lesson 04 orr article and adler text review and reflection essay

Orr Article and Adler Text Review and Reflection Essay
(500 words)

Read Orr, et al. (2008: p. 7, Table 3). Pick 2 of Hofstede’s dimensions, and explain why certain questions (i.e. from Hofstede Items in Table 3) helped you best explain and apply the respective Hofstede dimension.
Discuss the limitations of cross-cultural categorization and of stereotyping cultural behavior in reference to Adler & Gundersen (2008).

Rubric
803 Rubric

803 Rubric

Criteria
Ratings
Pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeOverall ContentExcellent: Excellent selection and application of appropriate lesson tools and concepts to develop an in-depth and critical analysis of the topic. Strong demonstration of a critical understanding of lesson materials. Draws insightful conclusions thoroughly grounded in relevant theory. Excellent use of relevant evidence to support analysis and discussion. Good: Very good selection and application of appropriate lesson tools and concepts to develop a good level of analysis of the topic. Satisfactory: Adequate selection and application of appropriate lesson tools and concepts to develop some analysis. Needs Improvement: Inappropriate, poor, or no use of lesson tools and concepts and failure to develop a coherent analysis.

10.0 pts
Excellent

7.0 pts
Good

3.0 pts
Satisfactory

0.0 pts
Needs Improvement

10.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAnalysisExcellent: Provides a critical analysis and well structured discussion, including diagnostic tools. Demonstrates an excellent ability to compare, contrast, and critique the available information. Good: Discursive but somewhat critical analysis. Demonstrates adequate ability to compare, contrast, and critique the available information. Satisfactory: Little or no critical analysis. Demonstrates a limited ability to compare, contrast, and critique available information. Needs Improvement: Lacking critical analysis. No attempt to compare, contrast, and critique available information.

10.0 pts
Excellent

7.0 pts
Good

3.0 pts
Satisfactory

0.0 pts
Needs Improvement

10.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeRecommendationsExcellent: Well thought out recommendations with logical justification that flows clearly from the analysis. Fully explores measures, benefits, and risks associated with recommendations and provides a contingency plan. Good: Appropriate recommendations with justification that flows clearly from the analysis. Identifies some measures, benefits, and risks associated with recommendations and considers contingency. Satisfactory: Limited recommendations for improvements with some justification that flows somewhat from the analysis. Suggests measures, benefits, and risks associated with recommendations. Needs Improvement: Minimal or lack of recommendations with no justification that may minimally flow from the analysis. Limited or no identification of measures, benefits, and risks associated with recommendations.

10.0 pts
Excellent

7.0 pts
Good

3.0 pts
Satisfactory

0.0 pts
Needs Improvement

10.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeReflectionExcellent: Provides excellent personal reflection to demonstrate greater insight and understanding. Spends an appropriate amount of time addressing each assignment aspect. Well structured connections between sections, developing a strong, logical structure that is easy to follow. Good: Very good and appropriate personal reflection to enhance insight and understanding. Adequately addresses most assignment aspects. Very good connections between sections to develop a somewhat logical structure. Satisfactory: Personal reflection included but could be further developed in more appropriate areas. Poorly addresses each assignment aspect. Some connections between components to develop a generally coherent structure. Needs Improvement: Limited or no personal reflection or reflection of little relevance to the issue. Significant omissions or unequal time addressing assignment components. Poor or no connections between components with an illogical or incoherent structure.

10.0 pts
Excellent

7.0 pts
Good

3.0 pts
Satisfactory

0.0 pts
Needs Improvement

10.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePresentationExcellent: Presentation enhances the logical structure of the arguments (larger assignments include creative and appropriate use of graphical and tabular presentation to support analysis). Where applicable, all figures and tables are appropriately captioned and discussed in text. Accurate referencing using the APA referencing system. Word count within allowed range. Good: Presentation that supports some of the arguments at a glance. Where applicable, most figures and tables are appropriately captioned and discussed in text. Word count within allowed range (+/-10%). Satisfactory: Presentation supports few arguments. Where applicable, some figures and tables are appropriately captioned and discussed in text. Word count within 20% above or below allowed range. Needs Improvement: Poor presentation with that does not support the arguments or there is no use or overuse of presentation formats. Incorrectly captioned figures and tables with no discussion in text or no figures and tables used. Limited or no referencing or failure to understand the concept of referencing. Word count 40% above or below allowed range.

10.0 pts
Excellent

7.0 pts
Good

3.0 pts
Satisfactory

0.0 pts
Needs Improvement

10.0 pts

Total Points: 50.0

 
Do you need a similar assignment done for you from scratch? We have qualified writers to help you. We assure you an A+ quality paper that is free from plagiarism. Order now for an Amazing Discount!Use Discount Code “Newclient” for a 15% Discount!NB: We do not resell papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

Open chat