VIDEO BUSINESS CASE REPORT ASSESSMENT RUBRIC (20%) Critical Thinking Standard Definition: Critical thinking is a habit of mind characterised by the comprehensive exploration of issues, ideas, artefacts, and events before accepting or formulating an opinion or conclusion. 2.1 The graduate will be able to think critically about business issues and problems and draw defensible conclusions1 Standards Criteria Below Expectations (Fail) 0-49 Meets Expectations (Pass) 50-59 Meets Expectations (Credit) 60-69 Exceeds Expectations (Distinction) 70-79 Exceeds Expectations (High Distinction) 80-100 Issue/s (CT) (1 mark) The issue or problem to be considered critically is not clearly stated and described. There are significant omissions and/ or errors. The issue or problem to be considered critically is stated clearly and described with enough information for an adequate understanding. There are many omissions and/ or errors. The issue or problem to be considered critically is stated clearly and described with enough information for an adequate understanding. There are some omissions and/ or errors. The issue or problem to be considered critically is stated clearly and described thoroughly. There are few omissions and/ or errors. The issue or problem to be considered critically is stated clearly and described comprehensively (delivering all relevant information necessary for a full understanding). There are no omissions and/ or errors. Cause/s (2 marks) Obvious causes of the issue/s are not identified. Essential causes of the issue/s are adequately identified and documented. Underlying causes of the issue/s are identified and clearly documented. Underlying causes of the issue/s are accurately identified and coherently articulated. All underlying causes of the issue/s are precisely identified and expertly articulated. Alternatives (CT) (3 marks) Alternatives are either not presented or there is inadequate evaluation of the relative merits and drawbacks of each alternative. Presents and evaluates alternatives in a way that demonstrates adequate understanding of the relative merits and drawbacks of each alternative. Presents and evaluates alternatives in a way that demonstrates a good understanding of the relative merits and drawbacks of each alternative. Presents and evaluates alternatives in a way that demonstrates a significant understanding of the relative merits and drawbacks of each alternative. Presents and evaluates alternatives in a way that demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of the relative merits and drawbacks of each alternative. (Decision Criteria) Evidence-based Analysis (CT) (2 marks) The analysis is not coherent and is based on irrelevant information, concepts and methods. Information used is gathered from limited sources. A coherent analysis is based on partial use of relevant information, concepts and methods. Information used is gathered from some relevant sources. A coherent analysis is based on thorough use of relevant information, concepts and methods. Information used is gathered from several relevant sources. A coherent and comprehensive analysis is based on thorough use of the most relevant information, concepts and methods. Information used is gathered from many high quality sources. A coherent and complete analysis is based on complete use of all relevant information, concepts and methods. Information used is gathered from many diverse high quality sources. (Recommended Solutions) Conclusions (CT) (2 marks) The conclusions or solutions are unclear. They are not logically supported by the evidence and the process of analysis. Assumptions are not described. The conclusions or solutions are clear and relevant. They are generally supported by the evidence and the process of analysis. Few assumptions are described. The conclusions or solutions are clear and relevant. They are generally supported by the evidence and the process of analysis. Several assumptions are described. The conclusions or solutions are relevant, significant and organised. They are logically supported by the evidence and the process of analysis. Assumptions are comprehensively described. The conclusions or solutions are comprehensive, relevant, significant and organised. They are logically supported by the evidence and the process of analysis. Assumptions are comprehensively described.VIDEO BUSINESS CASE REPORT ASSESSMENT RUBRIC (20%) Implementation and Implications (2 marks) Did not identify the relevant and appropriate implementation of the recommended solution/s and the implications. Identified some appropriate implementation and a few relevant implications of the recommended solution/s. Identified appropriate implementation and some relevant implications of the recommended solution/s. Analysed the appropriate implementation and many relevant implications of the recommended solution/s. Thoroughly evaluated the most appropriate implementation and all of the relevant implications of the recommended solution/s. 1 Elder, L. And Paul R. 2008. The Thinkers’s Guide to Intellectual Standards: The Words That Name Them and the Criteria that Define Them. The Foundation for Critical Thinking. www.criticalthinking.org Foundation for Critical Thinking Press, Dillon Beach, CA.VIDEO BUSINESS CASE REPORT ASSESSMENT RUBRIC (20%) Ethical Reasoning Standard Definition: Ethical Reasoning is reasoning about right and wrong human conduct. It requires students to be able to assess their own ethical values and the social context of problems, recognize ethical issues in a variety of settings, think about how different ethical perspectives might be applied to ethical dilemmas and consider the ramifications of alternative actions. Students’ ethical self-identity evolves as they practice ethical decision-making skills and learn how to describe and analyze positions on ethical issues. 5.1 The graduate will be able to identify and analyze ethical issues in business scenarios Standards Criteria Below Expectations (Fail) 0-49 Meets Expectations (Pass) 50-59 Meets Expectations (Credit) 60-69 Exceeds Expectations (Distinction) 70-79 Exceeds Expectations (High Distinction) 80-100 Ethical Issue Recognition (ER) (2 marks) Analyse business scenarios without recognising ethical dimension(s). Analyse business scenarios with superficial recognition of ethical dimension(s). Recognise complex ethical issues in business scenarios. Independently recognise challenging ethical issues in complex business scenarios. Independently recognise challenging ethical issues in complex business scenarios with evidence of originality.VIDEO BUSINESS CASE REPORT ASSESSMENT RUBRIC (20%) Written Communication Skills Standard Definition: Written communication is the development and expression of ideas in writing in English. Written communication involves learning to work in many genres and styles. It can involve working with many different writing technologies, and mixing texts, data, and images. Written communication abilities develop through iterative experiences across the curriculum. 3.1 The graduate will be able to demonstrate written communication in their select business discipline(s). Standards Criteria Below Expectations (Fail) 0-49 Meets Expectations (Pass) 50-59 Meets Expectations (Credit) 60-69 Exceeds Expectations (Distinction) 70-79 Exceeds Expectations (High Distinction) 80-100 Executive Summary (2 marks) Executive Summary is vague and incomplete. Executive Summary provides relevant information. Executive Summary provides concise and complete information on the report. Executive Summary provides concise, complete and specific information. Accurately reflects the content and can be understood in isolation. Executive Summary provides concise, complete, specific and self-sufficient information capable of being fully understood in isolation. Logical flow and cohesion is evident. Context and Purpose (WC) (2 marks) Did not demonstrate adequate consideration of context, audience, and purpose and a clear focus on the assigned task(s) (e.g., the task does not align with audience, purpose, and context). Demonstrates some consideration of context, audience, and purpose and attempts to focus on the assigned task(s) (e.g., the task aligns with audience, purpose, and context). Demonstrates adequate consideration of context, audience, and purpose and a clear focus on the assigned task(s) (e.g., the task aligns with audience, purpose, and context). Demonstrates a good understanding of context, audience, and purpose and fully aligns with the assigned task(s) (e.g., the task aligns with audience, purpose, and context). Demonstrates a thorough understanding of context, audience, and purpose that is responsive to the assigned task(s) and focuses all elements of the work. Control of Syntax and Mechanics (WC) (2 marks) Did not use language that conveys meaning with sufficient clarity and includes numerous errors. Uses language sufficiently well to convey basic meaning although errors reduce effectiveness of communication. Uses language that generally conveys meaning with clarity although writing may include some errors. Uses language that effectively conveys meaning with clarity. Any errors which occur do not reduce effectiveness of communication. Uses language that skilfully and effectively communicates meaning with clarity and fluency, and is virtually errorfree.