BUSI 770                Grading Rubrics  07 May 2018              Page 1 of 14    Discussion Board 1 Main Thread    Criteria  Levels of Achievement  Content ‐ 50 Points  Advanced  Proficient  Developing  Not present  Introduction  5 Points  3.1 to 5 points Introduction provides an complete  overview of the discussion  1.1 to 3 points Introduction provides an partial   overview of the discussion  0.1 to 1 points Introduction present but does not  provide an overview of the  discussion  0 points Not completed  Process  15 Points  13.1 to 15 points Section provides a complete  discussion of the required business  process topic. Demonstrates critical  thinking to include analysis and  evaluation of process steps. Flow is  logical and fully cited. No less than  minimum required word count.    5.1 to 13 points Section provides a nearly complete  discussion of the required business  process. Demonstrates some  critical thinking to include analysis  of process steps. Flow is mostly  logical and partially cited. No less  than minimum required word  count.    0.1 to 5 points Section is present but misses many  elements of the required business  process. Lacks appropriate level of  critical thinking with very little or no  analysis and evaluation.  0 points Not completed or not related  to requirements for the  section  Strategic Thinking  15 Points  13.1 to 15 points Section provides a complete  discussion of the required strategic  thinking topic. Demonstrates critical  thinking to include analysis,  evaluation, and synthesis of topic.  Flow is logical and fully cited. No  less than minimum required word  count.     5.1 to 13 points Section provides a nearly complete  discussion of the required strategic  thinking topic. Demonstrates  critical thinking to include analysis  and evaluation of topic. Flow is  mostly logical and partially cited.  No less than minimum required  word count.  0.1 to 5 points Section is present but misses many  elements of the required strategic  thinking topic. Lacks appropriate  level of critical thinking with very  little or no analysis, evaluation, or  synthesis.   0 points Not completed or not related  to requirements for the  section  Decision Model  10 Points  8.1 to 10 points Section provides a complete  discussion of the student’s current  decision model(s). Complete  discussion of how the model(s) aid  or hinder the student’s decision  process to include why. Flow is  3.1 to 8 points Section provides a complete  discussion of the student’s current  decision model(s). Minimal  discussion of how the model(s) aid  or hinder the student’s decision  process to include why. Flow is  0.1 to 3 points Section provides an incomplete  discussion of the student’s current  decision model(s). No discussion of  how the model(s) aid or hinder the  student’s decision process to  include why. No less than minimum  0 points Not completed or not related  to requirements for the  section  BUSI 770        ...

1. BUSI 770 Grading Rubrics
07 May 2018 Page 1 of 14
Discussion Board 1 Main Thread
Criteria Levels of Achievement
Content ‐ 50 Points Advanced Proficient Developing
Not present
Introduction
5 Points
3.1 to 5 points
Introduction provides an complete
overview of the discussion
1.1 to 3 points
Introduction provides an partial
overview of the discussion
0.1 to 1 points
Introduction present but does not
provide an overview of the
discussion
0 points
Not completed

2. Process
15 Points
13.1 to 15 points
Section provides a complete
discussion of the required business
process topic. Demonstrates critical
thinking to include analysis and
evaluation of process steps. Flow is
logical and fully cited. No less than
minimum required word count.
5.1 to 13 points
Section provides a nearly complete
discussion of the required business
process. Demonstrates some
critical thinking to include analysis
of process steps. Flow is mostly
logical and partially cited. No less
than minimum required word
count.
0.1 to 5 points
Section is present but misses many
elements of the required business
process. Lacks appropriate level of
critical thinking with very little or no
analysis and evaluation.
0 points
Not completed or not related
to requirements for the

3. section
Strategic Thinking
15 Points
13.1 to 15 points
Section provides a complete
discussion of the required strategic
thinking topic. Demonstrates critical
thinking to include analysis,
evaluation, and synthesis of topic.
Flow is logical and fully cited. No
less than minimum required word
count.
5.1 to 13 points
Section provides a nearly complete
discussion of the required strategic
thinking topic. Demonstrates
critical thinking to include analysis
and evaluation of topic. Flow is
mostly logical and partially cited.
No less than minimum required
word count.
0.1 to 5 points
Section is present but misses many
elements of the required strategic
thinking topic. Lacks appropriate
level of critical thinking with very
little or no analysis, evaluation, or
synthesis.
0 points

4. Not completed or not related
to requirements for the
section
Decision Model
10 Points
8.1 to 10 points
Section provides a complete
discussion of the student’s current
decision model(s). Complete
discussion of how the model(s) aid
or hinder the student’s decision
process to include why. Flow is
3.1 to 8 points
Section provides a complete
discussion of the student’s current
decision model(s). Minimal
discussion of how the model(s) aid
or hinder the student’s decision
process to include why. Flow is
0.1 to 3 points
Section provides an incomplete
discussion of the student’s current
decision model(s). No discussion of
how the model(s) aid or hinder the
student’s decision process to
include why. No less than minimum
0 points
Not completed or not related
to requirements for the
section

5. BUSI 770 Grading Rubrics
07 May 2018 Page 2 of 14
logical and fully cited. No less than
minimum required word count.
mostly logical and partially cited.
No less than minimum required
word count.
required word count.
Conclusion
5 Points
3.1 to 5 points
Conclusion provides a complete
summary of the discussion and
highlights key points
1.1 to 3 points
Conclusion provides a partial
summary of the discussion and
highlights at least one key points
0.1 to 1 points
Conclusion present but does not

6. summarize discussion or highlight
key points
0 points
Not completed
Structure ‐ 25 Points Advanced Proficient Developing
Not present
Annotated Bibliography
20 Points
16.1 to 20 points
Two sources included (not the text
books). Correct reference listing.
Summary of Key Points in the
article. Evaluation of the quality of
the publication. Evaluation of the
quality of the author(s). Description
of where the article fits into the
discussion.
No less than minimum required
word count.
6.1 to 16 points
Two sources included (not the text
books). Correct reference listing.
Summary of Key Points in the
article.
Missing or partial:
1) Evaluation of the quality of the
publication.
2) Evaluation of the quality of the

