# BUS 352 GCU Bo Diddley Tech Benchmark Report

During the global recession of 2008 and 2009, there were many accusations of unethical behavior by Wall Street executives, financial managers, and other corporate officers. At that time, an article appeared that suggested that part of the reason for such unethical business behavior may have stemmed from the fact that cheating had become more prevalent among business students, according to a February 10, 2009, article in the Chronicle of Higher Education. The article reported that 56% of business students admitted to cheating at some time during their academic career as compared to 47% of nonbusiness students.

Cheating has been a concern of the dean of the College of Business (COB) at Bo Diddley Tech (BDT) for several years. Some faculty members believe that cheating is more widespread at BDT than at other universities, whereas other faculty members think that cheating is not a major problem in the College of Business. To begin to address these issues, the dean of COB commissioned a study to assess the current ethical behavior of business students at BDT. As a former college athlete herself, the dean believed that the spirit of fair play students developed as part of participating in athletics would make them less likely to cheat.

As part of this study, an anonymous exit survey was administered to a sample of 1,440 students from this year’s graduating class, half of whom were business students and half of whom were not. The survey asked various questions, including the student’s college (business or nonbusiness) and if the student was an athlete or a nonathlete.Responses of the various questions were fed into a computer algorithm (advance data analytics) that made a quantitative determination as to whether the student should be considered a “cheater” or not. The results are in the attached Excel spreadsheet, “Benchmark – Ethical Behavior of Business Students at Bo Diddley Tech.”Utilize the data set in the Excel spreadsheet and select a randomized 100-unit sample from the original 1,440 exit surveys.

You will use the DCOVAS framework. Reference readings in The Statistician In You: Simple Everyday Life-Hacks (TSIY).

Define the problem.

Collect data from the appropriate source(s).

Organize data using tables.

Visualize data using a chart or graph.

Analyze data using a tool and/or calculation(s).

Solution: Provide a conclusion and solution.

Detailed Directions:

Prepare a managerial report as part of your submission to the dean of the College of Business that summarizes your assessment of the nature of cheating at BDT. Be sure to include the following items in your written report.

Submit the Excel data calculations (Alpha 0.05).

Make a pivot table with “Business Student” (Rows), “Athlete” (Rows), “Cheated” (Columns), and “Cheated” (Summed Value).

Create a bar chart showing cheating by athletes and business students.

Determine whether there is a statistical difference between nonathlete BDT business students and the national average for business students as reported by the Chronicle of Higher Education (test for a proportion).

Determine whether there is a statistical significance to business athlete students at BDT cheating less than the national average for business students as reported by the Chronicle of Higher Education (test for a proportion).

Determine whether there is a statistical difference between BDT business students and the national average for business students as reported by the Chronicle of Higher Education. (test for a proportion).

Determine whether there is a statistical difference between BDT nonbusiness students and the national average for nonbusiness students as reported by the Chronicle of Higher Education (test for a proportion).

Determine whether there is a statistical difference between BDT business student-athletes and nonathletes (test for two sample proportions).

Determine whether there is a statistical relationship among the four groups of business athlete students, nonbusiness athlete students, business nonathlete students, and nonbusiness nonathlete students at BDT (chi-square test of independence).

Utilizing the data you have analyzed, write a managerial report of 600-1,000 words for the dean. The managerial report needs to include an introduction, analysis, conclusion, and a minimum of three supporting references.

Introduction (define): In your own words, explain why you are providing this report and the problem(s) you are trying to solve.

Collect: Describe the data set you used.

Organize: Describe your pivot table.

Visualize: Include and describe your bar chart and initial perceptions of outcomes.

Analyze: Provide a summary of your conclusions based on the four population proportion tests, a two-sample proportion test, and test for independence (refer to Chapter 5.2 in TSIY). Begin with the statement of Ho and Ha and whether it is an upper-, lower-, or 2-tailed test. Use the model results and decide whether to reject Ho using the critical values approach, p-value approach, and confidence interval estimation approach to hypothesis testing. Create a summary table of each the six tests.

Ethical Summary: The dean has expressed a concern related to the amount of cheating currently taking place at BDT and has strongly suggested that you “tweak” the statistical data such that they favor the image of the university. Discuss the potential use of unethical manipulation of statistical data to provide a biased outcome as well as the ethical counter proposal you would offer the dean in this scenario.

Conclusion: What advice would you give to the dean based upon your analysis of the data? Include your “SummaryResults” table.

