Order ID:89JHGSJE83839 | Style:APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago | Pages:5-10 |
Instructions:
Capasso et al. (2014), Capasso et al., Capasso et al., Ca
THE FOLLOWING IS AN EXAMPLE OF THE ATTACHED ARTICLE (Capasso et al. 2014):
1. What was the purpose of assigning the articles? Introduce the articles’ unique underlying issue and show how it pertains to the wider topic area of mergers and acquisitions.
2. What are the articles’ main points? What are the messages that each article’s author(s) are attempting to convey? What is the core message that the author(s) of each piece wishes to convey? Your team is responsible for writing a one-page synopsis for each article and presenting the essential aspects of each article on different slides.
3. What is the relationship between the articles? Make a connection between the articles given to your team. What are the similarities and differences between the articles? Be thorough by carefully linking each article to the others and discussing similarities, differences, and complementarities explicitly.
4. What is the overall message of the articles? Concisely (i.e. to-the-point) express what your team believes is the most important information you’ve acquired from the articles in 2-3 paragraphs. Instead of sketching out a takeaway for each individual article, carve out how the articles as a whole contribute to our search for merger and acquisition success criteria.
RUBRIC |
||||||
Excellent Quality 95-100%
|
Introduction
45-41 points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned. |
Literature Support 91-84 points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned. |
Methodology 58-53 points Content is well-organized with headings for each slide and bulleted lists to group related material as needed. Use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. to enhance readability and presentation content is excellent. Length requirements of 10 slides/pages or less is met. |
|||
Average Score 50-85% |
40-38 points More depth/detail for the background and significance is needed, or the research detail is not clear. No search history information is provided. |
83-76 points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is little integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are included. Summary of information presented is included. Conclusion may not contain a biblical integration. |
52-49 points Content is somewhat organized, but no structure is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. is occasionally detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met. |
|||
Poor Quality 0-45% |
37-1 points The background and/or significance are missing. No search history information is provided. |
75-1 points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is no integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are not included in the summary of information presented. Conclusion does not contain a biblical integration. |
48-1 points There is no clear or logical organizational structure. No logical sequence is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects etc. is often detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met |
|||
You Can Also Place the Order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow or www.crucialessay.com/orders/ordernow
Capasso et al 2014 article analysis |
Capasso et al 2014 article analysis