7. author(s).
3) Description of where the article
fits into the discussion.
No less than minimum required
word count.
0.1 to 6 points
Two sources included (not the text
books). Correct reference listing.
Summary of Key Points in the
article.
Missing one or more:
1) Evaluation of the quality of the
publication.
2) Evaluation of the quality of the
author(s).
3) Description of where the article
fits into the discussion.
No less than minimum required
word count.
0 points
Not completed
APA Format & Structure
5 Points
3.1 to 5 points
Proper cover page and section
headings included. Met all of the

8. required formatting.
1.1 to 3 points
Proper cover page and section
headings included. Met most of the
required formatting.
0.1 to 1 points
No cover page and/or section
headings included. Met all of some
required formatting.
0 points
No structure or formatting
provided
BUSI 770 Grading Rubrics
07 May 2018 Page 3 of 14
Discussion Board 1 Reply
Criteria Levels of Achievement
Content ‐ 20 Points Advanced Proficient Developing

9. Not present
Summary
8 Points
6.1 to 8 points
Section provides a complete
summary of the author’s main
thread. Flow is logical and fully
cited. No less than minimum
required word count.
2.1 to 6 points
Section provides a nearly complete
summary of the author’s main
thread. Flow is mostly logical and
partially cited. No less than
minimum required word count.
0.1 to 2 points
Section is present but misses many
elements of the author’s main
thread.
0 points
Not completed or not related
to requirements for the
section
Evaluation
12 Points
9.1 to 12 points

10. Section provides a complete
evaluation of the author’s paper to
include what the student agreed
with and why as well as what the
student disagreed with and why.
Demonstrates critical thinking to
include analysis and evaluation of
the author’s main thread. Flow is
logical and fully cited. No less than
minimum required word count.
3.1 to 9 points
Section provides a nearly complete
evaluation of the author’s paper to
include what the student agreed
with or disagreed with. Limited or
no discussion of why. Demonstrates
critical thinking to include analysis
of the topic. Flow is mostly logical
and partially cited. No less than
minimum required word count.
0.1 to 3 points
Section is present but provides a
weak evaluation of the author’s
paper without any discussion of
what the student disagreed with or
why. Lacks appropriate level of
critical thinking with very little or no
analysis or evaluation.
0 points
Not completed or not related
to requirements for the
section

11. Structure ‐ 5 Points Advanced Proficient Developing
Not present
APA Format & Structure
5 Points
3.1 to 5 points
Two sources included (not the text
books). Correct reference listing.
Proper cover page and section
headings included. Met all of the
required formatting.
1.1 to 3 points
Two sources included (not the text
books). Correct reference listing.
Proper cover page and section
headings included. Met most of the
required formatting.
0.1 to 1 points
Two sources (not the text books)
not included and/or incorrect
reference listing. No cover page
and/or section headings included.
Met all of some required
formatting.
0 points
No structure or formatting
provided

12. BUSI 770 Grading Rubrics
07 May 2018 Page 4 of 14
Discussion Board 2 ‐ 5 Main Thread
Criteria Levels of Achievement
Content ‐ 50 Points Advanced Proficient Developing
Not present
Introduction
5 Points
3.1 to 5 points
Introduction provides an complete
overview of the discussion
1.1 to 3 points
Introduction provides an partial
overview of the discussion
0.1 to 1 points
Introduction present but does not
provide an overview of the
discussion
0 points
Not completed

13. Process
15 Points
13.1 to 15 points
Section provides a complete
discussion of the required business
process topic. Demonstrates critical
thinking to include analysis and
evaluation of process steps. Flow is
logical and fully cited. No less than
minimum required word count.
5.1 to 13 points
Section provides a nearly complete
discussion of the required business
process. Demonstrates some
critical thinking to include analysis
of process steps. Flow is mostly
logical and partially cited. No less
than minimum required word
count.
0.1 to 5 points
Section is present but misses many
elements of the required business
process. Lacks appropriate level of
critical thinking with very little or no
analysis and evaluation.
0 points
Not completed or not related
to requirements for the
section

14. Strategic Thinking
15 Points
13.1 to 15 points
Section provides a complete
discussion of the required strategic
thinking topic. Demonstrates critical
thinking to include analysis,
evaluation, and synthesis of topic.
Flow is logical and fully cited. No
less than minimum required word
count.
5.1 to 13 points
Section provides a nearly complete
discussion of the required strategic
thinking topic. Demonstrates
critical thinking to include analysis
and evaluation of topic. Flow is
mostly logical and partially cited.
No less than minimum required
word count.
0.1 to 5 points
Section is present but misses many
elements of the required strategic
thinking topic. Lacks appropriate
level of critical thinking with very
little or no analysis, evaluation, or
synthesis.

15. 0 points
Not completed or not related
to requirements for the
section
Decision Model
10 Points
8.1 to 10 points
Section provides a complete
discussion of the student’s current
decision model(s). Complete
discussion of decision model(s)
being considered to include why.
Flow is logical and fully cited. No
less than minimum required word
3.1 to 8 points
Section provides a complete
discussion of the student’s current
decision model(s). Minimal
discussion of decision model(s)
being considered to include why.
Flow is mostly logical and partially
cited. No less than minimum
0.1 to 3 points
Section provides an incomplete
discussion of the student’s current
decision model(s). No discussion of
decision model(s) being considered
to include why. No less than
minimum required word count.

