Week 2 Discussion

MKT3010 Week 3 Project Rubric Course: MKT3010-Marketing Management SU01

Criteria No Submission 0 points

Emerging (F through D range) (1–6) 6 points

Satisfactory (C range) (7) 7 points

Proficient (B range) (8) 8 points

Exemplary (A range) (9–10) 10 points

Criterion Score

Summarized key

details about the

selected scenario

including details

about the firm

and/or product

line.

/ 10Did not identify scenario or details

about firm or

product line.

Unsupported with

research.

Identified scenario,

firm, and product

line.

Lacked credible

research support.

Outlined scenario,

firm, and product

line.

Weakly supported

with research.

Summarized

scenario, firm, and

product line.

Sufficiently

supported with

research

Summary of key

details about

scenario, firm, and

product line was

compelling, with

well-developed

logical progression.

Well supported by

research.

Criteria No Submission 0 points

Emerging (F through D range) (1–20) 20 points

Satisfactory (C range) (21–23) 23 points

Proficient (B range) (24–26) 26 points

Exemplary (A range) (27–30) 30 points

Criterion Score

Assessed which of

Michael Porter’s

basic strategies

will be used to

market this

product and why.

/ 30Did not identify stages in the

consumer decision

making process.

Unsupported with

research.

Identified strategies.

Lacked credible

research support.

Described strategies.

Weakly supported

with research.

Assessed strategies.

Sufficiently

supported with

research

Assessment of

strategies was

compelling, with

well-developed

logical progression.

Well supported by

research.

Criteria No Submission 0 points

Emerging (F through D range) (1–27) 27 points

Satisfactory (C range) (28–31) 31 points

Proficient (B range) (32–35) 35 points

Exemplary (A range) (36–40) 40 points

Criterion Score

Defended

selection of target

markets.

/ 40Did not identify improvements to the

product line or

estimated cost.

Unsupported with

research.

Identified target

markets.

Lacked credible

research support.

Described target

markets.

Weakly supported

with research.

Defended target

markets.

Sufficiently

supported with

research

Defense of target

markets was

compelling and

showed well-

developed logical

progression.

Well supported by

research.

Criteria No Submission 0 points

Emerging (F through D range) (1–27) 27 points

Satisfactory (C range) (28–31) 31 points

Proficient (B range) (32–35) 35 points

Exemplary (A range) (36–40) 40 points

Criterion Score

Justified the

stages in the

consumer

decision making

process for

selected product.

/ 40Submission contained no

discernible overall

intent in author’s

selection of

ideas.

Identified stages in

the consumer

decision making

process.

Lacked credible

research support.

Outlined stages in

the consumer

decision making

process.

Weakly supported

with research.

Justified stages in

the consumer

decision making

process for selected

product.

Sufficiently

supported with

research.

Justification of

stages in the

consumer decision

making process for

selected product was

compelling and

actionable, with

well-developed

logical progression.

Well supported by

research.

Criteria No Submission 0 points

Emerging (F through D range) (1–27) 27 points

Satisfactory (C range) (28–31) 31 points

Proficient (B range) (32–35) 35 points

Exemplary (A range) (36–40) 40 points

Criterion ScoreCriteria No Submission 0 points

Emerging (F through D range) (1–27) 27 points

Satisfactory (C range) (28–31) 31 points

Proficient (B range) (32–35) 35 points

Exemplary (A range) (36–40) 40 points

Criterion Score

Justified where

improvements

should be made to

the product line

and estimated

cost.

/ 40Errors in basic writing conventions

were sufficiently

numerous to prevent

reader

comprehension.

Identified

improvements to the

product line and

estimated cost.

Lacked credible

research support.

Described

improvements to the

product line and

estimated cost.

Weakly supported

with research.

Justified

improvements to the

product line and

estimated cost.

Sufficiently

supported with

research

Justification of

improvements to the

product line and

estimated costs were

compelling and

actionable, with

well-developed

logical progression.

Well supported by

research.

Criteria No Submission 0 points

Emerging (F through D range) (1–6) 6 points

Satisfactory (C range) (7) 7 points

Proficient (B range) (8) 8 points

Exemplary (A range) (9–10) 10 points

Criterion Score

Communication:

Use of tone, word

choice, audience,

transitions, and

progression of

ideas

/ 10Did not identify strategies.

Unsupported with

research.

Submission

contained random

presentation of

ideas, which

prevents

understanding the

majority of author’s

overall intent.

Ideas were

presented in a way

that forced the

reader to make

repeated inferences

in order to identify

and follow the

author’s overall

intent.

The reader could

follow the author’s

overall intent as

stated.

The writer’s overall

argument and

language were clear

and tightly focused,

leaving the reader

with no room for

confusion about

author’s intent.

Criteria No Submission 0 points

Emerging (F through D range) (1–6) 6 points

Satisfactory (C range) (7) 7 points

Proficient (B range) (8) 8 points

Exemplary (A range) (9–10) 10 points

Criterion Score

Criteria No Submission 0 points

Emerging (F through D range) (1–6) 6 points

Satisfactory (C range) (7) 7 points

Proficient (B range) (8) 8 points

Exemplary (A range) (9–10) 10 points

Criterion Score

Mechanics: Use of

grammar,

sentence

structure, and

spelling.

/ 10Did not identify target markets.

Unsupported with

research.

Errors in basic

writing conventions

were sufficiently

numerous to prevent

reader

comprehension of

majority of the work.

Errors in basic

writing conventions

interfered with, but

did not prevent,

reader

comprehension.

The reader noticed a

few errors in basic

writing conventions

but these few errors

did not interfere with

reader

comprehension.

Text was basically

error free, so that a

reader had to

purposely search to

find any errors that

may be present.

Criteria No Submission 0 points

Emerging (F through D range) (1–13) 13 points

Satisfactory (C range) (14–15) 15 points

Proficient (B range) (16–17) 17 points

Exemplary (A range) (18–20) 20 points

Criterion Score

Academic/APA

Formatting: Use

of citations,

references, and

structural

formatting

including such

elements as title

page, running

head, page

numbers,

introduction,

headings (as

appropriate), and

conclusion.

/ 20No attempt at Academic/APA

formatting in

presentation.

Academic/APA

format attempted,

but errors were

significant.

Academic/APA

format attempted

but errors were

distracting.

Used Academic/APA

format, accurately.

Errors were

noticeable but minor.

Used Academic/APA

format proficiently.

Text was basically

error free.

Total / 200

Overall Score

No Submission 0 points minimum

Emerging (F through D range) 1 point minimum

Satisfactory (C range) 140 points minimum

Proficient (B range) 160 points minimum

Exemplary (A range) 180 points minimum