iRubric: Final Report U546 rubric

The response to this case for student population is presented with compelling evidence to support conclusions. The group clearly articulates how the response contributes toward building a positive climate on campus-- which stakeholders were taken into consideration in the response and HOW. If stakeholders were not considered, explanation of WHY is offered. The response is doable based on the information that is obtained.

The response for student population is presented with evidence to support conclusions, but more evidence is needed in some areas. The group articulates how the response contributes toward building a positive climate on campus--stakeholders were taken into consideration in the response and HOW (occasionally vague). If stakeholders were not considered, explanation of why is offered. The response is mostly doable.

The response for student population is presented--more evidence is needed in several areas. The group articulates how the response contributes toward building a positive climate on campus while indicating which stakeholders were taken into consideration--the how part is often vague. If stakeholders were not considered, explanation of why is sometimes offered. The response is somewhat unrealistic .

The response to this case for student population is presented with no evidence to support conclusions. If stakeholders were not considered, explanation of why is not offered. The response is unrealistic based on the information that is obtained.

Group offers evidence to support how they paid attention to previous pieces of feedback about the dialogue and proposed action plan (from Lucy and peers) in the report. The modifications to the action plan based on feedback masterfully enhance the arguments for the action plan.

Some attention to previous pieces of feedback about the dialogue and proposed action plan (from Lucy and peers) is considered in the report. The modifications to the action plan based on feedback enhances the arguments for the action plan.

Minimal attention to previous pieces of feedback about the dialogue and proposed action plan (from Lucy and peers) is considered in the report. Lucy ends up offering the same constructive criticisms because the group failed to consider previous pieces of feedback.

No attention to previous pieces of feedback from the dialogue and presentation (from Lucy and peers) is considered in the final report.

Logic of report makes sense and is very easy to follow. Writer leads the reader on a journey. Writer uses transitions between sections and invites the reader into the topic. Different parts of the report are connected in a strong, organized, and compelling manner. The voice of the report masterfully matches the intended audience (i.e. VP Student Affairs, Provost, Board of Trustees). Attention to creativity in the report.

Demonstrates a mostly clear understanding of how to organize and structure a report. Provides reader with a decent roadmap to follow throughout report and clear table of contents. Writer uses engaging and creative language, and word choice is clear and compelling. The voice of the report matches the intended audience (i.e. VP Student Affairs, Provost, Board of Trustees). Occasional dimensions of creativity.

Organization and structure is sometimes unclear. Reader sometimes has difficulty understanding writer’s statements because more attention to multiple drafts is needed. The way the report is formatted doesn't match the intended audience (i.e. VP Student Affairs, Provost, Board of Trustees). Table of contents doesn't match the presentation of the report.

Writing is unclear and disorganized. Lack of transitions between paragraphs or sections. No logical flow to paper or progression between ideas. Table of contents is nonexistent. Intended audience is unclear to the reader.