Skip to main content

 iRubric for Sakai

iRubric: Case Study Analysis I rubric

iRubric: Case Study Analysis I rubric


edit   print   share   Copy to my rubrics   Bookmark   test run   assess...   delete   Do more...
Case Study Analysis I 
Case Study Analysis I
Rubric Code: XXW5AB9
Ready to use
Public Rubric
Subject: Music  
Type: Assignment  
Grade Levels: Graduate

Powered by iRubric Case Study Analysis
  Unacceptable

0 pts

Fair

5 pts

Good

8 pts

Excellent

10 pts

Relevance
10 pts

The analysis addresses topics specified in the case-study assignments in modules 2, 3, and 4.
Unacceptable

Topic(s) addressed in the analysis have little relationship to topics assigned in the course modules.
Fair

Only one of the music responses assigned in modules 2, 3, and 4 is addressed in the analysis. Other responses may be addressed, but no rational is provided for the substitutions.
Good

This analysis addresses some of the musical responses considered in the modules while ignoring others and/or the analysis reveals a lack of understanding of the nature of the identified responses.
Excellent

This analysis covers the topics assigned in the various modules and indicates that the author has good insight into subjects' responses related to those topics.
Objectivity
10 pts

The report is an objective analysis of the data recorded in the case-study journals.
Unacceptable

The report is highly subjective and speculative, with no "evidence" from the case study journals to support the opinions offered.
Fair

The report is an "essay on the topics" and/or "biography of the subjects" with few, if any reference to the observations from the case-study journals.
Good

The report is somewhat objective and contains occasional reference to data from the case-study journal. It is more "summary and opinion" "analysis of data".
Excellent

The report has an objective tone and is clearly based on data observed and recorded. There are frequent references to and quotations from the case-study journal.
Analytical Content
10 pts

The report offered conclusions about human interactions ith music, based on data recorded in the case-study journals and validated by reference to research summarized in the text and/or other relevant sources.
Unacceptable

The report summarizes data from case-study journals but does not provide an analysis nor attempt to draw conclusions from that data.
Fair

The report provides few, if any conclusions. It is more of a summary of data than an analysis.
Good

The report provides analysis of some of the data from the case-study journals, but there is little support for conclusions other sources such as readings in the text or from journals consulted.
Excellent

The report provides a thoughtful analysis of observations recorded in case-study journals supported by reference to material from the text book and/or other sources.
Case-Study Skill
10 pts

The report provides evidence that the author has an understanding of and skill in using "Case-Study" as a tool for investigating human interactions with music.
Unacceptable

The report indicates a lack of understanding of "case-study" as a tool for investigating human response to music.
Fair

The report provides evidence of a vague notion of the "Case-Study" tool but also reveals some serious weakness in understanding of, or ability to use "Case-Study" procedures.
Good

The report provides evidence of some understanding of "Case-Study" as a tool for investigating human response to music but general tone and/or omissions call skill and understanding into question.
Excellent

The report provides strong evidence of an understanding of and ability to use "Case-Study" as a tool for investigating human responses to music.
Professional Writing
5 pts

The report reflects good writing skills, appropriate formatting for a scholarly paper, and has been carefully proof-read. It is a "graduate level" paper.
Unacceptable

The writing style is colloquial and communication is hampered by many mechanical errors in spelling, grammar, and sentence structure.
Fair

The report is written in an informal style and/or contains frequent misspellings and inappropriate grammar.
Good

The analysis is primarily in a professional style but contains minor mechanical errors.
Excellent

The analysis is written in a professional style and is free from mechanical errors. There is evidence of careful proof-reading.




Subjects:

Types:

Discuss this rubric




Do more with this rubric:
Preview

Preview

Preview this rubric.
Edit

Edit

Modify this rubric.
Copy

Copy

Make a copy of this rubric and begin editing the copy.

Print

Print

Show a printable version of this rubric.
Categorize

Categorize

Add this rubric to multiple categories.
Bookmark

Bookmark

Bookmark this rubric for future reference.
Assess
Test run

Test run

Test this rubric or perform an ad-hoc assessment.
Grade

Grade

Build a gradebook to assess students.
Collaborate

Collaborate

Apply this rubric to any object and invite others to assess.
Share
Publish

Publish

Link, embed, and showcase your rubrics on your website.
Email

Email

Email this rubric to a friend.
Discuss

Discuss

Discuss this rubric with other members.
 

Do more with rubrics than ever imagined possible.

Only with iRubrictm.


iRubric and RCampus are Trademarks of Reazon Systems, Inc.
Copyright (C) Reazon Systems Inc. All Rights Reserved
n16