Abstract
This article presents a rubric for evaluating student performance on written case assignments that require qualitative analysis. This rubric is designed for three purposes. First, it informs students of the criteria on which their work will be evaluated. Second, it provides instructors with a reliable instrument for accurately measuring and grading student performance on written case assignments. Third, if the rubric is used multiple times during the semester, student progress can also be measured. In addition, we piloted an instrument, with statistically confirmed reliability, for measuring students’ perceptions of the benefits of the rubric.
Introduction
A rubric is a set of guidelines or instructions that instructors can use for assessing student performance; a rubric should include both expectations and evaluation criteria (Popham, 1997). This article presents a rubric that is not discipline specific and is designed for written business case assignments that require qualitative analysis. We also present an instrument, with statistically confirmed reliability, for measuring students’ perceptions of the benefits of a rubric. Both the rubric and the instrument were pilot tested in senior/MBA level courses in business ethics and international management.
Problem Statement
The authors teach courses in business ethics and international management. We frequently assign written case analyses, which are followed by discussion of the same cases in class. We were concerned about the quality of some the case work that we were receiving. After analyzing the possible causes of poor case work, we concluded that we needed to do more to educate students about our criteria and performance standards for grading case work. The next logical step was to use a case rubric to explain our expectations to students, grade their work, and give them feedback. We needed a rubric that required only qualitative analysis, and we preferred one that included writing. In addition, we wanted a rubric with clear, precise descriptions of performance levels. We made an extensive search for an appropriate rubric. Although we did not find a rubric that met our needs, the rubric that we developed includes concepts from 11 of the 13 rubrics that we reviewed.
The rubric developed in this article is designed for use with the analytic paradigm for case teaching, which was developed and disseminated by Harvard Business School. That tradition has been contrasted with newer instructional paradigms that are intended to help students become more creative and innovative (Greenhalgh, 2007; Maranville, 2011). Examples include teaching methods that combine analysis with interpretive approaches, such as metaphor (Greenhalgh, 2007) and art (Maranville, 2011). Although there is a need to develop effective methods for evaluating student work that includes an interpretive component, that task is beyond the scope of this article.
Review of Literature
Difficulties in Evaluating Students’ Case Work
The case method is a well-established pedagogical technique in colleges of business. However, evaluating student case work is often a difficult task. The difficulties arise from (a) the nature of cases, (b) the variety of cognitive skills that case work requires from students, and (c) the multiple criteria needed to evaluate case work.
First, cases are ill structured, which means that a case does not have a single correct answer. Cases are also ambiguous (Banning, 2003) and can be interpreted in various ways. These characteristics imply that it is impossible to construct a “key” for evaluating case work. The instructor must compare each student’s work with appropriate standards or criteria and make judgments about the quality of the work.
Second, Rochford and Borchert (2011) showed that case analysis requires the use of all six levels of Bloom’s taxonomy of intellectual skills: knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation (Bloom, Krathwohl, & Masia, 1956); the last three levels comprise critical thinking (Gronlund, 2004). Some researchers have noted that the critical thinking levels are difficult to assess (Smith, 2014; White, 2007).
Third, the literature identifies at least four criteria that should be evaluated in a written case analysis: (1) a demonstrated understanding of relevant theories and concepts, and the ability to apply theories and concepts to the case (McCrea, 2010; Nielsen, 2008; Vega, 2010); (2) identification and analysis of significant issues in the case (Anderson & Mohrweis, 2008; Gilinsky & Robison, 2008; Nielsen, 2008; Singer, 2010; Vega, 2010); (3) developing recommendations or conclusions that are based on sound business judgment, logical reasoning, and appropriate theories or concepts (Kachra & Schneitz, 2008; Nielsen, 2008; Singer, 2010; Vega, 2010); (4) synthesizing the case analysis with theories and concepts to produce feasible recommendations (Gilinsky & Robison, 2008; McCrea, 2010; Nielsen, 2008; University of Scranton, n.d.; Vega, 2010). These criteria imply that evaluation of case work should consider (a) major issues such as the quality of a student’s recommendations and (b) details such as knowledge and comprehension of concepts. Some authors have suggested that case work should also be evaluated on a fifth criterion: a well-organized, well-written paper in Standard Written English, with appropriate business vocabulary (Kellogg, 1991; Singer, 2010; Vega, 2010; Wright, Nichols, McKechnie, & McCarthy, 2013).
