https://webcourses.ucf.edulogin:id674301
Password: Okt@bien79
PAD3003-16Summer CW61
https://webcourses.ucf.edu/courses/1201291/files/55322726/download?wrap=1
Please read the case studyPreview the documentView in a new window.
In paragraph form (3-5 pages), the case analysis should include the following sections:
•Clearly and succinctly, describe the problem or issue that is the subject of the case. Use names to identify key actors in the case (not all actors).
•Identify and evaluate 2-3 relevant potential courses of action. Describe each and state their strengths and weaknesses.
•Choose the alternative that you believe is most appropriate and justify your choice. Apply concepts primarily from Module 5, but Module 6 could apply as well.
•Use the discussion questions provided at the end of the case to help guide your analysis. While you are not answering these questions directly, they can provide guidance for the write-up.
•Write a concluding paragraph.
Rubric
Case Studies
Case Studies
Criteria
Ratings
Pts
Formatting & Organization
Followed formatting according to the syllabus. Very well organized.
1.5 pts
Generally followed formatting instructions, minimal errors. Fairly well organized.
1.2 pts
Major errors in formatting. Poorly organized, difficult to follow.
0.9 pts
No Marks
0.0 pts
1.5 pts
Writing Quality
Few errors in spelling and punctuation, succinct written with clear message.
1.5 pts
Some errors in spelling and punctuation. Mostly understandable.
1.2 pts
Numerous errors in spelling and punctuation. Difficult to understand the points the student is trying to make.
0.9 pts
No Marks
0.0 pts
1.5 pts
Analysis
Concise yet complete. Good insight for the reader. Identifies most to all key actors.
2.0 pts
Some points are unclear. Identifies actors, but may not be all key actors. Adequate insight to the reader.
1.6 pts
Unclear. Reader is unlikely to understand the case from the description. Does not identify key actors.
1.2 pts
No Marks
0.0 pts
2.0 pts
Evidence
Recognizes viable policy alternatives and justifies chosen alternative. Supports position with valid arguments.
2.5 pts
Recognizes one viable alternative or tries to support a position but arguments are not valid.
2.0 pts
Fails to consider alternatives or inaccurately identifies alternatives. Does not articulate a position.
1.5 pts
No Marks
0.0 pts
2.5 pts
Description of criterion
Clearly identifies theory or concept from the readings that is appropriate for the case and clearly linked.
2.5 pts
Mentions a theory or concept that is somewhat applicable. May not be clearly connected to the case.
2.0 pts
No theory or concept from class identified or theory chosen is not appropriate for the case.
1.5 pts
