Winter 2017
Marking Rubric
Reflective Journals
Purpose
The fundamental purpose of the reflective journals is threefold: In the context of the “e alert” subject matter that you have chosen to follow for the duration of
the course, evidence an increasing understanding of the chosen subject matter and the various
implications of the subject matter on international business, from a Canadian perspective.
Evidence the ability to communicate in a written format in a persuasive and articulate manner.
Write about a given topic in an increasingly informed manner over the term of the course so
that you can clearly state that you are informed about a specific subject matter (you become
the class source of information on the subject matter you chose). Topics World Bank
IMF
Patent rules
Investor Dispute Resolution
Country of origin rules
Brexit
China Free Trade agreement
NAFTA
CETA
TPP
Automation
Social license
Special topic to be presented to the Professor for approval Report Structure
The normal flow/structure of the journal would be:
a) Title page with identification of the subject and student name
b) Briefly outline the content of the article(s)
c) Discuss the article, placing it in the context of Canadian interests in the international business
context (i.e. draw linkages to course content)
d) Provide your opinion with rationale as to WHY you support or do not support the article’s stated
position
e) Proper APA citation of the article. 1 Any RJ that is submitted using source material dated 6 months or greater in the past, from the date of
your RJ, will be returned to the student for updating with more current source information. Administrative Issues Individual work submitted on Slate (drop box) pursuant to posted schedule
There are 5 opportunities to submit, only the 4 with the highest marks will be considered for
final grading
Typed: Times New Roman, font 12, double spaced
Maximum pages are 2, plus the title page and page for references. Grading Rubric
The grading rubric for the RJ’s is presented below.
Criteria Poor to Fair
(less than 6) Satisfactory to Good to Very
Excellent (>9)
Good (6 to 7.5) Good ( 7.5 to 9) Subject
matter
discussion Limited
discussion of the
subject matter,
evidencing a lack
of understanding
of the subject.
Did not go
beyond the basic
content of the
article chosen.
No connection to
course material Discussion is
more
advanced, in
terms of
detail, but
discussion still
lacks clarity Opinion
offered Limited
connection to
course Only one
Only one source source
Little or no
Individual
opinion shown. attempted some
Individual simply level of
restated the
interpretation to
information from arrive at an
the source article opinion, but
defense of
opinion offered
was weak. Discussion is
advanced in
terms of detail
and nuance.
Significant
connection to
course material
Two sources Discussion
evidences
superior
knowledge,
insight and
nuance.
Insightful
connection to
course material
Multiple sources Individual
articulated well
their opinion
of the subject
matter and
defended that
argument with
at least one
strong
argument. Individual
articulated well
their opinion of
the subject
matter and
defended that
argument with
at least two
strong
arguments. 2 Readability Poor use of
language.
Multiple and
consistent
grammar and/or
spelling errors.
No focused
structure to the
journal. Limited and
inconsistent use
of language.
Moderate but
consistent
grammar and/or
spelling errors.
Some structure
needs
improvement to
connect ideas
presented. Good use of
language with
few grammar
and/or spelling
errors. Good
structure with
clear flow of
ideas. Strong use of
language with
no grammar
and/or spelling
errors. Strong
structure with
clear flow of
multiple ideas
throughout
journal. Examples of Credible Sources Globe and Mail
National Post
Financial Post
Guardian
Wall Street Journal (Asian or European edition)
Economist
Peterson Institute for International Economics
Conference Board of Canada
Frazer Institute
Broadbent National Bureau of Economic Research
World Bank
IMF
Council of Canadians 3
