Week 7 Dialogue
k.warren5
RubricDetail23SPSPMT403Econ....htmlRubric Detail
A rubric lists grading criteria that instructors use to evaluate student work. Your instructor linked a rubric to this item and made it available to you. Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric's layout.
Content
https%3A%2F%2Fregent.blackboard.com%2Fwebapps%2Frubric%2FWEB-INF%2Fjsp%2Fcourse%2FrubricGradingPopup.jsp%3Fmode%3Dgrid%26isPopup%3Dtrue%26rubricCount%3D1%26prefix%3D_2786874_1%26course_id%3D_188802_1%26maxValue%3D100.0%26rubricId%3D_231134_1%26viewOnly%3Dtrue%26displayGrades%3Dfalse%26type%3Dgrading%26rubricAssoId%3D_344597_1Name: BSB Minor Major & Final Project Grading Rubric
Description: The minor, major and final projects will be graded with this rubric.
| Excellent | Good | Fair | Poor | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Content Knowledge | Points: Points Range: 27 (27.00%) - 30 (30.00%) Demonstrates exceptional knowledge, insight and understanding of the subject matter, including the ability to select and apply the most appropriate, well-researched content to develop an effective approach. Demonstrates content mastery by applying the most suitable theoretical framework, models, and/or techniques. Includes the application of relevant concepts from previous courses, when appropriate. Examples link directly and appropriately to the subject matter. Uses course materials as a springboard for developing original, insightful ideas. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 24 (24.00%) - 26 (26.00%) Demonstrates good knowledge, insight, and understanding of the content, including the ability to select and apply an appropriate, well-researched content to develop an effective approach. Applies a suitable theoretical framework, models, and/or techniques. Draws from and generally applies content from previous courses, when appropriate. Provides some relevant examples. Content is used to generate some original ideas. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 18 (18.00%) - 23 (23.00%) Demonstrates basic knowledge, insight, and understanding of the content; content is not consistently appropriate or well-researched. Application of content is adequate, but limited. Limited use of content from other courses. Limited examples are provided and not consistently appropriate. Minimal number of original ideas. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 0 (0.00%) - 17 (17.00%) Demonstrates limited understanding of assignment issues; content is not appropriate or well-researched. Little or no application of content; with limited and mostly inappropriate use of theoretical frameworks, models, and/or techniques. Connections to concepts from previous courses are absent. Examples are absent and/or not related to the subject matter. No original ideas developed from the content are apparent. Feedback: |
| Communication and Research | Points: Points Range: 18 (18.00%) - 20 (20.00%) There is an exceptionally clear, arguable, well-developed, and definitive position stated. Information is presented in a logical, interesting sequence organized with smooth transitions and appropriate headings. Uses an appropriate level of highest quality research, and theories and concepts are presented accurately and sufficiently. All supportive materials are properly and flawlessly cited, and formatting is consistent with the APA style. Project is exceptionally concise, clear, with consistently proper grammar, spelling, and paragraphing. Clearly addresses the target audience. The project strictly adheres to the guidelines and format required by the assignment. The conclusion unites the important points of the presentation and encourages future discussion. Additional considerations for PowerPoint/visual presentations:See original rubrics Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 16 (16.00%) - 17 (17.00%) There is an arguable, well-developed, and definitive position stated. Information is presented in a logical sequence organized with generally smooth transitions and appropriate headings. Uses an appropriate level of research, and theories and concepts are generally presented accurately and sufficiently. Supportive materials are properly cited with minimal (2-3) errors, and formatting is consistent with the APA style. Project is concise, clear, with proper grammar, spelling, and paragraphing with minimal (2-3) errors. Demonstrates an awareness of the target audience. The project generally adheres to the format required by the assignment. The conclusion unites the important points of the presentation. For PowerPoint/presentations:See original rubrics Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 14 (14.00%) - 15 (15.00%) A position is stated and adequately developed. Presentation of information is not consistently logical and transitions between points are not smooth and inconsistent headings. Uses an adequate level of research, but theories and concepts are not consistently presented accurately and sufficiently. Supportive materials are presented, but with errors (4+), and formatting is not consistent with the APA style. Project contains errors (4-6) in grammar, spelling, and paragraphing. Demonstrates little understanding of the target audience. The project does not fully adhere to the format required by the assignment. The conclusion summarizes the important points. For PowerPoint/presentations:see original rubrics Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 0 (0.00%) - 13 (13.00%) The position is vague and not well-developed. Lacks clear and logical development of ideas with weak transitions between ideas and paragraphs, with no headings to separate and transition ideas. Research is superficial and insufficient to support the topic. Supportive materials lack proper formatting with limited details and many sources missing or incomplete. Numerous (7+) and obvious grammatical, spelling, and stylistic errors undermine reader comprehension. Does not acknowledge or identify the target audience. The project does not adhere to the format required by the assignment The conclusion is vague and incomplete. For PowerPoint/visual presentations:see original rubrics Feedback: |
