Student name/evaluator:.

Date submitted: Student name/evaluator:
Case study:
 Overall structure
 Unclear  Vague  Organised  Very well structured
 Demonstrates good theoretical knowledge on the problem presented
 Poor  Fair  Good  Very Good  Excellent
 Contains relevant information showing insight in the problem. The solution offered is
based on theoretical background and scientific analysis.
 Poor  Fair  Good  Very Good  Excellent
 Shows ability to plan and complete all parts of a written report that fit into the
requirements of reporting the case
 Poor  Fair  Good  Very Good Excellent
 Meets the standards of technical writing:
 Poor  Fair  Good  Very Good  Excellent
 General aspects of the report:
 Poor  Fair  Good  Very Good  Excellent  Too brief overall
 Too hurriedly written  Report not set out in formal order  Poor spelling
 Poor grammar  Difficult to follow arguments: muddled, disorganized
 Personal comments/considerations (compulsory – 150 words):

The student understood the case analysis and shows the ability to research about the case study.
All provided answers are supported with scientific sources which are then listed in the
bibliography section. The work has been organized in clear paragraphs and the language used is
clear and easy to comprehend. This indicates that the student took time to study and research
about the case study before eventually compiling the answers to the case study.
In spite of the good performance and understanding of the case study, the student needs
to consider APA citations in the report. When citing using et al., the student did not put a “.” after
“al” in et al. There was also problem with referencing where the student listed all sixteen sources
in this source “Dworkin….” Instead of listing six sources, putting ellipsis, and listing the name of
the last source. The overall performance is commendable.