home
Assess students

Example: Task holistic rubric for a case study

Scoring rubric for a case study

Note: Bolded words are the criteria that differentiate a score from its preceding score.

4.0

The write-up clearly presents a coherent central theme around which the observations of the two students are organized. Paper makes a strong, well-supported argument for a developmental interpretation of data, including data concerning special education. Concepts and theories are used appropriately, and their use demonstrates an understanding of the ideas used. Interpretation includes appropriate discussion of the role of contexts in the development of the students observed, including opportunities for development afforded in the various settings. Examples are explained in detail, and the path from observation to inference is clear and easy to follow. Snippets of data are used effectively to illustrate and support assertions. When assertions go beyond the data, this fact is acknowledged.

Course readings are used in the service of explanation, to help you make sense of your data, not as a proxy for explanation. Possible alternative interpretations of your data are carefully considered and your choice of explanation supported.  

3.5

The write-up presents a central theme around which most of the observations of the students are organized. Paper makes an argument for a developmental interpretation of data, including data concerning special education, using concepts and theories from the reading appropriately. Examples are explained in detail, but the path from observation to inferencemay not always be clear. Snippets of data are used to illustrate and support assertions. When assertions go beyond the data, this fact is usually acknowledged. Interpretation includes discussion of the role of contexts in the development of the students observed. Course readings are used in the service of explanation, to help you make sense of your data, not as a proxy for explanation. Possible alternative interpretations of your data are considered, but your choice of explanation may not be well-supported. 

3.0

The write-up presents a central theme around which most of the observations of the students are organized. Paper makes an argument for a developmental interpretation of data. Examples are explained in detail, but the path from observation to inference is not always clear. Snippets of data are used to illustrate and support assertions. When assertions go beyond the data, this fact is sometimes acknowledged. Interpretation includes discussion of the role of contexts in the development of the students observed. Course readings are used by matching them to what you observed, rather than using readings to probe and analyze what you observed. (This often looks something like: "Paul's parents communicate frequently with the teacher: this is an example of the school-home mesosytem.") The relevance of some readings used may not be clear. Possible alternative interpretations of your data are not carefully considered, or you do not provide your reasons for choosing among alternative explanations.

2.5

In this paper, your interpretation is inconsistently organized around a central theme. Argument for a developmental interpretation is made but not well-supported. You misapply some ideas/theories from the readings or don't take them far enough. Explanations do not consistently take context into account, but tend to focus on individual differences in the children. Conclusions are not well-supported by data. Possible alternative interpretations of your data are not carefully considered, or you do not provide your reasons for choosing among alternative explanations.  

2.0

The write-up lacks a central theme. Argument for a developmental interpretation is made sporadically or not well-supported. This paper misapplies some ideas/theories from the readings or doesn't take them far enough. You either misunderstood the import of some readings or connect readings to observations in inappropriate, misleading, or cursory ways. Explanations do not consistently take context into account, but focus primarily on individual differences in the children. In some cases, analysis is free-floating rather than firmly rooted in observational and interview data. Examples may lack details or their connection to your interpretation may be sometimes unclear. Conclusions are not well-supported by data. Possible alternative interpretations of your data are not carefully considered, or you do not provide your reasons for choosing among alternative explanations.  

1.0

The paper focuses on description rather than analysis. Little emphasis on development or context in the analysis. May go far beyond the data to make unjustified assertions about student development and individual differences.

Additional information

Scoring system for case study. Retrieved July 29, 2006 from http://faculty.washington.edu/sunolen/562-3/csl_direct.html#Grading%20Criteria%20and%20Scoring%20Rubric

Page last updated: Sep 21 2011
Copyright © 2007, The University of Texas at Austin