Rubrics for Grading Business Assignments
Ten rubrics for business assignments were reviewed. The sample included seven rubrics for case analysis, two for service learning projects, and one for a research assignment. Table 1 summarizes the following information for each of those rubrics: author(s), rubric title, business discipline, purpose of the rubric (assessment or grading), type of assignment, performance criteria, number of performance levels, and scoring method.
Characteristics of Rubrics for Business Assignments.
Rubrics for Business Case Analysis
Nielsen (2008) developed a rubric for assessing the analytical and problem-solving skills of MBA students, on the basis of a comprehensive strategy case. This rubric evaluates “the ability to integrate concepts and functional tools from three or more business disciplines to solve complex business problems” (p. 2).
Singer (2010) also developed a rubric for strategy cases. Of the seven case rubrics that we reviewed, this is the only one that includes criteria related to writing.
Inamdar and Roldan (2013) developed a case-specific assessment rubric for an MBA strategy course. This rubric is based on performance criteria developed by Kachra and Schneitz (2008) and Hedberg (2009).
Rochford and Borchert (2011) published an assessment rubric for a student-generated strategy case in a capstone MBA course. The performance criteria are based on Bloom’s taxonomy of cognitive skills (Bloom et al., 1956).
Gilinsky and Robison (2008) developed a grading rubric for a team presentation of a published case in a strategy course. This rubric includes criteria for information competency.
Anderson and Mohrweis (2008) developed an assessment rubric for problem-solving skills in accounting courses. This rubric might also be useful in other quantitative disciplines.
The Kania School of Management at the University of Scranton (n.d.) published an assessment rubric for graduate case analysis. This rubric was designed for business cases that require only qualitative analysis, and it is not limited to a single business discipline.
Evaluation of the Case Analysis Rubrics
We evaluated the case analysis rubrics to determine whether any of them met our needs. Five of the seven rubrics were designed for strategy cases. Four of those five (Inamdar & Roldan, 2013; Nielsen, 2008; Rochford & Borchert, 2011; Singer, 2010) included requirements that were specific to strategy courses. In addition, the Inamdar and Roldan (2013) rubric was specific to one case; the Rochford and Borchert (2011) rubric was restricted to student-generated cases. The fifth strategy rubric, Gilinsky and Robison (2008), did not include descriptions of performance levels. The Anderson and Mohrweis (2008) rubric did not meet our needs because it was designed for cases that include both qualitative and quantitative information. The case analysis rubric from the University of Scranton (n.d.) was not discipline specific. However, we decided not to use it because some descriptions of performance levels were imprecise, and the scoring method was not specified.
Rubrics for Other Business Assignments
McCrea (2010) developed a grading rubric for service learning project reports in an introductory entrepreneurship course. Vega (2010) developed a grading rubric for an assignment that required students in a small business management course to write and analyze a small business case. Wright et al. (2013) developed a grading rubric for a research paper assignment based on the 2010-2011 floods in Queensland state, Australia; the assignment was used in a principles of management course.
Selected Assessment Rubrics for Critical Thinking and Writing
The American Association of Colleges and Universities (AACU) sponsored a project called Valid Assessment of Learning in Undergraduate Education (VALUE), which resulted in the development of validated rubrics to assess student learning in 15 key areas (Rhodes, 2010). The AACU rubrics for critical thinking and written communication are relevant to this research.
Riebe and Jackson (2014) developed a rubric for evaluating written communication portfolios. Their objective was to assess whether students’ writing skills meet the needs of employers. All three rubrics are summarized in Table 2.
