iRubric: Online Wiki Group Assignment Rubric - DCAD module

(draft) edit print share Copy to my rubrics Bookmark test run assess... delete Do more...

Online Wiki Group Assignment Rubric - DCAD module

Individual Written Assignment Rubric

Contribution to group discussion

Rubric Code: B7CAWX

By Dalybr

Draft

Public Rubric

Subject: Law

Type: Assignment

Grade Levels: Undergraduate

Online Wiki Group Assignment Rubric
	Excellent First class honours equivalent 70-100 (N/A)	Very Good 2:1 equivalent 60-69 (N/A)	Good 2:2 equivalent 50-59 (N/A)	Fair Pass equivalent 40-49 (N/A)	Poor Fail equivalent 39 or less (N/A)
Meets Basic Assignment Criteria
Understands Assignment pts If this box is checked for the poor or fair evaluation criteria, the document will receive a failing grade and no further evaluation will be conducted	Excellent Submission demonstrates a full and clear understanding of the case study assignment as it relates to healthcare law	Very Good Submission demonstrates a solid understanding of the case study assignment as it relates to a healthcare law course	Good Submission shows a basic, but minimal understanding of the nature of the case study assignment as it relates to a healthcare law course	Fair Submission shows very little understanding of the nature of the case study assignment as it relates to a healthcare law course	Poor Submission shows no basic understanding of the nature of the case study assignment as it relates to a healthcare law course
Issues and Precedents
Identification pts Identify the legal issues in the cases	Excellent Identifies & understands almost all of the main issues in the problem scenario	Very Good Identifies & understands most of the main issues in the problem scenario	Good Identifies & understands some of the main issues in the problem scenario	Fair Identifies & understands few of the main issues in the problem scenario	Poor Identifies & understands almost none of the issues presented in the problem scenario
Laws and Precedents pts Identify the laws and legal precedents that pertain to the legal issues	Excellent Identifies, demonstrates and/or understands all of laws and legal precedents for the problem scenario	Very Good Identifies, demonstrates and/or understands most of laws and legal precedents for the problem scenario	Good Identifies, demonstrates and/or understands some of laws and legal precedents for the problem scenario	Fair Identifies, demonstrates and/or understands few of laws and legal precedents for the problem scenario	Poor Identifies, demonstrates and/or understands none of laws and legal precedents for the problem scenario
Analysis of Issues pts For each issue, compare both existing legislation and case law with the facts presented in this case.	Excellent Very thorough and insightful analysis of each of the the issues using the laws and precedents and handled each of the issues separately prior to coming to an informed conclusion	Very Good Reasonably thorough analysis of each of the issues using the facts presented, laws and case precedents and handled each of the issues separately prior to coming to an informed conclusion	Good Somewhat thorough analysis of the issues presented using the facts presented, laws and case precedents and handled each of the issues separately prior to coming to an informed conclusion	Fair Marginal analysis of each of the separate issues using the relevant facts, laws and case precedents and/or was not able to separate issues	Poor Was not able to analyse the issues using facts presented, laws and case precedents and/or was not able to separate issues for analysis.
Decisions
Decision pts For each issue presented, and based upon existing law. discuss and determine how each issue should be resolved.	Excellent Clearly made a decision based on the issues and precedent	Very Good Made a decision based on the issues and precedent	Good Somewhat clearly made a decision based on the issues and precedent	Fair Either decision was not clear, or the decision was made without adequate legal basis	Poor Did not make a decision on the issues presented based on precedent, and did not defend the case
Reason for Decision pts Was able to communicate logically why he/she chose the winner in the case.	Excellent Thoroughly and logically explained decision in the case.	Very Good Offered a competent explanation of the decision in the case.	Good Logically explained decision in the case on a basic level.	Fair The explanation for the case has many faults.	Poor Did not defend the case
Writing Skills
Writing Errors pts These errors include spelling, grammar, word usage, capitalization, spelling, paragraphing, word use, etc.	Excellent Writing has few, if any, compositional errors	Very Good Occasional errors or misspellings	Good More than occasional errors or misspellings	Fair Frequent compositional errors or misspellings, but the exam can be read	Poor The document is difficult to be read due to errors or misspellings
Organization pts	Excellent The document is well organised	Very Good The document is fairly well organised	Good The document is somewhat organised	Fair The document is unorganised, but can be read	Poor The document is unorganised to the point being virtually unreadable

Subjects:

Types:

Discuss this rubric