entries so that it appears to be a single narrative. Response is comprehensive but missing one or two details. Feedback: | Points: 12.75 (12.75%) Student provides a synthesized, integrated compilation of all previous playbook entries from each week's Capstone Forum. Feedback: | Points: 11.25 (11.25%) Student provides cursory, unedited Capstone Forum entries with little or no attempt to synthesize or integrate them into a cohesive set. Feedback: | Points: 0 (0%) Not submitted or little to no evidence of addressing the criterion. Feedback: |
| Element 6: Critical Thinking, Analysis, and Synthesis | Points: 10 (10%) Student exhibits evidence of thoughtful critical analysis and thinking; careful examination is made of assumptions and possible biases, with detailed supporting rationale. Writing synthesizes the classroom experiences and content; analyzes patterns or connections between theory and practice; and draws logical conclusions based on well-reasoned arguments. New questions may be presented based on synthesis of ideas and input. Feedback: | Points: 9.3 (9.3%) Student exhibits evidence of thoughtful critical analysis and thinking; examination is made of assumptions and possible biases, with supporting rationale. Writing synthesizes the classroom experiences and content; analyzes patterns or connections between theory and practice; and draws logical conclusions based on well-reasoned arguments. New questions may be presented based on synthesis of ideas and input. Feedback: | Points: 8.5 (8.5%) Student exhibits some evidence of thoughtful critical analysis and thinking; some examination is made of assumptions and possible biases, with rationale. Writing somewhat synthesizes the classroom experiences and content; analyzes patterns or connections between theory and practice; or draws logical conclusions based on well-reasoned arguments. Feedback: | Points: 7.5 (7.5%) Student exhibits little or no evidence of thoughtful critical analysis and thinking; minimal examination is made of assumptions and possible biases, with rationale. Writing minimally synthesizes the classroom experiences and content; analyzes patterns or connections between theory and practice; or draws logical conclusions based on well-reasoned arguments. Feedback: | Points: 0 (0%) Not submitted or little to no evidence of addressing the criterion. Feedback: |
| Element 7: Written Communications | Points: 5 (5%) Writing is clear, logical, well-organized and appropriate. Work is free from spelling and grammar/syntax errors. Tone is professional and free from bias (i.e., sexism, racism). There are no errors. Feedback: | Points: 4.65 (4.65%) Writing is mostly clear, logical, and organized. Few, if any spelling and grammar/syntax issues are noted. Overall, a few sections need additional editing, but generally, work appears proofread. Tone is professional and free from bias (i.e., sexism, racism). There are one or two minor errors. Feedback: | Points: 4.25 (4.25%) The main points are clear and organized. Some spelling, grammar/syntax issues are noted. Tone is professional and free from bias (i.e., sexism, racism). Feedback: | Points: 3.75 (3.75%) There are key sections that lack organization or logical flow. Many spelling, grammar/syntax issues are noted. Work requires additional proofreading. Feedback: | Points: 0 (0%) Not submitted or little to no evidence of addressing the criterion. Feedback: |
| Element 8: Relevance | Points: 10 (10%) Student provides a thorough and detailed explanation effectively and directly integrating discussion/assignment content with relevant and compelling personal experiences, additional research, or current events from credible news sources, specifically adding new and/or different insights or perspectives on the subject area(s) being discussed or treated in the assignment. Feedback: | Points: 9.3 (9.3%) Student offers personal experiences, additional research, or current events from credible news sources, discussing their relevance, but does not specifically add new or different insights or perspectives on the subject areas(s) being discussed or treated in the assignment. Feedback: | Points: 8.5 (8.5%) Student offers some examples of how the content of the discussion/application applies to real-world scenarios with general discussion of why those examples are relevant. Feedback: | Points: 7.5 (7.5%) Student offers brief or cursory descriptions of personal experiences, additional research, or current events from credible news sources. Feedback: | Points: 0 (0%) Not submitted or little to no evidence of addressing the criterion. Feedback: |