Selected Rubrics for Critical Thinking and Writing.
Note. AACU = American Association of Colleges and Universities; VALUE = Valid Assessment of Learning in Undergraduate Education.
Performance levels are based on passing grades for each of the 3 years in an undergraduate business degree program in Australia.
Summary of the Thirteen Rubrics
We have reviewed 10 rubrics for business case assignments, one for critical thinking, and two for written communication. In 11 of these 13 rubrics, a scoring system was specified; the exceptions were Singer (2010) and University of Scranton (n.d.). Six rubrics, including the two AACU rubrics, were designed for grading on the overall quality of a student’s work (Anderson & Mohrweis, 2008; Rhodes, 2010; Riebe & Jackson, 2014; Rochford & Borchert, 2011; Wright et al., 2013). Five rubrics used a point system to evaluate student work (Gilinsky & Robison, 2008; Inamdar & Roldan, 2013; McCrea, 2010; Nielson, 2008; Vega, 2010). Two of those five rubrics (Inamdar & Roldan, 2013; McCrea, 2010) consisted of a list of criteria, with point values assigned to each criterion; no performance levels were specified. In the Gilinsky and Robison (2008) rubric, each criterion was formatted as a 3-point Likert-type scale, with point values of 0, 1, and 2. Nielson (2008) assigned a specific point value to every combination of criterion and performance level. Vega (2010) assigned either a specific point value or a range on point values to every combination of criterion and performance level. In both the Nielson (2008) and Vega (2010) rubrics, point values varied from one criterion to another.
Eleven of these 13 rubrics included concepts that were used in our rubric. The exceptions were (1) Inamdar and Roldan (2013), which is case specific, and (2) Riebe and Jackson (2014), which does not include critical thinking skills.
A New Rubric for Case Analysis
In the section on evaluating students’ case work, we listed five criteria, based on the literature, for evaluating a written case analysis assignment. Those criteria were (1) understanding and application of course theories and concepts, (2) case analysis, (3) business judgment, (4) synthesis of course theories and concepts with case analysis, and (5) organization, writing style, and mechanics. On the basis of these criteria, we developed the following learning objectives for case assignments.
Develop a broad and deep knowledge of course concepts.
Analyze business situations accurately and thoroughly.
Apply sound business judgment and use logical reasoning.
Synthesize (combine) the facts in the situation, course concepts, and business judgment to draw logical conclusions and make realistic recommendations.
Write a case analysis that is well-organized, well-written in Standard Written English, and uses appropriate business vocabulary.
Our rubric is divided into two sections: (1) content and (2) style and mechanics. The content section includes one criterion for each of the first four learning objectives, along with a criterion for the organization of the paper. Organization was placed in the content section because an effective organizational strategy “contributes to meaning” (Winthrop University, 2010, p. 1) by helping the reader understand the writer’s logic. The style and mechanics section of the rubric includes four criteria: sentences; vocabulary; grammar, spelling, usage, and punctuation; and documentation of sources (if applicable).
After the criteria had been identified, the next step was to determine the performance levels. Two of the business rubrics that we reviewed used performance levels that were based on meeting standards or expectations (Anderson & Mohrweis, 2008; Nielsen, 2008). These levels provide a link between the rubric and the expectations for the assignment; they also correspond to performance evaluation standards that are used in many workplaces. Our rubric has five performance levels: substantially exceeds requirements, exceeds requirements, meets requirements, meets minimal requirements, and minimal requirements not met.
The next step was to develop descriptions of the performance levels for each criterion. The performance levels for the four content criteria were based on concepts from the rubrics in our review of literature (Table 3) and our previous experience with student case work. The descriptions of performance levels for the organization criterion were adapted from the writing rubric that is used in a human experience course at our university (Winthrop University, 2010). The descriptions of the criteria in the style and mechanics section of the rubric were adapted from a writing rubric for general education courses (Winthrop University, n.d.). All descriptions of performance levels were edited several times for clarity and to ensure that the five levels of performance for each criterion were adequately differentiated from each other.