| Critical Thinking | Points: Points Range: 27 (27.00%) - 30 (30.00%) Demonstrates exceptional work through the consistent use of a clear and logical progression of points and conclusions. Carefully analyzes the information collected and draws appropriate, inventive, warranted, judicious, and non-fallacious conclusions supported by evidence through accurate interpretation of statements, graphics (e.g., charts, tables), etc. Identifies not only the basics issues and implications surrounding the topic, but recognizes subtle nuances. Identifies and questions the validity of key assumptions. Thoughtfully analyzes and evaluates major alternative points of view, addresses contradictory evidence, and constructs persuasive and compelling arguments. Makes clear connections to previous or current content and to real-life situations. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 24 (24.00%) - 26 (26.00%) Demonstrates proficiency through the use of a clear and logical progression of points and conclusions. Analyzes the information collected and draws appropriate, warranted, and non-fallacious conclusions; conclusions are generally supported through interpretation of statements, graphics (e.g., charts, tables), etc. Identifies all the basic issues and implications surrounding the topic. Identifies and questions the validity of assumptions. Offers analysis and evaluations of obvious alternative points of view; fair-mindedly follows where evidence and reasons lead. Makes connections to previous or current content and to real-life situations. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 18 (18.00%) - 23 (23.00%) Inconsistent application of logic in presenting a progression of points and conclusions. Analyzes the Information collected, but conclusions do not consistently and logically derive from that information; Interpretation of statements, etc. is occasionally invalid. Identifies some of the basic issues and implications of the topic. Some underlying assumptions are identified, but not adequately explored. Offers limited analysis and evaluations . . . occasional connections to previous or current content or to real-life. See rubrics for more details. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 0 (0.00%) - 17 (17.00%) Logical reasoning and progression of points are virtually absent. Fails to identify conclusions, implications, and consequences of the issue. Misinterprets evidence, statements, graphics, questions, etc. and draws unsupported and fallacious conclusions; arguments are not persuasive. Identifies few if any of the basic issues and implications surrounding the topic. Does not surface and interact with underlying assumptions. Fails to identify or hastily dismisses strong, relevant counter-arguments. Makes no connections to previous or current content or to real-life situations. Feedback: |
| Business Application | Points: Points Range: 18 (18.00%) - 20 (20.00%) The project proposes feasible, practical, interesting, and actionable recommendations and solutions that consider cost, culture, timeframe, and other critical factors. Clearly identifies and describes action issues associated with specific decision-makers. Presents information, concepts, conclusions, etc., so that others can use the information to improve/transform their lives and the organization they serve. A plan for measuring outcomes for the proposal is detailed, well-thought out, and realistic. Clearly describes the value added to the organization and how goals balance and satisfy different stakeholders’ interests. Selects and applies the appropriate analytical tools (quantitative and qualitative) to address the business issues for the particular discipline (e.g., accounting, economics). Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 16 (16.00%) - 17 (17.00%) The project proposes feasible, practical, and actionable recommendations and solutions that consider most critical factors, such as cost, culture, and timeframe. Action items for specific decision-makers are identified. Presents information, concepts, conclusions, etc., so that others can use the information to improve/ transform their lives and the organization they serve. A plan for measuring outcomes is presented. Attention is given to the value added to the organization and the impact on key stakeholders. Selects and applies the appropriate analytical tools (quantitative and qualitative) to address the business issues for the particular discipline (e.g., accounting, economics). Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 14 (14.00%) - 15 (15.00%) Proposes recommendations that are not consistently feasible, practical, and actionable; limited consideration of critical business factors. Action items are presented, but are not linked to specific decision-makers. Information, concepts, conclusions, etc. as presented have a limited, transformative impact on individuals or the organization. General consideration for measuring outcomes is apparent, but no specific plan or approach is presented. The value added to the organization and the impact on stakeholders is mentioned, but not adequately explained and developed. Utilizes some, but does not consistently select/apply the appropriate analytical tools (quantitative and qualitative) to address the business issues for the particular discipline. Feedback: | Points: Points Range: 0 (0.00%) - 13 (13.00%) Recommendations are impractical, uninspiring, and not feasible. Solutions do not take into account environmental or organizational factors. 0 Specific action items are not delineated for particular decision-makers. Information, concepts, conclusions, etc. are not presented in ways that will transform and serve organizations and people. Little or no consideration is given to measuring or quantifying outcomes or assessing the value added to the organization. The impact on various stakeholders is not discussed. Does not effectively select and apply the appropriate analytical tools of the appropriate discipline (e.g., accounting, economics). Feedback: |
