Strategic Dissection
In this exercise, students will
identify strategies presented in this course that are currently being used by
the organization discussed in the mission and vision paper. The
strategies should be identified and discussed at corporate, business, and
functional levels.
By completing this assignment,
students will meet the outcome(s):
- evaluate the outcomes of selected strategies to
determine their success and impact on the achievement of an organization's
vision and mission
Required Elements to include in
Strategic Dissection:
- Identify strategies
- Discuss strategies used at the corporate, business and
function levels using the concepts learned in the course.
- Demonstrate critical thinking in the assessment.
Required Formatting of
Paper:
- This report should be double spaced, 12-point font, and
two to three pages in length excluding the title page and reference
page;
- Title page with your name, the course name, the date,
and instructor’s name;
- This paper should be written in the third person.
No script should contain the words “I or we;”
- Include references with at least one reference other
than the textbook;
- Use APA formatting for in-text citations and reference
page. You are expected to paraphrase and not use quotes. Deductions
will be taken when quotes are used and found to be unnecessary;
- Submit the paper in the Assignment Folder.
Grading Rubric for Strategic
Dissection (10%)
|
|
Outstanding
|
Superior
|
Good
|
Substandard
|
Failure
|
|
|
|
3.50
|
2.98
|
2.63
|
2.28
|
1.93
|
|
|
Critical
thinking/reasoning
|
demonstrates a high degree of
critical thinking, is consistent in accurately interpreting questions &
material; provides solid assumptions, reasoning & claims; thorough
analysis & evaluation with sound conclusions
|
shows good critical thinking;
accurately interprets most questions & material; usually identifies
relevant arguments/reasoning/claims; offers good analysis & evaluation
with fairly sound conclusions
|
shows occasional critical
thinking; questions & material is at times accurately interpreted; arguments/reasoning/claims
are occasionally explained; offers fair analysis & evaluation with a
conclusion
|
shows little critical thinking,
misinterprets questions or material; ignores or superficially evaluates;
justifies little and seldom explains reasoning; draws unwarranted conclusions
|
lacks critical thinking
consistently offers biased interpretations; ignores or superficially
evaluates; argues using poor reasoning, and/or unwarranted claims
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
3.50
|
2.98
|
2.63
|
2.28
|
1.93
|
|
|
Application of
concepts/development
|
arguments
or positions are well-supported with evidence from the readings/experience;
ideas go beyond the course material and recognize implication and extensions
of the material and concepts
|
arguments
or positions are mostly supported by evidence from the readings and course
content; ideas presented demonstrate student’s understanding of the material
and concepts
|
arguments
are more often based on opinion or unclear views than on position
grounded in the readings of material or external sources of material
|
arguments
are frequently illogical and unsubstantiated; student may resort to ad
hominem attacks on the author instead of making meaningful application of the
material
|
a meaningful attempt to explain or
support ideas does not exist
|
|
|
|
1.50
|
1.28
|
1.13
|
0.98
|
0.83
|
|
|
Attention
to instructions
|
demonstrated full understanding of
requirements responded to each aspect of assignment
|
demonstrated understanding of
requirements; missed one minor aspect of assignment
|
demonstrated some understanding of
requirements; missed a key element or two minor aspects of assignment
|
failed to show a firm
understanding of requirements; missed two key elements or several minor
aspects of assignment
|
did not demonstrate understanding
of assignment requirements
|
|
|
|
1.00
|
0.85
|
0.75
|
0.65
|
0.55
|
|
|
Clarity,
including grammar
|
writing
is clear and easy to follow; grammar and spelling are all correct;
formatting gives a professional look and adds to readability
|
most
ideas are presented clearly; occasional spelling and/or grammar issues
|
wordy;
some points require rereading to understand fully; more than an occasional
spelling and/or grammar
|
unclear
and difficult to understand; frequent spelling and grammar issues
|
largely
incomprehensible writing/poorly written in terms of mechanics and structure
|
|
|
|
0.50
|
0.43
|
0.38
|
0.33
|
0.28
|
|
|
Adherence
to APA style (6th ed.)
|
no
APA style errors
|
attempts
in-text citation and reference list but 1 or 2 APA style errors are present
|
attempts
in-text citation and reference listing; APA style errors are present:
inconsistencies in citation usage can be found throughout the document
|
attempts
either in-text citation or reference list but omits the other
|
no
attempt at APA style
|
No comments:
Post a Comment