Summary of Concepts From Existing Rubrics.
Note. VALUE = Valid Assessment of Learning in Undergraduate Education.
The final step in rubric development was to decide whether or not to include a point system. The rubrics in our review of literature are about evenly divided between those that base grades on the overall quality of each student’s work and those that assign grades according to a point system. The authors of these rubrics did not give reasons for the presence or absence of a point system. In our experience, a point system does not work well when weaknesses in one area of a student’s work carry over into other areas. For example, errors in the use of course concepts can lead to faulty analysis, inappropriate recommendations, and an inadequate synthesis of concepts and analysis. This type of interaction effect can make it difficult to allocate points to individual criteria. On the other hand, a point system specifies the relative importance of various grading criteria, which may lead to more consistent grading and make it easier for students to set priorities for improving their work. Also, when a rubric is used for program assessment, a point system facilitates consistency across instructors, sections, and semesters.
Most of the time, we have graded students on the overall quality of their work. However, we added a point system to the rubric for assessment purposes. One of the authors has also used the rubric, with the point system, for grading. Our point system allocates 20% of the points to each of the four content scales: use of course concepts, analysis, business judgment, and synthesis. Ten percent of the points are allocated to organization, and 10% to style and mechanics, with those points divided equally among the four criteria in that section. To avoid fractional point values for the four scales in the style and mechanics section, we decided to use 10-point interval scales in that section, so that a total of 40 points were allocated to that section. To maintain the desired weighting of the different scales, 80 points were allocated to each content scale, and 40 points were allocated to the organization scale. Consequently, the maximum score was 400 points. Rubrics with different point values for different scales were previously used by Inamdar and Roldan (2013), McCrea (2010), Nielsen (2008), and Vega (2010). McCrea (2010) used a rubric with a maximum point value that exceeded 100.
As stated in the review of literature, there are several types of scoring systems for rubrics. For instance, Gilinsky and Robison (2008) used the same scale for all criteria. Total scores were determined by adding the scores for individual criteria. This type of point system is appropriate when all criteria are equally important. When that is not the case, some faculty members might prefer to use the same scale, such as a 10-point scale, for all criteria, and then compute a weighted sum that reflects the relative importance of the criteria. One advantage of this approach is that the faculty member can use a preferred scale for all criteria. Another advantage is that the criteria can be weighted to reflect their relative importance. The primary disadvantage is that computing the weighted sum adds an extra step to the scoring process. A third approach is to use scales with different point values that reflect the relative importance of each criterion; this is the method that we used. This method was used by Inamdar and Roldan (2013), McCrea (2010), Nielsen (2008), and Vega (2010). One advantage of this approach is that the criteria are weighted according to their importance. Another advantage is that total scores are determined by adding the scores for individual scales. One disadvantage applies when the rubric is used for grading and the maximum number of points is different from 100 (as it is in our rubric): Total scores from the rubric must be converted to percentages. After the conversion has been made, the percentage score can be used in the grading system adopted by the faculty member, department, or university. When the rubric is used for program assessment, this conversion may or may not be required, depending on institutional policies.
Another important aspect of our point system is that the point values are single-point scores, not ranges. For example, the point value for substantially exceeding expectations for case analysis is 80, not a range from 73 to 80. This is consistent with Gilinsky and Robison (2008) and Nielsen (2008). For assessment purposes, single-point scores may encourage consistency across instructors, which would be an advantage. However, for grading purposes, some faculty may prefer the flexibility provided by ranges; those faculty are likely to see single-point scores as a disadvantage. The rubric could be modified to accommodate range scores.
The point system in our rubric is provided for faculty members who wish to use it. Faculty also have the option of using the criteria and performance levels as a basis for holistic grading, without taking the point system into account. As stated earlier, we have often used that method.
