|
Criteria
|
Insufficient
(absent, lacking, incomplete, errors, inconsistent)
1
|
Needs Improvement
2
|
Adequate
(accurate/complete but focus on separate points rather
than integrating or discussing the system)
3
|
Good
4
|
Excellent
(complete, thorough, articulate, showing understanding
of relationships among parts)
5
|
| Content (coverage of content;
demonstration of understanding of case, theory & application) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purpose and focus of case (set context, focus, and
expectations): "The purpose of this case discussion is to..."
|
no mention of purpose or focus for presentation; jumping
right in
|
|
identify purpose of case presentation and focus for discussion;
overview of case
|
|
purpose and focus clear with suggested key issues and highlights
|
|
Brief description of theory (refresher to class of
main concepts)
|
no discussion of theory or how it works
|
|
clear and thorough coverage of the theory, key terms, how
it works
|
|
clear and thorough coverage as well as noting why it was
picked for this case and how well it fits
|
|
Description and explanation of case using theory (familiarity
and appropriate use of terms): "Using this theory, here's what ahppened
and why..."
|
description of case but without using terms and concepts
of theory
|
|
description of case using terms and concepts appropriately
|
|
description using terms and concepts with emphasis on how
they explain the case and are related to each other
|
|
Intervention using theory (use of theory in suggesting
solution to problem): "Using this theory, here are some ways the situation
could have been prevented or changed..."
|
intervention discussed but unclear; terms, concepts or procedures
not used well
|
|
clear points of intervention using terms, concepts, and practices
but with separate parts of the problem
|
|
clear intervention using terms, etc., with discussion of
how parts of problem and intervention are related and might affect each
other
|
|
Conclusion/evaluation (consideration of use and value
of theory in explaining and intervening in this kind of case): "Here's
how useful this theory was in examining this kind of case..."
|
no conclusion or utility of theory discussed
|
|
strengths and weaknesses of theory applied to case identified
|
|
strengths and weaknesses identified, and alternate theories
or additional needs suggested
|
| Presentation (presentation
skills) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Graphics (quality, appropriateness, and added value
of audio-visuals)
|
no graphics
|
|
graphics but hard to read, interpret, or do not clearly follow
explanation
|
|
clear, legible, attractive graphics that add value to presentation
by clarifying or summarizing
|
|
Presenter's role (evident teamwork, collaboration
and practice in presentation)
|
not all members make presentation
|
|
each member presents separate section of persentation
|
|
members present separately but show smooth transitions and
how they are related; may contribute mutually
|
|
Presenter's style (verbal and nonverbal skill in presentation)
|
barely audible, awkward speech or gestures, distracting habits
or mannerisms
|
|
audible, clear, interested but lacking practiced smoothness
and enthusiasm; good eye contact & matching gestures
|
|
coherent, articulate, enthusiastic, confident, appropriate
nonverbals
|
|
Class discussion (involving class in discussion of
case, theory, application, utility, strengths & weaknesses, etc.)
|
little or no effort to elicit questions or lead discussion
|
|
elicits questions from class and discusses them
|
|
elicits questions and presents questions for discussion to
class regarding case or theory; good facilitation skills
|
|
Reflection (thinking back on your presentation, how
you prepared, delivered it, and how you worked together-- what you might
have done differently to improve it)
|
little or no discussion of reflection
|
|
limited suggestions of how presentation might have been improved
|
|
thorough consideration of how presentation, graphics, teamwork,
and other presentation efforts could have been improved
|