16. 0 points
Not completed or not related
to requirements for the
section
BUSI 770 Grading Rubrics
07 May 2018 Page 5 of 14
count.
required word count.
Conclusion
5 Points
3.1 to 5 points
Conclusion provides a complete
summary of the discussion and
highlights key points
1.1 to 3 points
Conclusion provides a partial
summary of the discussion and
highlights at least one key points
0.1 to 1 points
Conclusion present but does not
summarize discussion or highlight

17. key points
0 points
Not completed
Structure ‐ 25 Points Advanced Proficient Developing
Not present
Annotated
Bibliography
20 Points
16.1 to 20 points
Two sources included (not the text
books). Correct reference listing.
Summary of Key Points in the
article. Evaluation of the quality of
the publication. Evaluation of the
quality of the author(s). Description
of where the article fits into the
discussion.
No less than minimum required
word count.
6.1 to 16 points
Two sources included (not the text
books). Correct reference listing.
Summary of Key Points in the
article.
Missing or partial:
1) Evaluation of the quality of the
publication.
2) Evaluation of the quality of the
author(s).

18. 3) Description of where the article
fits into the discussion.
No less than minimum required
word count.
0.1 to 6 points
Two sources included (not the text
books). Correct reference listing.
Summary of Key Points in the
article.
Missing one or more:
1) Evaluation of the quality of the
publication.
2) Evaluation of the quality of the
author(s).
3) Description of where the article
fits into the discussion.
No less than minimum required
word count.
0 points
Not completed
APA Format &
Structure
5 Points
3.1 to 5 points
Proper cover page and section
headings included. Met all of the

19. required formatting.
1.1 to 3 points
Proper cover page and section
headings included. Met most of the
required formatting.
0.1 to 1 points
No cover page and/or section
headings included. Met all of some
required formatting.
0 points
No structure or formatting
provided
Discussion Board 2 ‐ 5 Reply
BUSI 770 Grading Rubrics
07 May 2018 Page 6 of 14
Criteria Levels of Achievement
Content ‐ 20 Points Advanced Proficient Developing

20. Not present
Summary
8 Points
6.1 to 8 points
Section provides a complete
summary of the author’s main
thread. Flow is logical and fully
cited. No less than minimum
required word count.
2.1 to 6 points
Section provides a nearly complete
summary of the author’s main
thread. Flow is mostly logical and
partially cited. No less than
minimum required word count.
0.1 to 2 points
Section is present but misses many
elements of the author’s main
thread.
0 points
Not completed or not related
to requirements for the
section
Evaluation
12 Points
9.1 to 12 points

21. Section provides a complete
evaluation of the author’s paper to
include what the student agreed
with and why as well as what the
student disagreed with and why.
Demonstrates critical thinking to
include analysis and evaluation of
the author’s main thread. Flow is
logical and fully cited. No less than
minimum required word count.
3.1 to 9 points
Section provides a nearly complete
evaluation of the author’s paper to
include what the student agreed
with or disagreed with. Limited or
no discussion of why. Demonstrates
critical thinking to include analysis
of the topic. Flow is mostly logical
and partially cited. No less than
minimum required word count.
0.1 to 3 points
Section is present but provides a
weak evaluation of the author’s
paper without any discussion of
what the student disagreed with or
why. Lacks appropriate level of
critical thinking with very little or no
analysis or evaluation.
0 points
Not completed or not related
to requirements for the
section

22. Structure ‐ 5 Points Advanced Proficient Developing
Not present
APA Format & Structure
5 Points
3.1 to 5 points
Two sources included (not the text
books). Correct reference listing.
Proper cover page and section
headings included. Met all of the
required formatting.
1.1 to 3 points
Two sources included (not the text
books). Correct reference listing.
Proper cover page and section
headings included. Met most of the
required formatting.
0.1 to 1 points
Two sources (not the text books)
not included and/or incorrect
reference listing. No cover page
and/or section headings included.
Met all of some required
formatting.
0 points
No structure or formatting
provided

23. BUSI 770 Grading Rubrics
07 May 2018 Page 7 of 14
Discussion Board 6 Main Thread
Criteria Levels of Achievement
Content ‐ 50 Points Advanced Proficient Developing
Not present
Introduction
5 Points
3.1 to 5 points
Introduction provides an complete
overview of the discussion
1.1 to 3 points
Introduction provides an partial
overview of the discussion
0.1 to 1 points
Introduction present but does not
provide an overview of the
discussion
0 points
Not completed

24. Process
15 Points
13.1 to 15 points
Section provides a complete
discussion of the required business
process topic. Demonstrates critical
thinking to include analysis and
evaluation of process steps. Flow is
logical and fully cited. No less than
minimum required word count.
5.1 to 13 points
Section provides a nearly complete
discussion of the required business
process. Demonstrates some
critical thinking to include analysis
of process steps. Flow is mostly
logical and partially cited. No less
than minimum required word
count.
0.1 to 5 points
Section is present but misses many
elements of the required business
process. Lacks appropriate level of
critical thinking with very little or no
analysis and evaluation.
0 points
Not completed or not related
to requirements for the

25. section
Strategic Thinking
15 Points
13.1 to 15 points
Section provides a complete
discussion of the required strategic
thinking topic. Demonstrates critical
thinking to include analysis,
evaluation, and synthesis of topic.
Flow is logical and fully cited. No
less than minimum required word
count.
5.1 to 13 points
Section provides a nearly complete
discussion of the required strategic
thinking topic. Demonstrates
critical thinking to include analysis
and evaluation of topic. Flow is
mostly logical and partially cited.
No less than minimum required
word count.
0.1 to 5 points
Section is present but misses many
elements of the required strategic
thinking topic. Lacks appropriate
level of critical thinking with very
little or no analysis, evaluation, or
synthesis.
0 points

