case work
Grading Rubric for Case Analysis (90 pts.)
Does Not Meet Expectations
(0 - 3pts.)
Minimally Meets Expectations (4 – 8 pts.)
Meets Expectations (9 - 12 pts.)
Exceeds Expectations (13 - 15 pts.)
Define Problem Demonstrates a limited ability in identifying a problem statement or related contextual factors.
Demonstrates the ability to construct a problem statement with evidence of most relevant contextual factors, but problem statement is superficial.
Demonstrates the ability to construct a problem statement with evidence of most relevant contextual factors, and problem statement is adequately detailed.
Demonstrates the ability to construct a clear and insightful problem statement with evidence of all relevant contextual factors.
Analysis and Use of Ethical Theories
Lists evidence, but it is not organized and/or is unrelated to the problem.
Does not use any ethical framework or uses it erroneously throughout paper.
Organizes evidence, but the organization is not effective in revealing the causes of the problem. Minimally uses ethical reasoning framework or uses it imprecisely in paper
Organizes evidence, and the organziation is effective in revealing the causes of the problem.
Adequately and sufficiently ethical framework with minimal error
Organizes and synthesizes evidence to reveal insightful causes to the problem.
Properly and effectively uses ethical framework throughout paper with no error
Propose Solutions Proposes a solution that is difficult to evaluate because it is vague or only indirectly addresses the problem statement.
Proposes one solution that is “off the shelf” rather than individually designed to address the specific contextual factors of the problem.
Proposes one or more solutions, which are sensitive to contextual factors, to indicate comprehension of the problem.
Proposes one or more solutions, which are sensitive to contextual factors, to indicate a deep comprehension of the problem.
Evaluate Potential Solutions
Evaluation of solutions is superficial (e.g., contains surface level explanation) and includes at least one of the following: considers history of problem, reviews logic/reasoning, examines feasibility of solution, and weighs impacts of solution.
Evaluation of solutions is brief (e.g., explanation lacks depth) and includes at least two of the following: considers history of problem, reviews logic/reasoning, examines feasibility of solution, and weighs impacts of solution.
Evaluation of solutions is adequate (e.g., contains thorough explanation) and includes at least three of the following: considers history of problem, reviews logic/reasoning, examines feasibility of solution, and weighs impacts of solution.
Evaluation of solutions is deep and elegant (e.g., contains thorough and insightful explanation) and includes, deeply and thoroughly, all of the following: considers history of problem, reviews logic/reasoning, examines feasibility of solution, and weighs impacts of solution.
Does Not Meet Expectations
(0 - 3pts.)
Minimally Meets Expectations (4 – 8 pts.)
Meets Expectations (9 - 12 pts.)
Exceeds Expectations (13 - 15 pts.)
Action Plan
Implement Solutions
Conclusions
Implements the solution in a manner that does not directly address the problem statement.
States an ambiguous, illogical, unsupportable, or irrelevant conclusion.
Implements the solution in a manner that addresses the problem statement but ignores relevant contextual factors.
States a general conclusion that, because it is so general, also applies beyond the scope of the paper.
Implements the solution in a manner that addresses multiple contextual factors of the problem in a surface manner.
States a conclusion focused solely on the analysis of the problem in the focal organizational setting.
Implements the solution in a manner that addresses thoroughly and deeply multiple contextual factors of the problem. States a conclusion that is a logical extrapolation from the analysis of the problem in the focal organizational setting.
Grammar Mechanics
& Usage
Contains consistent errors in grammar, mechanics, or usage that impede communication.
Contains consistent errors in grammar, mechanics or usage sufficient to impede communication.
Contains occasional errors in grammar, mechanics, or usage but these errors do not impede communication.
Has few, if any, errors in grammar, mechanics, or usage.