BUS4101 WK4 Project
Sandy4tx
Week4ProjectRubric.pdf
BUS4101 Week 4 Project Rubric Course: BUS4101-Quality Management SU01
Criteria No Submission 0 points
Emerging (F through D Range) (6-7) 7 points
Satisfactory (C Range) (7-8) 8 points
Proficient (B Range) (8-9) 9 points
Exemplary (A Range) (9-10) 10 points
Criterion Score
Appropriately
assessed
categories of
sources of
quality issues.
/ 10Did not identify
categories.
Unsupported
with research.
Identified
categories.
Lacked credible
research support.
Described
categories.
Weakly
supported with
research.
Appropriately
assessed
categories of
sources of
quality issues.
Sufficiently
supported with
research.
Offered a
complete and
insightful
assessment of
categories into
which quality
issues could fall.
Well supported
by research.
Criteria No Submission 0 points
Emerging (F through D Range) (6-7) 6 points
Satisfactory (C Range) (7-8) 7 points
Proficient (B Range) (8-9) 8 points
Exemplary (A Range) (9-10) 10 points
Criterion Score
Criteria No Submission 0 points
Emerging (F through D Range) (6-7) 6 points
Satisfactory (C Range) (7-8) 7 points
Proficient (B Range) (8-9) 8 points
Exemplary (A Range) (9-10) 10 points
Criterion Score
Properly
categorized
sources of
quality issues
into the
selected
categories.
/ 10Did not identify
quality issues.
Unsupported
with research.
Identified quality
issues.
Lacked credible
research support.
Described
quality issues.
Weakly
supported with
research.
Property
categorized
sources of
quality issues
into the selected
categories.
Sufficiently
supported with
research.
Provided a
thorough
categorization of
quality issues.
Well supported
by research.
Criteria No Submission 0 points
Emerging (F through D Range) (6-7) 7 points
Satisfactory (C Range) (7-8) 8 points
Proficient (B Range) (8-9) 9 points
Exemplary (A Range) (9-10) 10 points
Criterion Score
Criteria No Submission 0 points
Emerging (F through D Range) (6-7) 7 points
Satisfactory (C Range) (7-8) 8 points
Proficient (B Range) (8-9) 9 points
Exemplary (A Range) (9-10) 10 points
Criterion Score
Explained why
the quality
issues
identified led
to the
vegetable
damage issues
that were
identified.
/ 10Did not identify
quality or
vegetable
damage issues.
Unsupported
with research.
Identified quality
or vegetable
damage issues.
Lacked credible
research support.
Described
quality and
vegetable
damage issues.
Weakly
supported with
research.
Explained why
the quality issues
identified led to
the vegetable
damage issues
that were
identified.
Sufficiently
supported with
research.
Offered a
compelling
explanation as to
why the issues
identified lead to
the vegetable
damage issues
under
investigation.
Well supported
by research.
Criteria No Submission 0 points
Emerging (F through D Range) (6-7) 7 points
Satisfactory (C Range) (7-8) 8 points
Proficient (B Range) (8-9) 9 points
Exemplary (A Range) (9-10) 10 points
Criterion Score
Criteria No Submission 0 points
Emerging (F through D Range) (6-7) 7 points
Satisfactory (C Range) (7-8) 8 points
Proficient (B Range) (8-9) 9 points
Exemplary (A Range) (9-10) 10 points
Criterion Score
Recommended
some potential
changes that
could reduce
or eliminate
the quality
problems.
/ 10Did not identify
changes.
Unsupported
with research.
Identified
changes.
Lacked credible
research support.
Described
changes.
Weakly
supported with
research.
Recommended
some potential
changes that
could reduce or
eliminate the
quality problems.
Sufficiently
supported with
research.
Provided a
clearly reasoned
recommendation
for some of the
potential
changes that
could reduce or
eliminate the
quality problems.
Well supported
by research.
Criteria No Submission 0 points
Emerging (F through D Range) (6-7) 7 points
Satisfactory (C Range) (7-8) 8 points
Proficient (B Range) (8-9) 9 points
Exemplary (A Range) (9-10) 10 points
Criterion Score
Criteria No Submission 0 points
Emerging (F through D Range) (6-7) 7 points
Satisfactory (C Range) (7-8) 8 points
Proficient (B Range) (8-9) 9 points
Exemplary (A Range) (9-10) 10 points
Criterion Score
Wrote in a
clear, concise,
and organized
manner;
demonstrated
ethical
scholarship in
accurate
representation
and attribution
of sources (i.e.,
APA); and
displayed
accurate
spelling,
grammar, and
punctuation.
/ 10Submission
contains no
discernible
overall intent in
author’s
selection of
ideas.
Errors in basic
writing
conventions are
sufficiently
numerous to
prevent reader
comprehension.
No attempt at
Academic/APA
formatting in
presentation
Submission
contains random
presentation of
ideas, which
prevents
understanding
the majority of
author’s overall
intent.
Errors in basic
writing
conventions are
sufficiently
numerous to
prevent reader
comprehension
of majority of the
work.
Academic/APA
format is
attempted, but
errors are
significant.
Ideas are
presented in a
way that forces
the reader to
make repeated
inferences in
order to identify
and follow the
author’s overall
intent.
Errors in basic
writing
conventions
interfere with,
but do not
prevent, reader
comprehension.
Academic/APA
format is
attempted but
errors are
distracting.
The reader can
follow the
author’s overall
intent as stated.
The reader
noticed a few
errors in basic
writing
conventions but
these few errors
do not interfere
with reader
comprehension.
Using
Academic/APA
format,
accurately. Errors
are noticeable
but minor.
The writer’s
overall argument
and language are
clear and tightly
focused, leaving
the reader with
no room for
confusion about
author’s intent.
Text is basically
error free, so
that a reader
would have to
purposely search
to find any errors
that may be
present.
Using
Academic/APA
format
proficiently. Text
is basically error
free.
Total / 50
Overall Score
No Submission 0 points minimum
Emerging (F through D Range) 35 points minimum
Satisfactory (C Range) 40 points minimum
Proficient (B Range) 45 points minimum
Exemplary (A Range) 50 points minimum
