Rubric for assessment of the text

Used for Case study assessment in 2010/2011 course

Criteria/levels of fulfillment	10	5	0	Assessment
Content	quality of resources &well-founded argumentation: textshows knowledge, provides real(measurable) information; details go beyond the obvious or predictable; arguments are based on reliable resources found specifically for research; theories or statistical data presented	insufficient information; details are more or less predictable; sometimes reliable but some of the argument is biased	information is limited,repeated, no specific or original details; the author is just trying to sell an idea or opinion
Context	wide context & core ofthe problem identified:problems understood in their inter-relationships, interlinked with similarthemes, specific information fits into the whole picture; hidden causes ofdescribed phenomena are understood		narrow context: problems not interrelated, randomfacts presented; specific information out of context
Practical relevance
Focus	strong conclusions: values behind the topic are clear; main problem identified and discussed (analyzed); narrowing of topics -> channeled towards practical conclusions(at the end of the writing process)	several topics with +- clear priorities; text is sometimes focused on minor problems and neglects importantones	value orientation not certain; numerous topics with noclear priority; weak or totally impractical conclusions
Clarity	logical structure of the text: ideas are clear, (every) paragraph declares a separate point; detail adds to the main idea, elements are in the right place	ideas & focus of (every)paragraph need to be more specific; details need to be used in proper context(of other elements and main idea)	ideas unclear, seem scrambled, jumbled, and disconnected; structure not logical; details do not fit with the main idea
Critical approach	balanced text: opposing views presented		one-sided ideology promoted
Commitment	ethics (writing) &length (text): writing process basedon ethical values; time spent on writing above average		ethical principles in writing not satisfactorily respected & time or attention paid to the writing not sufficient
Individual input & risk-taking	initiative in researching topic: originality of the theme, independent work with resources	some new perspectives, but some are replicated, insufficient initiative	description of the problem does not bring any new perspectives; conclusions not original; insufficient resources
Formal features	respecting academic genre: proper length of paragraphs, sufficient titles and subtitles, sources properly cited in the text and in the list of references – citation format respected	no clear genre and structure, citation +/- OK	mixed genre, titles and subtitles insufficient, sources not properly cited in the text, citation format not correct
Reaction on the peer review	reviewer’s comments respected fully – or left out those which are not relevant – in which case an explanation is provided in the discussion		reviewer’s comments not respected
Total (points)				max 100