Project Criteria & Evaluation Rubric
Program Project Criteria
PGA Specialist Project Guidelines
- 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
- Project report format
- Should not exceed 12 pt font
- At least eight (8) pages; not more than twenty (20) pages
- Title page
- Body of report with section headings
- Research Sources (including detailed notes on other two (2) outside sources)
- Written in candidate’s own words.
Overall review criteria
- 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.)
- The project utilizes the career path course content (evidenced by at least eight (8) course citations) and applies this content to industry experience.
- The project demonstrates ability to think critically and creatively to solve practical problems related to the candidate’s work.
Project results evaluation
- Report included concise description of project results.
- If results were not satisfactory, future improvements were discussed.
- 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|