BALANCED SCORECARD

    Excellent
(100-90%)    Good/Acceptable
(89-80%)    Needs Improvement
(79-70%)    Unacceptable
(69-0%)
Research
(25%)    Research into the company was thorough and complete.  All concepts in the evaluation guide in each section were discussed with appropriate depth.  Interview information was the major source of information.  If other sources were referenced (text, articles, etc.), proper APA format was used.     Research into the company was sufficient.  Most of the concepts in the evaluation guide for each section covered.  Some topics were not covered with appropriate depth.  Interview source was the major source of information.  If other sources were referenced (text, articles, etc.), proper APA format was used, but with a few errors.    Research into the company was sometimes insufficient.  Several of the concepts in the evaluation guide were not covered with the appropriate depth. Interview source was the major source of information.  If other sources were referenced (text, articles, etc.), APA format was not used properly; several errors in formatting.    Research into the company was not sufficient.  Many of the concepts in the evaluation guide were not covered with the appropriate depth.  Interview source was not the major source of information. If other sources were referenced (text, articles, etc.), APA format was not used and/or portions were plagiarized.
    Excellent
    Good/Acceptable
    Needs Improvement
    Unacceptable

Content
(25%)
    Discussion demonstrates an appropriate understanding of the function in relationship to HR management.  Depth and complexity of ideas supported by rich, engaging and/or pertinent details, evidence analysis, reflection and insight.  The three functions evaluated in the paper are clearly identified.

    Discussion is appropriate but lacks depth or breadth.  Depth of idea development supported by elaborated, relevant details.  The three functions evaluated in the paper are generally clear.      Discussion is sometimes inappropriate and/or lacks depth or breadth.  Unelaborated idea development, unelaborated and/or repetitious details.  The three functions evaluated in the paper are somewhat unclear.      Discussion is not appropriate to the purpose and does not demonstrate understanding.  Minimal idea development, limited and/or unrelated details.  It is unclear what functions are evaluated in the paper.  
    Excellent
    Good/Acceptable
    Needs Improvement
    Unacceptable

Summary and Evaluation
(25%)    Summary thoughtful, engaging, and clear.  Evaluation of the company was comprehensive.  Recommendations and information were appropriate and addressed issues discussed in the body of the paper.    Summary was generally thoughtful, engaging, and clear.  Evaluation of the company was acceptable.  Recommendations were generally appropriate and addressed issues discussed in the body of the paper.
    Summary is not always thoughtful, engaging, and clear.  Evaluation of the company was sometimes insufficient.  Recommendations were sometimes weak and/or failed to address issues discussed in the body of the paper.      Summary was not thoughtful, engaging, and clear.  Evaluation of the company was not sufficient.    Recommendations were weak and/or failed to address issues discussed in the body of the paper.
    Excellent
    Good/Acceptable
    Needs Improvement
    Unacceptable

Organization/ Structure
(25%)    The ideas are arranged logically.  They flow smoothly from one to another and are clearly linked to each other.  Line of reasoning is easily followed.
Sentences are well-phrased and varied in length and structure.  They flow smoothly from one to another.  

    The ideas are arranged logically.  They are usually clearly linked to each other.  For the most part, the line of reasoning is easily followed.

Sentences are well-phrased and there is some variety in length and structure.  The flow from sentence to sentence is generally smooth.

    In general, the writing is arranged logically, although occasionally ideas fail to make sense together.  The line of reasoning is fairly clear.

Some sentences are awkwardly constructed so that the reader is occasionally distracted.

    The writing is not logically organized.  Frequently, ideas fail to make sense together.  The line of reasoning is not easily identified and the reader loses interest.

Errors in sentence structure are frequent enough to be a major distraction to the reader.