Skip to main content

University of Notre Dame

iRubric for Sakai

iRubric: Policy Memo 1: Keen and Strategic Peacebuilding rubric

edit print share Copy to my rubrics Bookmark test run assess... delete Do more...
Policy Memo 1: Keen and Strategic Peacebuilding Essay 1: Keen and Strategic Peacebuilding Rubric Code: YXBX7BC By amische Ready to use Public Rubric Subject: (General) Type: Assignment Grade Levels: Graduate

Policy memo format Descriptions
	Excellent 1 pts	Good 0.75 pts	Fair 0.5 pts	Poor 0.25 pts
Formatting and presentation	Excellent REQUIRED ELEMENTS: 1. Appropriate heading (audience, sender, date, re); 2. Clear use of subheadings; 3. Contains all required elements (exec summary, lessons from Keen and SPB, policy recs, conclusion, reference list).	Good Missing one or more of the required elements	Fair Missing two or more of the required elements	Poor Missing three or more of the required elements.
Orientation to audience	Excellent Clearly specifies a concrete target audience that has the capacity to act on the recommendations, and effectively orients the argument and proposals with that audience in mind.	Good Audience is specified but somewhat vague; AND/OR: the argument and recommendations seem inconsistently related to that audience.	Fair Sketchy or confusing link between the specified audience and the argument and/or recommendations	Poor Unclear who the audience is and/or how they might act upon the recommendations.
Clarity of argument	Excellent Clear, engaging and persuasive argument, presented in a manner that links the PROBLEMS faced by the audience to the ACTIONS recommended by the memo.	Good Argument is interesting but could use clarification and development, AND/OR needs a stronger connection between the problem and proposed actions.	Fair The argument is confusing or hard to follow in places; needs to be clearer and more persuasive about the connection between problem and recommendation.	Poor Weakly developed argument with little connection between problem and recommendation.
Clarity of proposed actions	Excellent Proposals for policy/practice: 1) are clearly explained; 2) address the opening problem; 3) follow from the discussion of Keen and SPB; 4) are actionable by this audience.	Good The proposals are well explained, but it's not clear how they follow from the Keen/SPB and/or how they speak to the concerns and capacities of this audience.	Fair The proposals are somewhat vague and/or confusing, and could speak more clearly to the readings and the audience.	Poor Proposals are unclear and/or disconnected from the readings, argument, and audience.
Engagement with readings
	Excellent 2 pts	Good 1.5 pts	Fair 1 pts	Poor 0.5 pts
Critical engagement with SPB	Excellent KEY ELEMENTS: 1. Clear grasp of main arguments. 2. Assessment of strengths and weaknesses. 3. Dialogue with Keen.	Good Strong on at least one of the key elements, but weaker on the other(s).	Fair Sketchy or missing on two or more of the key elements.	Poor Extremely sketchy or nonexistent engagement with readings.
Critical engagement with Keen book	Excellent KEY ELEMENTS: 1. Clear grasp of main arguments. 2. Assessment of strengths and weaknesses. 3. Dialogue with SPB.	Good Strong on at least one of the key elements, but weaker on the other(s).	Fair Sketchy or missing on two or more of the key elements.	Poor Extremely sketchy or nonexistent engagement with readings.
Writing quality
	Excellent 2 pts	Good 1.5 pts	Fair 1 pts	Poor 0.5 pts
Writing fluency and grammar	Excellent 1. Sentences are clear and graceful; a pleasure to read. 2. Sentences are consistently grammatical, with hardly any errors throughout.	Good 1. Occasional awkward spots and rough writing. 2. Occasional grammatical errors such as run-ons, fragment sentences, subject-verb agreement, pronoun agreement, verb tense, commas, punctuation, spelling.	Fair Frequent awkward passages, confusing word choice and/or grammatical errors make it hard to follow your sentences and concentrate on your ideas. ** ADVISED TO CONSULT WRITING CENTER BEFORE RE-WRITE OR NEXT ASSIGNMENT	Poor Consistently rough and choppy writing. Difficult and frustrating to read. ** REQUIRED TO CONSULT WRITING CENTER BEFORE RE-WRITE OR NEXT ASSIGNMENT

Subjects:

(General)

Types:

Assignment

Discuss this rubric

You may also be interested in:

More rubrics by this author

More (General) rubrics

More Assignment rubrics

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

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 iRubric^tm.

n202