corp. social responsibility

Content

Qualities & Criteria

Exceeds Expectations

Meets Expectations

Below Expectations

Unsatisfactory

Quality of Research

· Incorporates a minimum of three required readings

· Additional information and sources that are up-to-date, authoritative, very reliable, credible, and unbiased

· Sources are well integrated into the analysis, not merely quoted.

· Incorporates a minimum of three required readings

· Additional information and sources that are somewhat up-to-date, reliable, credible, and unbiased.

· Some questionable sources may be used, but these sources are not relied upon exclusively.

· Sources are reasonably well integrated into the analysis, not merely quoted.

· Incorporate less than three required readings

· Uses additional information and sources that are not reliable, credible, are heavily biased and/or out-dated.

· Some questionable sources were used and relied upon.

· Research is sparse and insufficient

· Sources are not integrated into the analysis but are merely quoted.

· Does not incorporate any required readings

· Uses and sources that are not reliable, credible, are heavily biased and/or outdated.

· Uses and relies upon questionable sources.

· Very little evidence of any research

· Any sources used were merely quoted.

Possible points: 20

20-18

18 - 16

16 - 14

Under 14

Team points

Quality of Analysis

· Sound reasoning is supported by credible, accurate, and relevant evidence

· Recognizes the distinction between fact, opinion, and value judgment

· Logical fallacies are not used.

· Analysis and original thought are evident throughout the paper

· Paraphrases and summaries are entirely in student's own words and do not mimic language or syntax of source too closely.

· Academic and copyright laws are not violated.

· Argument is supported adequately by reasons and evidence, but could be stronger

· Adequate recognition of distinction between fact, opinion, and value judgment

· Incidental logical fallacies may be present, but argument is not based on them

· There is some original thought and analysis

· Paraphrases and summaries are mostly in student's own words and do not mimic language or syntax of source too closely

· Academic and copyright laws are not violated.

· Factual evidence barely used; opinion presented as fact

· Does not distinguish between fact, opinion, and value judgment

· Reasons not supported by credible evidence

· Irrelevant evidence is presented; argument is based on logical fallacies

· Paper is merely descriptive and repeats the information in the case rather than presenting an analysis

· Paraphrases and summaries mimic language or syntax of source too closely

· Academic and copyright laws are close to being violated.

· Factual evidence rarely used while opinion is continually presented as fact

· No distinction between fact, opinion, and value judgment

· Reasons not supported by credible evidence

· Argument is totally based on logical fallacies

· Paper is merely descriptive and only repeats the information in the case

· Paraphrases and summaries mimic language or syntax of source too closely.

· Academic and copyright laws are violated.

Possible Points: 30

30 - 27

27 - 24

24 – 21

Under 21

Team points

Quality of Recommendations

· Clear and focused recommendations are provided based on solid theoretical and logical support.

· Ideas are clear, original, and focused.

· Recommendations are reasonably clear and definite and some theoretical and logical support is provided

· Ideas are generally clear, original and relevant, but may lack some clarity or need more information and/or support.

· Recommendations are not clear and are not supported by logic and theory

· The ideas presented are not practical or executable.

· Recommendations are unclear and are illogical

· The ideas presented are impractical and foolish.

Possible Points: 30

30 - 27

27 - 24

24 – 21

Under 21

Team points

Total Content Points (80)

80 - 72

72 - 64

64 – 56

Below 56

Team Content Points

Form – Slides and Notes

Script (10)

· Graduate level writing is reflected throughout the script, including accurate spelling, punctuation, grammar, and sentence structure.

· Citations are properly used (APA format)

· All sources are identified and cited properly in the text and the reference list

· Page limit requirements are met.

· Writing is acceptable,

· Fewer than 5 errors in spelling, punctuation, grammar, and/or sentence structure

· Few errors in the proper use of citations (APA format)

· All sources are identified and cited properly in the text and the reference list.

· Number of pages does not exceed 10% of page limit requirements.

· Writing does not meet graduate standards.

· Unacceptable number of errors in spelling, punctuation, grammar, sentence structure

· Citations and/or reference list are not properly used.(APA format)

· Paper exceeds page limit requirements by more than 10%.

· Writing does not meet graduate standards.

· Unacceptable number of errors in spelling, punctuation, grammar, sentence structure

· Citations and/or reference list are not properly used.(APA format)

· Paper exceeds page limit requirements by more than 10%.

Quality of slides (5)

· Slides were readable, concise, well organized, professional, and highlighted important data and conclusions, and contained NO typos or grammatical errors.

· Information presented included several supporting details and/or examples. Ideas and conclusions were presented clearly.

· Slides contain proper APA format.

· Slides were professional, well organized, and highlighted important data and conclusions.

· Fewer than 2 slides were too busy.

· Fewer than 3 typos or grammatical errors.

· Slides contain proper APA format.

· Slides were not well organized and did not highlight important data and conclusions.

· The presentation appeared to be hastily prepared.

· More than 2 slides were too busy

· Slides contained more than 3 citation identification or format errors.

· Slides were poorly organized and failed to highlight important data and conclusions.

· The presentation appeared to be hastily prepared.

· Several slides were too busy

· Slides contained several citation identification or format errors.

Oral Presentation (5)

No member of the team:

· Made any distracting movements.

· Read their presentation

· Avoided making frequent, appropriate eye contact.

· Avoided making appropriate gestures to reinforce their presentation.

· Could not be heard or spoke in a monotone.

No more than 1 member of the team :

· Made any distracting movements.

· Read their presentation

· Avoided making frequent, appropriate eye contact.

· Avoided making appropriate gestures to reinforce their presentation.

· Could not be heard or spoke in a monotone.

No more than 2 members of the team:

· Made any distracting movements.

· Read their presentation

· Avoided making frequent, appropriate eye contact.

· Avoided making appropriate gestures to reinforce their presentation.

· Could not be heard or spoke in a monotone.

All or a majority of the team :

· Made any distracting movements.

· Read their presentation

· Avoided making frequent, appropriate eye contact.

· Avoided making appropriate gestures to reinforce their presentation.

· Could not be heard or spoke in a monotone.

The team’s transitions between parts were smooth.

The team’s transitions between parts were appropriate.

The team’s transitions between parts were awkward.

The team’s transitions between parts were poor.

Possible Points (20)

20 - 18

17 - 15

15 – 14

Below 14

Team Form Grade

Total Team Grade