26. Not completed or not related
to requirements for the
section
Decision Model
10 Points
8.1 to 10 points
Section provides a complete
discussion of key decision traps to
avoid to include why they are key.
Flow is logical and fully cited.
No less than minimum required
word count.
3.1 to 8 points
Section provides a minimal
discussion of key decision traps to
avoid to include why they are key.
Flow is mostly logical and partially
cited. No less than minimum
required word count.
0.1 to 3 points
Section provides a minimal
discussion of key decision traps to
avoid and no discussion of why they
are key. No less than minimum
required word count.
0 points
Not completed or not related
to requirements for the
section

27. BUSI 770 Grading Rubrics
07 May 2018 Page 8 of 14
Conclusion
5 Points
3.1 to 5 points
Conclusion provides a complete
summary of the discussion and
highlights key points
1.1 to 3 points
Conclusion provides a partial
summary of the discussion and
highlights at least one key points
0.1 to 1 points
Conclusion present but does not
summarize discussion or highlight
key points
0 points
Not completed
Structure ‐ 25 Points Advanced Proficient Developing
Not present

28. Annotated
Bibliography
20 Points
16.1 to 20 points
Two sources included (not the text
books). Correct reference listing.
Summary of Key Points in the
article. Evaluation of the quality of
the publication. Evaluation of the
quality of the author(s). Description
of where the article fits into the
discussion.
No less than minimum required
word count.
6.1 to 16 points
Two sources included (not the text
books). Correct reference listing.
Summary of Key Points in the
article.
Missing or partial:
1) Evaluation of the quality of the
publication.
2) Evaluation of the quality of the
author(s).
3) Description of where the article
fits into the discussion.
No less than minimum required
word count.
0.1 to 6 points
Two sources included (not the text

29. books). Correct reference listing.
Summary of Key Points in the
article.
Missing one or more:
1) Evaluation of the quality of the
publication.
2) Evaluation of the quality of the
author(s).
3) Description of where the article
fits into the discussion.
No less than minimum required
word count.
0 points
Not completed
APA Format &
Structure
5 Points
3.1 to 5 points
Proper cover page and section
headings included. Met all of the
required formatting.
1.1 to 3 points
Proper cover page and section
headings included. Met most of the

30. required formatting.
0.1 to 1 points
No cover page and/or section
headings included. Met all of some
required formatting.
0 points
No structure or formatting
provided
BUSI 770 Grading Rubrics
07 May 2018 Page 9 of 14
Discussion Board 6 Reply
Criteria Levels of Achievement
Content ‐ 20 Points Advanced Proficient Developing
Not present
Summary
8 Points
6.1 to 8 points
Section provides a complete
summary of the author’s main
thread. Flow is logical and fully
cited. No less than minimum

31. required word count.
2.1 to 6 points
Section provides a nearly complete
summary of the author’s main
thread. Flow is mostly logical and
partially cited. No less than
minimum required word count.
0.1 to 2 points
Section is present but misses many
elements of the author’s main
thread.
0 points
Not completed or not related
to requirements for the
section
Evaluation
12 Points
9.1 to 12 points
Section provides a complete
evaluation of the author’s paper to
include what the student agreed
with and why as well as what the
student disagreed with and why.
Demonstrates critical thinking to
include analysis and evaluation of
the author’s main thread. Flow is
logical and fully cited. No less than
minimum required word count.

32. 3.1 to 9 points
Section provides a nearly complete
evaluation of the author’s paper to
include what the student agreed
with or disagreed with. Limited or
no discussion of why. Demonstrates
critical thinking to include analysis
of the topic. Flow is mostly logical
and partially cited. No less than
minimum required word count.
0.1 to 3 points
Section is present but provides a
weak evaluation of the author’s
paper without any discussion of
what the student disagreed with or
why. Lacks appropriate level of
critical thinking with very little or no
analysis or evaluation.
0 points
Not completed or not related
to requirements for the
section
Structure ‐ 5 Points Advanced Proficient Developing
Not present
APA Format & Structure
5 Points
3.1 to 5 points
Two sources included (not the text

33. books). Correct reference listing.
Proper cover page and section
headings included. Met all of the
required formatting.
1.1 to 3 points
Two sources included (not the text
books). Correct reference listing.
Proper cover page and section
headings included. Met most of the
required formatting.
0.1 to 1 points
Two sources (not the text books)
not included and/or incorrect
reference listing. No cover page
and/or section headings included.
Met all of some required
formatting.
0 points
No structure or formatting
provided
BUSI 770 Grading Rubrics
07 May 2018 Page 10 of 14

34. Discussion Board 7 Main Thread
Criteria Levels of Achievement
Content ‐ 75 Points Advanced Proficient Developing
Not present
Introduction
5 Points
3.1 to 5 points
Introduction provides an complete
overview of the discussion
1.1 to 3 points
Introduction provides an partial
overview of the discussion
0.1 to 1 points
Introduction present but does not
provide an overview of the
discussion
0 points
Not completed
Business Integrity
20 Points
16.1 to 20 points
Section provides a complete
discussion of the power of business
integrity. Demonstrates critical

35. thinking to include analysis and
evaluation of process steps. Flow is
logical and fully cited. No less than
minimum required word count.
6.1 to 16 points
Section provides a nearly complete
discussion of the power of business
integrity. Demonstrates some
critical thinking to include analysis
of process steps. Flow is mostly
logical and partially cited. No less
than minimum required word
count.
0.1 to 6 points
Section is present but misses many
elements of the power of business
integrity. Lacks appropriate level of
critical thinking with very little or no
analysis and evaluation.
0 points
Not completed or not related
to requirements for the
section
God’s Perspective on
Business Integrity
25 Points
18.1 to 25 points
Section provides a complete

