LDRS 501 Team Assignment 2 Assessment

Team Assessed:

LDRS 501 – Team Assignment 2 - Strategic Leadership Team Project (20%)

Grading Criteria Weight Assessment %

(out of 100)

The Assignment clearly outlines the Strengths,

Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats of the 22.5%
organization reviewed.
The Assignment assesses suggested strategies
developed for the organization and reviewed in the 22.5%
SWOT analysis of the organization chosen.
The Assignment shows the results of a SWOT analysis 22.5%
for an organization.
The Assignment shows suggested strategies 22.5%
determined for change in the organization.
Assignment is clearly written and grammatically
correct in presentation of ideas and APA 7 compliant 10%
documentation with an acceptable reference page.
Total

GRADE
LETTER
GRADE %
POINT Team Assignment 2 Grading Assignment Guide
VALUE

Exceptionally well-reasoned, compelling development of position.

Outstanding incorporation of personal vision as well as of references
95- and resources. Strikingly appropriate examples. Extraordinary insight,
A+ 4.3
100 critical analytical and evaluative ability, and creativity. Superlative style
and language usage. Makes an original contribution and is potentially
publishable.
Well-argued and convincing development of position. Insightful
90- incorporation of personal vision as well as of references and resources.
A 4.0
94 Notably appropriate examples. Excellent insight, critical analytic and
evaluative ability, and creativity. Impressive style and language use.
 Thorough and plausible development of position. Skillful incorporation
85- of personal vision as well as of references and resources. Very good
A- 3.7
89 examples. Very good insight, analytic and evaluative ability, and
creativity. Commendable and fluent style and language usage.
Proficient development of position. Appropriate incorporation of
80- personal vision as well as of references and resources. Relevant
B+ 3.3 examples. Good quality insight, analytic and evaluative ability, and
84
creativity. Clear and correct style and language usage.

Competent development of position, but possibly with some gaps

75- and/or limitations. Satisfactory incorporation of personal vision as well
B 3.0 as of references and resources. Satisfactory examples. Reasonable
79
insight, analytic and evaluative ability. Little creativity. Generally
satisfactory style and language usage, but possibly with some minor
Unimpressive development of position. Position not completely
consistent with personal vision or references and resources not taken
70- fully into account or examples are basic or not completely convincing or
B- 2.7*
74 lacking acceptable insight and analytic and evaluative ability. Style and
language usage with weaknesses (e.g., clarity, coherence, grammar).
Overall quality shows noticeable deficiencies.
Unacceptable work at graduate level. Shows lack of understanding
and/or competence in several of the criteria described above. This
F <70 2.0
grade is a failing grade at the graduate level, and students receiving a
“C” course grade are required to re-take the course.