The case study evaluation rubric assesses submissions across 6 criteria on a scale of 1 to 3: 1) Identifying the main problem and causal factors, 2) Determining relevant information to address the problem, 3) Identifying contributing factors and connecting relevant information, 4) Generating hypotheses and alternative courses of action, 5) Testing hypotheses and making counter-arguments, and 6) Evaluating results and recommending a course of action. Higher scores are given for more clearly, completely, and accurately addressing each criterion.
The case study evaluation rubric assesses submissions across 6 criteria on a scale of 1 to 3: 1) Identifying the main problem and causal factors, 2) Determining relevant information to address the problem, 3) Identifying contributing factors and connecting relevant information, 4) Generating hypotheses and alternative courses of action, 5) Testing hypotheses and making counter-arguments, and 6) Evaluating results and recommending a course of action. Higher scores are given for more clearly, completely, and accurately addressing each criterion.
The case study evaluation rubric assesses submissions across 6 criteria on a scale of 1 to 3: 1) Identifying the main problem and causal factors, 2) Determining relevant information to address the problem, 3) Identifying contributing factors and connecting relevant information, 4) Generating hypotheses and alternative courses of action, 5) Testing hypotheses and making counter-arguments, and 6) Evaluating results and recommending a course of action. Higher scores are given for more clearly, completely, and accurately addressing each criterion.
Identify/define Failed to Identified Clearly the main problem identify the contributing identified and/or main issue root problem, and factors but the root did not indicate any did not problem, and causal factors recognize the provided clear root cause insight into the causal factors 15 Determining Did not Identified Clearly & the relevant identify some of the completely information to relevant relevant determined the address the information information relevant problem/issue that would that would information assist in assist in needed to resolving resolving the address the the issue issue problem 15 Identify Failed to Identified some Clearly and contributing identify the of the contributing factors accurately factors & contributing that impact on the problem identified the connecting relevant factors that but contributing information impact on the didn’t clearly connect the factors & required to solve root problem information provided a the issues in the connection case information relevant to solving the case problem 15 Generate Failed to Developed Developed at hypotheses & develop discrete, alternative course(s) least three construct sound and alternative of action (COAs), but discrete, viable coherent courses of they fail to COAs, and build arguments related action respond fully to the root solid arguments to to the solving of the issue(s)/problem(s) support their case problem(s) statements 15 Testing Failed to Developed an argument that Developed a hypotheses & Develop a supported one Clear, concise, making Viable Or more COAs Argument and fully counter-arguments Argument or But didn’t make compared the Compare A compelling alternative COAs alternative COAs argument 20 Evaluating the Did not evaluate Offered an evaluation of the Fully evaluated the results & the results nor results but didn’t choose a results and made a recommended make any viable viable COA that would cogent argument for course(s) of action counter-arguments resolve the problem the selected COA (COA) 20