36. discussion of God’s perspective on
business integrity. Demonstrates
critical thinking to include analysis
and evaluation of process steps.
Flow is logical and fully cited. No
less than minimum required word
count.
8.1 to 18 points
Section provides a nearly complete
discussion of God’s perspective on
business integrity. Demonstrates
some critical thinking to include
analysis of process steps. Flow is
mostly logical and partially cited.
No less than minimum required
word count.
0.1 to 8 points
Section is present but misses many
elements God’s perspective on
business integrity. Lacks
appropriate level of critical thinking
with very little or no analysis and
evaluation.
0 points
Not completed or not related
to requirements for the
section
Decision Model
20 Points

37. 16.1 to 20 points
Section provides a complete
discussion of the student’s current
decision model(s). Complete
discussion of the changes in the
student’s decision model to include
why. Flow is logical and fully cited.
6.1 to 16 points
Section provides a complete
discussion of the student’s current
decision model(s). Minimal
discussion of the changes in the
student’s decision model to include
why. Flow is mostly logical and
0.1 to 6 points
Section provides an incomplete
discussion of the student’s current
decision model(s). No discussion of
the changes in the student’s
decision model to include why. No
less than minimum required word
0 points
Not completed or not related
to requirements for the
section
BUSI 770 Grading Rubrics
07 May 2018 Page 11 of 14

38. No less than minimum required
word count.
partially cited. No less than
minimum required word count.
count.
Conclusion
5 Points
3.1 to 5 points
Conclusion provides a complete
summary of the discussion and
highlights key points
1.1 to 3 points
Conclusion provides a partial
summary of the discussion and
highlights at least one key points
0.1 to 1 points
Conclusion present but does not
summarize discussion or highlight
key points
0 points
Not completed
Structure ‐ 25 Points Advanced Proficient Developing
Not present

39. Annotated
Bibliography
20 Points
16.1 to 20 points
Two sources included (not the text
books). Correct reference listing.
Summary of Key Points in the
article. Evaluation of the quality of
the publication. Evaluation of the
quality of the author(s). Description
of where the article fits into the
discussion.
No less than minimum required
word count.
6.1 to 16 points
Two sources included (not the text
books). Correct reference listing.
Summary of Key Points in the
article.
Missing or partial:
1) Evaluation of the quality of the
publication.
2) Evaluation of the quality of the
author(s).
3) Description of where the article
fits into the discussion.
No less than minimum required
word count.
0.1 to 6 points
Two sources included (not the text

40. books). Correct reference listing.
Summary of Key Points in the
article.
Missing one or more:
1) Evaluation of the quality of the
publication.
2) Evaluation of the quality of the
author(s).
3) Description of where the article
fits into the discussion.
No less than minimum required
word count.
0 points
Not completed
APA Format &
Structure
5 Points
3.1 to 5 points
Proper cover page and section
headings included. Met all of the
required formatting.
1.1 to 3 points
Proper cover page and section
headings included. Met most of the
required formatting.
0.1 to 1 points

41. No cover page and/or section
headings included. Met all of some
required formatting.
0 points
No structure or formatting
provided
BUSI 770 Grading Rubrics
07 May 2018 Page 12 of 14
Discussion Board 7 Reply
Criteria Levels of Achievement
Content ‐ 20 Points Advanced Proficient Developing
Not present
Summary
8 Points
6.1 to 8 points
Section provides a complete
summary of the author’s main
thread. Flow is logical and fully
cited. No less than minimum
required word count.

42. 2.1 to 6 points
Section provides a nearly complete
summary of the author’s main
thread. Flow is mostly logical and
partially cited. No less than
minimum required word count.
0.1 to 2 points
Section is present but misses many
elements of the author’s main
thread.
0 points
Not completed or not related
to requirements for the
section
Evaluation
12 Points
9.1 to 12 points
Section provides a complete
evaluation of the author’s paper to
include what the student agreed
with and why as well as what the
student disagreed with and why.
Demonstrates critical thinking to
include analysis and evaluation of
the author’s main thread. Flow is
logical and fully cited. No less than
minimum required word count.

43. 3.1 to 9 points
Section provides a nearly complete
evaluation of the author’s paper to
include what the student agreed
with or disagreed with. Limited or
no discussion of why. Demonstrates
critical thinking to include analysis
of the topic. Flow is mostly logical
and partially cited. No less than
minimum required word count.
0.1 to 3 points
Section is present but provides a
weak evaluation of the author’s
paper without any discussion of
what the student disagreed with or
why. Lacks appropriate level of
critical thinking with very little or no
analysis or evaluation.
0 points
Not completed or not related
to requirements for the
section
Structure ‐ 5 Points Advanced Proficient Developing
Not present
APA Format & Structure
5 Points
3.1 to 5 points
Two sources included (not the text
books). Correct reference listing.
Proper cover page and section

44. headings included. Met all of the
required formatting.
1.1 to 3 points
Two sources included (not the text
books). Correct reference listing.
Proper cover page and section
headings included. Met most of the
required formatting.
0.1 to 1 points
Two sources (not the text books)
not included and/or incorrect
reference listing. No cover page
and/or section headings included.
Met all of some required
formatting.
0 points
No structure or formatting
provided
BUSI 770 Grading Rubrics
07 May 2018 Page 13 of 14
Literature Review

45. Criteria Levels of Achievement
Content ‐ 220 Points Advanced Proficient Developing
Not present
Introduction
10 Points
8.1 to 10 points
Introduction provides a clear theme
and a complete overview of the
literature review
4.1 to 8 points
Introduction provides a weak
theme and / or a partial overview
of the literature review
0.1 to 4 points
Introduction present but does not
provide a clear theme and / or an
overview of the literature review
0 points
Not completed
Research Question 1
65 Points
60.1 to 65 points
Section provides a complete
discussion of how individual and
group decision processes aid or
impede business decision making.