Grading systems and graduation requirements vary widely across universities. Our college of business requires business students to earn a course grade of C− or better in all business courses. In almost all courses in our college, a grade of C− is equivalent to a numeric score of 70%. The corresponding rubric score is 280 points, which is equivalent to meeting minimal expectations. It is likely that many faculty members will regard this performance standard as too low. However, in our experience, the vast majority of our students meet expectations on most or all of the rubric criteria. There is a concern that the rubric permits a small percentage of students to get acceptable grades on case assignments, without doing adequate case work.
The finished rubric is shown in Table 4.
Case Rubric.
A rubric should be consistent with the learning objectives for the assignments with which it will be used (Green & Johnson, 2010; Stevens & Levi, 2005). If the rubric developed in this section matches the learning objectives for case analysis in a quantitative course, there is no wording in the rubric that would preclude its use in that course. However, this rubric does not include explicit criteria for evaluating quantitative analysis.
Experience With the Rubric
Introducing the Rubric to Students
The way that the rubric is introduced to students may vary according to institutional context, the level and discipline of the course, the student population, and instructor preferences. First, we will describe the process that we use to introduce the rubric to our students. Then we will discuss adaptations of this process that could be used in other situations.
Many of our students have little or no experience with case analysis. Therefore, we introduce case analysis and the rubric to students at the same time. Students are given a handout that includes the following information:
A brief explanation of case assignments and the benefits of case assignments to students. This explanation is based on material from Rochford and Borchert (2011, pp. 258-259)
Our learning objectives for case assignments
A summary of the standards for critical thinking (Nosich, 2009)
Our rubric for case assignments
Instructions for preparing case assignments (Table 5)
Instructions for Preparing Case Assignments. a
Relevant criteria in the grading rubric are shown in parentheses.
These five items are discussed in the order listed; this discussion requires about 45 minutes. The key to this process is the presentation of the rubric, one criterion at a time. The “substantially exceeds expectations” column is presented as a model for case analysis. The synthesis of analysis with theories and concepts is stressed because this is an area where our students have struggled. The importance of a synthesis that fits the context of the case is also emphasized. In addition to this classroom preparation, an example of a case analysis that received a grade of “A” is posted in our course management system; comments from students suggest that this example has been helpful.
This process, and the materials used, could be adapted to different situations. The process is flexible enough to accommodate various learning objectives, frameworks for teaching critical thinking, and instructions for preparing case assignments. In situations where students are already familiar with case analysis, some steps of the process could probably be omitted. Faculty members might also need to adapt the way that the rubric is presented. Since our students already have substantial experience with rubrics, they understand that a rubric sets performance expectations and they will be graded accordingly. They also know how to use a marked rubric to understand their grades. Faculty members at universities where students are less familiar with rubrics will need to emphasize those points. In that situation, it would probably be helpful to have students use the rubric to grade a sample case analysis and then compare their results with a marked rubric prepared by the instructor. Vega (2010) reported that this technique helps students understand expectations and how their work will be evaluated. This technique could be extended by having students use the rubric to grade several papers of varying quality, so that they can see the differences between good and poor work, and understand how their work will be graded.
Grading With the Rubric
Our rubric has been tested in business ethics and international management courses. We summarized each student’s performance by marking the appropriate performance levels on a copy of the rubric. This summary made it easy to balance the strengths and weaknesses of the student’s work, and assign the appropriate grade. The marked rubric also provided clear, concise feedback to students. When students made serious mistakes, we provided additional written or oral feedback as needed. Throughout the semester, we used the rubric to remind individual students of the expectations for case assignments.
Grading with a rubric has several advantages. First, a marked rubric gives students a clear comparison between the expectations for an assignment and their performance. Second, grading with a rubric increases the consistency of grading, not only for a single assignment, but also across assignments. Third, there are times when a faculty member wants to make a consistency check before returning a set of papers to students. We have compared the results of checking marked rubrics versus checking the original papers. After we had become proficient with the rubric, there was little difference between the accuracy of those two methods.
