| |
1
Unsatisfactory
0.00%
|
2
Less than Satisfactory
74.00%
|
3
Satisfactory
79.00%
|
4
Good
87.00%
|
5
Excellent
100.00%
|
|
100.0 %Content
|
|
|
55.0 %Executive Summary
|
An executive summary that describes the best way to address the selected aspect of the strategic management process is not included.
|
An executive summary that describes the best way to address the selected aspect of the strategic management process is included but lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim. Partially relevant data is used to support findings.
|
An executive summary that describes the best way to address the selected aspect of the strategic management process is included. The summary is apparent and appropriate to purpose. Mostly relevant data is used to support findings.
|
An executive summary that describes the best way to address the selected aspect of the strategic management process is included. The summary is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose. Relevant data is used to support findings.
|
An executive summary that describes the best way to address the selected aspect of the strategic management process is included. The summary purpose is clear and serves as the foundation for a plan to achieve the purpose. Relevant data is used to support findings and illustrates a deep understanding of the subject.
|
|
30.0 %Argument Logic and Construction
|
Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources.
|
Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility.
|
Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis.
|
Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative.
|
Clear and convincing argument that presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.
|
|
10.0 %Language Use and Audience Awareness (includes sentence construction, word choice, etc.)
|
Inappropriate word choice and lack of variety in language use are evident. Writer appears to be unaware of audience. Use of ?primer prose? indicates writer either does not apply figures of speech or uses them inappropriately.
|
Some distracting inconsistencies in language choice (register) and/or word choice are present. The writer exhibits some lack of control in using figures of speech appropriately.
|
Language is appropriate to the targeted audience for the most part.
|
The writer is clearly aware of audience, uses a variety of appropriate vocabulary for the targeted audience, and uses figures of speech to communicate clearly.
|
The writer uses a variety of sentence constructions, figures of speech, and word choice in distinctive and creative ways that are appropriate to purpose, discipline, and scope.
|
|
5.0 %Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)
|
Slide errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning.
|
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader.
|
Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but are not overly distracting to the reader.
|
Slides are largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present.
|
Writer is clearly in control of standard, written academic English.
|
|
100 %Total Weightage
|
|
