Team-Based Exercise Grading Rubrics Unsatisfactory 0-50% Emerging 51% - 79% Satisfactory 80% - 90% Superior 91% - 100% Score Research Rubric (Max = 10 or 15 Points) Failed to locate any pertinent details. Failed to utilize applicable references & resources. Located only a few of the pertinent details Utilized only a few of the applicable references & resources. Located most of the pertinent details. Utilized the applicable references & resources. Located all pertinent details. Utilized applicable references and resources not introduced in the class Analysis Rubric (Max = 10 or 15 Points) Failed to show any understanding of concepts. Did not explain concepts. Did not use concepts and terms in the right context. Did not use any of the appropriate information, tools, techniques, or processes introduced in class in the analysis. Did not identify any alternative. Showed little understanding of concepts. Did not explain concepts clearly. Used few of these concepts and terms in the right context. Used few of the appropriate information, tools, techniques, or processes introduced in class in the analysis. Identified at least one alternative, but it was not feasible or affordable. Showed adequate understanding of concepts. Explained concepts clearly. Used most of the concepts and terms in the right context. Used the appropriate information, tools, techniques, or processes introduced in class in the analysis. Identified some feasible and affordable alternatives. Showed exceptional understanding of concepts. Explained concepts very clearly. Consistently used the concepts and terms in the right context. Used the appropriate information, tools, techniques, or processes introduced in the class and others sources in the analysis. Identified feasible and affordable alternatives that go beyond the obvious or predictable. TOTAL SCORE Min. = 0 points, Max. = 20 or 30 points Facilitators should explain to the students that they should take time to review the rubrics, which provide ample guidance on how each of the assessments, including participation, will be scored. The quizzes are the only form of assessment that does not rely upon a rubric for grading. Facilitators should highlight that this rubric’s total points will change, depending on the Team-Based Assessment to which it is applied. For those assessments worth 20 points, the research and analysis components will be scored with a maximum value of 10 points each. For those assessments worth a total of 40 points, the research and analysis components will be scored with a maximum value of 15 points each, with the presentation (briefing) component worth an additional 10 points, as outlined on the following slide. CON 280, Day 1

Student/Group Presentation Grading Rubric _______________________ Student/Group Presentation Grading Rubric _______________________ (Student/Team) Presentation 0 points 0.5 point 1 point 2 points Total Organization (Sequence) Audience cannot understand presentation because there is no logical sequence of information. Audience has difficulty following presentation because student jumps around. Student presents information in logical sequence which audience can follow. Student presents information in logical, interesting sequence which audience can follow. Subject Knowledge (Confidence) Student does not have grasp of information; student cannot answer questions about subject. Student is uncomfortable with information and is able to answer only rudimentary questions. Student is at ease with expected answers to all questions, but fails to elaborate. Student demonstrates full knowledge (more than required) by answering all class questions with explanations and elaboration. Mechanics Grammatical, spelling, or punctuation errors substantially detract from the presentation. Grammatical, spelling, or punctuation errors interfere with the presentation. Grammatical, spelling, or punctuation errors are rare and do not detract from the presentation. The presentation is free of grammatical, spelling, and punctuation errors. Eye Contact Student reads all of report with no eye contact. Student occasionally uses eye contact, but still reads most of report. Student maintains eye contact most of the time but frequently returns to notes. Student maintains eye contact with audience, seldom returning to notes. Elocution Student mumbles, incorrectly pronounces terms, and speaks too quietly for students in the back of class to hear. Student's voice is low. Student incorrectly pronounces terms. Audience members have difficulty hearing presentation. Student's voice is clear. Student pronounces most words correctly. Most audience members can hear presentation. Student uses a clear voice and correct, precise pronunciation of terms so that all audience members can hear presentation. Total for Presentation (Max = 10 points): /10 This presentation rubric is used both for the team-based exercises that include briefings and for the ICTA presentations. CON 280, Day 1

ICTA Grading Rubrics: Research 0-2 points 3 points 4 points 5 points Score Definition. (Background and context.) No attempt made to define the topic or the effort was of such poor quality that it could not justify more than minimal recognition. An attempt was made at defining the topic, however there was evidence of “copying and pasting” in the paper. Background and context is mostly accurate and complete – there are some unclear components or some minor errors in the method, results or implications. The student thoroughly defined the topic in his/her own words, demonstrating evidence of accurate research citing multiple references. The student provided an informative background on the topic. Construct. (Elements or sub-topics associated with this subject) No attempt made to explain the components of the topic or the attempt was of such poor quality that it could not warrant more than minimal recognition. The paper listed the elements or components of the topic, but cited only a single reference. The paper cited two or more sources as references or background on the topic. The student detailed the components of the topic and their importance (with references). References. Case studies cited (e.g. Court rulings, GAO, ASBCA, etc.) Primary source documents (FAR, DFARS, PGI, etc.) The paper did not cite a case study and/or reference, or the attempt was of such poor quality that it could not justify more than minimal recognition. Components are missing, inaccurate, or unclear. Cited only a single reference to support the topic. Reference selected is not always relevant to the argument or is somewhat vague and incomplete. References cited are relevant to the argument and are mostly accurate and complete. There are some unclear components or some minor errors in the method, results, or implications. References cited are highly relevant to the argument, and are presented accurately and completely. The method, results, and implications are all presented accurately. Total for Research (Max = 15 Points): /15 CON 280, Day 1

