Law Law 6842-01  Winter, 2011
American Health Care Law
Professor Vernellia R. Randall
The University of Dayton School of Law

 

Problem Grading Rubric
Please notify me of any typo, misspelling, etc.


 

 Home
Unit 01 Organization                             x
Unit 02 Access                             x
Unit 03 Quality                             x
Unit 04 Reform                             x
Syllabus                                        x
Lesson Outline                             x


Other Health Syllabi 
AIDS
American Health Care Law
Bioterrorism 
Tobacco

Violence and Public Health
 
Favorite Poetry
Invictus
The Bridge Poem
Still I Rise
No Struggle No Progress
 
Related Websites
Race and Racism
Gender and the Law
Legal Education
Personal Homepage

 

 

  • The process of putting thoughts on paper proved to be a meaningful learning experience.

  • Problems demonstrate not only that you are reading the material but are able to use it in a problem solving.

  • Problems allow you to articulate ideas and arguments.

  • Problems provide a mechanism to explore ideas that are not necessarily covered in class.

  • Problems develop complex insights and theories, and allow you to speculate about the future. Most significantly, Graded Problems allow you to engaged in the process of experiencing the harmony or dissonance between the perspectives described in the readings and your own.

  • Problems, should explore the underlying value implications of the reading and relate it to your own personal experience and observations.

  • You may want explore the point at which a value important to you is violated; to challenge the desirability of consequences of a position taken in the reading; to make analogies to other things that you have learned; or to explore the priorities being set by some aspect of the reading or videos. 

 

95 Outstanding response with superior supporting examples or evidence, unusual insights, creative and original analysis, reasoning, and explanation. superior mastery of content. goes well beyond the minimum required for the assignment. all information is factually correct, Position is clearly stated and consistently maintained. References to most of the issue(s) are clearly stated. Clearly states appropriate law which supports the position; Structure of work is clearly developed. Tone is consistent and enhances persuasiveness.  Excellent conclusion/integration
85 Good solid response that uses excellent supporting examples, excellent reasoning and explanations. goes beyond the minimum required by the assignment. Most information is factually correct, good discussion of detail, Position is clearly stated and consistently maintained. Clear references to most of the issue(s) are stated. Clearly states appropriate law which supports the position; Structure of work is clearly developed . Tone is consistent and enhances persuasiveness good conclusion/integration 
75  good solid response that meets minimum required by the assignment, reasoning and explanations are adequate, Most information is factually correct, adequate discussion of detail,  Position is clearly stated and consistently maintained. References to the some of the issue (s)  are stated but some key issue (s) are missing. Clearly states appropriate law in some instance, but also mistates the law in other instances; Structure developed reasonably well, but lacks clarity; Tone enhances persuasiveness, but there are inconsistencies., adequate conclusion/ integration 
65 Response is accurate but cursory, and does not meet the minimum requred for completeness, some inaccuracies or reasoning flaws, response is too general, lacks specific evidence. Position is stated, but is not maintained consistently throughout work.  A few of the key issues are stated but many are missing.  Mostly mistates the law applicable to the problem; Some attempt to structure the argument has been made, but the structure is poorly developed. Tones does not contribute to persuasiveness.
55 Response doesn't effectively address the question, response fails to support assertions with examples, major flaws in reasoning, explanations are unclear, displays inadequate understanding of content/ Statement of position cannot be determined.  Most of the key issues are missing. There is a total lack of structure; Tone is inappropriate to purpose. 
0 No Problem Complete

 

 
Last Updated:
 08/02/2008

You are visitor number:
Hit Counter

 

 

 

Syllabus
Course Overview                                             x
Course Mechanics                                             x
Philosophy of Teaching                                             x
Teaching Methods                                             x
Evaluation/Grading                                             x
Resources                                             x
Lesson Outline                                             x
Accommodation Notice                                             x
Personal Experience                                             x
Syllabus Questionnaire                                             x


 

 

 

 

Related Pages:
Home ] Up ] Class Participation ] Class Problems ] [ Problem Grading Rubric ] Moodle Participation ] Annotated Bibliography ]
Subsequent Pages:
Home ] Up ]
Previous Pages:
Home ] Course Overview ] Course Mechanics ] Philosophy of Teaching ] Teaching Methods ] Evaluation and Grading ] Lesson Outline ] Resources ] Academic Accommodations ] Syllabus Questionnaire ] Personal Health Care Experience ]
Back Home Up Next

 


Last Updated:
 12/05/2010

You are visitor number:
Hit Counter
since September 2001
to the Syllabus Unit.
 

 


Always Under Construction!

Always Under Construction!

 

Contact Information:
Professor Vernellia R. Randall
Institute on Race, Health Care and the Law
The University of Dayton School of Law
300 College Park 
Dayton, OH 45469-2772
Email: randall@udayton.edu

 

Copyright @ 1994. Vernellia R. Randall 
All Rights Reserved