Hi All,
For me an analytical rubric is ideal. It really separates the grade criteria into its key components. I’m always clear on what I’m looking for and students seem to be very clear on what is expected.
Mind you…over the years I have learned how to temper my rubrics to fit the class. My graduate school rubrics have become more sophisticated, but my undergraduate rubrics have become more specific.
I have posted them both belowso you all can get a feel for what I am discussing.
I enjoy using rubrics. I wasn’t sure at the beginning, but I now see how so many of the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, particularly the amount of time it takes to construct them.
I hope you enjoy these examples.
James.
------------------------
UNDERGRADUATE
Final Project Rubric
At the end of U9 you will submit your Final Project Paper. I especially look forward to reading these papers as they demonstrate everyone’s in depth analyses and perspectives on what constitutes effective interpersonal communication. Be sure to include the required components in one Word document in the correct order. If you have any questions, then know that I am only an email away. Remember…I am here to help you succeed. If you are having problems submitting this assignment, technical or otherwise, you must contact me immediately. I also strongly recommend that you contact Student Services immediately. Please note that this does not guarantee that your project will be accepted late. To avoid any issues, you should aim to submit your project the day before the due date. That way, if there is a problem, there will be time to fix it. This project is worth 150 points (15% of total grade).
The following is the general criteria that will be used to assess your submission:
1. Quality of Answer (Total possible points: 120)
1.1. Thoroughness
1.1.1. Explained why you chose at least three specific concepts from the textbook to describe what communicators need to know and do in order to communicate effectively
1.1.2. Included a clear and concise thesis statement
1.1.3. Analyzed in detail what each of these concepts contributes to effective interpersonal communication
1.1.4. Described in detail how these concepts work collectively to produce effective interpersonal communication
1.1.5. Summarized what you have identified and learned in the conclusion
1.2. Compared and contrasted theories and concepts from throughout the course
1.3. Used examples effectively to demonstrate your points
1.4. Correctly presented perspectives generally supported through the course readings
2. Use of text and exteriors sources (Total possible points: 20)
2a. Required text material
2b. Exterior sources
3. APA (Total possible points: 10)
3.1. Included at least four citations and four references (one of which must be the text) in APA style.
3.2. Formatted of paper, citations, and references within APA guidelines
----------------------------------------
GRADUATE
(this may not paste well as it has charts)
About Case Analysis
The case analysis approach is an exercise in applying what you have learned in a particular area. Cases provide you with information about conditions, situation, and/or problems in organizations, then ask you to assume a managerial role, rather than the role of the onlooker. Your task in this role is to use your critical thinking and analytical skills to develop a set of recommendations for understanding or resolving the condition, situation and/or problem that is described in the case study. The purpose of case analysis is to elicit from you a discussion based on your judgment about what the problem is, how to judge what was done, and/or what needs to be done. This discussion will rely on what you have learned in this course as well as what you have learned in other courses you have taken, as well as your professional experience. Reliance on this information from sources outside the course should be clearly justified, and the sources should be cited. It is not enough for you to have an opinion; you must support your opinion with evidence and/or anecdotes and/or theoretical bases.
Where to Submit
There are TWO places where you need to submit your cases: (1) Turnitin.com, and (2) your assignment folder. The Academic Honesty and Turnitin.com conference discusses the procedures for obtaining a Turnitn.com account and uploading papers. You are strongly encouraged to submit your paper to Turnitin.com a day or two before the due date in order to check your own Turnitin originality report and ensure that you have not inadvertently copy-and-pasted items from the internet without proper citation.
Format
Each case analysis should be approximately 5-7 pages long (excluding references in APA style). Also, in accordance with APA style, the analysis should be double-spaced, with a serif font (e.g. Times Roman. Arial is, as an example, a SANS serif font and not acceptable). It should include the following sections (please write a paper that includes the information requested in these sections woven together in a cogent manner; please do not simply write Section I, Section II, etc. and answer the questions. These questions are meant as a guide to your analysis, not as the sole driving force for the content of your paper):
I. Title page (not counted against page count) with name, section number and the case that you are analyzing.
II. Introduction
What care are you analyzing? Briefly summarize the situation as you see it. Define the major stakeholders. How is an ethical issue(s) being created? The introduction should flow smoothly into the next section.
III. Identification and Articulation of Ethical Issues and Stakeholder Perspectives
What, exactly, are the ethical issue(s) being faced? Do the different stakeholders view the issue(s) differently; do they agree there is an ethical issue? From what kind of framework does each stakeholder view the issue?
IV. Choice of Relevant Ethical Framework
Based on your readings in the text, articles, lectures, and relevant outside SCHOLARLY sources (you need at least 2 to achieve the B-level standard for Case Analysis #1). What is your assessment of the situation? What is the framework by which the issue should be considered, and from which a solution should be generated? (Be sure to address this!)
V. Available and "Best" Alternatives for Action
Within the framework that you've articulated above, what is the best course of action? Are there any alternative courses of action that might be okay? If so, how might one choose among them? How can you achieve stakeholder compliance, if the stakeholders do not agree on the ethical issue(s) present?
