PGA of America

Project Criteria & Evaluation Rubric

Program Project Criteria

PGA Specialist Project Guidelines

  1. Project Proposal – submitted first
    A one (1) to two (2) page outline detailing the intended topic
    • Include details of where at least eight (8) of the courses (a minimum of one (1) from each category, such as “Leadership”) relates to the proposed topic.
    • Include details of how two (2) outside sources will be used
  2. Project report format
    • Should not exceed 12 pt font
    • Double¬spaced
    • At least eight (8) pages; not more than twenty (20) pages
  3. Title page
  4. Body of report with section headings
  5. Research Sources (including detailed notes on other two (2) outside sources)
  6. Written in candidate’s own words.

Overall review criteria

  1. The project demonstrates a connection between the project proposal and the completed project. (Note: if project focus has significant changes between the proposal and the report, contact us.)
  2. The project utilizes the career path course content (evidenced by at least eight (8) course citations) and applies this content to industry experience.
  3. The project demonstrates ability to think critically and creatively to solve practical problems related to the candidate’s work.

Project results evaluation

  1. Report included concise description of project results.
  2. If results were not satisfactory, future improvements were discussed.
  3. The project highlights “take¬aways” or discusses solutions. Some examples include:
    • Measurable financial benefit, direct (more rounds) and indirect (improved vendor relations)
    • Increase in positive community perceptions of the facility
    • Improved health and safety
    • More efficient management, employee training, productivity, retention, and/or morale
    • Higher quality services, experience or aesthetic
    • Enhancements to the golf industry (ranging from local to global solutions)

Project Evaluation Rubric

Project Criteria 4. Excellent 3. Competent 2. Adequate (meets minimal expectations) 1. Not yet acceptable/return for revision
The topic is clear, relevant, focused and includes examples The topic is sufficiently addressed The topic is not well defined, too broad or unclear No clear topic or obvious focus is presented
Context of the project Thoroughly details context, audience and implications Addresses context, audience and implications Mentions context, audience and implications Minimal attention given to context, audience and implications
Problem definition Clear problem statement with examples of all relevant factors Clear problem statement with examples of most relevant factors Adequate problem statement with examples of some relevant factors; lacks sufficient support Limited identification of problem statement
Project objectives Details the main objectives Satisfactorily explains key objectives Only partially explains some of the main objectives No coherent reference to the objectives
Project design Key courses from the career path are applied to the project framework Key courses from the career path are applied to the project framework; however, subtle elements are ignored Many key courses from the career path are applied to the project framework; however, some key elements are ignored Key courses from the career path are missing from the project framework, or course understanding is not demonstrated
Strategy identification Logical solution(s) indicate a thorough comprehension of the problem Logical solution(s) indicate a basic comprehension of the problem Presents a generic solution instead of a custom design Strategies and solutions do not relate to problem
Body of report - coverage of content The project includes discussion on full scope of the problem and project objectives. Two outside references are used to support All major sections of the project are included, but are not in depth Relevant information included, but falls short of making a convincing argument Major sections of key content are missing
Content Demonstrates professional level knowledge of the topic Demonstrates a good understanding of the topic Communicates sufficient understanding of the topic Communicates only limited understanding of the topic
Observations and conclusions Observations and conclusions clearly stated. Makes significant personal connection to the results Observations and conclusions well written. There is some attempt to make personal connections Observations are not always compelling. There is an attempt to provide a weak conclusion Minimal observations. Conclusions are unsupported or absent
Organization Well organized; introduction, body and conclusion stay on topic Good organization and fairly easy to follow Somewhat organized; hard to follow in some places Difficult to follow throughout and poorly organized
Use of sources Skillful use of quality sources and supporting references Consistent use of credible sources to support ideas Attempts to use credible sources to support ideas Does not include credible sources to support ideas
Course and outside references
Note: Use at least eight (8) courses from the career path, including at least one (1) course from each category (i.e., Leadership)
The required career path courses are relevant and cited appropriately. Two outside sources of information cited and summarized Required course citations and outside courses listed, but limited evidence of support Required course citations and outside courses listed, but descriptions and support of relevance are incomplete Missing part(s) of requirement
Writing quality and clarity Writing is extremely clear, and engaging; excellent grammar and spelling Writing is clear, and appropriate; nearly free of grammar and spelling errors Writing has minor errors in style, tone, grammar and/or spelling Difficult to understand message. Frequent grammar and/or spelling errors