Name Group Presentation - Negotiation Case Analysis Description - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

9/8/2018 4189-16302 https://courseware.ku.edu/webapps/rubric/do/course/manageRubrics?dispatch=view&context=course&rubricId=_26411_1&course_id=_290378_1 1/3

Group Presentation - Negotiation Case Analysis Rubric for evaluation of group presentation of a negotiation case analysis. Levels of Achievement Criteria Nope. (Unsatisfactory)

• Almost. (Partially

Satisfactory) Yep. (Satisfactory) Good. (Exceeds Expectations) Wow. (Exceptional) Analysis 0 % Presentation describes or presents the facts

• f the

negotiation, but fails to connect the case with particular negotiation concepts from class. 75 % Team connects one or two points in the negotiation case with concepts from class. Some concepts are applied incorrectly, or team is unable to explain how the concept applies to the

• case. Or the team

makes very few connections (fewer than 3) between the case and the class. 85 % Team accurately connects key concepts from the course to the appropriate points in the case study. The case provides useful examples of several points from class. 95 % Analysis goes beyond the most obvious aspects of the negotiation. Team not only connects key concepts to the case but evaluates whether particular strategies worked well or poorly in this context. 100 % Insightful and deep analysis of the case that uncovers and evaluates elements not

• bvious on the
• surface. Makes

use of case to make an interesting and unique point that goes beyond what we have discussed in class. Name Description Rubric Detail Weight 50.00%

9/8/2018 4189-16302 https://courseware.ku.edu/webapps/rubric/do/course/manageRubrics?dispatch=view&context=course&rubricId=_26411_1&course_id=_290378_1 2/3

Levels of Achievement Criteria Nope. (Unsatisfactory)

• Almost. (Partially

Satisfactory) Yep. (Satisfactory) Good. (Exceeds Expectations) Wow. (Exceptional) Originality 0 % Same source material and very similar analysis available on YouTube/internet. (NOTE: If the presentation is simply a copy of an available project, the group will receive a failing grade for the entire project.) 75 % Same source material with some analysis available on YouTube/Internet, but some signicant dierences between internet version and presentation in class. 85 % Clip available

• n YouTube

with a title that includes "negotiation" but no analysis included on YouTube version. 95 % Original

• material. (Clip

may be available on YouTube etc but not tagged as a negotiation clip and does not include negotiation analysis.) 100 % Original material (not a clip already designated as a negotiation on YouTube), that is made even more

• riginal through

the team's creative use or editing of it. Presentation 0 % Group was woefully unprepared for the presentation,

• r failed to give

the presentation altogether. 75 % Presentation seemed unrehearsed or information was not clearly presented. Or

• ne or more team

members did not participate in the presentation. 85 % Presentation clearly delivered the information. Each team member had a role. 95 % Team worked well together to present the information in a clear and entertaining

• way. Every

team member participated and the presentation was well- rehearsed. 100 % Exceptionally creative and memorable delivery of the information. Team worked together very well, playing o each other rather than simply passing the presentation from one person to the next. Weight 25.00% Weight 25.00% View Associated Items

9/8/2018 4189-16302 https://courseware.ku.edu/webapps/rubric/do/course/manageRubrics?dispatch=view&context=course&rubricId=_26411_1&course_id=_290378_1 3/3 Print Close Window