46. Compares and contrasts multiple
views. Demonstrates critical
thinking to include analysis,
evaluation, and synthesis. Flow is
logical and fully cited. No less than 8
pages in length with no less than 6
scholarly sources not including the
texts.
30.1 to 60 points
Section provides a nearly complete
discussion of how individual and
group decision processes aid or
impede business decision making.
Fails to compare and contrast
multiple views. Demonstrates some
critical thinking to include some
analysis and evaluation. Flow is
mostly logical and mostly cited. No
less than 8 pages in length with no
less than 6 scholarly sources not
including the texts.
0.1 to 30 points
Section is present but misses many
elements of how individual and
group decision processes aid or
impede business decision making.
Fails to compare and contrast
multiple views. Lacks appropriate
level of critical thinking with very
little or no analysis and evaluation.
Flow is not logical and / or poorly
cited. Less than 8 pages in length

47. and / or less than 6 scholarly
sources not including the texts.
0 points
Not completed or not related
to requirements for the
section
Research Question 2
65 Points
60.1 to 65 points
Section provides a complete
discussion of the newest directions
in the process of strategy
development and execution.
Compares and contrasts multiple
views. Demonstrates critical
thinking to include analysis,
evaluation, and synthesis. Flow is
logical and fully cited. No less than 8
pages in length with no less than 6
scholarly sources not including the
texts.
30.1 to 60 points
Section provides a nearly complete
discussion of the newest directions
in the process of strategy
development and execution. Fails
to compare and contrast multiple
views. Demonstrates some critical
thinking to include some analysis

48. and evaluation. Flow is mostly
logical and mostly cited. No less
than 8 pages in length with no less
than 6 scholarly sources not
including the texts.
0.1 to 30 points
Section is present but misses many
elements of the newest directions in
the process of strategy
development and execution. Fails to
compare and contrast multiple
views. Lacks appropriate level of
critical thinking with very little or no
analysis and evaluation. Flow is not
logical and / or poorly cited. Less
than 8 pages in length and / or less
than 6 scholarly sources not
including the texts.
0 points
Not completed or not related
to requirements for the
section
BUSI 770 Grading Rubrics
07 May 2018 Page 14 of 14

49. Research Question 3
65 Points
60.1 to 65 points
Section provides a complete
discussion of how the student’s
academic discipline, as a function
within the organization, impacts the
process of business strategy
development and execution.
Compares and contrasts multiple
views. Demonstrates critical
thinking to include analysis,
evaluation, and synthesis. Flow is
logical and fully cited. No less than 8
pages in length with no less than 6
scholarly sources not including the
texts.
30.1 to 60 points
Section provides a nearly complete
discussion of how the student’s
academic discipline, as a function
within the organization, impacts
the process of business strategy
development and execution. Fails
to compare and contrast multiple
views. Demonstrates some critical
thinking to include some analysis
and evaluation. Flow is mostly
logical and mostly cited. No less
than 8 pages in length with no less
than 6 scholarly sources not
including the texts.

50. 0.1 to 30 points
Section is present but misses many
elements of how the student’s
academic discipline, as a function
within the organization, impacts the
process of business strategy
development and execution. Fails to
compare and contrast multiple
views. Lacks appropriate level of
critical thinking with very little or no
analysis and evaluation. Flow is not
logical and / or poorly cited. Less
than 8 pages in length and / or less
than 6 scholarly sources not
including the texts.
0 points
Not completed or not related
to requirements for the
section
Conclusion
15 Points
12.1 to 15 points
Conclusion provides a complete
summary of the literature review
and highlights key points from each
section.
6.1 to 12 points
Conclusion provides a partial

51. summary of the literature review
and highlights key points from at
least two sections.
0.1 to 6 points
Conclusion present but does not
summarize the literature review and
/ or highlight key points.
0 points
Not completed
Structure ‐ 25 Points Advanced Proficient Developing
Not present
APA Format &
Structure
22.1 to 25 points
Proper cover page. Level one
headings for introduction, research
questions, and conclusion.
Minimum of two levels of headings
within each research question. One
inch margins, double spaced, 12
point font. Table of Contents to
include all level one and level two
headings. Properly formatted
reference section
APA Formatting throughout.
11.1 to 22 points
Proper cover page. Level one

52. headings for introduction, research
questions, and conclusion. One inch
margins, double spaced, 12 point
font. Table of Contents to include
all level one headings. Properly
formatted reference section
APA Formatting throughout.
0.1 to 11 points
Cover page. No Table of Contents
and/or section headings included.
Met some required formatting.
0 points
Minimal structure and / or
formatting provided
For more information on The Williams Institute:
www.ethics-twi.org [email protected] 480-517-1891
CORE Scoring Graphs EAI
Understanding Your Scores Compared To Others

53. The purpose of these two EAI CORE scoring graphs is to help
you achieve greater awareness about
how you and others use different ethical reasoning for deciding
and explaining ethical choices. The
more you understand the range of ethical perspectives you are
able to apply when analyzing a situation
to determine the best ethical outcome, and the more that you
accept that range in others, the more
effective you will be in resolving professional and personal
ethical issues.
Interpreting the Line Graph
The Line Graph’s upper and lower blue lines represent the range
of responses for “most likely” and
“least likely” made for each CORE perspective in a sample size
of 965 adults. The red line is the mean
of total responses for each CORE perspective, based on the
sample. The green line indicates your
response totals for each CORE perspective as compared to the
mean and extremes of the sample
scores.
Interpreting the graph indicates two things about you:
1) the extent to which you are “most likely” to rely upon using a
particular ethical perspective in
your reasoning for decisions in multiple contexts, and
2) the extent to which you are “least likely” to use other ethical
perspectives because you disagree
with, or do not accept as an ethical alternative, that reasoning.