Reference page: Include at least three references to support the “Ethical Summary” section of your managerial report.

You are required to submit your Excel data analysis along with your written report.

Benchmark – Ethical Behavior of Business Students at Bo Diddley Tech

·

·

·

·

·

·

Define the problem.

Collect data from the appropriate source(s).

Organize data using tables.

Visualize data using a chart or graph.

Analyze data using a tool and/or calculation(s).

Solution: Provide a conclusion and solution.

***Note: First, sort the data from smallest to largest to change the order of the dataset.***

Column G is a random number field and will keep changing.

Instructions for Data Analysis Component:

2.

Create a bar chart showing cheating by athletes and business students.

Instructions for Data Interpretation Component:

2.

3.

4.

Collect: Describe the data set you used.

Organize: Describe your pivot table.

Visualize: Include and describe your bar chart and initial perceptions of outcomes.

Review assigment directions for more details.

Benchmark – Ethical Behavior of Business Students at Bo Diddley Tech

During the global recession of 2008 and 2009, there were many accusations of unethical behavior by Wall Street

executives, financial managers, and other corporate officers. At that time, an article appeared that suggested that

part of the reason for such unethical business behavior may have stemmed from the fact that cheating had

become more prevalent among business students, according to a February 10, 2009, article in the Chronicle of

Higher Education . The article reported that 56% of business students admitted to cheating at some time during

their academic career as compared to 47% of nonbusiness students.

Cheating has been a concern of the dean of the College of Business (COB) at Bo Diddley Tech (BDT) for several

years. Some faculty members believe that cheating is more widespread at BDT than at other universities, whereas

other faculty members think that cheating is not a major problem in the College of Business. To begin to address

these issues, the dean of COB commissioned a study to assess the current ethical behavior of business students

at BDT. As a former college athlete herself, the dean believed that the spirit of fair play students developed as part

of participating in athletics would make them less likely to cheat.

As part of this study, an anonymous exit survey was administered to a sample of 1,440 students from this year’s

graduating class, half of whom were business students and half of whom were not. The survey asked various

questions, including the student’s college (business or nonbusiness) and if the student was an athlete or a

nonathlete. Responses of the various questions were fed into a computer algorithm (advance data analytics) that

made a quantitative determination as to whether the student should be considered a “cheater” or not. The results

The intent of this assignment is to organize your data using a pivot table, get a graphical understanding of the data

through a bar chart, then do hypothesis testing comparing Bo Diddley Tech results versus the national average.

·

·

·

·

·

·

Define the problem.

Collect data from the appropriate source(s).

Organize data using tables.

Visualize data using a chart or graph.

Analyze data using a tool and/or calculation(s).

Solution: Provide a conclusion and solution.

The intent of this assignment is to organize your data using a pivot table, get a graphical understanding of the data

through a bar chart, then do hypothesis testing comparing Bo Diddley Tech results versus the national average.

***Note: First, sort the data from smallest to largest to change the order of the dataset.***

All of your analysis should be done in the “Student_BM” tab of this spreadsheet and submitted as part of the

assignmemt. The locations where the pivot table, bar chart, and relevant information should be placed in the

Student_BM tab are indicated by RED instructions. Copy the first 100 data points including the labels of Column D,

Column G is a random number field and will keep changing.

Once completed, the “Student_BM” tab will serve as the basis for writing your management report. It is expected

that any conclusions you draw in the management report will be consistent with the data and analyses contained in

Instructions for Data Analysis Component:

1.

Make a pivot table with “Business Student” (Rows), “Athlete” (Rows), “Cheated” (Columns), and “Cheated”

2.

Create a bar chart showing cheating by athletes and business students.

3.

Determine whether there is a statistical difference between nonathlete BDT business students and the

national average for business students as reported by the Chronicle of Higher Education (test for a proportion).

4.

Determine whether there is a statistical significance to business athlete students at BDT cheating less than

the national average for business students as reported by the Chronicle of Higher Education (test for a proportion).

5.

Determine whether there is a statistical difference between BDT business students and the national average

for business students as reported by the Chronicle of Higher Education. (test for a proportion).

6.

Determine whether there is a statistical difference between BDT nonbusiness students and the national

average for nonbusiness students as reported by the Chronicle of Higher Education (test for a proportion).

7.

Determine whether there is a statistical difference between BDT business student-athletes and nonathletes

8.

