|
Criteria for Evaluating Written Assignments
|
Meets Expectations
|
Partially Meets Expectations
|
Fails to Meet Expectations
|
Points Earned
|
|
Intellectual Understanding
(20 Points)
|
Addresses all aspects of assignment in sufficient depth
|
Addresses most aspects of assignment in sufficient depth |
Does not address most aspects of assignment and/or fails to do so in sufficient depth |
|
|
Creativity
(20 Points)
|
Analyzes and discusses many negotiation concepts by extending and elaborating with realistic examples
|
Discusses with some analysis several negotiation concepts by extending and elaborating with realistic examples |
Does not discuss negotiation concepts or apply them to realistic examples |
|
|
Insight
(20 Points)
|
Exhibits a substantive and perceptive ability in analyzing and discussion negotiation topic that is the focus of the paper
|
Discusses assignment topic with some substance and evidence of perceptive ability |
Does not exhibit perceptive ability in discussing the assignment topic |
|
|
Validity
(20 Points)
|
The majority of opinions and analyses are rigorously supported by appropriate research.
|
Some opinions are supported by appropriate research but much is not supported |
The majority of opinions and analysis is not supported by appropriate research |
|
|
Intellectual Honesty
(20 Points)
|
All references are acknowledged and properly cited in APA format
|
Some references are acknowledged and properly cited in APA format |
References are not properly acknowledged and cited and/or do not conform to APA format |
|
|
Organization and Style
(30 Points)
|
Introduction – Central theme/purpose is clearly identifiable and well developed; introductory comments provide sufficient background on the topic and preview major points |
Introduction – Either the central theme/purpose is clearly identifiable and well developed; or the introductory comments provide sufficient background on the topic and preview major points, but not both |
Introduction – Central theme/purpose is not clearly identifiable nor well developed; introductory comments do not provide sufficient background on the topic nor preview major points |
|
| |
Conclusion and recommendations follow logically from the body of the paper and bring closure to the paper |
Conclusion and recommendations follow logically from the body of the paper but rather than bringing closure to the paper, it merely summarizes what has been previously stated |
Conclusion and recommendations do not follow logically from the body of the paper nor do they bring closure to the paper |
|
| |
Subsequent sections develop/support the central theme of the paper |
The majority of the subsequent sections develop/support the central theme of the paper |
Subsequent sections do not develop/support the central theme of the paper |
|
| |
Structure is clear, logical, and easy to follow; smooth transition between paragraphs which help maintain the flow of thought |
Usually the structure is clear, logical, and easy to follow, with smooth transitions between paragraphs to help maintain the flow of thought |
Sometimes the structure is clear, logical, and easy to follow; seldom includes smooth transitions between paragraphs to help maintain the flow of thought |
|
| |
Meets minimum assigned length |
|
Does not meet minimum assigned length |
|
| |
No major errors in spelling, punctuation, and grammar |
Few errors in spelling, punctuation, and grammar |
Numerous errors in spelling, punctuation, and grammar |
|
| |
Paper is laid out effectively – uses headings and other reader-friendly tools |
Paper is laid out effectively, but could make better use of headings and other reader-friendly tools |
Paper is not laid out effectively; fails to use headings and other reader–friendly tools |
|
| |
Paper is professional in appearance and demonstrates attention to detail; tone of voice is appropriate to the audience, content, and assignment
|
Paper is professional in appearance and demonstrates attention to detail; but tone of voice is inappropriate to the audience, content, and assignment |
Paper is not professional in appearance and demonstrates a lack of attention to detail; tone of voice is inappropriate to the audience, content, and assignment |
|