Student Learning Outcomes & Assessment
** legal research papers required in Law 17 and 34 and optional in all other classes
Criteria for Case Briefs
Students will read evidence cases and write a case brief demonstrating their understanding and application of the essential facts and rules of law and legal principles of the case. see case brief rubric at http://missionparalegal.pbworks.com/briefing
Criteria: The “case brief” will achieve an “acceptable” or higher rating, and will be indicative of a paralegal who is competent to work in a law office, state agency or with the courts.
Students will read a court case and write a “case brief” using the FIRACT method of case briefing (“Facts, Issue, Rule, Application and Conclusion”).
The assessment will be evaluated using the following rating scale:
(4) – Superior - comprehensive, very accurate, analytical, sophisticated logic, incisive, persuasive discussion of the facts, issues, rules, rationale, holdings, applications, and conclusions (Facts, Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion, Take Home Message - "FIRACT" method)
(3) – Strong - generally convincing, sufficiently analytical and logical, covers well all of the parts of the FIRACT method for a case brief.
(2) – Acceptable – basic understanding, reasonable, unsophisticated but shows comprehension of the case and legal points, lacking mastery but still in control, limited scope, occasionally original, misses parts of the FIRACT method for a case brief.
(1) – Unacceptable - superficial, lacking understanding, non-academic, undigested, unfinished, missing the target, perfunctory, inappropriate to the assignment, poorly developed, does not follow FIRACT method for a case brief.
CASE BRIEF - GRADING RUBRIC
|
Outstanding
A
|
Proficient
B
|
Adequate
C
|
Inadequate
D/F
|
Case Name and Citation
|
Complete case name and properly formatted citation appear at the top of the case brief
|
Complete case name is provided but citation is incomplete
|
Complete case name is provided but no citation is give
|
Neither the case name nor the citation appears at the top of the case brief OR both case name and citation are incorrect.
|
Operative Facts
|
Operative facts are relevant to the issue being examined by the court and are logically organized.
|
Facts are relevant to the question being answered but lack coherence or organization.
|
Irrelevant facts are included. Lack of logical organization.
|
Relevant facts are omitted or lost in discussion of unrelated information.
|
Procedural Facts
|
Procedural history of the case is clearly and logically presented in proper chronology.
|
Procedural history of the case is presented but chronology is confusing.
|
Some procedural history is presented.
|
No procedural history is presented.
|
Issue/Short Answer
|
Includes all elements (applicable law, issue being examined and relevant facts) in a well crafted, grammatically correct question.
Answer responds to question being posed.
|
Issue is separately articulated, but does not include all elements; applicable law, issue being examined and relevant facts.
Answer responds to question being posed.
|
Issue is not separately articulated, but implied through description of facts or discussion of law.
Answer does not respond to question being posed.
|
Issue is not articulated
No answer is given.
|
Law
|
Law is correct and is relevant to the question being answered. Rule(s) of law succinctly paraphrased rather than quoted.
|
Law is correct and is relevant to the question being answered, but is not paraphrased
|
Rules of law are used in providing answer, but it is unclear if writer understands the law and is properly applying it.
|
Rules of law are omitted from answer or incorrect law is used.
|
Rationale
|
The court’s reasoning is presented in a clear and logical fashion, leading the reader to an understanding of the rationale behind the law.
|
Law is applied to the facts, but the underlying rationale is not clear.
|
Analysis is unclear, causing the reader to question whether the law is correct.
|
No analysis of the law is given.
|
Writing Mechanics
|
Sentence structure, grammar, punctuation are substantially correct.
Each component‘s material is logically organized and presented in a clear, concise manner.
|
Sentence structure, grammar, punctuation are substantially correct.
Organization is logical but needs better consistency and clarity.
|
Adherence to rules of writing is poor.
Material lacks organization and/or is unclear, making it difficult to understand.
|
Rules of writing are ignored or misunderstood.
No apparent logic to the organization of the material. Writing lacks clarity.
|
Research and Writing Papers
purpose : to develop a Learning Community amongst our Paralegal Students, and develop eportfolios of written papers which are intelligent, persuasive, and demonstrate critical thinking skills
tentative implementation : each class during the Spring and Fall Semesters will have as its final assignment in class a "Critical Thinking Paper". The format will be uniform amongst the entire paralegal program. Students, faculty, and tutors will assist in this project. At the end of the semester each class will select the two best papers which will be presented at the "Mission College Paralegal Critical Thinking Paper Showcase" at the end of the Spring Semester each year, and the recipients will receive an award for their presentation.
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.