Determine whether there is a statistical relationship among the four groups of business athlete students,

nonbusiness athlete students, business nonathlete students, and nonbusiness nonathlete students at BDT (chiInstructions for Data Interpretation Component:

1.

Introduction (define): In your own words, explain why you are providing this report and the problem(s) you are

2.

Collect: Describe the data set you used.

3.

Organize: Describe your pivot table.

4.

Visualize: Include and describe your bar chart and initial perceptions of outcomes.

5.

Analyze: Provide a summary of your conclusions based on the four population proportion tests, a two-sample

proportion test, and test for independence (refer to Chapter 5.2 in TSIY). Begin with the statement of Ho and Ha

and whether it is an upper-, lower-, or 2-tailed test. Use the model results and decide whether to reject Ho using the

critical values approach, p-value approach, and confidence interval estimation approach to hypothesis testing.

6.

Ethical Summary: The dean has expressed a concern related to the amount of cheating currently taking

place at BDT and has strongly suggested that you “tweak” the statistical data such that they favor the image of the

university. Discuss the potential use of unethical manipulation of statistical data to provide a biased outcome as

7.

Conclusion: What advice would you give to the dean based upon your analysis of the data? Include your

8.

Reference page: Include at least three references to support the “Ethical Summary” section of your

Review assigment directions for more details.

College

Athlete Cheated

Non_Bus

Non_Bus

Bus

Non_Bus

Bus

Bus

Non_Bus

Bus

Non_Bus

Non_Bus

Non_Bus

Bus

Bus

Non_Bus

Bus

Bus

Bus

Non_Bus

Non_Bus

Non_Bus

Non_Bus

Bus

Bus

Bus

Bus

Non_Bus

Bus

Non_Bus

Non_Bus

Bus

Non_Bus

Non_Bus

Non_Bus

Non_Bus

Bus

Bus

Bus

Non_Bus

Bus

Non_Bus

Non_Bus

Bus

Non_Bus

Non_Bus

Bus

Bus

Non_Bus

Non_Bus

Non_Bus

Non_Bus

Bus

Bus

Non_Bus

Bus

Ath

Non_Ath

Non_Ath

Non_Ath

Ath

Non_Ath

Ath

Ath

Ath

Non_Ath

Ath

Ath

Ath

Non_Ath

Non_Ath

Ath

Non_Ath

Non_Ath

Ath

Non_Ath

Ath

Non_Ath

Ath

Ath

Non_Ath

Ath

Ath

Ath

Non_Ath

Ath

Non_Ath

Ath

Non_Ath

Non_Ath

Non_Ath

Ath

Non_Ath

Ath

Non_Ath

Non_Ath

Non_Ath

Non_Ath

Ath

Non_Ath

Non_Ath

Non_Ath

Non_Ath

Ath

Ath

Non_Ath

Ath

Non_Ath

Ath

Non_Ath

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

recordShuffler

0.693299677

0.845092355

0.549813795

0.83034738

0.53304961

0.041926733

0.81616233

0.609572907

0.938061799

0.080837463

0.96377625

0.786533431

0.568945446

0.15814206

0.380876223

0.046702777

0.850750592

0.024060029

0.841709899

0.787241601

0.052216266

0.914995219

0.876353498

0.359805192

0.945774363

0.021713631

0.54122513

0.696510084

0.456333763

0.18526612

0.83963299

0.892932832

0.120475955

0.458168915

0.260687873

0.555798953

0.391395065

0.066113373

0.100988925

0.148958865

0.815846594

0.503192729

0.473806128

0.961916316

0.519279409

0.457967604

0.150976248

0.427187218

0.116980197

0.599871298

0.755072354

0.226664815

0.870285367

0.715731238

po

Hypothesized

Confidence Coefficient (Coe)

Level of Significance (alpha)

=1-Coe

Standard Error (StdError)

=SQRT(Hypo*(1-Hypo)/n)

Test Statistic (Z-stat)

=(pbar-Hypo)/StdError

0.95

0.05

#DIV/0!

#DIV/0!

Accept or Reject: Left Tail

#DIV/0!

Accept or Reject: Right Tail

#DIV/0!

Accept or Reject: Two Tail

#DIV/0!

p-value (Lower Tail)

=NORM.S.DIST(z,TRUE)

p-value (Upper Tail)

=1-LowerTail

p-value (Two Tail)

=2*MIN(LowerTail,UpperTail)

#DIV/0!

#DIV/0!

#DIV/0!