54. Interpreting "Most Likely" Positive Scores
A high positive score in one CORE perspective, with subsequent
low scores in the others, indicates that
you depend on the reasoning of that CORE perspective for most,
if not all, of your ethical decisions.
The higher the score, the more exclusively you use that CORE
perspective. Though consistency is a
good thing, restricting yourself to viewing all ethical situations
from one ethical perspective limits your
ability to solve ethical dilemmas, as well as limits your ability
to dialogue with others when working to
solve ethically related problems collectively.
Scores that are more evenly distributed among the CORE
perspectives indicate you probably can
understand and apply other CORE perspectives when
appropriate and can communicate that
reasoning for your ethical choices, depending on the
information you have and how you prioritize your
values in unique ethical contexts. In addition, you may be
more open to accept the ethical reasoning
of others when different from yours in various decision making
contexts.
These scores may indicate that you realize people have different
ethical perspectives as they analyze
an ethical issue, because they may have different information
and/or prioritize their personal and
organizational values differently. With this understanding, you
can seek a common solution to
differences by determining what underlying values you share,
and then use those shared values to
resolve differences in approach to finding the best ethical
decision.

55. Whether your scores are more distinct or more evenly
distributed, the importance of Awareness and
understanding is to avoid being caught up in pointlessly arguing
about whose ethical perspective is
“right,” rather than then focusing on reaching the best ethical
decision. The most effective and relevant
resolution of an ethical issue will flow out of constructive
dialogue that considers multiple ethical
perspectives.
For more information on The Williams Institute:
www.ethics-twi.org [email protected] 480-517-1891
CORE Scoring Graphs EAI
Interpreting "Least Likely" Negative Scores
The greater the negative score of a CORE perspective, the less
likely you are to accept the reasoning
of that ethical perspective when working with others to resolve
ethical concerns. In some cases, you
may not even accept another person’s reasoning as ethical at all,
let alone as a legitimate alternative.
This can lead to arguments about who is or is not being ethical,
rather than working to find a common
solution to an ethical issue. Thus, working to gain greater
awareness about other perspectives will
make you a better communicator and problem solver.

56. The lesser the negative score of a CORE perspective, the more
accepting you are of others’
approaches to ethical decision making, and the greater the
opportunity for you to have open dialogue
and positive conclusions to disagreements about how to resolve
ethical concerns.
Interpreting the Bar Graph
The Bar Graph shows the twelve combinations of "most likely"
and "least likely" use of the four CORE
perspectives. The checkmark shows your combination of CORE
scores and how your combination
compares to the others.
For more information on The Williams Institute:
www.ethics-twi.org [email protected] 480-517-1891
(O) OBLIGATION EAI
Ethics Awareness Inventory - Gain New Insight Into Your
Ethical Perspective
Your Ethical Perspective
You tend to base your ethical perspective on an individual’s
duty or obligation to do what is morally
right—principles that represent what rational persons ought
morally to do. You believe that ethical

57. conduct appeals to “conscience.” In judging whether a person’s
actions are ethical, you look to the
intent behind his/her actions, rather than focusing on results. In
other words, to be considered ethical,
you believe that we must choose how we act and what rules we
are willing to follow. From your
perspective, ethical principles must be: (a) appropriate under
any circumstances (universalizable); (b)
respectful of human dignity; and (c) committed to promoting
individual freedom and autonomy. Human
beings must never be treated simply as “means” to the
accomplishment of some defined “end.” The
end does not justify the means. For additional research: This
category is most closely aligned in
philosophy with a deontological theory (See Immanuel Kant and
John Rawls).
Remember to review the BLENDED CATEGORIES section if
your second highest score is within one
or two points of your highest score.
Your Ethical Style
You believe that human beings have intrinsic value—we have a
right to individual respect. Therefore,
you cannot support social traditions and policies aimed at “the
best interests of society as a whole” if
any individual is denied the opportunities to which she/he is
entitled as a human being. Your approach
to ethics requires that, within legal and humane limits, people
should be allowed to make their own
choices. Acting in response to impulse, instinct, or rules worked
out by others for us to obey does not
constitute ethical conduct on our part. You believe that
fostering personal growth takes precedence
over achieving efficiency through organizational and social

58. structures that tend to “dehumanize” ethical
decision making. For this reason, you advocate policies
intended to ensure equal respect and
opportunities for all. Moral decisions must reflect the free
choice of individuals if we ever expect to hold
them personally responsible. You are guided by a desire to be in
accord with established standards of
right and wrong.
Frustrations You Face in Addressing Ethical Dilemmas
What you determine to be the right choice may not appear to be
the most beneficial choice
for the organization you support. The right choice does not
necessarily benefit the decision
maker.
You believe that cost-benefit analysis (weighing the cost versus
benefit of a specific
decision) is inappropriate for addressing issues with ethical
considerations, even though this
is the preferred decision making tool for many organizations.
For example, some of the
things that you hold most dear are not easily measured, e.g.,
right and wrong; good and evil;
and the value of a human life.
Your belief that we have a moral duty or obligation to do what
is right leaves little room for
compromise when ethical principles are being violated.

