| Top of Form | | 1
Unsatisfactory
0.00% | 2
Less than Satisfactory
74.00% | 3
Satisfactory
79.00% | 4
Good
87.00% | 5
Excellent
100.00% | | 70.0 %Content | | | 15.0 %Pitney Bowes Expenditure Analysis on Employee Health | No employee expenditure analysis is present. | Employee expenditure analysis is incomplete or omits some requirements stated in the assignment criteria. | Employee expenditure analysis is somewhat inaccurate or partially relevant. Research is inadequate in relevance, quality, or correctness. | Employee expenditure analysis is accurate. Research is adequate, current, and relevant, and addresses all issues stated in the assignment criteria. | Employee expenditure analysis is comprehensive, accurate, and clearly provides purpose and facts. Research is adequate, current, and relevant, and addresses all issues stated in the assignment criteria. | | | 15.0 %Pitney Bowes Health and Wellness Programs | No information regarding the health and wellness programs at Pitney Bowes is present. | Information regarding the health and wellness programs at Pitney Bowes is incomplete or omits some requirements stated in the assignment. | Information regarding the health and wellness programs at Pitney Bowes is complete, but is somewhat inaccurate or partially relevant. | Information regarding the health and wellness programs at Pitney Bowes is complete, accurate, or relevant. | Information regarding the health and wellness programs at Pitney Bowes is comprehensive, accurate, and explained in detail. | | | 20.0 %Evaluation of the Approach of the Company to Health Plans and Pharmacy Benefits | No evaluation of the approach of the company to health plans and pharmacy benefits is present. | Evaluation of the approach of the company to health plans and pharmacy benefits is incomplete or omits some requirements stated in the assignment. | Evaluation of the approach of the company to health plans and pharmacy benefits is complete, but is somewhat inaccurate or partially relevant. | Evaluation of the approach of the company to health plans and pharmacy benefits is complete, accurate, and relevant. | Evaluation of the approach of the company to health plans and pharmacy benefits is comprehensive, accurate, and explained in detail. | | | 20.0 %Personal Approach to Improvement of the Plan of the Company | No personal approach to improvement of the plan of the company is present. | Personal approach to improvement of the plan of the company is incomplete or omits some requirements stated in the assignment. | Personal approach to improvement of the plan of the company is complete, but is somewhat inaccurate or partially relevant. | Personal approach to improvement of the plan of the company is complete, accurate, and relevant. Approach includes challenges or constraints that must be addressed. | Personal approach to improvement of the plan of the company is comprehensive, accurate, and explained in detail. Approach includes detailed explanation of challenges or constraints that must be addressed. | | | 20.0 %Organization and Effectiveness | | | 7.0 %Thesis Development and Purpose | Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim. | Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear. | Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose. | Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose. | Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear. | | | 20.0 %Organization and Effectiveness | | | 8.0 %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. | | | 20.0 %Organization and Effectiveness | | | 5.0 %Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) | Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used. | Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied. | Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed. | Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech. | Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English. | | | 10.0 %Format | | | 5.0 %Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment) | Template is not used appropriately or documentation format is rarely followed correctly. | Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent. | Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present. | Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style. | All format elements are correct. | | | 5.0 %Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style) | Sources are not documented. | Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors. | Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present. | Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct. | Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error. | | | 100 %Total Weightage | | |
Bottom of Form |
|