Accept or Reject p-value: Left Tail

#DIV/0!

Accept or Reject p-value: Right Tail

#DIV/0!

Accept or Reject p-value: Two Tail

#DIV/0!

p-Lower Limit

=pbar-CONFIDENCE.NORM(alpha,StdError,n)

#DIV/0!

p-Upper Limit

=pbar+CONFIDENCE.NORM(alpha,StdError,n)

#DIV/0!

Determine the count of noncheaters and cheaters for business students, nonbusiness students, all athletes, and all non-athletes

8. Test of Independence – Is cheating independent of college and athletic p

Comparing the number of cheaters for business students, nonbusiness students, athletes, and nonathletes

Ho: all groups cheat at the same rate

Ha: there is a difference in cheating based upon college or athletic participati

Independent Variable

Business Athlete

Obs

Dependent variable

Did Not Cheat

Cheated

Total

#DIV/0!

0

Level of signicance

df =

Conclusion:

0

#DIV/0!

0.05

# of rows

# of columns

Chi square critical

Obs

#DIV/0!

Chi square test statistic =

p-value =

Nonbusiness Athle

Exp

2

4

3

df = (rows – 1)(columns – 1)

#DIV/0!

7.8147

#DIV/0!

Nationwide Average

Business

Nonbusiness

56%

e hypothesis testing calculations below based upon your pivot table results. Note the results.

Business Athlete vs. National Average

Proportion

Sample Size (n)

=count(range)

Response of Interest (ROI)

Count for Response (CFR)

=COUNTIF(range,ROI)

% Cheated

Cheated

Sample Proportion (pbar)

=CFR/n

Highlight your H0 and Ha

Two Tail H0: p = po

Ha: p ≠ po

Left Tail H0: p ≥ po

Ha: p < po
Right Tail H0: p ≤ po
Ha: p > po

Hypothesized

Confidence Coefficient (Coe)

Level of Significance (alpha)

=1-Coe

Standard Error (StdError)

=SQRT(Hypo*(1-Hypo)/n)

Test Statistic (Z-stat)

=(pbar-Hypo)/StdError

0.95

0.05

#DIV/0!

#DIV/0!

Accept or Reject: Left Tail

#DIV/0!

Accept or Reject: Right Tail

#DIV/0!

Accept or Reject: Two Tail

#DIV/0!

p-value (Lower Tail)

=NORM.S.DIST(z,TRUE)

p-value (Upper Tail)

=1-LowerTail

p-value (Two Tail)

=2*MIN(LowerTail,UpperTail)

#DIV/0!

#DIV/0!

#DIV/0!

Accept or Reject p-value: Left Tail

#DIV/0!

Accept or Reject p-value: Right Tail

#DIV/0!

Accept or Reject p-value: Two Tail

#DIV/0!

p-Lower Limit

=pbar-CONFIDENCE.NORM(alpha,StdError,n)

#DIV/0!

p-Upper Limit

=pbar+CONFIDENCE.NORM(alpha,StdError,n)

#DIV/0!

udents, all athletes, and all non-athletes and place the relevant numbers in the purple/grey area of the table below and note the conclusion.

of college and athletic participation?

etes, and nonathletes

ased upon college or athletic participation

Independent Variable

Nonbusiness Athlete

Exp

Business Nonathlete

Obs

#DIV/0!

#DIV/0!

#DIV/0!

#DIV/0!

0

1)(columns – 1)

Exp

Business vs. National Average

Proportion

Sample Size (n)

=count(range)

Response of Interest (ROI)

Count for Response (CFR)

=COUNTIF(range,ROI)

Cheated

Sample Proportion (pbar)

=CFR/n

Two Tail H0: p = po

Ha: p ≠ po

Left Tail H0: p ≥ po

Highlight your H0 and Ha

Ha: p < po
Right Tail H0: p ≤ po
Ha: p > po

Hypothesized

Confidence Coefficient (Coe)

Level of Significance (alpha)

=1-Coe

Standard Error (StdError)

=SQRT(Hypo*(1-Hypo)/n)

Test Statistic (Z-stat)

=(pbar-Hypo)/StdError

0.95

0.05

#DIV/0!

#DIV/0!

Accept or Reject: Left Tail

#DIV/0!

Accept or Reject: Right Tail

#DIV/0!

