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