urban planning assignment

profileavvhatgihasad
grading.pdf

PUP 301: Assignment 1 Grading Rubric—Wicked Urban Problems in the News

B A

C K

G R

O U

N D

15 Points Clearly explains the background of the urban planning case study being addressed.

12 Points Explains the background of the urban planning case study, but with some room for elaboration.

9 Points Somewhat explains the background of the case study, but with definite room for elaboration.

6 Points Barely explains the background of the case study.

0 Points Does not adequately explain the background of the case study.

W IC

K E

D N

E S

S

40 Points Clearly discussed why the problem highlighted is a “wicked” one, by discussing 1) the difficulty defining problem, 2) uncertainty of causes, 3) lack of obvious solutions, and 4) linkages to other problems.

30 Points Discusses why the problem is a “wicked” one, but fails to discuss one of the four characteristics of “wickedness” illustrated in the case study. Some room for elaboration.

20 Points Somewhat discusses why the problem is a “wicked” one, but fails to discuss two of the four characteristics of “wickedness” illustrated in the case study. Definite room for elaboration.

10 Points Barely discusses why the problem is a “wicked” one, and only discusses one of the four characteristics of “wickedness” illustrated in the case study. Extensive room for elaboration.

0 Points Does not adequately discuss why the problem is a “wicked” one by failing to discuss any of the four characteristics of “wickedness” illustrated in the case study.

D IS

C U

S S

IO N

15 Points Clearly discusses the public and private sector stakeholders involved in the case study, and how their conflicting values contribute to the “wicked” nature of the issue.

12 Points Discusses the public and private sector stakeholders, and issues of conflicting values, but with some room for elaboration.

9 Points Somewhat discusses the stakeholders involved, and issues of conflicting values, but with definite room for elaboration.

6 Points Barely discusses the stakeholders involved and/or issues of conflicting values.

0 Points Does not adequately discuss the stakeholders involved, nor issues of conflicting values.

E D

IT IN

G

15 Points No editing errors whatsoever.

12 Points Minimal proofing & editing and/or content revision needed.

9 Points Some proofing & editing and/or content revision needed.

6 Points Substantial proofing & editing and/or content revision needed.

0 Points Proofing and editing errors distracting and in need of significant correction.

C IT

A T

IO N

S

15 Points Makes reference to three sources in the paper. Direct quotes used sparingly, and all sources are properly and consistently cited.

12 Points Makes reference to three sources. Somewhat excessive use of (properly cited) direct quotes, or inconsistent citation style.

9 Points Makes reference to only two sources and/or citations for direct quotes are missing in some cases.

6 Points Makes reference to only one source and/or direct quotes used, but citations are missing in many cases.

0 Points Does not make reference to any sources, and/or direct quotes used without any proper citation.