Accept or Reject: Two Tail

#DIV/0!

p-value (Lower Tail)

=NORM.S.DIST(z,TRUE)

p-value (Upper Tail)

=1-LowerTail

p-value (Two Tail)

=2*MIN(LowerTail,UpperTail)

#DIV/0!

#DIV/0!

#DIV/0!

Accept or Reject p-value: Left Tail

#DIV/0!

Accept or Reject p-value: Right Tail

#DIV/0!

Accept or Reject p-value: Two Tail

#DIV/0!

p-Lower Limit

=pbar-CONFIDENCE.NORM(alpha,StdError,n)

#DIV/0!

p-Upper Limit

=pbar+CONFIDENCE.NORM(alpha,StdError,n)

#DIV/0!

ble below and note the conclusion.

Nonbusiness Nonathlete

Obs

0

Exp

Total

#DIV/0!

0

#DIV/0!

0

0

Nonbusiness vs. National Average

Proportion

Sample Size (n)

=count(range)

Response of Interest (ROI)

Count for Response (CFR)

=COUNTIF(range,ROI)

Cheated

Sample Proportion (pbar)

=CFR/n

Two Tail H0: p = po

Ha: p ≠ po

Left Tail H0: p ≥ po

Highlight your H0 and Ha

Ha: p < po
Right Tail H0: p ≤ po
Ha: p > po

Hypothesized

Confidence Coefficient (Coe)

Level of Significance (alpha)

=1-Coe

Standard Error (StdError)

=SQRT(Hypo*(1-Hypo)/n)

Test Statistic (Z-stat)

=(pbar-Hypo)/StdError

0.95

0.05

#DIV/0!

#DIV/0!

Accept or Reject: Left Tail

#DIV/0!

Accept or Reject: Right Tail

#DIV/0!

Accept or Reject: Two Tail

#DIV/0!

p-value (Lower Tail)

=NORM.S.DIST(z,TRUE)

p-value (Upper Tail)

=1-LowerTail

p-value (Two Tail)

=2*MIN(LowerTail,UpperTail)

#DIV/0!

#DIV/0!

#DIV/0!

Accept or Reject p-value: Left Tail

#DIV/0!

Accept or Reject p-value: Right Tail

#DIV/0!

Accept or Reject p-value: Two Tail

#DIV/0!

p-Lower Limit

=pbar-CONFIDENCE.NORM(alpha,StdError,n)

#DIV/0!

p-Upper Limit

=pbar+CONFIDENCE.NORM(alpha,StdError,n)

#DIV/0!

Calculations

#DIV/0!

#DIV/0!

#DIV/0!

#DIV/0!

#DIV/0!

#DIV/0!

Business Athlete vs. Business Nonathlete

p1 and p2 Proportion

Athlete

Nonathlete

Sample Size (n1 or n2)

=COUNT(range)

Response of Interest (ROI)

Cheated

Cheated

Count for Response (CFR)

=COUNTIF(n1or2,ROI)

Sample Proportion (p1 or p2)

=CFR1or2/n1or2

Two Tail H0: p1-p2=0

Highlight your H0 and Ha Left Tail H0: p1-p2≥0

Right Tail H0: p1-p2≤0

Hypothesized Value

Level of Sig. α

0.05

Point Estimation of Difference (Point)

=p1-p2

Pooled Estimation of p (PE)

=(n1*p1+n2*p2)/(n1+n2)

Standard Error (StdError)

=SQRT(PE*(1-PE)*(1/n1+1/n2))

Test Statistic Z-stat

=(Point-Hypo)/StdError

Accept or Reject: Left Tail

Accept or Reject: Right Tail

0

#DIV/0!

#DIV/0!

#DIV/0!

#DIV/0!

#DIV/0!

Accept or Reject: Two Tail

p-value (Lower Tail)

=NORM.S.DIST(Zstat,TRUE)

p-value (Upper Tail)

=1-LowerTail

p-value (Two Tail)

=2*MIN(LowerTail,UpperTail)

Accept or Reject p-value: Left Tail

Accept or Reject p-value: Right Tail

Accept or Reject p-value: Two Tail

#DIV/0!

#DIV/0!

#DIV/0!

#DIV/0!

#DIV/0!

#DIV/0!

#DIV/0!

Ha: p1-p2≠0

Ha: p1-p20

#DIV/0!

#DIV/0!