Effectiveness of the Rubric
To assess the impact of the rubric on student performance, we used archival case analyses from the last section of the business ethics course before the rubric was introduced. That section was used as a control group. The experimental group consisted of students in the two most recent sections of business ethics. One of the authors teaches business ethics, but had not taught either the control group or the experimental group. That author used the rubric with the point system to compare the case analyses submitted by the two groups. Students’ names were removed from the analyses before they were scored. Additionally, the author who scored the papers did not know which papers came from each group. Therefore, all facets of the comparison were truly blind. The average score for analyses submitted by the control group was 342.5 points (n = 54). The average score for analyses submitted by the experimental group was 355.3 (n = 24). A t test was performed and yielded a test statistic of 1.83, which is significant at p = .034.
Faculty Experience With the Rubric
Impact of the Rubric on Grading and Teaching
Using the rubric has changed our approach to grading and teaching in three ways. First, since the rubric sets clear expectations for students, we have become comfortable with enforcing high standards. Second, we use the first four criteria in the rubric as an outline for case discussions, so that the discussions are aligned with the expectations in the rubric. Third, we noticed that some students were struggling with the application of concepts and theories. We responded by developing a set of mini-case assignments that are focused on understanding and applying course material. Those assignments are graded on a completion basis and are discussed in class.
Insights
Our primary insight is that a grading rubric does not exist in isolation. The rubric should be based on learning objectives, and assignment instructions should be connected to the rubric. There should be a process for introducing the rubric to students. As the mini-case example shows, a rubric can contribute to instructional improvement by making it easier to identify areas where students are not doing well, so that those areas can be addressed.
Lessons Learned
Kenworthy and Hrivnak (2014) expressed concerns about the amounts of money and faculty time that are required to develop rubrics and other infrastructure associated with assessment. We have learned that significant amounts of time are required to develop and use a rubric. First, development of our rubric required about 20 person-hours, even though we adapted several criteria from previous rubrics. Second, the learning curve for grading with a rubric can be steep, particularly for faculty who have not previously used a rubric. Third, contrary to the opinion of Stevens and Levi (2005), grading with a rubric does not always save time. Early in the semester, we mark the rubric and also provide significant amounts of written feedback to students. That takes about the same amount of time as grading without a rubric. Both the amount of written feedback and the amount of time required to grade decrease as the semester progresses. Faculty who have teaching assistants could reduce their time commitment by training the assistants to grade with a rubric. Wright et al. (2013) described a process for doing that.
Disadvantages and Obstacles
The only disadvantage we faced was the time required to develop the rubric. That was also the only obstacle we encountered. Kenworthy and Hrivnak (2014) noted that a disadvantage of using rubrics is the need to train faculty to develop them. We agree, but that concern did not apply to our situation; two of the authors had previous training and experience in rubric development. If a faculty member lacks that background and wants to develop a rubric, it would be wise to collaborate with an experienced colleague.
Student Evaluation of the Rubric
One purpose of this research was to understand how students used the rubric and whether they benefited from it. An evaluation form (Table 6) was developed to obtain student perceptions of their experience with the rubric. As Table 6 shows, the evaluation instrument included two sections. The first section addressed student perceptions of how helpful the rubric was in understanding and learning from the assignment. This section included five questions and was formatted as a 5-point Likert-type scale; the responses ranged from strongly agree (5) to strongly disagree(1). The second section of the evaluation instrument included three questions and addressed the frequency of students’ use of the rubric. This section was formatted as a 4-point Likert-type scale, with responses ranging from almost always (4) to almost never (1). Four-point Likert-type scales were previously used by Joseph, Berry, and Deshpande (2009) and also by Comer and Lenaghan (2013).
Student Evaluation Form for the Case Rubric (Instructions: In each table, please check the responses that match your opinion).
