CIT Interview Techniques Summary Report about the information gleaned from the interview process drawing connections and connecting to scholarly leadership research

1
Unsatisfactory
0.00%

2
Less Than Satisfactory
74.00%

3
Satisfactory
79.00%

4
Good
87.00%

5
Excellent
100.00%

70.0 %Content

30.0 % Write a summary about the CIT interview process

Summary Report is irrelevant—it fails to summarize information gleaned from CIT interview process.

Summary Report is somewhat relevant, —it is underdeveloped and inadequately summarizes information gleaned from CIT interview process.

Summary Report is relevant—it adequately summarizes information gleaned from CIT interview process.

Summary Report is relevant—it proficiently summarizes information gleaned from CIT interview process.

Summary Report is relevant—it insightfully summarizes information gleaned from CIT interview process.

30.0 % Discuss the participants’ descriptions of the meaning of the incidents described during the interview process.

Discussion of the participants’ descriptions of the meaning of the incidents described during the interview process is missing.

Discussion of the participants’ descriptions of the meaning of the incidents described during the interview process is vague and inconsistent.

Discussion of the participants’ descriptions of the meaning of the incidents described during the interview process is present and appropriate.

Discussion of the participants’ descriptions of the meaning of the incidents described during the interview process is present, clear, and makes some connection to research.

Discussion of the participants’ descriptions of the meaning of the incidents described during the interview process is clear, concise, and makes connections to current research.

10.0 % Raw data included and supported with scholarly research.

Raw data is not included or supported with scholarly research.

Raw data is inappropriate and vague, data is not supported with scholarly research.

Raw data is present but slightly vague, data is not entirely supported with scholarly research.

Raw data is present. Data is supported with some research.

Raw data is present and clear. Data is supported with current scholarly research.

20.0 %Organization and Effectiveness

15.0 % Thesis Development and Purpose

Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.

Thesis and/or main claim are insufficiently developed and/or vague; purpose is not clear.

Thesis and/or main claim are apparent and appropriate to purpose.

Thesis and/or main claim are clear and forecast the development of the paper. It is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose.

Thesis and/or main claim are comprehensive. The essence of the paper is contained within the thesis. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.

5.0 % Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)

Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice and/or sentence construction are used.

Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register), sentence structure, and/or word choice are present.

Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are used.

Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. A variety of sentence structures and effective figures of speech are used.

Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.

10.0 %Format

5.0 % Paper Format (Use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)

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

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

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

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

All format elements are correct.

5.0 % Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style)

Sources are not documented.

Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.

Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present.

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

Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error.

100 % Total Weightage