Rubric for Final Paper



Criterion

4

A-level qualities
(90–100)

3

B-level qualities
(80–89)

2

C-level qualities
(70–79)

1

F-level qualities
(below 70)



Score
Purpose Introduces and presents paper effectively and clearly; purpose is readily apparent to the reader Introduces and presents paper adequately; purpose is clear throughout the paper Introduces and presents paper somewhat effectively; writing has a clear purpose but may sometimes digress from it Introduces and presents paper poorly; purpose is generally unclear  
Development and content Develops paper in a sophisticated manner, providing a robust and accurate analysis of sustainability concepts and of their applicability to the orgnaization involved Develops paper as assigned, providing an accurate and effective analysis of sustainability concepts and of their applicability to the orgnaization involved Does not fully develop paper as assigned, may fail to provide an accurate picture or an effective analysis of the organization or leader; analysis is basic or general Paper is undeveloped and completely misunderstands the need to provide analysis of sustainability concepts and their applicability to the orgnaization involved; paper does not relate to the assignment  
Makes sophisticated and persuasive suggestions for the change initiative and indicates how they would have a positive effect; describes a viable strategy; addresses stakeholder engagement thoroughly Makes logical and practical suggestions for the change initiative indicates how they would have a positive effect; describes a reasonable strategy; addresses stakeholder engagement Suggestions for change are somewhat vague and not very persuasive; there may be no indication of the positive effect they will have; strategy is either unclear or not viable; leaves out a dicussion of stakeholder engagement or addresses it poorly Makes little or no attempt to sugget a viable sustainability intiative; no strategy is evident  
Refers to both the Senge and Wirtenberg texts frequently and in highly appropriate ways; provides a critical assessment of both texts and makes reasonable and insightful comments Refers to both the Senge and Wirtenberg texts \in appropriate ways and makes effective use of their concepts Refers to both the Senge and Wirtenberg texts but does so in a vague or confusing manner or neglects to refer to one of the texts at all; applies one or both texts in ways that are inappropriate or impractical Does not refer to the Senge and Wirtenberg texts at all or makes statements that indicate little understanding of these text concepts; applications are unreasonable  
Documentation and support Ideas are supported effectively and sources are clearly attributed Ideas are generally supported and paper includes clear attribution Attribution may be present, but sources are questionable or style is incorrect; some statements are unsubstantiated and the source of some ideas is unclear Attribution is missing, or sources given are poorly chosen, or sources have not been used  
Organization Arranges ideas clearly and logically to support the purpose or argument; ideas flow smoothly and are effectively linked; reader can follow the line of reasoning Arranges ideas adequately to support the purpose or argument; links between ideas are generally clear; reader can follow the line of reasoning for the most part Arranges ideas adequately, in general, although ideas sometimes fail to make sense together; reader remains fairly clear about what writer intends Arranges ideas illogically; ideas frequently fail to make sense together; reader cannot identify a line of reasoning and becomes frustrated or loses interest  
Writing mechanics Writing demonstrates a sophisticated clarity, conciseness, and correctness Writing is accomplished in terms of clarity and conciseness and contains only a few errors Writing lacks clarity or conciseness and contains numerous errors Writing is unfocused, rambling, or contains serious errors  
APA format Uses APA format accurately and consistently Uses APA format with minor violations Reflects incomplete knowledge of APA format Does not use APA format  

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: 30–32 = A (93–100); 29 = A– (90–92); 28 = B+ (88–89); 23–27 = B (83–87); 22 = B– (80–82); 21 = C+ (78–79); 15–20 = C (73–77); 14 = C– (70–72); 7–13 = D (60–69); 0–6 = F (below 60).