Measurement of Critical Thinking Skills and Ethics/Social Responsibility Knowledge: Post-measure, RNCV 415, Legal Environment of Business

  1. [Critical Thinking] Demonstrates the ability to identify a problem and the information needed to develop alternative solutions;
  2. [Critical Thinking] Demonstrates the ability to articulate both sides of an argument and evidence, and constructs and defends the position taken;
  3. [Critical Thinking] Evaluates alternative solutions to a problem, recommends an optimal solution, and evaluates the efficacy of the solution after it has been implemented
  4. [Ethics/Social Responsibility] Evaluates the role of legal and social responsibility

Measurement of Critical Thinking Skills and Communication: Post Measure – RNCV 415: Legal Environment of Business Essay
Criteria / Distinguished / Proficient / Basic / Unacceptable
Thesis or Statement of Purpose / Readily apparent to the reader; concisely stated. / Clear but may contain some ambiguity or vagueness. / Not consistently clear. / Generally unclear; Incomplete, unfocused, or absent.
Introduction / The groundworkfor paper easy to predict because line of argumentation is laid out. / The groundwork is slightlyunclear. Organization for rest of the paper stated. / The groundwork contains vagueness or ambiguity. Provides relatively little that can be considered as a road-map to the rest of the essay. / No reference to intent of the paper or claim made.
Content / Clear ground-work or problem area identified. Analysis poses credible ways to think of the material; Quoted material well integrated; depth of coverage without being redundant. / Reader gains some insight; occasional evidence in support of claim or ways to think about the material. Quotes well integrated into sentences. Claims or questions adequately addressed but not in the detail or depth expected. / The essay shows little of the writer’s own thought, relying instead on quotes and paraphrasing that are poorly connected. Very little evidence of credible thinking and intermittent support of thesis. / The essay relies on stringing together quotes or close paraphrasing; Failure to support statements with credible premises. Quotes not integrated, improperly.
Organization / The ideas are arranged logicallyto support the major claim or questions laid out. Transitions link paragraphs. It’s easy to follow the line of reasoning. Subheadings, if used, are used throughout the paper allowing the reader to reader moves easily through the text.
. / The ideas are arranged logically to support the central purpose. Transitions usuallylink paragraphs. For the most part, the reader canfollow the line of reasoning. Subheadings, if used, are used throughout the paper to guide the reader without undue confusion. / In general, ideas are arranged logically, but sometimes ideas fail to make
sense together. The reader is
fairly clear about what writer
intends. If subheadings are used, the content beneath them does not follow. / Ideas are not logically.
Organized. Frequently, ideas
fail to make sense together.
The reader cannot identify a line of reasoning. Subheadings not used where appropriate. Few or no credible premise presented.
Sentence
Structure / Sentences are well-phrased and
varied in length and type.
They flow smoothly from one
to another with no run-on sentences or serious comma splices. / Sentences are correct with minor variety in length and structure. The flow from sentence
to sentence is generally smooth although some run -on sentences are present. / Some sentences are awkwardly
constructed so that the reader is
occasionally distracted. Run-on sentences are present or Short, simple and compound sentences prevail. / Errors in sentence structure
are frequent enough to be a
major distraction to the reader. Run on’s and fragments common.
Word Choice / Word choice is consistently
precise and accurate. Rhetorical devices are avoided.
(Smoke-screen arguments, straw man arguments, hyperbole, etc.) / Word choice is generally good.
The writer often finds words that are not quite precise and effective. Unnecessary words are occasionally used. Rhetorical devices are kept to a minimum. / Word choice is merely adequate,
and the range of words is
limited. Some words are used
inappropriately. Unnecessary words are fairly common.
Rhetorical devices are present. / Many words are used
inappropriately, confusing the
reader. It is difficult for the reader to understand what the writer is trying to express. Rhetorical argumentation is present frequently.
Grammar,
Spelling,
Writing
Mechanics
(punctuation,
italics, capitalization,
etc. / Essentially free of grammatical errors; The writing is free or almost
free of errors. / A few grammatical errors; There are occasional errors, but they don't represent a major
distraction or obscure meaning. / Several grammatical errors; The writing has many errors, and the reader is distracted by them. / Pattern of ungrammatical writing; There are so many errors that
meaning is obscured. The
reader is confused and stops reading.
Conclusion / The writer makes succinct and precise conclusions based on the content presented. / Some of the conclusions are not supported or the writer presents a conclusion that digresses somewhat from the initial claim, or questions. / The conclusions are not significantly derived from the , initial question or claim, or not adequately supported. / There is little or no indication that the writer tried to synthesize the information or draw conclusions based on the content.

Source for the following case: Thomas A Robinson, Workers Compensation Law Blog – 1-09-2010

OH: Alleged Horseplay During Team-Building Exercise Did Not Remove the Incident From the Course and Scope of Employment

Kelly, an account manager with Coca-Cola, attended a mandatory corporate kick-off event celebrating the release of its new product, Coca-Cola Zero. As a part of the team-building event, attended predominately by managers and supervisors, all employees in attendance were included to canoe down a three-mile stretch of the river. Kelly and another employee managed the canoe trip without incident. Others weren't so lucky, becoming drenched in the process. As the party stood on the river bank waiting for transportation, several employees started slashing others to get them wet. Evidence suggested that Kelly told one or more workers that it would take more than them to get him wet. He was essentially correct, but in the process of several workers' attempt to throw Kelly into the water, Kelly was body slammed onto the river bank and hurt.

Kelly sought workers' compensation benefits. His claim was denied by the Commission, but following a trial the court of common pleas returned a verdict in his favor. Coca-Cola appealed.

CHAD A. KELLEY, Plaintiff-Appellee, - vs - MARSHA P. RYAN, Administrator, Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation, Defendant-Appellee, and COCA-COLA ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendant-Appellant,2010 Ohio App. LEXIS 1269.

Discussion: Using the proper legal framework, explain why this case should go either for, or against, Mr. Kelly.

Students should key in on “scope of employment.” They should note that “scope of employment” includes activities that are “incidental” to performance of work itself. In this case, the kick-off was mandatory, which would sway the decision in favor of Robinson. However, the raucus that occurred during the incident leaves ground for students to argue otherwise. Students will have to decide on this “grey area” matter.