Gibbs Cycle - Three levels of Ethical Analysis (Leadership) Please read the article and write a paper. Details are included in the attachments including the article.

Written Communication Assessment 10%

1-2

Did not meet expectations

3-4

Met expectations

Exceeded expectations

Writing Conventions

(grammar, word use, punctuation, mechanics)

Frequent

grammatical errors

and misspellings

inhibit readability Informal language, abbreviations and slang are used

Few grammatical errors

(3 or fewer per page)

Correct verb tense used

Paragraphs flow from

one to another Active

voice pervasive

Free of grammatical errors

and misspellings Effective verb tense used; Uses phrases and

construction that delight as

well as inform the reader

Primarily active voice

Overall Effectiveness appearance/format

Not formatted to Specifications, Lacking professional appearance

Formatting is generally

correct, acceptable

professional appearance.

Assigned format followed

explicitly: Exceptional

professional appearance

Critical Thinking and Written Analyses Rubric 90%

Criteria

1-5

Did Not Meet Expectations

6-8

Met Expectations

9-10

Exceeded Expectations

Clarity

Writing is not clear. It is

difficult to understand points

being made. The writing lacks

transitions, and few examples and/or illustrations are provided to support explanation or

recommendations.

Writing is generally well organized and understood. Transitions are used to facilitate clarity. Some examples and/illustrations are used to support explanation or recommendations.

Writing is succinct, precise,

effectively organized no ambiguity. Transitions, explanation and elaboration are extensive to elucidate points. Detailed illustrations and/or examples are used to support explanation & recommendations

Relevance

Critical issues/questions are

omitted or ignored in the writing.

Most of the critical issues/questions are addressed in the writing.

All critical issues/questions

are addressed completely in writing

Depth of

Discussion

/20

Ignores bias; Omits arguments

Misrepresents issues; Excludes data; Includes but does not detect inconsistency of

information; Ideas contain

unnecessary gaps, repetition or extraneous details overlooks differences

Detects bias; Recognizes arguments; Categorizes content; Paraphrases data;

Sufficient detail to support conclusions and/or recommendations

Analysis includes insightful

questions; Refutes bias; Discusses

issues thoroughly; Critiques content; Values information Examines inconsistencies;

Offers extensive detail to support conclusions and recommendations; Suggests solutions/ implementation

Breadth of Discussion

/20

Omits arguments or

perspectives; Misses major

content areas/concepts;

Presents few options

Covers the breadth of the topic without being superfluous

Considers multiple

perspectives; Thoroughly delves into the issues/questions;

Thoroughly discusses relevant facts

Integration

Elements of Reasoning

/20

Fails to draw conclusions or

conclusions rely on author’s

authority rather than strength of presentation; Draws faulty conclusions; Shows intellectual dishonesty

Formulates clear conclusions with adequate support

Assimilates and critically

reviews information, uses

reasonable judgment, and

provides balanced, well

justified conclusions

Internally Consistent

There is little integration across the sections of the paper. Several inconsistencies or contradictions exist. Few of the issues, recommendation and explanations make sense; not well integrated.

Sections of the paper are generally well linked/connected. Only minor contradictions exist. Most of the issues, recommendations and explanations make sense and are well integrated.

All sections of the paper are

linked. There are no

contradictions in the

writing. All issues,

recommendations and

explanations make sense

and are well integrated