Case Analysis
Individual Case Analysis_ ENGM 90014 Grading Rubric
Item Below Expectations Meets Expectations Exceeds
Expectations
Answers study questions appropriately; identifies key issues/points. (20%)
Begins to identify key issues and points for the analysis. Speaks to the given study questions, though in a superficial fashion.
Identifies key issues and points in a balanced fashion that contextualises and links key issues and points. Clearly answers the study questions.
Clearly demonstrates critical understanding of key issues/ points. Tends to display understanding of underlying case factors and/or motivation for case questions. May also pose logical follow- on questions.
Quality of Analysis of Case(s); demonstrates integration and presentation of case data (20%)
Rudimentary understanding of case(s), with little use of the empirical data and facts. Case evidence provided may be insufficient to support the arguments, or include excessive use of details that are not directly relevant.
Reasonable analysis, including good presentation and use of empirical data and facts from the case(s). Analysis provides adequate and specific examples from the case for each point, e.g. people, quotes, details, etc.
Demonstrates strong and rich analysis of the case(s). Uses the most salient case facts and details to display understanding and to support the analytical argument. Examples are clear and specific. Key groups and agents of action are specified or contextualised. All assertions are supported with clear evidence.
Citations include
author(s), date and
page number, as
relevant, and follow
APA protocols (both
in-text and in the
bibliography). (10%)
Citations are lacking
or inadequate in
following APA
protocols.
Citations mostly
good and mostly
follow APA
protocols.
Citations are very
well done in
adhering to APA
protocols.
Demonstrates knowledge and use of appropriate concepts, models and theories from
Fails to demonstrate use and understanding of theories and concepts. May show
Selects, applies and integrates course concepts, models and theories. Demonstrates
Meets and exceeds expectations. Demonstrates deep understanding through detailed,
readings and lectures. (30%)
rudimentary understanding of the theories chosen or suggested by study question. Can include overuse of common sense arguments. Does not adequately engage with relevant material, e.g. relies excessively upon online sources.
understanding of theories/concepts used. Selects theories/concepts relevant to the case(s), with justification as needed. Paper displays adequate application, use and citation of theories/concepts.
rich and convincing use of theories/concepts. May include novel application of theory/concept to this case, comparison of another theory with sufficient explanation, and/or discussion of shortcomings of theory/concept as applied to this case.
Effective communication and presentation of issues, points, analysis and arguments.* (20%) * Clarity of writing considers “voice,” tone, register, concision cohesion, argumentation, and persuasiveness first; then English language and grammar.
Writing fails to demonstrate cohesive narrative and understanding of the concepts/theory and case material. May include logical inconsistencies, excessive use of passive voice, lack of cohesion, confuses the reader, etc.
Reasonable narrative that provides coherent and cohesive argument. Demonstrates clear linkages between this case and relevant theory or theories, and synthesis displays author’s opinion, as relevant. Argumentation and writing is generally clear to the reader.
Meets expectations, and shows clear, concise, reasoned and persuasive writing that is able to convince the reader of the logical fit between theory, case facts and writer’s argument and opinion. Exceptionally well- written and logically thought through.