Description of Assignment: Students work together to research and profile a policy within given context. The policy may be economic, social or political in nature. However groups are expected to apply microeconomic tools to assess the economic impact of the chosen policy. The choice of policy and context is left to groups to decide for themselves. They may choose to study a single policy within a specific country, presenting analysis of the situation prior to and after the inception of the policy. Alternatively they may choose to study the effect of similar policies in two different country contexts, presenting an analysis of why the effects may have differed. Finally, they may if they choose to, assess the possible impact of a new policy in a specific country context.

Grading Criteria (What constitutes a good assignment?): Grading criteria judges the following:

Adequacy of research. Evidence of sufficient breadth and depth of research and sufficient and appropriate sources and data. Please cite at least 10 different sources, with at least three from a peer-reviewed journal or published book. Data sources must be clearly identified. The report must contain a reference list or bibliography.
Use of Concepts: The report must make specific reference to microeconomic or macroeconomic concepts, frameworks and theories introduced during the course.
Graphs and Figures: The report must contain at least two graph and two figure. Where the graphs may illustrate a concept  or represent actual data relationships such as  a trend-line, bar chart, scatter plot etc. The figure may be a map, photo, or drawing etc. Please label figures and graphs and cite data sources.   
Form: Is the report clear, professional, logical and well presented (verbal and written format)?
Content: Does the content adequately do what the assignment specifies? Is there adequate coverage of themes in general, and for the specific country (is there something important about a particular country that is neglected, or especially well-handled)? Is the analysis intelligent well constructed?

Rubric
Economics Group Case Report (1) (1)
Economics Group Case Report (1) (1)
Criteria    Ratings    Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeFORMAT
Format and attractiveness of Document
5.0 pts
Excellent and impressive document
4.0 pts
Well formatted and distinctive
2.0 pts
Acceptable document but with little or no value add
1.0 pts
Poorly presented content
0.0 pts
Incomplete
5.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeRESEARCH
Adequacy of research. Evidence of sufficient breadth and depth of research and sufficient and appropriate sources and data. Please cite at least 5 different sources, with at least one from a peer-reviewed journal or published book. Data sources must be clearly identified. The report must contain a reference list or bibliography.
10.0 pts
Extensive Research
Use of more than 10 relevant sources including at least 3 peer reviewed or published source.
8.0 pts
Good Research Practice
Use of 10 relevant sources, including 2 peer reviewed/published sources
6.0 pts
No peer reviewed source
Use of at least 10 sources, but no peer-reviewed/published source
0.0 pts
Inadequate Research
Use of less than 10 sources
10.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONCEPT/FRAMEWORK
The report must make specific reference to microeconomic or macroeconomic concepts, frameworks and theories introduced during the course.
10.0 to >8.0 pts
Relevant Well-applied Concept
The team has understood and applied a key economic concept or framework, which is central to their analysis.
8.0 to >4.0 pts
Peripheral Concept
The team has understood and applied a concept, but it is not central to their analysis
4.0 to >2.0 pts
Incorrect or misapplied concept
The team has misunderstood or misapplied an economic concept
2.0 to >0 pts
No concept/framework applied
The team has either not incorporated a core economic concept/framework, or failed to make it explicit.
10.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeVISUALIZATION
The report must contain at least one graph and one figure. Where the graph may illustrate a concept or represent actual data relationships such as a trend-line, bar chart, scatter plot etc. The figure may be a map, photo, or drawing etc. Please label figures and graphs and cite data sources.
10.0 pts
Excellent use of graphs/figures
The report contains at least two graphs/figures, which serve to make a key point, or further the analysis, serving as a visual aid to the reader.
8.0 pts
Good use of graphs/figures
The team has included at least two graphs/figures, which help illustrate the argument, but these are not integrated into the analysis, whereby they are merely illustrative.
4.0 pts
Peripheral or standard graphs/figures
The report contains at least two graphs/figures, but these are incidental or irrelevant. Alternatively the graph used is generic and has not been modified in order to apply to the specific case.
0.0 pts
Less than two graphs/figures
10.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeANALYSIS
This creates to the depth and originality of the analysis, and gauges whether the team has used multiple approaches and lines of enquiry, interrogated sources and used a critical lens
10.0 to >8.0 pts
Original and Meticulous Analysis
The team has interrogated multiple sources and compiled a variety of different types of evidence. The report provides an original line of argument or provides fresh evidence for their conclusion.
8.0 to >6.0 pts
Good Analysis
The team has interrogated multiple sources and compiled a variety of evidence. While the analysis is not new or does not use fresh evidence, it is well well-organised and follows a logical, coherent method.
6.0 to >3.0 pts
Adequate Analysis
The team has interrogated several sources and compiled a fair amount of evidence. The analysis is well-organised and follows a logical, coherent method.
3.0 to >0.0 pts
Unclear or convoluted analysis
There are either logical issues, or a lack of clarity in the analysis and arguments presented
0.0 pts
Lack of or flawed analysis
10.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONCLUSIONS
5.0 pts
Excellent Conclusions
The report presents clear logical conclusions that follow from the evidence presented and the analysis made. Uses EVIDENCE and REASON to come to logical conclusions; –Makes DEEP rather than superficial inferences; –Inferences are CONSISTENT with one anotherIdentifies the most SIGNIFICANT, IN- DEPTH, and INSIGHTFUL implications and consequences of the reasoning; –Implications identified are DEEP rather than superficial
4.0 pts
Good Conclusions
The report presents clear logical conclusions that follow from the evidence presented and the analysis made. Uses EVIDENCE and REASON to obtain justifiable, logical conclusions; –Makes VALID inferences but some are SUPERFICIAL; –Inferences are CONSISTENT with one another. Identifies SIGNIFICANT implications and consequences, but LACKS some DEPTH and INSIGHT; –Implications identified are VALID, but some are SUPERFICIAL;
2.0 pts
Mediocre Conclusions
Does follow SOME EVIDENCE to conclusions that are mostly logic or valid; –Inferences are more often than not UNCLEAR or NOT based in evidence; –Inferences are ILLOGICAL, INCONSISTENT, and/or SUPERFICIAL. Identifies VALID implications and consequences; but misses SIGNIFICANT implications and/or implications grossly LACK DEPTH and INSIGHT; –Implications identified are SUPERFICIAL
0.0 pts
Unsatisfatpry Conclusions
Uses SUPERFICIAL or IRRELEVANT evidence to come to illogical or invalid conclusions. Ignores SIGNIFICANT implications and consequences of reasoning –Implications are INVALID
5.0 pts
Total Points: 50.0