reflection

Excellent

Identifies and provides a thorough summary of at least 4 impactful key points or insights from the guest lectures (at least 2 key points from each).

Good

Identifies and summarizes 4 key points but may lack depth or clarity.

Marginal

Identifies less than 4 key points; less than 2 per guest lecture; or some key points lack clarity or depth.

Needs Improvement

Identifies fewer than 4 key points and summary is unclear and underdeveloped.

Excellent

Provides an in-depth evaluation of the message and perspectives offered by each guest lecture. Includes reflection on how the messages between each lecturer related to and differed from one another, as well as ethical considerations, limitations, and personal agreement or disagreement with overall perspectives shared.

Good

Offers a basic evaluation, but may lack depth in comparisons, discussion on ethical considerations, limitations, biases, or personal agreement/disagreement with overall perspectives shared.

Marginal

Limited discussion on comparison between messages, ethical considerations, limitations, biases, or personal agreement/disagreement with overall perspectives shared.

Needs Improvement

Minimal or unclear evaluation, missing elements like ethical considerations or identification of biases.

Excellent

Insightful reflection on how the lectures influenced understanding of the field and practice of health administration, including discussion on if it has changed your career aspirations or the way you would approach a managerial problem in healthcare.

Good

Provides reflection but may lack depth or clarity in how the lectures have influenced understanding of the field and practice of health administration, the impact on your career aspirations, and/or your methods to approach a managerial problem in healthcare.

Marginal

Limited reflection on how the lectures have influenced understanding of the field and practice of health administration, the impact on career aspirations, and/or methods to approach a managerial problem in healthcare.

Needs Improvement

Minimal or unclear reflection, or missing altogether.

Excellent

Lists at least two thoughtful questions for each guest lecturer that relate directly to the lecture content.

Good

Lists two questions for each lecture, but they may be somewhat superficial or off-topic.

Needs Improvement

Lists fewer than two questions for each lecturer or does not list any at all.

Excellent

No APA errors and high-quality academic writing.

Good

Few APA errors and/or several grammatical errors.

Needs Improvement

Multiple APA errors or poor writing quality.