|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCRIT 0.2a Key ConceptCRIT 0.2a Work with Key Concept
threshold: 3.0 pts
|
|
4 ptsAdvanced: Work with key concepts/information/process/theory related to a given topic and conduct a thorough analysis by doing five or more of the following: applying or extending them to new predictions, recognizing hidden meanings, drawing inferences, analyzing patterns and component parts, and communicating contrasts and comparisons.
|
3 ptsProficient: Work with key concepts/information/process/theory related to a given topic by identifying patterns, interpreting challenging concepts, drawing logical conclusions, explaining component parts, and potential applications or extensions to new problems or contexts.
|
2 ptsEmerging: Work with key concepts/information/processes/theories related to a given topic by distinguishing key elements, illustrating relationships between concepts, describing key information generally, and inferring the importance of specific elements.
|
1 ptsNovice: Work with key concepts by relating or comparing them.
|
|
—
|
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCRIT 0.2g AnalysisCRIT 0.2g Coherent Analysis
threshold: 3.0 pts
|
|
4 ptsAdvanced: Develop and explain a coherent analysis or synthesis using information strongly supported by interpretation and evaluation.
|
3 ptsProficient: Develop a coherent analysis or synthesis using information sufficiently supported by interpretation and evaluation.
|
2 ptsEmerging: State a coherent analysis or synthesis using information sufficiently supported by interpretation and evaluation.
|
1 ptsNovice: Coherent analysis or synthesis missing or not sufficiently supported by interpretation and evaluation.
|
|
—
|
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePMGT 1.1 InitiatePMGT 1.1 Initiate projects to meet stakeholder needs within constraints.
threshold: 3.0 pts
|
|
4 ptsAdvanced: The Project Charter contained the fully detailed sections outlined in the Proficient performance level and included the rationale supported by best practices found in the current literature.
|
3 ptsProficient: The Project Charter contains the following fully detailed sections: Project purpose, Measurable project objectives, and related success criteria; high-level requirements, High-level project description, boundaries, and key deliverables; Overall project risk, Summary milestone schedule, Pre-approved financial resources, Key stakeholder list, Project approval requirements, Project exit criteria, Assigned project manager, responsibility, and authority level; Name, and authority of the sponsor or other persons authorizing the Project Charter
|
2 ptsEmerging: The Project Charter contained the required elements. Continue working toward consistent details throughout each component of the Charter.
|
1 ptsNovice: The submitted Project Charter illustrates an attempt to meet the Proficient performance level. Missing elements from the Charter or inconsistent details require attention.
|
|
—
|
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePMGT 1.2 PlanPMGT 1.2 Plan projects to meet stakeholder needs within constraints.
threshold: 3.0 pts
|
|
4 ptsAdvanced: The Project Management Plan contained the twelve fully detailed sections outlined in the Proficient performance level and included the rationale supported by best practices found in the current literature.
|
3 ptsProficient: The created Project Management Plan (PMP) describes the project’s execution, monitoring, controlling, and closing occurs. The PMP included the following twelve fully developed sub-plans: change control, communications management, cost management, procurement management, quality management, requirements management, resource management, risk management, scope management, schedule management, and stakeholder management plan.
|
2 ptsEmerging: The Project Management Plan contained the required elements. Continue working toward consistent details throughout each aspect of the PMP.
|
1 ptsNovice: The submitted Project Management Plan illustrates an attempt to meet the Proficient performance level. Missing elements from the PMP or inconsistent details require further attention.
|
|
—
|
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeElements
|
| 20 pts
4-Advanced 100%
Four methods for estimating cost are compared.
|
17 pts
3-Proficient 85%
Three methods for estimating cost are compared.
|
15 pts
2-Emerging 75%
Two methods for estimating cost are compared.
|
11 pts
1-Novice 55%
One method for estimating cost is explained.
|
0 pts
0-No Submission 0%
No submission
|
|
20 pts
|
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeApplication
|
| 50 pts
4-Advanced 100%
Comparison for estimating cost includes a detailed explanation of the strengths and weaknesses with relevant examples. Recommendations for use are accurate. Examples of successful and unsuccessful are flawless. Demonstrates knowledge of an executive level professional. Comparison includes references to current work environment. Incorporates both what current company is doing well and is not doing well.
|
42.5 pts
3-Proficient 85%
Comparison for estimating cost includes a detailed explanation of the strengths and weaknesses. Recommendations for use are accurate. Examples of successful and unsuccessful are appropriate. Demonstrates knowledge of accomplished business professional. Comparison includes references to current work environment. Incorporates what current company is doing well or is not doing well.
|
37.5 pts
2-Emerging 75%
Comparison of strengths and weaknesses needs more detail. Recommendations for use contain errors. Examples of successful and unsuccessful are inaccurate. Demonstrates knowledge of developing business professional.
|
27.5 pts
1-Novice 55%
Comparison of strengths and weaknesses are cursory. Recommendations for use are incorrect. Examples of successful and unsuccessful are inaccurate. Demonstrates knowledge of an entry level business professional.
|
0 pts
0-No Submission 0%
No submission, submission is off topic, or submission is incoherent.
|
|
50 pts
|
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeGrammar
|
| 10 pts
4-Advanced 100%
Follows proper structure, grammar, and spelling. Little to no errors throughout the work product.
|
8.5 pts
3-Proficient 85%
Follows proper structure, grammar, and spelling. Few errors are shown.
|
7.5 pts
2-Emerging 75%
Contains errors in structure, grammar, and spelling.
|
5.5 pts
1-Novice 55%
Follows some proper structure, grammar, and spelling but contains enough errors to distract.
|
0 pts
0-No Submission 0%
No submission or no apparent structure or grammar rules followed
|
|
10 pts
|
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeFormat
|
| 20 pts
4-Advanced 100%
More than two references from peer-reviewed academic sources are used. The references are less than 5 years old. Format, citations, and references are consistent with APA style guidelines. There are no errors made.
|
17 pts
3-Proficient 85%
Two references from peer-reviewed academic sources are used. The references are no more than 5 years old. Format, citations, and references are consistent with APA style guidelines. There are minimal, non-repeated errors.
|
15 pts
2-Emerging 75%
Two references are used but one or more may not be from peer-reviewed academic sources. The references are no more than 5 years old. Format, citations, and references are consistent with APA style guidelines; however, there are a few errors.
|
11 pts
1-Novice 55%
One or no references are used and are not from peer-reviewed academic sources. Minimal sources used and inconsistently follows APA style guidelines required by the college.
|
0 pts
0-No Submission 0%
No submission, or does not follow APA styles guidelines required by the college.
|
|
20 pts
|
|
Total Points: 100
|
