Instructions for writing this paper
Must have a cover page,
Use the questions as sections (Example: Q1 = Section 1) (you are not required to write an introduction and you do not need transitional sentences b/w the questions).
Your answers should be well developed and include a thorough discussion and explanation of your ideas. Please make sure to support your ideas with course concepts and use the concepts correctly.
In order to ensure your ideas are well developed, I suggest you review the rubric, and read and edit your first draft before submitting your final version to
Remember to use spell/grammar check!
Please cite sources for information that is not common knowledge and not derived from your own ideas, in-text APA citations required. This paper requires a minimum of 15 applicable sources, can include sources provided. Hyperlinks to the bibliography required. (If you are unaware of how to do this please google, contact your student writing center resources, library resources, etc.) Must have a well-developed works cited page. Again, use references to support your assumptions with facts.
Format & Length: Approximately 6+ double-spaced pages, 12 sized font and normal margins, running header, running page numbers. In text citation required. It will be difficult to present an analysis of enough less than 6 pages (points will be deducted if any of the requirements are not met). The 6 pages do not include your cover page and works cited.
Writing and organization: spelling, grammar, sentence construction as well as clarity in presentation are evaluated. If your paper does not meet a basic threshold in terms of spelling, grammar, and sentence construction, it will receive a 0 in the applicable rubric section.
check atttached file for further instructions
Stakeholder Analysis Rubric:
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIdentifies Stakeholders
8 to >7.12 pts
Exemplary (90-100%)
Completely and thoughtfully identifies all relevant and important stakeholders in a given problem/case.
7.12 to >6.4 pts
Proficient (80-89%)
Identifies most of the relevant stakeholders in a given problem/case. Most important stakeholders are identified.
6.4 to >5.52 pts
Developing (70-79%)
Identifies some of the relevant stakeholders in a given problem/case. Some important stakeholders are missing.
5.52 to >0 pts
Limited (0%-69%)
Identification of relevant stakeholders is sparse or missing.
8 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIdentifies Ethical Concerns
8 to >7.12 pts
Exemplary (90-100%)
Completely and thoughtfully identifies all ethical/social concerns in a given problem/case.
7.12 to >6.4 pts
Proficient (80-89%)
Identifies most of the ethical/social concerns in a given problem/case. Most significant points are identified.
6.4 to >5.52 pts
Developing (70-79%)
Identifies some of the ethical/social concerns in a given problem/case. Some important points are missing.
5.52 to >0 pts
Limited (0%-69%)
Identification of ethical /social concerns is sparse or missing.
8 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSupports Arguments in Stakeholder Analysis
8 to >7.12 pts
Exemplary (90-100%)
Able to support an inclusion of stakeholders with a substantial amount of explanation and no logical fallacies.
7.12 to >6.4 pts
Proficient (80-89%)
Able to support inclusion of stakeholders with adequate explanation and few logical fallacies.
6.4 to >5.52 pts
Developing (70-79%)
Some important points are missing and/or support for inclusion of stakeholders lacks substantial explanation.
5.52 to >0 pts
Limited (0%-69%)
Inconsistent or lacking in articulation of why identified stakeholders are relevant to the problem.
8 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSupports Arguments in Ethical Analysis
8 to >7.12 pts
Exemplary (90-100%)
Able to support a position with a substantial amount of information, little or no bias, and valid arguments.
7.12 to >6.4 pts
Proficient (80-89%)
Able to support a position with adequate information and few logical fallacies.
6.4 to >5.52 pts
Developing (70-79%)
Most points are supported with adequate information. Some important points are missing and/or support for positions lacks substantial explanation.
5.52 to >0 pts
Limited (0%-69%)
Analyses don’t inform or lead to recommended actions.
8 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeConnects Analyses to Recommended Actions
4 to >3.57 pts
Exemplary (90-100%)
Analyses directly inform and lead to recommended actions.
3.57 to >3.2 pts
Proficient (80-89%)
Analyses somewhat inform recommended actions, but linkages are not always clear.
3.2 to >2.77 pts
Developing (70-79%)
Analyses don’t inform or lead to recommended actions.
2.77 to >0 pts
Limited (0%-69%)
Inconsistent in articulation of position and/or offers little or no supporting evidence.
4 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeStructure & Language
4 to >3.57 pts
Exemplary (90-100%)
Writing is free or almost free of errors.
3.57 to >3.2 pts
Proficient (80-89%)
Occasional errors in writing, but they don’t represent a major distraction.
3.2 to >2.77 pts
Developing (70-79%)
Errors are so numerous that they obscure meaning.
2.77 to >0 pts
Limited (0%-69%)
Errors are so numerous that they obscure meaning.
4 pts
Total Points: 40
