Case study Format

I. Case Summary (A short summary that gives a picture of the case or what is happening in the
case)

II. Case Analysis

A. Viewpoint – the person in the case who will decide on the problem (example: the
operations manager). This will be on the point of view of the person who will be solving the
problem You can put yourself on the shoe of the decision maker. But you should state the
position of the decision maker. If it is not clear in the case study, you can supply who the
best person (manager position) should solve the problem

B. Significant Case Facts – these are information that can be seen in the case that could lead to
the determination of the problem. You can cite important points seen in the case.

C. Problem/s – determine the problem of the case and come up with the statement of the
problem based on the case. You can use your own words.

D. Alternative Courses of Action (ACA’s) – these are the options or choices that are considered
solutions to the problem/s. They could lead in solving of the problem/s. There should be 2
or more ACAs.

E. Analysis of ACA’s – you could do cost-benefit analysis (optional) or for each ACA you can
determine their advantages and disadvantages if the ACA will be applied in solving the
problem.

F. Recommendation – After weighing all you ACAs, the ACA which is the most advantageous in
solving the problem/s will be your recommendation. There could be more than two ACAs as
recommendations

G. Implementation Plan - This is how you will implement your recommendation – your plan of
action. You can do assumptions here, that if you are the decision maker.

i. Targets – goal, objective (you can also state performance indicators here in terms of
percentage (example - percentage increase in profits, percentage increase in
productivity)

ii. Program, project, activities

iii. Time frame – time period that you will implement your plan of action. You can
assume.

iv. Manpower requirements

v. Progress accomplishment – how will you monitor and control the situation
 H. Fallback Position (what if) – what if your recommendation will not work out, what will be
your other options, what will you do to redeem the situation? What will be your
contingency plans?

I. References - Write any supporting documents that you have used to answer this case. They
could be URLs, ebooks, books, articles, newspaper or magazines, etc.

SCORING RUBRIC FOR CASE STUDY

SCORE CRITERIA

CONTENT:50%

Excellent to very good: knowledgeable; substantive, thorough

development of the case, including appropriate examples; quotations
are well chosen to support the argument; quotations are well
45-50 integrated and presented correctly, good analysis and synthesis of the
material; literary devices noted and analyzed, good use of comparison
and contrast, critical inquiry and interpretation. Interpretation is
imaginative and nuanced.
Good to average: some knowledge of the subject; adequate range of
analysis and synthesis; limited thematic development and use of
examples; mostly relevant to the topic, but lacks detail in critical
38-44
interpretation of the material; quotations support the argument
somewhat; quotations are adequately integrated, but may be too long
or short. Interpretation shows some originality.
Fair to poor: limited knowledge of the subject; minimal substance,
analysis and synthesis; poor thematic development, use of examples
27-37
and critical interpretation of the material; inadequate use of
quotations. Interpretation is predictable and/or unfocused.
Very poor: shows little or no knowledge of the subject; lacking analysis
or synthesis of the material and lacking good examples; inadequate
23-26
quantity; not relevant, or not enough to rate. Interpretation is overly
predictable.

ORGANIZATION AND FORMAT:20%

Excellent to very good: clear statement of ideas; title that orients the
reader to the case; clear organization (beginning, middle, and end) and
smooth transitions; introduction leads reader into topic; conclusion
18-20 effectively summarizes main findings and follows logically from the
analysis presented, logical and cohesive sequencing both between and
within paragraphs; quotations/footnotes properly cited; length,
spacing, fonts, margins, numbered pages all carefully adhered to.
 Good to average: main ideas clear but loosely organized or connected;
14-17 title pertinent to the thesis; sequencing logical but incomplete;
bibliographical material and formatting adequate.
Fair to poor: ideas not well connected; title too general; poor
10-13 organization and transitions; logical sequencing and development
lacking; formatting inadequate.
Very poor: ideas not communicated; no title; organization, sequencing
7-9
and transitions lacking, or not enough to rate, formatting lacking.

GRAMMAR, VOCABULARY, AND FLUENCY:20%

Excellent to very good: fluent expression; accurate use of relatively

complex structures; very few grammatical errors. Complex range of
18-20
vocabulary; accurate word/idiom choice; mastery of word forms and
expressions; appropriate level of usage.
Good to average: adequate fluency; simple constructions used
14-17 effectively; some problems in use of complex constructions; some
grammar and spelling errors.
Fair to poor: low fluency; significant mistakes in the use of complex
10-13 constructions; frequent grammar and spelling errors, lack of accuracy
interferes with meaning.
Very poor: lacks fluency; no mastery of simple sentence construction;
7-9 text dominated by errors; does not communicate meaning, or not
enough to rate.

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:

Excellent to very good: all supporting documents required are attached

and appropriately labeled: 1) a typed first draft; 2) peer review and
8-10 evidence that you have addressed these comments , 3) the
checklist/reflective statement, and 4) final draft reflecting all previous
work.
6-7 Good to average: checklist/reflective statement missing.
3-5 Fair to poor: Two of the supporting documents missing.
1-2 Very poor: Three of the supporting documents missing.

Adapted from: Hedgcock and Lefkowitz,“Collaborative Oral/Aural Revision in Foreign

Language Writing Instruction”, Journal of Second Language Writing 1(3):255-76, 1992,
cited in Scott, Rethinking Foreign LanguageWriting, 1995, p. 116.