Assignment 3 (Agency Mini Project and Interview) Scoring RubricSWK 655 – Program Evaluation (revised 2023 02-20)
5 points
4.5
4 points
1. Grammar and
writing
The paper is
exceptionally written
and guides the reader
smoothly with
appropriate transitions
and linkages with the
content. The headings
organize the
components. There are
no grammatical or
spelling errors.
Exceeds
4, but
does not
meet all
criteria
for a 5
2. APA
Paper demonstrates full
competence in writing
integrity and use of APA
formatting.
Exceeds Paper demonstrates good
4, but
competence in writing
does not integrity and use of APA
meet all formatting. There are
criteria for minimal errors in APA
a5
formatting.
3. Infuse content
from the
interview into the
paper in a
professional way
that meets APA
requirements.
Content from the
interview is well
documented and
appropriately evident
and infused throughout
the work. Interview
content is properly cited
using APA formatting.
Exceeds
4, but
does not
meet all
criteria
for a 5
3.5
The paper is well written
Exceeds
and organized in a
3, but
readable format with
does not
specific headings and
meet all
subheadings to guide the
reader. There are minimal criteria
typos or grammatical errors. for a 4
Writer followed all
mechanical guidelines
provided by instructor.
Content from the interview
is appropriately
documented and evident
and infused in the work.
Interview content is
mostly cited using APA
Formatting with only one
minor error.
3 points
2.5
2 points
1.5
1 point
Sporadic errors in relation to
grammar, and spelling.
Some organizational
techniques/styles noted in
writing to guide the reader.
Exceeds
2, but
does not
meet all
criteria
for a 3
One-two major writing
violations and/or several
minor violations. General
direction in writing noted;
however, style appears
choppy or disconnected.
Exceeds
1, but
does not
meet all
criteria
for a 2
Numerous spelling and/or
grammatical errors.
Difficult to follow logic of
ideas in the paper. Failed
to abide by the majority
of writing rules or
standard grammatical
guidelines.
Exceeds
3, but
does not
meet all
criteria
for a 4
Paper demonstrates basic
competence in writing
integrity and use of APA
formatting. There are notable
minor errors and/or one major
error.
Exceeds
2, but
does not
meet all
criteria
for a 3
Paper demonstrates some
problems in competence in
writing integrity and use of
notable errors. There are
many minor errors and/or at
least two major errors.
Exceeds
1, but
does not
meet all
criteria
for a 2
Paper demonstrates
substantial problems in
competence in writing
integrity and use of APA
formatting. There are
notable errors. Paper is at
risk of being turning in for
integrity issues.
Exceeds
3, but
does not
meet all
criteria
for a 4
Content from the interview is
documented and evident in
the paper. Interview content
is occasionally cited using
APA Formatting with only
minor errors present.
Exceeds
2, but
does not
meet all
criteria
for a 3
Content from the interview
Exceeds
is documented and evident 1, but
in the paper. Interview
does not
content is at least minimally
cited using APA formatting, meet all
but major errors in formatting criteria
for a 2
are present.
Content from the
interview is not evident in
the paper. Interview
content is not cited using
APA formatting.
Page 1 of 3
4. A4.1
Appraise,
evaluate and
propose various
method of
program
evaluation.
Before the Interview
Section: Excellent
application of evidencebased guidelines in the
mini evaluation of
mission, goals, and
program objectives.
Student clearly
evaluated the agency
and included source
material from the
agency and/or
interviewee. The
student clearly and
concisely answered
questions 1-6, and
citations and references
were used to support
them. The student did
an excellent job
rewriting the agency’s
goal following the
required components
and identified an
objective following all
SMART guidelines.
Significant insight and
unique ideas were
brought forth.
Exceeds
4, but
does not
meet all
criteria
for a 5
Before the Interview
Section: The student
appraised and evaluated
the mission, goals, and
program objectives and
demonstrated a strong
grasp of the mini review
and interview purpose.
Student answered
questions 1-6 and
supported the work with
evidence from the text,
agency, and/or interview
with only minimal errors.
Good insight and unique
ideas were brought forth.
The student did a good job
rewriting the agency’s goal
following the required
components and identified
an objective following all
SMART guidelines. Good
insight and unique ideas
were brought forth.
Exceeds
3, but
does not
meet all
criteria
for a 4
Before the Interview Section:
The student appraised and
evaluated the mission, goals,
and program objectives, and
demonstrated a reasonable
understanding of the mini
review and interview
purpose. The student
provided basic answers to
questions 1-6, and citations
and references were used to
support them, but there were
some minor errors. The
student rewrote the agency’s
goal statement and SMART
objective though it followed
basic guidelines with no
more than 2 errors. A basic
level of insight and general
ideas were brought forth.
