|
|
4 |
3 |
2 |
1 or 0 |
|
|
Recognition of Changes over Time
|
Paper demonstrates a sophisticated acknowledgement and understanding of the changes in the view of complex organizations over time. | Paper acknowledges and clearly conveys key changes in the view of complex organizations over time. | Paper discusses changes in the view of complex organizations over time in a cursory or superficial manner. | Paper fails to acknowledge or demonstrate comprehension of changes in the view of complex organizations over time. | |
|
Use of Outside Resources |
Student uses three or more scholarly resources, all of which provide excellent support for the paper and are properly documented. | Student uses at least three scholarly resources, all of which are relevant to the paper and are properly documented. | Student uses at least two scholarly resources, both of which are relevant to the paper. Documentation is complete but may contain some errors. | Student uses fewer than two or no relevant scholarly resources; documentation is inappropriate or missing. | |
|
Evaluation of Theories |
Student shows evident mastery of the theories discussed in the course. | Student demonstrates a clear understanding of the theories discussed in the course. | Student demonstrates an adequate understanding of the theories discussed in the course. | Student demonstrates vague or minimal understanding of the theories discussed in the course. | |
|
Length, Coherence, and Unity |
Paper is of the proper length and is extremely clear, coherent, and unified. | Paper is of adequate length, is easily understood, and maintains coherence and unity, with only occasional lapses. | Paper is slightly too long or too short; the thrust of the paper can be understood but overall the paper lacks coherence and unity. | Paper does not meet length requirements and/or is incoherent or lacks unity. | |
| Use of Examples and Support for Most Valuable | Paper provides two or more excellent and appropriate organizational behavior examples, and these examples make a persuasive case for the theory chosen. | Paper provides two appropriate organizational behavior examples, and these examples make a well-reasoned case for the theory chosen. | Paper provides two organizational behavior examples but does not analyze these examples in a convincing way. | Paper fails to provide two appropriate organizational behavior examples or discusses them in a way that fails to support the theory choice. | |
|
Reflective Commentary |
Student very effectively analyzes possible changes in organizations going forward; commentary is insightful and sophisticated. | Student makes a well-supported analysis of future changes in organizations; commentary is effective. | Student makes and attempt to reflect on future organizational change, but the analysis is somewhat incomplete or superficial. | Student does not make at attempt to reflect on changes in future organizations or the attempt displays gross misunderstandings of course material. | |
|
Written communication |
There are few spelling or grammatical errors, none of which seriously detract from the paper. | There are some spelling or grammatical errors, few of which detract from the paper. | Student makes a number of spelling or grammatical errors, several of which seriously detract from the paper. | Student makes many spelling or grammatical errors, which seriously detract from the paper. | |
|
Total |
|||||
Note: Criteria are evaluated on a 4-3-2-1-0 basis. Total rubric points are converted first to a letter grade and then to a numerical equivalent based on a 0–100 scale: 26–28 = A (93–100); 25 = A– (90–92); 24 = B+ (88–89); 20–23 = B (83–87); 19 = B– (80–82); 18 = C+ (78–79); 13–17 = C (73–77); 12 = C– (70–72); 6–11 = D (60–69); 0–5 = F (below 60).