Hypothesis Test

Business Nonathlete vs. National Average

Business Athlete vs. National Average

Business vs. National Average

Nonbusiness vs. National Average

Business Athlete vs. Business Nonathlete

Test of Independence

Rejection Region (Tail)

Critical Value

Test Statistics

Reject (Yes/No)

P-value Interpretation

Benchmark – Ethical Behavior of Business Students at Bo Diddley Tech – Rubric

Collapse All Benchmark – Ethical Behavior Of Business Students At Bo Diddley Tech RubricCollapse All

Pivot Table and Bar Chart

10 points

Criteria Description

Pivot Table and Bar Chart

5. Excellent

10 points

The specified data are complete and presented in a pivot table and bar chart, including all relevant

titles and components to display the data effectively.

4. Good

8.5 points

The specified data are presented in the pivot table and bar chart and are complete and correct.

3. Satisfactory

7.5 points

The specified data are presented in a pivot table and bar chart and are somewhat complete and

correct.

2. Less Than Satisfactory

6.5 points

The specified data are presented in a pivot table and bar chart but are incorrect.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

The specified data are not represented in a pivot table or bar chart.

Excel Statistical Analysis (B)

10 points

Criteria Description

Excel Statistical Analysis (C7.3)

5. Excellent

10 points

Statistical analysis reporting the statistical differences between all required sample groups is

complete and correct and demonstrates a clear connection to the data set.

4. Good

8.5 points

Statistical analysis reporting the statistical differences between all required sample groups is mostly

complete and correct.

3. Satisfactory

7.5 points

Statistical analysis reporting the statistical differences between all required sample groups is

somewhat complete and correct.

2. Less Than Satisfactory

6.5 points

Statistical analysis reporting the statistical differences between all required sample groups is present

but is incorrect.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Statistical analysis is not completed.

Managerial Report (B)

65 points

Criteria Description

Managerial Report (C2.2/C2.3)

5. Excellent

65 points

Explanation of all DCOVA elements (Define, Collect, Organize, Visualize, Analyze), ethical summary,

and conclusion are included in the managerial report and provide thorough explanation and

substantial relevant supporting details.

4. Good

55.25 points

Explanation of all DCOVA elements (Define, Collect, Organize, Visualize, Analyze), ethical summary,

and conclusion are included in the managerial report and provide basic explanation and relevant

supporting detail.

3. Satisfactory

48.75 points

Explanation of all DCOVA elements (Define, Collect, Organize, Visualize, Analyze), ethical summary,

and conclusion are included in the managerial report but lack relevant supporting details.

2. Less Than Satisfactory

42.25 points

Explanation of all DCOVA elements (Define, Collect, Organize, Visualize, Analyze), ethical summary,

and conclusion are included in the managerial report but are incomplete or incorrect.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Explanation of all DCOVA elements (Define, Collect, Organize, Visualize, Analyze), ethical summary,

and conclusion are not included in the managerial report.

Thesis Development and Purpose

2 points

Criteria Description

Thesis Development and Purpose

5. Excellent

2 points

Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose

of the paper clear.

4. Good

1.7 points

Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the

arguments and appropriate to the purpose.

3. Satisfactory

1.5 points

Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose.

2. Less Than Satisfactory

1.3 points

Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.

Argument Logic and Construction

3 points

Criteria Description

Argument Logic and Construction

5. Excellent

3 points

Clear and convincing argument presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner.

All sources are authoritative.

4. Good

2.55 points

Argument shows logical progression. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth

progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative.

3. Satisfactory

2.25 points

Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification

of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible.

Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis.

2. Less Than Satisfactory

1.95 points

Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in

the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim

made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources.

Mechanics of Writing

5 points

Criteria Description

(includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, and language use)

5. Excellent

5 points

The writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.

4. Good

4.25 points

Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of

effective sentence structures and figures of speech.

3. Satisfactory

3.75 points

Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct

and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed.

2. Less Than Satisfactory

3.25 points

Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice

(register) or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate

word choice or sentence construction is employed.

Paper Format

3 points

Criteria Description

(use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)

5. Excellent

3 points

All format elements are correct.

4. Good

2.55 points

Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style.

3. Satisfactory

2.25 points

Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present.

2. Less Than Satisfactory

1.95 points

Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with

formatting is apparent.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Template is not used appropriately, or documentation format is rarely followed correctly.

Documentation of Sources

2 points

Criteria Description

(citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style)

5. Excellent

2 points

Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format

is free of error.

4. Good

1.7 points

Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct.

3. Satisfactory

1.5 points

Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors

may be present.

2. Less Than Satisfactory

1.3 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 100 points