| Element 9: Formal and Appropriate Documentation of Evidence, Attribution of Ideas (APA Citations) | Points: 5 (5%) Student demonstrates full adherence to scholarly or credible reference requirements and adheres to APA style with respect to source attribution and references. There are no APA errors. Feedback: | Points: 4.65 (4.65%) Student demonstrates full adherence to scholarly or credible reference requirements and adheres to APA style with respect to source attribution and references. There are one or two minor errors in APA style or format. Feedback: | Points: 4.25 (4.25%) Student addresses guidelines for scholarly or credible references and/or APA style with respect to source attribution and references. Some errors in APA format and style are evident. Feedback: | Points: 3.75 (3.75%) Student demonstrates inconsistent adherence to scholarly reference requirements and/or inconsistent adherence to APA style with respect to source attribution and references. Significant and/or numerous errors in APA format and style are evident. Feedback: | Points: 0 (0%) Not submitted or little to no evidence of addressing the criterion. Feedback: |
Element 1: Strategy Title and Cover Page--
Levels of Achievement: Exemplary 3 (3%) points Student provides a logical Strategy Title that communicates the project effectively on a cover page to his/her Strategy Playbook. Very Good 2.79 (2.79%) points Student provides a logical Strategy Title that mostly communicates the project effectively on a cover page to his/her Strategy Playbook. Proficient 2.55 (2.55%) points Student provides a logical Strategy Title that somewhat communicates the project effectively on a cover page to his/her Strategy Playbook. Opportunity for Improvement 2.25 (2.25%) points Student provides a Strategy Title that vaguely communicates the project on a cover page to his/her Strategy Playbook. Unacceptable 0 (0%) points Not submitted or little to no evidence of addressing the criterion. Feedback:Element 1a: Executive Summary: Summary of Key Highlights and Most Critical Findings--
Levels of Achievement: Exemplary 5 (5%) points Student provides a thorough and detailed evaluation summarizing the most important findings based on his/her evaluation of the critical issues in the playbook, defends conclusions based on a rationale supported by evidence and experience, and evaluates issues facing the company to develop his/her final set of key highlights and most critical findings using objective criteria, including justifying all assumptions. Very Good 4.65 (4.65%) points Student provides an evaluation summarizing the most important findings based on his/her evaluation of the critical issues in the playbook, defends conclusions based on a rationale supported by evidence and experience, and evaluates issues facing the company to develop his/her final set of key highlights and most critical findings using objective criteria, including justifying all assumptions. One or two details are missing. Proficient 4.25 (4.25%) points Student provides an evaluation of the key highlights and important findings based on the critical issues he/she presented in his/her playbook supported with some rationale as to why he/she has identified the final set of key highlights and critical findings, and builds a compelling argument intended to influence decisions that will be made by the CEO, senior leadership, or business owner. Opportunity for Improvement 3.75 (3.75%) points Student provides a cursory explanation identifying a few of the more important findings, and supports his/her selections with little or no rationale. Unacceptable 0 (0%) points Not submitted or little to no evidence of addressing the criterion. Feedback:Element 1b: Executive Summary: Recommendations to the CEO, Senior Leadership, or Business Owner--
Levels of Achievement: Exemplary 5 (5%) points Student presents a thorough and detailed explanation of well-reasoned, preliminary recommendations to the CEO/business owner that addresses the most critical issues potentially facing the organization’s future, makes specific connections between the recommendations and the issues they address, and states assumptions and limitations of the recommendations. Very Good 4.65 (4.65%) points Student presents a thorough and detailed explanation of well-reasoned, preliminary recommendations to the CEO/business owner that addresses the most critical issues potentially facing the organization’s future, makes specific connections between the recommendations and the issues they address, and states assumptions and limitations of the recommendations. Response is comprehensive but missing one or two details. Proficient 4.25 (4.25%) points Student presents an explanation of preliminary recommendations to the CEO/business owner that addresses the issues facing the organization and makes a compelling case as to why the recommendations will be effective in addressing the most critical issues. Opportunity for Improvement 3.75 (3.75%) points Student presents a description of few preliminary recommendations meant to help the organization and provides vague or missing details on why the recommendations were suggested or to which issues they pertain. Unacceptable 0 (0%) points Not submitted or little to no evidence of addressing the criterion. Feedback:Element 1c: Executive Summary: Recommendations - Priorities and Road Map--