Grading
Each case will be graded on a 100 point scale, and it will be worth 15% of the final grade. The grading rubric for case analyses can be found below.
I. Title page (1 points)
Did you include a title page with name, section number and the case that you are analyzing? If so, you get the point.
II. Introduction (5 points):
What care are you analyzing? Briefly summarize the situation as you see it. Define the major stakeholders. How is an ethical issue(s) being created?
Remember, in addition to providing the required introductory material, the tone of the introduction is to lay the foundation for the arguments that you are going to make throughout the rest of the paper. Don't miss the opportunity here to set the stage for the important things that you have to say.
Below Graduate Average
Does not Meet the Expectations
Poor: 3 or fewer points Graduate Average Range
Meets the Expectations
Good: 4 points Well Above Graduate Average
Far Exceeds the Expectations
Excellent: 5 points
Introduction
a. Introduction does not adequately provide information regarding case summary, stakeholders, and/or ethical issue(s).
a. Introduction adequately provides information regarding case summary, stakeholders, and/or ethical issue(s).
b. Introduction attempts, and is successful to some degree, to generate reader interest in the presentation to come.
c. Introduction may communicate the paper's sense of purpose.
a. Introduction provides superb information regarding case summary, stakeholders, and/or ethical issue(s).
b. Introduction creates compelling interest for reader to continue.
c. Introduction definitely communicates the paper's sense of purpose.
III. Identification and Articulation of Ethical Issues and Stakeholder Perspectives: (28 points)
What, exactly, are the ethical issue(s) being faced? Do the different stakeholders view the issue(s) differently; do they agree there is an ethical issue? From what kind of framework does each stakeholder view the issue?
You should be able to organize this discussion in a logical fashion. Some issues are major, some are minor. Often, seemingly independent problems are really all symptoms of one big problem or issues. Some problems originate from actions that were taken to solve other problems! Also, can you correctly define the stakeholders? It is not always the case that every person discussed in the case is really a stakeholder; and, sometimes an important stakeholder may not even be mentioned. Finally, do you demonstrate that you truly understand how the different stakeholders view the situation? The ability to "read" the situation and truly understand the heart of the important issues is critical.
Below Graduate Average
Does not Meet the Expectations
Poor: 21 or fewer points Graduate Average Range
Meets the Expectations
Good: 22 - 24 points Well Above Graduate Average
Far Exceeds the Expectations
Excellent: 25 - 28 points
Identification and Articulation of Ethical Issues and Stakeholder Perspectives
a. Issue identification is incorrect or not clear. Claims to argue for issue are not supported.
b. Stakeholder discussion is off-the-mark, either missing an important stakeholder, adding stakeholders who are not really, and/or listing the correct stakeholders but for completely the wrong reasons.
c. Evidence, if present, may be irrelevant or inappropriate. Warrants are not at all clear. Identification is simple a rehash of case information.
d. Organization does not produce a cogent argument.
a. Issue identification is generally clear and mostly supported with solid evidence.
b. Stakeholder discussion is solid, with few or no missteps.
d. Warrants are generally clear. Perhaps some unnecessary rehashing or needless repetition of case information in search to identify.
d. Organization of claims produces a cogent argument.
a. Issue identification is beyond the obvious. Argument for the issues is beyond reproach . . . clear and well-supported.
b. Stakeholder identification is exact; discussion of stakeholders is extraordinarily perceptive.
c. Evidence is more than appropriate; it demonstrates extraordinary insight into the content and the ability to understand the real "meat" of the issues. Evidence reflects creative use of resources; warrants are obvious to the reader. No needless rehashing.
d. Organization of claims produces an extremely articulate argument.
IV. Choice of Relevant Ethical Framework (28 points):
Based on your readings in the text, articles, lectures, and relevant outside SCHOLARLY sources (you need at least 2 to achieve the B-level standard for Case Analysis #1). What is your assessment of the situation? What is the framework by which the issue should be considered, and from which a solution should be generated? (Be sure to address this!)
A "good" solution to a case requires that you demonstrate that you are aware of the many grounds on which we can build our foundations for ethical decision making, that you are able to winnow and sift among different kinds of frameworks to find a most appropriate one, and that you are able to argue for its appropriateness over the others. What is the appropriate framework "lens" through which to view the ethical issue(s) of primary importance, and why?
Below Graduate Average
Does not Meet the Expectations
Poor: 21 or fewer points Graduate Average Range
Meets the Expectations
Good: 22 – 24 points Well Above Graduate Average
Far Exceeds the Expectations
Excellent: 25 – 28 points
Choice of Relevant Ethical Framework
a. Choice of ethical framework is incorrect or not clear.
b. Application of theoretical framework is incorrect.
c. Support for choice of framework is absent or woefully inadequate and/or fewer than two outside sources are included.
a. Choice of ethical framework is generally clear and demonstrates solid understanding of competing frameworks.
b. Application of theoretical framework is generally correct.
c. Support for choice of framework is present, and the argument made for the choice of framework is solid. At least two outside sources are included (and appropriately cited); they attempt to be relevant to the discussion.
a. Choice of ethical framework demonstrates deep understanding of range of framework choices as well as the subtle differences among them.
b. Application of theoretical framework clearly explains why pertinent theories reign in this situation, and demonstrates specifically how theoretical models or processes can be brought to bear on the problem.
c. Support for choice of framework has both breadth and depth; it reflects creative use of resources. More than two outside sources are included (and appropriately cited), and they are absolutely relevant to the discussion.
