Business Paper

Writing Rubric for Leadership Term Paper The maximum points you can earn for the Term Paper is 100 % or 100 points. There are a total of 117 possible points which are used to calculate a grade out of 100 . Scores for Paper Format, General Readability, and Report Content will be added together for the final score. Grading Scale: A = 90 points and greater; B = 80 -89 points; C = 70 -79 point, D = 60 -69, F = less than 60 points. Possible Points Paper Format : 1 to 10 points General Readability : 18 t o 42 points Report Content : 35 to 65 points Total: 54 to 117 * (*Please note: Each incident of improperly referencing an author’s work will result in a 5 point reduction. Plagiarism, regardless of intent, could result in a grade of 0 at maximum penalty. At minimum, a sentence or paragraph copied from an unapproved website and/or not correctly cited will result in a 10 point reduction for each occurrence.) PAPER FORMAT Students are expected to meet all of the paper format criteria. Proper formatting counts 10 point s of the 100 points in the team grade. Any missed criteria in the above list will result in a 1 -point reduction for each item. Met Criteria ? Yes No double -spaced Times New Roman 12 pt font margins of one inch (top, bottom, left, and right) Inde ntation of 1 st line of paragraph (5 -8 spaces) Typed black ink on white paper Cover page and running header with page numbers in top right . Sections are delineated with section headings to make it easy for the reader to follow as instructed. 6 to 10 pages of writing in T erm Paper (not including the cover page, reference pages, and any figures, tables, or graphs included in the appendix or paper ) No more than 20% of text in direct quotes (Check in SafeAssign if not sure) SafeAssign % must be less than 30% There are at least 10 peer reviewed journal or book references in APA format and none of them are websites unless I was given explicit permission from Dr. Mann to use them (If I have appendices they are after my references.) GENERAL R EADABILITY Students should “meet expectations” for each skill/competency (5 pts each) in General Readability (which would be a total of 30 points). This component of the written report grade is worth 18 - 42points. Students that perform Above Expectations throughout the paper will earn 7 points for each skill/competency that is demonstrated to be exceptional. Students that repeatedly fall below expectations, because of errors throughout the paper, will earn only 3 points for each skill/competency that is d eficient (Below Expectations). Skill or competency Above (7pts) Expectations Met (5 pts) Expectations Below (3 pts) Expectations Spelling & Grammar Minimized spelling errors Minimized grammatical errors Citations & Reference s In-line citations correctly formatted using APA. At least 10 references correctly formatted using APA. Language skills Vocabulary is precise, appropriate, using advanced vocabulary when necessary. Tone is mature, consistent, & suita ble for topic and audience. Clear and concisely written sentences . Sentence structure is varied & employed for effect. REPORT CONTENT : Student s should meet expectations for each writing objective on the next page (10 points each for a tota l of 50 points ). This final component of the written report grade is worth 35 -65 points. Student group reports will be evaluated on each writing objective based on the description in the respective boxes for “above expectations”, “met expectations”, and “below expectations ”. Report Content Grading Writing Objectives Above Expectations pts Met Expectations pts Below Expectations pts Introduction that grabs reader ’s attention and provides road map for paper. Accurately identifies and provid es a well - developed explanation of contextual issues with a clear sense of scope and direction in paper. Grabs reader’s attention. 9 Accurately identifies and provides an explanation of potential contextual issues . 7 Does not explain contextual issue s; provides inaccurate information; or merely provides a list. 5 An introduction of your leader and a short biographical history (i.e. how did they become a great leader, who influenced them, what experiences did they have). Accurately and thoroughly de scribes the leader and provides a well - developed summary of background , influences, experiences and /or history . 13 Accurately de scribes the leader and provides a brief summary of background , influences , and historical experiences . 10 Provides incomple te description of leader and provides a poor summary o f important background , influences, and experiences that related to their rise to leader . 7 Identify specific traits or characteristics of the leader and relate them to relevant theories. Provides a w ell - developed examination of theories and provides support for its relevance and completeness as they relate to the leader . Clearly distinguishes between fact and opinion. 13 Examines theories and relatedness to given leader based on traits or characteris tics . Distinguishes between fact and opinion . 10 Merely uses their own conjecture and does no t provide support for ideas . Does not justify position or distinguish between fact and opinion. 7 Discuss how the leader influences his/her followers.

What tac tics do/did they use? Accurately and thoroughly describes how the leader influenced followers and relevant tactics (purported by experts or theory to compel). 9 Accurately describes the influence tactics used by the leader and provides a brief summary of why they work (supported by experts). 7 Provides incomplete description of how the leader influenced followers and provides a poor summary o f tactics using own conjecture. 5 Identify some weaknesses of the leader. Great leaders are not perfect so di scuss some of the negative issues surrounding the person you are Accurately identifies weaknesses and provides a well - developed evaluation of negative issues supported by experts , as such can justify said weaknesses . 9 Accurately identifies weakness and provides a brief evaluation of practices identified by experts. 7 Does not accurately identify alternative arguments and/or fails to provide research based support for best practices. 5 researching Issues of ethical leadership should be considered as we ll. Discuss whether or not you believe the leader was ethical and why or why not. Cite specific examples. Accurately identifies and provides a well - developed evaluation of ethical practices supported by experts . Cites specific examples of the leader’s behavior and explain why the behaviors were appropriate or inappropriate. 7 Accurately identifies and provides a brief evaluation of ethical practices identified by experts. Cites specific examples or appropriate and inappropriate behavior . 5 Lists eth ical and unethical behaviors and provides a brief evaluation of ethical practices based on their own conjecture. 3 Identifies and evaluates conclusions, implications, and /or consequences (Summary) Accurately identifies conclusions, implications, and consequences with a well -developed explanation. Provides an objective reflection of own assertions. 5 Accurately identifies conclusions, implications, and consequences with a brief evaluative summary. 4 Does not explain, provides inaccurate information , or merely provides a list of ideas; or only discusses one area. 3 Total Points 65 50 35 Try to go beyond just regurgitating knowledge and fact s to higher levels of assessment , as delineated by Bloom’s Taxonomy below. Bloom’s Taxonomy: LEVEL 4: Analysis (breaking down material into constituent parts, detecting the relationships of the parts and of their organization) subdividing something to show how it is put together, finding the underlying structure/pattern , identifying motives/ mean ings, separating whole into component parts LEVEL 5: Synthesis (putting together elements/parts to form a new whole ) creating a unique idea, relating data/ knowledge from several contextual areas, combining ideas to form a new conclusion , predicting/draw ing conclusions LEVEL 6: Evaluation (making judgments about the value for some purpose) comparing and discriminating between ideas, assessing value of theories, making value decisions about issues, resolving controversies or differences of opinion, deve loping opinions, judgments or decision