Levels of Achievement: Exemplary 5 (5%) points Student presents an explicit and thorough explanation of his/her prioritized order of recommendations, including a road map that shows what additional analyses and actions would need to be completed, why, and by whom, in order to develop a more full and robust set of actionable recommendations. Very Good 4.65 (4.65%) points Student presents an explicit and thorough explanation of his/her prioritized order of recommendations, including a road map that shows what additional analyses and actions would need to be completed, why, and by whom, in order to develop a more full and robust set of actionable recommendations. Response is comprehensive but missing one or two details. Proficient 4.25 (4.25%) points Student presents an explanation with some details of his/her prioritized order of recommendations, including a road map that shows what additional items would need to be completed to develop a more full and robust set of actionable recommendations. Opportunity for Improvement 3.75 (3.75%) points Student presents a cursory explanation with vague or missing details of his/her prioritized order of recommendations, including a road map that shows a few additional items to develop some actionable recommendations. Unacceptable 0 (0%) points Not submitted or little to no evidence of addressing the criterion. Feedback:Element 1d: - Risks and Mitigation Strategies--
Levels of Achievement: Exemplary 5 (5%) points Student provides a thorough and detailed explanation of the major risks of both taking action on his/her final set of recommendations, what could happen if the organization fails to address the issues it faces or follow the recommendations, ideas for mitigating the identified risks, a convincing case as to why such approaches would be effective, and justifies assumptions. Very Good 4.65 (4.65%) points Student provides an explanation of the major risks of both taking action on his/her final set of recommendations, what could happen if the organization fails to address the issues it faces or follow the recommendations, ideas for mitigating the identified risks, a convincing case as to why such approaches would be effective, and justifies assumptions. One or two details are missing. Proficient 4.25 (4.25%) points Student provides an explanation identifying the risks of both taking action on his/her final set of recommendations as well as what could happen if the organization fails to address the issues it faces or follow the recommendations, and explains ideas for mitigating the identified risks. Opportunity for Improvement 3.75 (3.75%) points Student provides a cursory description of a few risks to the organization. Unacceptable 0 (0%) points Not submitted or little to no evidence of addressing the criterion. Feedback:Element 2a: Format of Executive Summary - Beginning--
Levels of Achievement: Exemplary 5 (5%) points Student begins the Executive Summary with a clear and compelling statement of its purpose and presents a succinct cohesive summary that focuses on the main outcomes of his/her strategy review and Strategy Playbook development. Student makes it clear why he/she chose to highlight the content and topics and provides supporting details and examples. Very Good 4.65 (4.65%) points Student begins the Executive Summary with a clear statement of its purpose and presents a succinct cohesive summary that focuses on the main outcomes of his/her strategy review and Strategy Playbook development. Student addresses why he/she chose to highlight the content and topics and provides some supporting detail. Proficient 4.25 (4.25%) points Student begins the Executive Summary with a clear statement of its purpose and presents a summary that focuses on the main outcomes from his/her strategy review and Strategy Playbook development. Opportunity for Improvement 3.75 (3.75%) points Student summarizes a few main points from his/her strategy review and playbook, but does not create an Executive Summary aligned with the expectations for this type of business communication document. Unacceptable 0 (0%) points Not submitted or little to no evidence of addressing the criterion. Feedback:Element 2b: Format of Executive Summary - Ending--
