| Case Analysis Grading Rubric |
| The grading is on a 100% scale. |
| The following rubric will be used as a general guideline for the evaluation of case analysis write up. Remember that the key components |
| of the analysis are: Problem Statement, Analysis of Issues, Develop and Support the Recommendations. |
| Note that the component areas of a thorough case presentation are listed on the left column, and levels of performance are listed across. |
| This listing can help you better prepare your case analysis. Evaluation criteria are listed for both the content and the process aspects. |
| Component | Unacceptable (D) | Unacceptable ( C ) | Acceptable (C+ to B-) | Good (B to B+) | Excellent (A- to A+) |
| Problem Statement | 0-5pts | 6pts | 7pts | 8pts | 9-10pts | 20 |
| The case analysis should begin with a very brief description of the background and key players in the scenario. This description provides a context for the problem. | no core problem identified, no brief background, no key players, no primary issues identified, lack of depth of analysis, lack of organization and logic, poor quality in writing | vague coverage of background, players, core problem, primary issues; limited depth of analysis, organization and logic and weak quality in writing | vague and limited coverage of background, players, core problem, primary issues; limited depth of analysis, organization and logic and reasonable good quality in writing | clear & distinctive, but limited, coverage of background, players, core problem, primary issues; good depth of analysis, organization and logic and reasonable good quality in writing | full and complete coverage of background, players, core problem, primary issues; good depth of analysis, organization and logic and good quality in writing |
| Component | Unacceptable (D) | Unacceptable ( C ) | Acceptable (B- to B) | Good (B+) | Excellent (A- to A) |
| Analysis of Issues | 0-24pts | 25pts | 26-34pts | 35-43 | 44-50pts | 50 |
| Identification of ALL important issues, use information presented in the case and concepts, theories, and/or past empirical research reported in the text to understand why the problems and issues have developed and why they are important. The analysis of each issue should be developed to provide the necessary background to lead to defining one or more reasonable alternative solutions to the problem. | no comparison or integration of appropriate terminology, key concepts or theories, demonstrate understanding of the WHY in the problems with the analysis of each issue and neccessary background, definitely lacking or showing poor depth of analysis, organization, logic, and quality of writing | vague integration of appropriate terminology, key concepts or theories, demonstrate understanding of the WHY in the problems with the analysis of each issue and necessary background, definitely lacking or showing poor depth of analysis, organization, logic, and quality of writing | vague and limited integration of appropriate terminology, key concepts or theories, demonstrate understanding of the WHY in the problems with the analysis of each issue and necessary background, definitely lacking or showing somewhat fair depth of analysis, organization, logic, and quality of writing | clear and distinctive integration of appropriate terminology, key concepts or theories, demonstrate understanding of the WHY in the problems with the analysis of each issue and necessary background, definitely lacking or showing reasonably good depth of analysis, organization, logic, and quality of writing | full and complete integration of appropriate terminology, key concepts or theories, demonstrate understanding of the WHY in the problems with the analysis of each issue and necessary background, definitely lacking or showing good depth of analysis, organization, logic, and quality of writing |
| Component | Unacceptable (D) | Unacceptable ( C ) | Acceptable (B- to B) | Good (B+) | Excellent (A- to A) | 30 |
| Recommended actions will evolve out of your analysis of the issues. Decide what should be done (or what should have been done). Be very clear on WHY you have chosen this action. Justify your decision with facts from the case and concepts FROM TEXT. Use sound analyses and reasoning. | No recommended actions that evolve out of your analysis of the issues. Not clear on what should be done and why, little to no justification on decisions, no to very little facts. | Vague recommended actions, vague evolution out of your analysis of the issues. Vague and non-specific on what should be done (or what should have been done). Not clear on WHY you have chosen this action. Very little use of facts and text and very little sound analyses and reasoning. | Vague and limited recommended actions, limited evolution out of your analysis of the issues. Limited and non-specific on what should be done (or what should have been done). Not very clear on WHY you have chosen this action. Limited use of facts and text and very little sound analyses and reasoning. | Clear and distinctive recommended actions, clear but somewhat limited evolution out of your analysis of the issues. Limited on what should be done (or what should have been done) and WHY. Some need for facts, text info, sound analyses, and reasoning. | Full and complete recommended actions, clear and complete evolution out of your analysis of the issues. Complete on what should be done (or what should have been done) and WHY. Appropriate use of facts, text, sound analyses, and reasoning. |
| | | | | | total | 100 |
rdk35i
copy_of_case_grading_rubric_instrument_2012-2013.xlsx