V. Available and "Best" Alternatives for Action (28 points):
Within the framework that you've articulated above, what is the best course of action? Are there any alternative courses of action that might be okay? If so, how might one choose among them? How can you achieve stakeholder compliance, if the stakeholders do not agree on the ethical issue(s) present?
You might begin this section with a sentence summing up/reminding of the problem and framework so you remain sharp and focused. This is helpful in reminding you of exactly what it was that you thought needed to be solved and helps to pull your brain toward the task of finding the solutions. As you develop your alternative solutions, discuss and ANALYZE them thoroughly; don't just make a laundry list. Discuss strengths and weaknesses; compare and contrast. The reader should be able to see the rationale for their development and clearly see that distinct and separate alternatives for a solution do, in fact, exist. Make sure that the alternatives are action-oriented. What should be DONE? Finally, be sure that when you have indicated a "best" alternative, you provide criteria or rationale for why it is the best.
Below Graduate Average
Does not Meet the Expectations
Poor: 21 or fewer points Graduate Average Range
Meets the Expectations
Good: 22 - 24 points Well Above Graduate Average
Far Exceeds the Expectations
Excellent: 25 - 28 points
AVAILABLE AND "BEST" ALTERNATIVES
a. Alternatives do not logically arise from application of theoretical framework.
b. Poor development of multiple alternatives.
c. No good basis for naming "best" alternative.
a. Alternatives generally logically arise from application of theoretical framework.
b. Able to develop multiple alternatives.
c. Argument for "best" alternative is generally cogent. Benchmarks for decision are good.
a. Alternatives clearly logically arise from application of theoretical framework.
b. Development of multiple alternatives reflects superb critical thinking and insightful analysis.
c. Argument for "best" alternative is extraordinarily cogent, clearly demonstrating benchmarks for decision. Benchmarks are of superior quality.
VI. Writing (10 points):
The remaining 10 points are for the overall quality of the writing, and will be allotted as described below:
Below Graduate Average
Paper is Written Below the Standards Expected of Graduate Work
Student should definitely seek assistance from the UMUC Effective Writing Center
This quality of writing may hinder the student's ability to perform future class assignments successfully at a passing level Graduate Average Range
Paper is Written to the Standards Expected of Graduate Work
Well Above Graduate Average
Paper is of Immediately Publishable Quality
Poor: 6 or fewer points Good: 7 – 8 points Excellent: 9 – 10 points
WRITING QUALITY
a. The paper has little to no direction, with disjointed subtopics.
b. Text is repetitious.
c. Information seems to be disorganized and has little to do with the main topic.
d. Lacks a thesis or controlling idea.
e. Sentences do not relate to the paragraph’s main idea.
f. Paragraphs do not clearly or effectively relate to the paper’s thesis or controlling idea.
g. Examples are either lacking or ineffective (i.e., do not relate to the main idea in the paper or paragraph)
h. Paper contains spelling and grammatical errors as well as improper punctuation.
i. The writing is vague or it is difficult to understand what the writer is trying to express.
j. Mistakes in grammar, spelling, and/or punctuation cause confusion and show lack of concern for quality of writing.
k. Writing rambles; the paper appears hastily written.
l. Numerous errors in APA style.
a. There is a basic flow from one section to the next, but not all sections or paragraphs follow in a natural or logical order.
b. Ideas are clear, but there is a lack of extra information.
c. Information relates to main topic. Details and amount of information are sparse.
d. Includes a basic thesis or controlling idea.
e. Sentences mostly relate to the paragraph’s main idea.
f. Paragraphs generally though not always relate to the thesis or controlling idea.
g. Examples are included, though not always; reader needs specific details or quotes that the writer does not provide.
h. Some mistakes in grammar, spelling, and/or punctuation exist, but they do not cause confusion; they suggest negligence, not indifference.
i. Writing might ramble.
j. Several errors in APA style.
a. The paper flows from general ideas to specific conclusions and/or vice-versa. All sections follow a logical order. Transitions tie together sections as well as individual paragraphs.
b. Ideas are clear, original, and focused. Main idea stands along with details.
c. Sufficient information included. Information clearly relates to the main relates to the main thesis. It includes several supporting details and/or examples.
d. Provides a clear and compelling thesis
e. Sentences clearly relate to the paragraph’s main idea
f. Paragraphs clearly and effectively relate to and support the thesis.
g. Writer provides examples and quotes that answer the reader’s questions and add depth to the writer’s ideas.
h. The writing/language is clear and concise.
i. There are no (or very few) mistakes in grammar, spelling, and/or punctuation.
j. The writing does not ramble.
k. Excellent adherence to APA style.