Levels of Achievement: Exemplary 5 (5%) points The Executive Summary is clear, organized, and concise (less than 4 paragraphs). Student writes in nontechnical language and defines any language that may not be familiar to his/her audience. A logical flow is maintained throughout the Executive Summary, and a brief conclusion at the end of the summary that enables the reader to synthesize the information provided is presented. Very Good 4.65 (4.65%) points The Executive Summary is organized and concise (less than 4 paragraphs). Student writes in nontechnical language and defines any language that may not be familiar to his/her audience. A logical flow is maintained throughout the Executive Summary, and a brief conclusion at the end of the summary that enables the reader to understand the information provided is presented. Proficient 4.25 (4.25%) points The Executive Summary is concise (less than 4 paragraphs). Student mostly writes in nontechnical language and defines any language that may not be familiar to his/her audience. A logical flow is maintained throughout the Executive Summary, including a brief conclusion at the end of the summary. Opportunity for Improvement 3.75 (3.75%) points The Executive Summary includes a brief conclusion at the end of the summary. Work is vague and lacks detail. Unacceptable 0 (0%) points Not submitted or little to no evidence of addressing the criterion. Feedback:Element 3: Reference List--
Levels of Achievement: Exemplary 7 (7%) points An annotated bibliography of the references that follows APA style guidelines is included. Very Good 6.51 (6.51%) points An annotated bibliography of the references that follows APA style guidelines is included. Annotated bibliography is comprehensive with one or two minor errors. Proficient 5.95 (5.95%) points An annotated bibliography of the references that partially follows APA style guidelines is included. Opportunity for Improvement 5.25 (5.25%) points A few references are provided. Unacceptable 0 (0%) points Not submitted or little to no evidence of addressing the criterion. Feedback:Element 4: Strategy Map or other Playbook Summary Diagram--
Levels of Achievement: Exemplary 15 (15%) points Student provides a thorough and detailed analysis including an easy to read strategy map or other playbook summary diagram depicting the information most important to the organization in a logical, straightforward graphical manner and strategy map follows a balanced scorecard or cascade logic identifying issues ranging from mission and vision to specific operational items. Very Good 13.95 (13.95%) points Student provides a thorough and detailed analysis including an easy to read strategy map or other playbook summary diagram depicting the information most important to the organization in a logical, straightforward graphical manner and strategy map follows a balanced scorecard or cascade logic identifying issues ranging from mission and vision to specific operational items. One or two details are missing. Proficient 12.75 (12.75%) points Student provides a strategy map or other playbook summary diagram. Opportunity for Improvement 11.25 (11.25%) points Student provides a cursory strategy map or other playbook summary diagram that appears to be a rough draft or is incomplete. Unacceptable 0 (0%) points Not submitted or little to no evidence of addressing the criterion. Feedback:Element 5: Appendices--
Levels of Achievement: Exemplary 15 (15%) points Student provides an edited, synthesized, integrated compilation of all previous playbook entries from each week's Capstone Forum with the appendix providing transitional language and analysis to create logic and flow across the separate entries so that it appears to be a single narrative. Very Good 13.95 (13.95%) points Student provides an edited, synthesized, integrated compilation of all previous playbook entries from each week's Capstone Forum with the appendix providing transitional language and analysis to create logic and flow across the separate entries so that it appears to be a single narrative. Response is comprehensive but missing one or two details. Proficient 12.75 (12.75%) points Student provides a synthesized, integrated compilation of all previous playbook entries from each week's Capstone Forum. Opportunity for Improvement 11.25 (11.25%) points Student provides cursory, unedited Capstone Forum entries with little or no attempt to synthesize or integrate them into a cohesive set. Unacceptable 0 (0%) points Not submitted or little to no evidence of addressing the criterion. Feedback:Element 6: Critical Thinking, Analysis, and Synthesis--
