Documentation:Open Case Studies/Resources/Short Assignment/Rubric

From UBC Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

What Is Illegal Logging? Grading Rubric

As in all written work, your case study will be marked for overall clarity and depth of thought. Your ability to convey this to the instructor will be assessed based on your ability to demonstrate competency in the following areas:

  • Quality of research
  • Information synthesis
  • Clear, concise communication

The remaining 4 marks, to complete 15% of your grade, will be based on your peer evaluation of your collaboration and commitment to the project.

Please Note: Because the work is hosted on the wiki, traditional length requirements will not apply.

Grading Rubric

D C B A
Quality of Research
3 marks
- resources are lacking in quantity: not enough sources to complete a thorough analysis - resources are lacking in either credibility, relevance, or variety - credible, relevant resources, but could use more variety - credible, relevant, and varied resources make up the body of research
Information Synthesis
4 marks
- report does not synthesize information
- writing simply “parrots” research findings
- report attempts to synthesize information and provide an analysis that is indicative of original thought, but may fail to do so - report attempts to synthesize information
- provides an analysis that is indicative of original thought, may not be thought-provoking
- report clearly synthesizes information to provide an analysis that is indicative of original, thought-provoking ideas
Communication
4 marks
- Writing is confusing; there is an over-reliance on jargon that has not been properly defined.
- This piece could not be understood without prior knowledge and/or experience on this topic
Grammatical errors impede meaning
- Writing is somewhat confusing; there are clear attempts to define jargon, but lacks clarity overall.
- This piece may not be understood without prior knowledge and/or experience on this topic
Grammatical errors are distracting
- Writing is mostly clear, some use of jargon, but terms have been well-defined.
- Writing could be understood by someone with some prior background knowledge/experience in the field
- Minor grammatical errors
- Writing is clear and free of confusing jargon; all terms have been defined properly.
- Writing could be understood by someone outside of the field
No grammatical errors

Please remember to define your terms. Jargon terms may be used if they are defined – but strive for readability across disciplines. More advanced wiki knowledge will also allow you to link to an external page to expand on a term’s meaning (this is not required for this assignment).