Determining Financial Viability essay paper
Determining Financial Viability
CLC – Productivity Measurement – Rubric
Benchmarking Data 16 points
Criteria Description
Benchmarking Data
5. Excellent 16 points
The presentation comprehensively explains how the benchmarking data was
collected and how the information could be used for an employee review.Determining Financial Viability
4. Good 13.6 points
The presentation thoroughly explains how the benchmarking data was collected
and how the information could be used for an employee review.
3. Satisfactory 12 points
The presentation clearly explains how the benchmarking data was collected and
how the information could be used for an employee review.
2. Less Than Satisfactory 10.4 points
The presentation does not clearly explain how the benchmarking data was collected
and how the information could be used for an employee review.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
The presentation does not adequately explain how the benchmarking data wasDetermining Financial Viability
collected and how the information could be used for an employee review.
Educational Requirements 8 points
Criteria Description
Educational Requirements
5. Excellent 8 points
The presentation concisely explains the minimal educational requirements.
4. Good 6.8 points
The presentation thoroughly explains the minimal educational requirements.
Collapse All
3. Satisfactory 6 points
The presentation clearly explains the minimal educational requirements.
2. Less Than Satisfactory 5.2 points
The presentation does not clearly explain the minimal educational requirements.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
The presentation does not adequately explain the minimal educational
requirements.
Licensing or Certi�cation 8 points
Criteria DescriptionDetermining Financial Viability
Licensing or Certification
5. Excellent 8 points
The presentation comprehensively explains the licensing or certification process in
the selected state.
4. Good 6.8 points
The presentation thoroughly explains the licensing or certification process in the
selected state.
3. Satisfactory 6 points
The presentation clearly explains the licensing or certification process in the
selected state.
2. Less Than Satisfactory 5.2 points
The presentation does not clearly explain the licensing or certification process in
the selected state.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
The presentation does not adequately explain the licensing or certification process
in the selected state.
Advancement Opportunities 8 points
Criteria Description
Advancement Opportunities
5. Excellent 8 points
The presentation comprehensively examines what career advancement
opportunities exist such as additional certifications or board certifications.
4. Good 6.8 points
The presentation thoroughly examines what career advancement opportunities
exist such as additional certifications or board certifications.
3. Satisfactory 6 points
The presentation clearly examines what career advancement opportunities exist
such as additional certifications or board certifications.
2. Less Than Satisfactory 5.2 points
The presentation does not clearly examine what career advancement opportunities
exist such as additional certifications or board certifications.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
The presentation does not adequately examine what career advancement
opportunities exist such as additional certifications or board certifications.
Productivity Measurements and Evaluations 16 points
Criteria Description
Productivity Measurements and Evaluations
5. Excellent 16 points
The presentation succinctly and thoroughly describes the criteria used to meet
productivity measurements and evaluations to improve efficiency.
4. Good 13.6 points
The presentation thoroughly describes the criteria used to meet productivity
measurements and evaluations to improve efficiency.
3. Satisfactory 12 points
The presentation clearly describes the criteria used to meet productivity
measurements and evaluations to improve efficiency.
2. Less Than Satisfactory 10.4 points
The presentation does not clearly describe the criteria used to meet productivity
measurements and evaluations to improve efficiency.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
The presentation does not adequately describe the criteria used to meet
productivity measurements and evaluations to improve efficiency.
Presentation of Content 8 points
Criteria Description
Presentation of Content
5. Excellent 8 points
The content is written clearly and concisely. Ideas universally progress and relate to
each other. The project includes motivating questions and advanced organizers.
The project gives the audience a clear sense of the main idea.
4. Good 6.8 points
The content is written with a logical progression of ideas and supporting
information exhibiting a unity, coherence, and cohesiveness. Includes persuasive
information from reliable sources.
3. Satisfactory 6 points
The presentation slides are generally competent, but ideas may show some
inconsistency in organization and/or in their relationships to each other.
2. Less Than Satisfactory 5.2 points
The content is vague in conveying a point of view and does not create a strong
sense of purpose. Includes some persuasive information.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
The content lacks a clear point of view and logical sequence of information. Includes
little persuasive information. Sequencing of ideas is unclear.
Layout 4 points
Criteria Description
Layout
5. Excellent 4 points
The layout is visually pleasing and contributes to the overall message with
appropriate use of headings, subheadings, and white space. Text is appropriate in
length for the target audience and to the point. The background and colors enhance
the readability of the text.
4. Good 3.4 points
The layout background and text complement each other and enable the content to
be easily read. The fonts are easy to read and point size varies appropriately for
headings and text.
3. Satisfactory 3 points
The layout uses horizontal and vertical white space appropriately. Sometimes the
fonts are easy to read, but in a few places the use of fonts, italics, bold, long
paragraphs, color, or busy background detracts and does not enhance readability.
2. Less Than Satisfactory 2.6 points
The layout shows some structure but appears cluttered and busy or distracting with
large gaps of white space or a distracting background. Overall readability is difficult
due to lengthy paragraphs, too many different fonts, dark or busy background,
overuse of bold, or lack of appropriate indentations of text.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
The layout is cluttered, confusing, and does not use spacing, headings, and
subheadings to enhance the readability. The text is extremely difficult to read with
long blocks of text, small point size for fonts, and inappropriate contrasting colors.
Poor use of headings, subheadings, indentations, or bold formatting is evident.
Language Use and Audience Awareness (includes sentence construction,
word choice, etc.) 4 points
Criteria Description
Language Use and Audience Awareness (includes sentence construction, word choice,
etc.)
5. Excellent 4 points
The writer uses a variety of sentence constructions, figures of speech, and word
choice in distinctive and creative ways that are appropriate to purpose, discipline,
and scope.
4. Good 3.4 points
The writer is clearly aware of audience, uses a variety of appropriate vocabulary for
the target audience, and uses figures of speech to communicate clearly.
3. Satisfactory 3 points
Language is appropriate to the targeted audience for the most part.
2. Less Than Satisfactory 2.6 points
Some distracting inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are
present. The writer exhibits some lack of control in using figures of speech
appropriately.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
Inappropriate word choice and lack of variety in language use are evident. Writer
appears to be unaware of audience. Use of primer prose indicates writer either
does not apply figures of speech or uses them inappropriately.
Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language
use) 4 points
Criteria Description
Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)
5. Excellent 4 points
Writer is clearly in control of standard, written academic English.
4. Good 3.4 points
Slides are largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present.
3. Satisfactory 3 points
Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to
the reader.
2. Less Than Satisfactory 2.6 points
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
Slide errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning.
Documentation of Sources 4 points
Criteria Description
Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as
appropriate to assignment and style)
5. Excellent 4 points
Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment
and style, and format is free of error.
4. Good 3.4 points
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is
mostly correct.
3. Satisfactory 3 points
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some
formatting errors may be present.
2. Less Than Satisfactory 2.6 points
Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to
assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
Sources are not documented.
Total 80 points