Content Knowledge--
Levels of Achievement: Excellent 27 (27.00%) - 30 (30.00%) Demonstrates exceptional knowledge, insight and understanding of the subject matter, including the ability to select and apply the most appropriate, well-researched content to develop an effective approach. Demonstrates content mastery by applying the most suitable theoretical framework, models, and/or techniques. Includes the application of relevant concepts from previous courses, when appropriate. Examples link directly and appropriately to the subject matter. Uses course materials as a springboard for developing original, insightful ideas. Good 24 (24.00%) - 26 (26.00%) Demonstrates good knowledge, insight, and understanding of the content, including the ability to select and apply an appropriate, well-researched content to develop an effective approach. Applies a suitable theoretical framework, models, and/or techniques. Draws from and generally applies content from previous courses, when appropriate. Provides some relevant examples. Content is used to generate some original ideas. Fair 18 (18.00%) - 23 (23.00%) Demonstrates basic knowledge, insight, and understanding of the content; content is not consistently appropriate or well-researched. Application of content is adequate, but limited. Limited use of content from other courses. Limited examples are provided and not consistently appropriate. Minimal number of original ideas. Poor 0 (0.00%) - 17 (17.00%) Demonstrates limited understanding of assignment issues; content is not appropriate or well-researched. Little or no application of content; with limited and mostly inappropriate use of theoretical frameworks, models, and/or techniques. Connections to concepts from previous courses are absent. Examples are absent and/or not related to the subject matter. No original ideas developed from the content are apparent. Feedback:Communication and Research--
Levels of Achievement: Excellent 18 (18.00%) - 20 (20.00%) There is an exceptionally clear, arguable, well-developed, and definitive position stated. Information is presented in a logical, interesting sequence organized with smooth transitions and appropriate headings. Uses an appropriate level of highest quality research, and theories and concepts are presented accurately and sufficiently. All supportive materials are properly and flawlessly cited, and formatting is consistent with the APA style. Project is exceptionally concise, clear, with consistently proper grammar, spelling, and paragraphing. Clearly addresses the target audience. The project strictly adheres to the guidelines and format required by the assignment. The conclusion unites the important points of the presentation and encourages future discussion. Additional considerations for PowerPoint/visual presentations:See original rubrics Good 16 (16.00%) - 17 (17.00%) There is an arguable, well-developed, and definitive position stated. Information is presented in a logical sequence organized with generally smooth transitions and appropriate headings. Uses an appropriate level of research, and theories and concepts are generally presented accurately and sufficiently. Supportive materials are properly cited with minimal (2-3) errors, and formatting is consistent with the APA style. Project is concise, clear, with proper grammar, spelling, and paragraphing with minimal (2-3) errors. Demonstrates an awareness of the target audience. The project generally adheres to the format required by the assignment. The conclusion unites the important points of the presentation. For PowerPoint/presentations:See original rubrics Fair 14 (14.00%) - 15 (15.00%) A position is stated and adequately developed. Presentation of information is not consistently logical and transitions between points are not smooth and inconsistent headings. Uses an adequate level of research, but theories and concepts are not consistently presented accurately and sufficiently. Supportive materials are presented, but with errors (4+), and formatting is not consistent with the APA style. Project contains errors (4-6) in grammar, spelling, and paragraphing. Demonstrates little understanding of the target audience. The project does not fully adhere to the format required by the assignment. The conclusion summarizes the important points. For PowerPoint/presentations:see original rubrics Poor 0 (0.00%) - 13 (13.00%) The position is vague and not well-developed. Lacks clear and logical development of ideas with weak transitions between ideas and paragraphs, with no headings to separate and transition ideas. Research is superficial and insufficient to support the topic. Supportive materials lack proper formatting with limited details and many sources missing or incomplete. Numerous (7+) and obvious grammatical, spelling, and stylistic errors undermine reader comprehension. Does not acknowledge or identify the target audience. The project does not adhere to the format required by the assignment The conclusion is vague and incomplete. For PowerPoint/visual presentations:see original rubrics Feedback:Critical Thinking--