59. You are frustrated to discover how various individuals define
right and wrong, how conflicts
are sometimes resolved in an organizational setting, and who
resolves them.
For more information on The Williams Institute:
www.ethics-twi.org [email protected] 480-517-1891
(O) OBLIGATION EAI
The people you work with may argue that certain factions of
society are not capable of acting
in their own best interests. You consider this a faulty argument
that was once used to deny
equitable treatment to women and minorities.
Defending your ethical perspective may result in economic
hardship, e.g., a lost promotion
or termination
ARTICULATION—A Guide to Communicating Your
Perspective
Your increased Awareness will assist you as you move to the
next step of the A3 process—Articulation.
The words you use to explain your ethical position have a

60. profound impact on your effectiveness. How
well you are able to accomplish your tasks, build relationships
and support your decisions will depend
on your ability to express the basis for your position and to
justify your decision making process.
Obligation-based perspectives are based on a sense of duty to
do what is right. People who score
highest on this perspective value an explanation for the
rationale or intent behind a person’s actions.
They want to see an indication that decisions are based on a
commitment to basic universal principles
of respect that govern a strong commitment to the best interests
of all individuals involved.
Examples of Obligation-based comments:
“We are clearly in violation of our professional standards.”
“We have a duty to do the right thing for our clients.”
Articulation of Your Perspective
Perspectives Key Concepts
Obligation -- People are always an end in themselves,
never a means to an end. The Golden Rule is non-
negotiable.
Personal Attributes: Consistent, Committed, Dependable,
Respectful, “Straight arrow”

61. Duty
Intent
Code of Conduct
Ethical Principles
Human Dignity
Individual Freedom
Autonomy
Key Phrases Individual Style
“We owe it to them…”
“We have a duty to…”
“They deserve better…”
“They have a right to…”
Committed to…
Principle-oriented decisions
A moral compass
Ethics training
Equal opportunity for all
Professional standards
Respect for humane treatment
Rules of order

62. For more information on The Williams Institute:
www.ethics-twi.org [email protected] 480-517-1891
BLENDED CATEGORIES EAI
Ethics Awareness Inventory - Gain New Insight Into Your
Ethical Perspective
C-O-R-E Categories:
C – CHARACTER
O – OBLIGATION
R – RESULTS
E – EQUITY
Ethical Beliefs in Multiple Categories
It is possible to have ethical beliefs that are represented in more
than one category. Most individuals
agree with at least some characteristics in all four categories,
and the relationship between these
categories form your unique ethical style. Therefore, these
categories should be viewed as broad
descriptions of typical patterns. The purpose of the Ethics
Awareness Inventory is to strengthen your
understanding of your own belief system. The idea of blended
categories takes your Awareness a step
further.
If your second largest positive score is within one or two points
of your largest, you will want to consider
the compatibility of the two scores. You may want to consider
whether (a) you are experiencing an
internal conflict in attempting to function in two distinguishable

63. moral environments, or (b) your ethical
style is simply a unique blend of two categories. For example, a
blended C and O (within one or two
points of each other) is likely to support the idea that ethical
principles without goodness are powerless
and goodness without some standards or principles of right and
wrong is ineffective. The two
categories can be supportive of one another. However, a
blended O and R may reflect some internal
conflicts between a feeling of moral obligation to individuals,
on the one hand, while attempting to
produce specific results for some group or organization on the
other. A careful examination of these
blended categories to identify possible internal conflicts is
recommended.
External Conflicts May Influence Your Beliefs
If your Ethics Awareness Profile reflects blended categories,
you may also want to consider whether
you are being challenged by situations in which people are
asking you to do things that conflict with
your personal ethical beliefs. You may feel pressured in some
situations to reject your own standards of
right and wrong, causing a feeling of internal conflict. Until you
are able to explain your sincere beliefs
and consistently act in accordance with those beliefs without
compromise, you will continue to
experience internal moral conflict. This will create discomfort
for you, and it will be difficult to make
ethical decisions that you can stand behind.
Keep in mind that these descriptive categories represent only
four recognized categories of ethical
philosophy and theory. Other schools of thought may be more
closely related to your ethical belief

64. system. However, these common descriptions should provide
insight into some of the significant
differences of opinion that may arise when you are trying to
reach an ethical decision, especially when
working with others. A better understanding of the conflicts that
arise between you and others regarding
what is the right thing to do will be helpful. Hopefully, you
will be encouraged to explore other
resources and try to understand different ethical styles.
Awareness of your ethical perspective is the
first step toward making ethics a central part of your daily life
and developing a better working
relationship with others.
For more information on The Williams Institute:
www.ethics-twi.org [email protected] 480-517-1891
Values and Perspectives EAI
Values Underlying the CORE Ethical Perspectives
In most personal and professional situations, it is important to
overcome communication problems that
occur when people approach ethical problems, questions or
concerns from different ethical
perspectives. An often effective way to do this is to find
common ground for agreement by identifying
the underlying values of the ethical perspectives that are shared

65. by the people involved. Each of TWI’s
CORE perspectives has several underlying values. Some of
these values are quite similar and can be
a point from which to work toward common agreement on how
to approach the ethical issue or concern
involved, such as setting priorities or agreeing on what the
results could be.
An important thought to keep in mind is that, in most cases,
each of us is trying to make the best ethical
decision in the situation given the information we have and how
we prioritize our values. The path that
each of us takes in prioritizing the values of a particular
perspective informs the reasoning used in
deciding what is the right thing to do and how we ought to do it.
Recognizing this fact is a first step in
mutual ethical problem solving.
When applying the four step ethical decision making process
presented in the Ethical Awareness
Inventory, it is important to understand that these values inform
our reasoning at each step, especially
in step four. Knowing and using these values will make your
ethical reasoning more effective in
determining the best ethical decision available to you, and
others. They will help you more productively
communicate the ethical choices you make.
Character

66. toward others
Results
ductivity

67. Obligation
of universal principles of right and wrong
Equity
ndividual others

68. vantage for all
Please note that while the above list of representative values is
not intended to be comprehensive and
does not presume to imply that these values are only within the
perspectives identified, it serves to
provide the user with a set of values that tend to be dominant
within each perspective.
Directions: Using the attached responses please address the
following listed below. Please cite references! Please read the
ethics awareness paper grading guide!
Write a 1,050- to 1,250-word summary of your findings.
Address the following:
· Explain the importance of understanding your personal ethical
perspective.
· Analyze the relationship between personal and professional
ethics in psychology.
· Discuss how the APA decision-making process facilitates

69. more ethical professional behavior.
· Describe how your ethical awareness inventory scores relate to
the concept of aspirational and enforceable standards.