ICTA Grading Rubrics: Analysis 0-3 points 4-7 points 8-9 points 10 points Score Analysis Rubric (Use applicable definition) Failed to show any understanding of concepts. Did not explain concepts. Did not use concepts and terms in the right context. Did not use any of the appropriate information, tools, techniques, or processes. Did not identify any alternative. Showed little understanding of concepts. Did not explain concepts clearly. Used few of these concepts and terms in the right context. Used few of the appropriate information, tools, techniques, or processes. Identified at least one alternative, but it was not feasible or affordable. Showed adequate to good understanding of concepts. Explained concepts clearly. Used most of the concepts and terms in the right context. Used the appropriate information, tools, techniques, or processes. Identified some feasible and affordable alternatives. Showed exceptional understanding of concepts. Explained concepts very clearly. Consistently used the concepts and terms in the right context. Identified feasible and affordable alternatives that go beyond the obvious or predictable. Total for Analysis (Max = 10 Points): /10 CON 280, Day 1

ICTA Grading Rubrics: Documentation Paper 0-2 points 3 points 4 points 5 points Score Professionalism Many errors in citations and paper format noted. The paper failed to demonstrate cohesive thought process or logic. The paper is not indicative of a product created by a contracting professional. Some errors in citations and paper format noted. The paper demonstrated relatively cohesive thought process or logic. The paper is not always indicative of a product created by a contracting professional. Few errors in citations and paper format noted. The paper is generally indicative of a product created by a contracting professional. Very few to no errors in citations and paper format. The paper demonstrated a high degree of logic and cohesive thought regarding its research, and structure is indicative of a contracting professional. Grammar & Mechanics Grammatical, spelling, or punctuation errors substantially detract from the paper. Grammatical, spelling, or punctuation errors interfere with reading the paper. Grammatical, spelling, or punctuation errors are rare and do not detract from the paper. The paper is free of grammatical, spelling, and punctuation errors. Total for Documentation (Max = 10 points): /10 CON 280, Day 1

Participation Grading Rubrics Overall Class Participation Well Below Expectations (0-0.5) Slightly Below Expectations (0.75) Meets or Exceeds Expectations (1) SCORE Attendance / Promptness Student is often late to class Student is occasionally late to class Student is always prompt Level of Engagement in Class Student rarely or never contributes to class by offering ideas and asking questions and/or is engaged in activities not directly related to the class (e.g., instant messaging, texting, online browsing, reading email, etc.) Student contributes to class by offering ideas and asking questions once per class and is not engaged in activities not directly related to the class (e.g., instant messaging, texting, online browsing, reading email, etc.) Student proactively contributes to class by offering ideas and asking questions more than once per class session and is not engaged in activities not directly related to the class (e.g., instant messaging, texting, online browsing, reading email, etc.) Behavior Student often displays disruptive behavior during class (e.g. instant messaging, texting, reading email, talking out of turn, etc.) Student rarely displays disruptive behavior during class (e.g., instant messaging, texting, reading email, talking out of turn, etc.) Student never displays disruptive behavior during class (e.g., instant messaging, texting, reading email, talking out of turn, etc.) Preparedness Student is rarely prepared for class with assignments and required class materials Student is usually prepared for class with assignments and required class materials Student is always prepared for class with assignments and required class materials Listening Student does not listen when others talk in class and often interrupts when others speak. Student listens when others talk in class Student listens when others talk in class. Student incorporates or builds off of the ideas of others. TOTAL SCORE Max. = 5 points Min. = 0 points The Participation Rubrics are divided into two sections: Overall Class Participation and Group Participation (see next slide). CON 280, Day 1

Participation Grading Rubrics (cont’d) Group Participation Well Below Expectations (0-0.5) Slightly Below Expectations (0.75) Meets or Exceeds Expectations (1) SCORE Level of Engagement As an IPT member, student was rarely an active participant and disengaged often. Non-participation, absence from exercises or unwillingness to reach a consensus was often observed. As an IPT member, student was an active participant but at times appeared to be disengaged. Non-participation, absence from exercises or unwillingness to reach a consensus was infrequently observed. As an IPT member, student was an active participant. Non-participation, absence from exercises or unwillingness to reach a consensus was not observed. Feedback It was observed that the student did not offer constructive or useful feedback It was observed that the student offered constructive feedback when appropriate It was observed that the student offered detailed, constructive feedback when appropriate Listening & Cooperation It was observed that the student sometimes treated group members disrespectfully, shared the workload unfairly or did not listen to others and often interrupted them It was observed that the student treated group members respectfully, shared the workload fairly and usually listened to others’ ideas It was observed that the student treated group members respectfully, shared the workload fairly and listened carefully to others’ ideas Use of Resources & Tools Students’ use of resources and/or tools was rarely observed Students’ use of resources and/or tools was occasionally observed Students’ use of resources and/or tools was often observed Presentation / Debrief Student did not debrief group work. Student debriefed group work one time. Student debriefed group work more than one time. TOTAL SCORE Max. = 5 points Min. = 0 points CON 280, Day 1