Levels of Achievement: Exemplary 10 (10%) points Student exhibits evidence of thoughtful critical analysis and thinking; careful examination is made of assumptions and possible biases, with detailed supporting rationale. Writing synthesizes the classroom experiences and content; analyzes patterns or connections between theory and practice; and draws logical conclusions based on well-reasoned arguments. New questions may be presented based on synthesis of ideas and input. Very Good 9.3 (9.3%) points Student exhibits evidence of thoughtful critical analysis and thinking; examination is made of assumptions and possible biases, with supporting rationale. Writing synthesizes the classroom experiences and content; analyzes patterns or connections between theory and practice; and draws logical conclusions based on well-reasoned arguments. New questions may be presented based on synthesis of ideas and input. Proficient 8.5 (8.5%) points Student exhibits some evidence of thoughtful critical analysis and thinking; some examination is made of assumptions and possible biases, with rationale. Writing somewhat synthesizes the classroom experiences and content; analyzes patterns or connections between theory and practice; or draws logical conclusions based on well-reasoned arguments. Opportunity for Improvement 7.5 (7.5%) points Student exhibits little or no evidence of thoughtful critical analysis and thinking; minimal examination is made of assumptions and possible biases, with rationale. Writing minimally synthesizes the classroom experiences and content; analyzes patterns or connections between theory and practice; or draws logical conclusions based on well-reasoned arguments. Unacceptable 0 (0%) points Not submitted or little to no evidence of addressing the criterion. Feedback:Element 7: Written Communications--
Levels of Achievement: Exemplary 5 (5%) points Writing is clear, logical, well-organized and appropriate. Work is free from spelling and grammar/syntax errors. Tone is professional and free from bias (i.e., sexism, racism). There are no errors. Very Good 4.65 (4.65%) points Writing is mostly clear, logical, and organized. Few, if any spelling and grammar/syntax issues are noted. Overall, a few sections need additional editing, but generally, work appears proofread. Tone is professional and free from bias (i.e., sexism, racism). There are one or two minor errors. Proficient 4.25 (4.25%) points The main points are clear and organized. Some spelling, grammar/syntax issues are noted. Tone is professional and free from bias (i.e., sexism, racism). Opportunity for Improvement 3.75 (3.75%) points There are key sections that lack organization or logical flow. Many spelling, grammar/syntax issues are noted. Work requires additional proofreading. Unacceptable 0 (0%) points Not submitted or little to no evidence of addressing the criterion. Feedback:Element 8: Relevance--
Levels of Achievement: Exemplary 10 (10%) points Student provides a thorough and detailed explanation effectively and directly integrating discussion/assignment content with relevant and compelling personal experiences, additional research, or current events from credible news sources, specifically adding new and/or different insights or perspectives on the subject area(s) being discussed or treated in the assignment. Very Good 9.3 (9.3%) points Student offers personal experiences, additional research, or current events from credible news sources, discussing their relevance, but does not specifically add new or different insights or perspectives on the subject areas(s) being discussed or treated in the assignment. Proficient 8.5 (8.5%) points Student offers some examples of how the content of the discussion/application applies to real-world scenarios with general discussion of why those examples are relevant. Opportunity for Improvement 7.5 (7.5%) points Student offers brief or cursory descriptions of personal experiences, additional research, or current events from credible news sources. Unacceptable 0 (0%) points Not submitted or little to no evidence of addressing the criterion. Feedback:Element 9: Formal and Appropriate Documentation of Evidence, Attribution of Ideas (APA Citations)--
Levels of Achievement: Exemplary 5 (5%) points Student demonstrates full adherence to scholarly or credible reference requirements and adheres to APA style with respect to source attribution and references. There are no APA errors. Very Good 4.65 (4.65%) points Student demonstrates full adherence to scholarly or credible reference requirements and adheres to APA style with respect to source attribution and references. There are one or two minor errors in APA style or format. Proficient 4.25 (4.25%) points Student addresses guidelines for scholarly or credible references and/or APA style with respect to source attribution and references. Some errors in APA format and style are evident. Opportunity for Improvement 3.75 (3.75%) points Student demonstrates inconsistent adherence to scholarly reference requirements and/or inconsistent adherence to APA style with respect to source attribution and references. Significant and/or numerous errors in APA format and style are evident. Unacceptable 0 (0%) points Not submitted or little to no evidence of addressing the criterion. Feedback:Name: WMBA_6990_Week8_Assignment_Rubric