The evaluation instrument was administered in one section of business ethics and one section of international management. This was done during a regular class period, near the end of the semester, after all case assignments had been submitted and graded. The evaluation was completed by 25 of the 30 students in business ethics, and by 36 of the 38 international management students. The response rate was 83.3% in the business ethics class, 94.7% in the international management class, and 89.7% for the combined enrollment in both courses. The 61 respondents included 57 undergraduate business majors, 3 MBA students, and one nonbusiness undergraduate. All data were collected anonymously.
To establish the reliability of the scales, we first examined the respondent data with factor analysis. The results of this analysis for the five-item scale showed a one-factor solution. The component matrix reported strong results for all five items and they were retained for further analysis. Next, we examined the respondent data for the three-item scale. Again, a one-factor solution was indicated. The component matrix reported strong results for all three items, and they too were retained for further analysis.
Then, we examined the reliability of these two scales. For the first group of five questions, reliability analysis showed a Cronbach’s alpha of .902. So, the first scale appeared to be extremely reliable (Nunnally, 1967). We then examined the three question scale and computed a Cronbach’s alpha of .862. Again, the results indicated an extremely reliable scale.
The mean score for the first group of five items was 3.64 out of a maximum of 5.00, indicating an average result approaching “agree” on the rubric. The mean score for the second group of three items was 2.18 out of a maximum of 4.00, indicating a result just exceeding “sometimes.” Descriptive statistics for the items and scales in this survey are shown in Table 7.
Descriptive Statistics for Student Evaluations of the Case Rubric.
In interpreting the data for frequency of use, we infer that “sometimes” means at least once. Still, the frequency of rubric use is fairly low. We have identified four possible reasons for this: (1) As stated previously, our students are quite familiar with the use of rubrics. In addition, the rubric and our performance expectations are carefully introduced at the beginning of the semester. With this preparation, students may not see a need to use the rubric frequently. (2) Some students may spend a significant amount of time with the rubric near the beginning of the semester; these students may be less likely to refer to the rubric later. (3) Some students may rely on the instructions for preparing case assignments in Table 5, instead of using the rubric. The instructions are closely linked to the rubric but provide fewer details about expectations. (4) Students may weigh the perceived benefits of the rubric (such as higher grades) against the time and effort required to use it. If the perceived benefits are low, then the rubric may not be used frequently. There may be other reasons that we have not considered. Finally, we predict that if students were required to show how they used the rubric as one of the requirements for submitting a case assignment, then use of the rubric would significantly increase.
There have been no comments about the rubric on our teaching evaluations. Our teaching evaluation form asks about the strengths and weaknesses of a course. Students usually list one or two items, and they seldom add any details. Cases have been identified as a strength of our courses by about 25% of the students who responded to the open-ended questions on our teaching evaluations.
Conclusions
This article has presented a rubric for evaluating student performance on written case assignments that require qualitative analysis. This rubric is designed for three purposes. First, it informs students of the criteria on which their work will be evaluated. Second, it provides instructors with a reliable instrument for accurately measuring and grading student performance on written case assignments. Third, if the rubric is used multiple times during the semester, student progress can also be measured. In addition, we piloted an instrument, with statistically confirmed reliability, for measuring students’ perceptions of the benefits of the rubric.
There are at least four opportunities for future research. First, there is a need for empirical research comparing the effectiveness of rubrics that use a point system with rubrics that are designed to evaluate the overall quality of students’ work. Second, the rubric developed in this article could be extended to create a rubric that is explicitly designed for cases requiring both qualitative and quantitative analysis. Third, Smith (2014) recommended the use of case analysis to assess critical thinking skills. Rochford and Borchert (2011) developed an assessment rubric, stated in terms of Bloom’s taxonomy, for a student-generated strategy case. It would be useful to have an assessment rubric for critical thinking skills that is based on case analysis and is stated in terms of Bloom’s taxonomy. Fourth, Inamdar and Roldan (2013) used a case-specific rubric to assess students’ skills in an MBA strategy course. Future research could investigate the feasibility of this approach in other business disciplines.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
