• Home

The graduate manages training and development programs to ensure the workforce has the necessary knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics to meet present and future organizational needs.

RUBRIC

A1:NEED FOR TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT

NOT EVIDENT

An explanation of the need for training and development is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The explanation of the need for training and development includes 1 or more key points that are not appropriate or that are not relevant to the scenario.

COMPETENT

The explanation of the need for training and development discusses appropriate key points that are relevant to the scenario.

A2:PURPOSE OF TRAINING PLAN

NOT EVIDENT

A description of the purpose of the training plan is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The purpose of the training plan is not described in detail or is inappropriate or illogical for the scenario.

COMPETENT

The purpose of the training plan is described in detail and is appropriate and logical for the scenario.

A3:TRAINING PROGRAM OBJECTIVES

NOT EVIDENT

A description of the training program objectives is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The training program objectives are not described in detail or are not logically aligned with the needs of the company.

COMPETENT

The training program objectives are described in detail and are logically aligned with the needs of the company.

A4:SKILLS GAPS

NOT EVIDENT

4 safety skills gaps are not identified.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

At least 1 of the 4 identified safety skills gaps is not clearly aligned with the information provided in the attachments.

COMPETENT

The 4 identified safety skills gaps are clearly aligned with the information provided in the attachments.

A5:LEARNING OBJECTIVES

NOT EVIDENT

A learning objective is not provided for each safety skills gap identified in part A4.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

A learning objective is provided for each of the 4 safety skills gaps identified in part A4, but 1 or more of the objectives are illogical or are not appropriately aligned to a safety skills gap. Or 1 or more objectives are not written for supervisors or do not follow objective writing guidelines.

COMPETENT

The 4 learning objectives are logical and appropriately align to each of the safety skills gaps identified in part A4. The objectives are written for supervisors, and they follow objective writing guidelines.

A6:DESIRED BEHAVIOR CHANGES

NOT EVIDENT

A desired behavior change is not described for each learning objective identified in part A5.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

A desired behavior change is described for each of the 4 learning objectives identified in part A5, but 1 or more of the desired behavior changes are not appropriately written for supervisors or are not logically aligned to an identified learning objective.

COMPETENT

A desired behavior change is described for each of the 4 learning objectives identified in part A5. The described behavior changes are appropriately written for supervisors and are logically aligned to the identified learning objectives.

A7:PROGRAM DESIGN

NOT EVIDENT

A recommendation for either an internally and/or externally designed training program is not provided, or a justification for the recommendation is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The recommendation for either an internally and/or externally designed training program is provided, but the justification does not provide ample evidence or reasoning to support the recommendation. Or the justification is not relevant to the scenario.

COMPETENT

The recommendation for either an internally and/or externally designed training program is provided, and the justification provides ample evidence or reasoning to support the recommendation and is relevant to the scenario.

A8:DELIVERY METHODS

NOT EVIDENT

A recommendation of 2 training delivery methods is not provided, or a justification is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

At least 1 of the recommended training delivery methods is not appropriate for the learning objectives identified in part A5, or the justification does not provide ample evidence or reasoning to support the recommendations.

COMPETENT

The 2 recommended training delivery methods are appropriate for the learning objectives identified in part A5, and the justification provides ample evidence or reasoning to support the recommendations.

A9:TRAINING FACILITY

NOT EVIDENT

A facility is not described, or a justification is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The facility (or facilities) described is not appropriate for the delivery methods identified in part A8, or the justification does not provide ample evidence or reasoning to support the chosen facility (or facilities).

COMPETENT

The facility (or facilities) described is appropriate for the delivery methods identified in part A8, and the justification provides ample evidence or reasoning to support the chosen facility (or facilities).

A10:TRAINING FACILITATOR

NOT EVIDENT

A training facilitator is not identified, or a justification is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The identified training facilitator is not an appropriate choice for the training plan, or the justification does not provide ample evidence or reasoning to support the recommendation.

COMPETENT

The identified training facilitator is an appropriate choice for the training plan, and the justification provides ample evidence or reasoning to support the recommendation.

A11:PILOT TEST PROCESS

NOT EVIDENT

A description of the process for pilot testing the safety training program before delivery to all supervisors is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The described process for pilot testing the safety training program is not logical, does not address each of the given points, or is not appropriate for the training program and scenario.

COMPETENT

The described process for pilot testing the safety training program is logical, addresses each of the given points, and is appropriate for the training program and scenario.

A12:COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES

NOT EVIDENT

An explanation of how the candidate would communicate the importance of the safety training program to roofing supervisors is not provided, or an explanation of how the candidate would motivate roofing supervisors to participate in the program is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The explanation details how the candidate would communicate the importance of the safety training program to supervisors, but the explanation is either illogical or inappropriate for the scenario. Or the explanation provides ideas that illogically or inappropriately motivate supervisors to participate in the program.

COMPETENT

The explanation details how the candidate would communicate the importance of the safety training program to supervisors and provides specific and appropriate ideas on how to motivate supervisors to participate in the program. The explanation is logical and appropriate for the scenario.

A13:EVALUATION OF LEARNING OBJECTIVES

NOT EVIDENT

An explanation of how each learning objective from part A5 will be evaluated is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The explanation addresses how each learning objective from part A5 will be evaluated after training, but at least 1 of the suggested evaluation methods is not aligned to Kirkpatrick’s level 2 or level 3 or is not appropriate for the given learning objective.

COMPETENT

The explanation addresses how each learning objective from part A5 will be evaluated after training using Kirkpatrick’s level 2 or level 3 method, and each suggested evaluation method is appropriate for the given learning objective.

A14:EXAMPLES OF TRAINING TRANSFER

NOT EVIDENT

A description of 2 examples of supervisor behavior is not provided.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The description includes 2 examples of supervisor behavior, but at least 1 of the examples is not specific or would not provide sufficient evidence that training transfer has occurred in the workplace. Or the examples are not appropriate for the training program and scenario.

COMPETENT

The description includes 2 specific examples of supervisor behavior that would provide sufficient evidence that training transfer has occurred in the workplace. The examples are appropriate for the training program and scenario.

B:


SOURCES

NOT EVIDENT

The submission does not include both in-text citations and a reference list for sources that are quoted, paraphrased, or summarized.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

The submission includes in-text citations for sources that are quoted, paraphrased, or summarized and a reference list; however, the citations or reference list is incomplete or inaccurate.

COMPETENT

The submission includes in-text citations for sources that are properly quoted, paraphrased, or summarized and a reference list that accurately identifies the author, date, title, and source location as available.

C:


PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION

NOT EVIDENT

Content is unstructured, is disjointed, or contains pervasive errors in mechanics, usage, or grammar. Vocabulary or tone is unprofessional or distracts from the topic.

APPROACHING COMPETENCE

Content is poorly organized, is difficult to follow, or contains errors in mechanics, usage, or grammar that cause confusion. Terminology is misused or ineffective.

COMPETENT

Content reflects attention to detail, is organized, and focuses on the main ideas as prescribed in the task or chosen by the candidate. Terminology is pertinent, is used correctly, and effectively conveys the intended meaning. Mechanics, usage, and grammar promote accurate interpretation and understanding.