| Course Code |
Class Code |
Assignment Title |
Total Points |
| HLT-313V |
HLT-313V-O500 |
Benchmark Assignment – Performance Management Plan Proposal |
200.0 |
| Criteria |
Percentage |
Unsatisfactory (0.00%) |
Less Than Satisfactory (65.00%) |
Satisfactory (75.00%) |
Good (85.00%) |
Excellent (100.00%) |
Comments |
Points Earned |
| Content |
70.0% |
| Organizational Goals |
10.0% |
Proposal does not include a discussion of organizational goals. |
Proposal includes a discussion with specific organizational goals, but elements are missing or the submission is otherwise incomplete. |
Proposal includes a basic discussion with specific organizational goals. Minimal detail and/or support are provided. |
Proposal includes a complete discussion with specific organizational goals. Proposal incorporates most essential details and provides appropriate support. |
Proposal includes a clear and thorough discussion with specific organizational goals. Proposal analyzes supporting evidence insightfully and provides specific examples with relevance. Level of detail is appropriate. |
| Outline of Organizational Objectives |
10.0% |
Proposal does not include an outline of organizational objectives. |
Proposal includes an outline of organizational objectives, but elements are missing or the submission is otherwise incomplete. |
Proposal includes an outline and brief evaluation of organizational objectives. Minimal detail and/or support are provided. |
Proposal includes an outline and brief evaluation of organizational objectives. Proposal incorporates most essential details and provides appropriate support. |
Proposal includes an outline and brief evaluation of organizational objectives. Proposal analyzes supporting evidence insightfully and provides specific examples with relevance. Level of detail is appropriate. |
| Rationale (C1.4) |
10.0% |
Proposal does not include an evaluation of the use of the interdisciplinary approach. |
Proposal includes an evaluation of the use of the interdisciplinary approach, but elements are missing or the submission is otherwise incomplete. |
Proposal includes an evaluation of the use of the interdisciplinary approach. Minimal detail and/or support are provided. |
Proposal includes an evaluation of the use of the interdisciplinary approach. Proposal incorporates most essential details and provides appropriate support. |
Proposal includes an evaluation of the use of the interdisciplinary approach. Proposal analyzes supporting evidence insightfully and provides specific examples with relevance. Level of detail is appropriate. |
| Quality and Process Outcomes (C5.3) |
10.0% |
Proposal does not include a description of the importance of quality and process outcomes within the scope of practice. |
Proposal includes a description of the importance of quality and process outcomes within the scope of practice, but elements are missing or the submission is otherwise incomplete. |
Proposal includes a description of the importance of quality and process outcomes within the scope of practice. Minimal detail and/or support are provided. |
Proposal includes a description of the importance of quality and process outcomes within the scope of practice. Proposal incorporates most essential details and provides appropriate support. |
Proposal includes a description of the importance of quality and process outcomes within the scope of practice. Proposal analyzes supporting evidence insightfully and provides specific examples with relevance. Level of detail is appropriate. |
| Summary of Relevant Performance Measures |
8.0% |
Proposal does not include a summary of relevant performance measures. |
Proposal includes a summary of relevant performance measures, but elements are missing or the submission is otherwise incomplete. |
Proposal includes a summary of relevant performance measures. Minimal detail and/or support are provided. |
Proposal includes a complete summary of relevant performance measures. Proposal incorporates most essential details and provides appropriate support. |
Proposal includes a clear and thorough summary of relevant performance measures. Proposal analyzes supporting evidence insightfully and provides specific examples with relevance. Level of detail is appropriate. |
| Performance Baseline |
7.0% |
Proposal does not identify or include a performance baseline. |
Proposal identifies a performance baseline, but elements are missing or the submission is otherwise incomplete. |
Proposal identifies and includes a performance baseline. Minimal detail and/or support are provided. |
Proposal identifies and includes a performance baseline. Proposal incorporates most essential details and provides appropriate support. |
Proposal identifies and includes a performance baseline. Proposal analyzes supporting evidence insightfully and provides specific examples with relevance. Level of detail is appropriate. |
| Performance Evaluation |
8.0% |
Proposal does not include a discussion of a method of performance evaluation. |
Proposal includes a discussion of a method of performance evaluation, but elements are missing or the submission is otherwise incomplete. |
Proposal includes a basic discussion of a method of performance evaluation. Minimal detail and/or support are provided. |
Proposal includes a complete discussion of a method of performance evaluation. Proposal incorporates most essential details and provides appropriate support. |
Proposal includes a clear and thorough discussion of a method of performance evaluation. Proposal analyzes supporting evidence insightfully and provides specific examples with relevance. Level of detail is appropriate. |
| Definition and Discussion of Success |
7.0% |
Proposal does not include define or include a discussion of success for the organization. |
Proposal includes a definition and/or a discussion of success for the organization, but elements are missing or the submission is otherwise incomplete. |
Proposal includes a basic definition and discussion of success for the organization. Minimal detail and/or support are provided. |
Proposal includes a complete definition and discussion of success for the organization. Proposal incorporates most essential details and provides appropriate support. |
Proposal includes a clear and thorough definition and discussion of success for the organization. Proposal analyzes supporting evidence insightfully and provides specific examples with relevance. Level of detail is appropriate. |
| Organization and Effectiveness |
20.0% |
| Thesis Development and Purpose |
7.0% |
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. |
| Argument Logic and Construction |
8.0% |
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 progression. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative. |
Clear and convincing argument presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative. |
| Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) |
5.0% |
Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice and/or sentence construction are used. |
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) and/or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied. |
Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but 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. |
| Format |
10.0% |
| Paper Format (Use of appropriate style for the major and assignment) |
5.0% |
Appropriate template is not used appropriately or documentation format is rarely followed correctly. |
Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken; lack of control with formatting is apparent. |
Appropriate template is used, and 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. |
| Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style) |
5.0% |
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. |
| Total Weightage |
100% |