Levels of Achievement: Excellent 27 (27.00%) - 30 (30.00%) Demonstrates exceptional work through the consistent use of a clear and logical progression of points and conclusions. Carefully analyzes the information collected and draws appropriate, inventive, warranted, judicious, and non-fallacious conclusions supported by evidence through accurate interpretation of statements, graphics (e.g., charts, tables), etc. Identifies not only the basics issues and implications surrounding the topic, but recognizes subtle nuances. Identifies and questions the validity of key assumptions. Thoughtfully analyzes and evaluates major alternative points of view, addresses contradictory evidence, and constructs persuasive and compelling arguments. Makes clear connections to previous or current content and to real-life situations. Good 24 (24.00%) - 26 (26.00%) Demonstrates proficiency through the use of a clear and logical progression of points and conclusions. Analyzes the information collected and draws appropriate, warranted, and non-fallacious conclusions; conclusions are generally supported through interpretation of statements, graphics (e.g., charts, tables), etc. Identifies all the basic issues and implications surrounding the topic. Identifies and questions the validity of assumptions. Offers analysis and evaluations of obvious alternative points of view; fair-mindedly follows where evidence and reasons lead. Makes connections to previous or current content and to real-life situations. Fair 18 (18.00%) - 23 (23.00%) Inconsistent application of logic in presenting a progression of points and conclusions. Analyzes the Information collected, but conclusions do not consistently and logically derive from that information; Interpretation of statements, etc. is occasionally invalid. Identifies some of the basic issues and implications of the topic. Some underlying assumptions are identified, but not adequately explored. Offers limited analysis and evaluations . . . occasional connections to previous or current content or to real-life. See rubrics for more details. Poor 0 (0.00%) - 17 (17.00%) Logical reasoning and progression of points are virtually absent. Fails to identify conclusions, implications, and consequences of the issue. Misinterprets evidence, statements, graphics, questions, etc. and draws unsupported and fallacious conclusions; arguments are not persuasive. Identifies few if any of the basic issues and implications surrounding the topic. Does not surface and interact with underlying assumptions. Fails to identify or hastily dismisses strong, relevant counter-arguments. Makes no connections to previous or current content or to real-life situations. Feedback:Business Application--
Levels of Achievement: Excellent 18 (18.00%) - 20 (20.00%) The project proposes feasible, practical, interesting, and actionable recommendations and solutions that consider cost, culture, timeframe, and other critical factors. Clearly identifies and describes action issues associated with specific decision-makers. Presents information, concepts, conclusions, etc., so that others can use the information to improve/transform their lives and the organization they serve. A plan for measuring outcomes for the proposal is detailed, well-thought out, and realistic. Clearly describes the value added to the organization and how goals balance and satisfy different stakeholders’ interests. Selects and applies the appropriate analytical tools (quantitative and qualitative) to address the business issues for the particular discipline (e.g., accounting, economics). Good 16 (16.00%) - 17 (17.00%) The project proposes feasible, practical, and actionable recommendations and solutions that consider most critical factors, such as cost, culture, and timeframe. Action items for specific decision-makers are identified. Presents information, concepts, conclusions, etc., so that others can use the information to improve/ transform their lives and the organization they serve. A plan for measuring outcomes is presented. Attention is given to the value added to the organization and the impact on key stakeholders. Selects and applies the appropriate analytical tools (quantitative and qualitative) to address the business issues for the particular discipline (e.g., accounting, economics). Fair 14 (14.00%) - 15 (15.00%) Proposes recommendations that are not consistently feasible, practical, and actionable; limited consideration of critical business factors. Action items are presented, but are not linked to specific decision-makers. Information, concepts, conclusions, etc. as presented have a limited, transformative impact on individuals or the organization. General consideration for measuring outcomes is apparent, but no specific plan or approach is presented. The value added to the organization and the impact on stakeholders is mentioned, but not adequately explained and developed. Utilizes some, but does not consistently select/apply the appropriate analytical tools (quantitative and qualitative) to address the business issues for the particular discipline. Poor 0 (0.00%) - 13 (13.00%) Recommendations are impractical, uninspiring, and not feasible. Solutions do not take into account environmental or organizational factors. 0 Specific action items are not delineated for particular decision-makers. Information, concepts, conclusions, etc. are not presented in ways that will transform and serve organizations and people. Little or no consideration is given to measuring or quantifying outcomes or assessing the value added to the organization. The impact on various stakeholders is not discussed. Does not effectively select and apply the appropriate analytical tools of the appropriate discipline (e.g., accounting, economics). Feedback:Name:BSB Minor Major & Final Project Grading Rubric
Description:The minor, major and final projects will be graded with this rubric.