Exceeds
2, but
does not
meet all
criteria
for a 3
Before the Interview
Section: The student
evaluated at least two of
the three parts of the
assignment: mission,
goals, and program
objectives. There is some
evidence that the student
completed some level of
mini review and interview.
There is minimal evidence
of competence because
only about half of the steps
in the section are evident in
the submission. The
student made notable
errors in either the rewritten
goal statement and/or
SMART objective. There is
some support via text,
agency, and/or interview
but with notable errors.
Exceeds
1, but
does not
meet all
criteria
for a 2
Before the Interview
Section: The student
demonstrated only a
vague level of
competence in the
assignment. Many parts
of the assignment are
missing, and the work
does not follow even half
of the assignment steps.
There is minimal to no
support via the text,
agency, or interview.
5. A4.2
Collect and
organize data,
and apply critical
thinking to
interpret
information from
individuals,
families, groups,
organizations
and
communities,
and
constituencies.
Interview and After the
Interview Sections:
Student completed an
excellent mini review
and interview. Student’s
analysis of mission,
goals, and program
objectives is logical and
well explained. Student
demonstrated a high
level of critical thinking
and ability to interpret
information for use in a
meaningful
discussion/reflection of
the program, its design,
and objectives. The
paper was organized
and presented the
evaluation in a logical
and professional
manner.
Exceeds
4, but
does not
meet all
criteria
for a 5
Interview and After the
Interview Sections:
Student completed a good
mini review and interview.
Student’s analysis of
mission, goals, and
program objectives is
logical and well explained.
Student demonstrated
good use of critical
thinking and ability to
interpret information for
use in a good
discussion/reflection of the
program, its design, and
objectives. The paper
was organized and
presented a good
evaluation.
Exceeds
3, but
does not
meet all
criteria
for a 4
Interview and After the
Interview Sections: The
student completed a basic
mini review and interview.
Student’s analysis included
basic review of mission,
goals, and program
objectives. Student
demonstrated basic critical
thinking and ability to
interpret information for use
in discussing the program,
its design, and objectives.
The paper was mostly
organized and presented a
basic evaluation.
Exceeds
2, but
does not
meet all
criteria
for a 3
Interview and After the
Interview Sections: The
student completed a
minimal review and
interview. Student’s
analysis was basic and
missing important parts, but
the parts completed were
rational and logical,
relevant to the assignment.
Some basic critical thinking
and interpretations are
present, but not sufficient to
make logical interpretations
for informing a
discussion/reflection on the
program, its design, or
objectives. The paper was
difficult to read and
disorganized.
Exceeds
1, but
does not
meet all
criteria
for a 2
Interview and After the
Interview Sections: The
student did not
adequately include
interview content to
support the paper. There
was notable missing
information to limit the
demonstration of critical
thinking and
interpretations. The
content presented cannot
be used to inform about
the program, its design, or
objectives. The paper was
completely disorganized
and did not follow
assignment instructions.
Page 2 of 3
6. A9.2
Distinguish,
appraise, and
integrate multiple
sources of
knowledge,
including
research-based
knowledge and
practice wisdom
to achieve target
outcome
Student demonstrated
excellence in
distinguishing,
appraising and
integrating information
from a variety of
sources when critiquing
the specific evaluation
method. The student
utilized agency sources,
the text, and an
interview properly and
as appropriate in the
submission. Information
from multiple sources
was effectively
synthesized in the
student’s discussion. No
direct quotes from the
interviewee were used.
Exceeds
4, but
does not
meet all
criteria
for a 5
The student demonstrated
solid skills in
distinguishing, appraising
and integrating information
from the text, the agency
sources, and the interview.
The interpretation of the
information was well
organized and easy to
follow. The resources
supported the review. The
student did a good job
synthesizing information
from multiple sources. No
direct quotes from the
interviewee were used.
Exceeds
3, but
does not
meet all
criteria
for a 4
The student demonstrated
basic skills in distinguishing,
appraising and integrating
information from the text,
agency sources, and the
interview. Basic integration
of the information was
evident in the review. No
more than one to two short
quotes from the interviewee
were used.
Exceeds
2, but
does not
meet all
criteria
for a 3
The student demonstrated
limited skills in
distinguishing, appraising,
and integrating information
from sources necessary in
the assignment. Did not use
the required resources to
support the review. Or the
student only used one
resource in the review.
Student used several
quotes from the
interviewee.
Exceeds
1, but
does not
meet all
criteria
for a 2
Student’s demonstration
was lacking in evidence
of distinguishing,
appraising, and
integrating information
from sources necessary
in the assignment. The
review is not adequately
supported with resources
and illogical inferences
are made within the
review. Long, lengthy
quotes were used from
the interviewee, or many
short quotes were used.
NOTES:
Score:
/ 30 points
Page 3 of 3
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
