Marketing strategy is clearly, accurately and comprehensively explained delivering all relevant information.

(1.8 – 2)

Marketing strategy is explained accurately but could be more comprehensively or clearer with more relevant information.  

(1.6 – 1.79)

Marketing strategy is explained but needs more clarification on some aspects. 

(1.4 – 1.59)

Marketing strategy is discussed superfically or only partially discussed.

(1.2 – 1.39)

Marketing strategy is not discussed.

(0 – 1.19)

Human resource approach is clearly, accurately and comprehensively explained delivering all relevant information.

(1.8 – 2)

Human resource approach is explained accurately but could be more comprehensively or clearer with more relevant information.  

(1.6 – 1.79)

Human resource approach is explained but needs more clarification on some aspects. 

(1.4 – 1.59)

Human resource approach is discussed superfically or only partially discussed.

(1.2 – 1.39)

Human resource approach is not discussed.

(0 – 1.19)

How the small business compares with the industry in which it operates is clearly, accurately and comprehensively explained delivering all relevant information.

(1.8 – 2)

How the small business compares with the industry in which it operates is explained accurately but could be more comprehensively or clearer with more relevant information.  

(1.6 – 1.79)

How the small business compares with the industry in which it operates is explained but needs more clarification on some aspects. 

(1.4 – 1.59)

How the small business compares with the industry in which it operates is discussed superfically or only partially discussed.

(1.2 – 1.39)

How the small business compares with the industry in which it operates is not discussed.

(0 – 1.19)

Presentation flows well and logically; transitions are smooth, interesting and enhance presentation

(0.9 – 1)

Presentation flows well; smooth transitions used on most slides

(0.8 – 0.89)

Presentation flows well; smooth transitions used on some slides

(0.7 – 0.79)

Presentation is unorganized; very few transitions and/or they distract from presentation

(0.6 – 0.69)

Presentation has no flow; no transitions used

(0 – 0.59)

Concepts and ideas are fully developed. Thinking is consistent in accurately interpreting questions and material/provides solid assumptions, reasoning and evaluation with sound conclusions. Reader can easily follow the author’s logic and reasoning.

(3.6 – 4)

Concepts and ideas are developed. Thinking is mostly consistent in accurately interpreting questions and material/ provides good assumptions, reasoning and evaluation with sound conclusions. Reader can easily follow the author’s logic and reasoning. 

(3.2 – 3.59)

Concepts and ideas are mostly developed but may need clarification on some aspects of thinking, reasoning or evaluation.  Conclusions are drawn.  Reader follows the author’s logic but occasionally there are areas that are unclear.

(2.8 – 3.19)

Concepts and ideas are not cohesive.   Misinterprets questions or material; ignores or superficially evaluates, justifies little and seldom explains reasoning; draws unwarranted conclusions. At times, the reader must attempt to determine the author’s train of thought. 

  (2.4 -2.8)

Concepts and ideas are not fully developed or presented in a cohesive manner. Misinterprets questions or material.

(0 – 2.39)

Arguments or positions are well-supported with evidence from the readings/experience; ideas go beyond the course material and recognize implications and extensions of the material and concepts.

(3.6 – 4)

Arguments or positions are mostly supported by evidence from the readings and course content; ideas presented demonstrate understanding of the material and concepts.

(3.2 – 3.59)

Arguments are more often based on opinion or unclear views than on position grounded in the readings of material or external sources of material.

(2.8 – 3.19)

Arguments are frequently illogical and unsubstantiated; Limited use of facts in case study and essential information presented in resources; May resort to ad hominem attacks on the author instead of making meaningful application of the material.

(2.4 -2.8)

Arguments lack meaningful explanation or support of ideas. Does not provide facts presented in case study.

(0 – 2.39)

demonstrated full understanding of requirements responded to each aspect of assignment

(1.8 -2.0)

demonstrated understanding of requirements; missed one minor aspect of assignment

(1.6 – 1.79)

demonstrated some understanding of requirements; missed a key element or two minor aspects of assignment

(1.4 – 1.59)

failed to show a firm understanding of requirements; missed two key elements or several minor aspects of assignment

(1.2 – 1.39)

did not demonstrate understanding of assignment requirements

(0 – 1.19)

Strictly adheres to standard usage rules of written English, including but not limited to capitalization, punctuation, and spelling.  No errors found.  No jargon used.

(0.9 -1.0)

Adheres to standard usage of mechanics:  conventions of written English, including capitalization, punctuation, and spelling.  One to three errors found.

(0.8 – 0.89)

Minimally adheres to standard usage rules of mechanics:  conventions of English, including capitalization, punctuation, and spelling.  Four to 10 errors found.

(0.7 – 0.79)

Does not adhere to standard usage rules of mechanics:  conventions of written English, including capitalization, punctuation, and spelling.  More than 10 errors found.

(0.6 – 0.69)

Does not adhere to standard usage rules of mechanics:  conventions of written English largely incomprehensible and errors are too plentiful to count.

(0 – 0.59)

analysis, synthesis, evaluation and reflection is strongly present across all posts; rich in content
full of thought, insight,
and analysis (0.675 – 0.75)

analysis, synthesis, evaluation and reflection is present in most posts – substantial information thought, insight, and analysis has taken place (0.6 – 0.6725)

attempts analysis, synthesis, evaluation, and reflection but not strongly evident or only partially evident – generally competent information is thin and commonplace (0.525 – 0.59)

analysis, synthesis, evaluation, and reflection is poorly demonstrated or does not exist; rudimentary and superficial; no analysis or insight is displayed (0 0. 0.524)

responses to instructor/classmates are complete and meaningful as required; responses are relevant and advance the level and depth of the discussion consistently using course material in the responses (0.675 – 0.75)

responses to instructor/classmates are complete and meaningful as required;  responses are relevant and advance the level and depth of the discussion occasionally using the course material in the responses  (0.6 – 0.6725)

responds to instructor/classmates meet requirements but either a) responses lack some detail to explain answer; b) responses do not add to the conversation;  c) student does not use course material; d) student does not respond to as many peers as required or e) lacks consistency in responding to others  (0.525 – 0.59)

fails to respond to classmate and/or instructor as required; responses are superficial (I agree statements, restating what other student stated; response that evaluates the quality of a student’s post adding no substantial comment) (0 – 0.524)

contributions are relevant and demonstrates outstanding understanding of material; uses various course material/resources in responding, and consistently and accurately ties to activity (0.675 – 0.75)

contributions are relevant and mostly demonstrates a good understanding of material; uses some course material/resources in responding and attempts to ties to activity (0.6 – 0.6725)

contributions are somewhat relevant and demonstrates some understanding of the material; rarely uses course material/resources in responses and occasionally ties to activity (0.525 – 0.59)

contributions are off topic, distracting; does not use relevant course material/resources in responses (0 – 0.524)

consistently uses grammatically correct posts with no misspellings and no APA style errors (0.675 – 0.75)

few grammatical or spelling errors are noted in posts/ attempts in-text citations and reference list but errors are present (0.6 – 0.6725)

errors in spelling and grammar evident; attempts in-text citations or reference list but omits the other; paraphrases or uses source material without consistently citing/referencing (0.525 – 0.59)

poor spelling and grammar in most posts; no evidence of proofreading; no attempt at APA (0 – 0.524)