Email is professional, well-formatted, appropriately toned and linked correctly

Email is semi-professional or lacks minor touches (e.g., text-based links)

Email is unprofessional or does not address requirements for submitting application

No email or email only provides links without appropriate transmission text

Clearly and concisely describes the problem the proposal seeks to solve or address.

Problem is described, but lacks clarity or minor details

Problem is identified but poorly described.

No clear problem statement.

Provides a research-based approach, framework or solution to the problem.

Includes research, but research is poorly integrated into the text of the proposal.

Includes some research, but it’s poorly integrated into the proposal.

Little to no research applied to the solution; may include research without adequately connecting to problem or proposed solution.

Identifies proposal audience(s) and clearly directs proposal to that audience or those audiences.

Directs proposal to target audience, but may not specify that audience or some segment of that audience.

Doesn’t clearly address proposal to a target audience or audiences; may shift point of view one or more times.

Unclear whether proposal has been tailored to a specific audience, revealed through lack of audience-centered language and diction.

Proposal is well organized and designed, meeting page requirement and professional.

Proposal may not adhere to standard format or structure, or may not be as professional as expected.

Proposal is missing important components, or lacks professional polish in design or language.

Does not meet the guidelines for the proposal assignment in multiple facets.

Largely error free, follows APA documentation style guidelines as appropriate, and uses language, diction and vocabulary appropriate to the audience.

Contains multiple minor errors, adheres partially to APA documentation style guidelines, may use language, diction and vocabulary that doesn’t match audience.

Contains many errors, doesn’t follow APA documentation style guidelines across multiple sources or citations, and uses language, diction and vocabulary inappropriate to the audience.

Poor technical execution, many errors, doesn’t follow formatting guidelines.

Updated profile shows careful attention to detail.

Profile lacks minor information or is not recently updated

Profile lacks major information (e.g., missing section, no profile photo, etc.)

No profile or severely incomplete profile

Email is professional, well-formatted, appropriately toned and linked correctly

Email is semi-professional or lacks minor touches (e.g., text-based links)

Email is unprofessional or does not address requirements for submitting application

No email or email only provides links without appropriate transmission text

Effectively communicates candidate strengths, shows professional composition and design, free of errors, tailored to job description

Communicates candidate strengths, but lacks fully professional design or composition, includes minor errors or addresses job description incompletely

Does not communicate candidate strengths well, and may lack professional composition or design, may have noticeable errors, or may not address job description

Poorly executed letter does not represent a professional approach to job application

Professional in design, content, and structure; free of errors; an exemplar for others to emulate

Lacks a level of polish or professionalism in design, content or structure; too generic in its lack of customization

Significant gaps, doesn’t address job opening requirements, not polished or professional

Poorly executed, major errors, unprofessional, depicts applicant poorly

All components clearly tailored to the job ad; quick and easy tie-in to job requirements; clear, easy-to-read design appropriate for human and machine readability

Some components not clearly tied to job ad; some job requirements not addressed; some readability issues; may not be read easily by some audiences

Multiple components unconnected to job ad; unreadable by one or more audiences; design or structure garbled or unclear

Components largely unrelated to the job description, with very little tailoring to specific human or machine audiences

Correctly embedded in blog post with required citation and summary.

Small details amiss in embedding.

Missing a citation, summary, or some other aspect of assignment.

Missing multiple components of assignment

Polished, clear, precise, concise, and easily understood. Good audio and video quality, good use of design on graphics.

Clear, easily understood, with generally good audio and video and less polished delivery and design on graphics.

Partially garbled or unclear, missing key component, lacking design theme in presentation.

Hard to follow and understand, lacking structure or organization, unpolished delivery.

Summarizes the article effectively and within timeframe, provides clear intersection with professional context.

Summarizes article well, but may lack sufficient detail. May provide muddy or unclear connection to professional context.

Ineffectual summary leads to confusion rather than clarity. Doesn’t clearly address intersection with professional context.

Doesn’t summarize article, or provides inaccurate summary by missing the point entirely. Doesn’t address professional context at all.