This rubric outlines the criteria and levels of achievement for grading a midterm group project. It evaluates students on individual contributions to teamwork, research, accuracy of content, and subject knowledge, as well as the overall group presentation. For teamwork, students are graded on their level of contribution, collaboration, and teamwork skills. For research, grades depend on the thoroughness of research conducted and usefulness of suggestions. Accuracy of content is evaluated based on academic references, relevance, and comprehensiveness. Subject knowledge is graded based on clarity, correctness of information, and alignment with course topics. Finally, presentations are assessed on organization, articulation of logic, and ability to engage the audience. The overall maximum grade is 20 marks.

1. MIDTERM GROUP PROJECT RUBRIC
TEAMWORK/CONTRIBUTION (INDIVIDUAL GRADE)
Level 1 Did not contribute in a valuable way to the project. Did not collect any relevant information; no
useful suggestions to address team's needs. Very poor teamwork skills.
Level 2 Sometimes shared helpful ideas. Made the required effort to participate and contribute but no
more. Improvable teamwork skills.
Level 3 Contributed in a valuable way to the project. All data sources added to the project indicated a
good level of mutual respect and collaboration. Facilitates teamwork
Level 4 Contributed in a valuable way to the project. All data sources added to the project indicated a
very high level of mutual respect and collaboration. Outstanding teamwork skills (respect,
positive attitude, motivation, assistance to others…)
RESEARCH (INDIVIDUAL GRADE)
Level 1 Poor research techniques. Does not collect any relevant information in detail. No useful
suggestions to address team's needs
Level 2 Collects information when prodded; tries to offer some ideas, but not well developed, and not
clearly expressed, to meet team's needs
Level 3 Usually studies varied sources and records information in some detail. Gives very useful
suggestions to address team's needs
Level 4 Always contributes with varied sources collected and curates relevant information in detail.
Excellent and very useful suggestions to address team's needs
ACCURACY/CONTENT (INDIVIDUAL GRADE)
Level 1 No academic reference in the project proposal
Level 2 Work accomplished not always advances the project. It shows very basic academic content,
often repeated or not relevant to the topic
Level 3 Work accomplished is in some points accurate and thorough, comprehensive, and advances the
project. It has good use of academic terminology and appropriate content
Level 4 Work accomplished is extremely accurate and thorough, comprehensive, and advances the
project. Excellent use of academic terminology and appropriate content
SUBJECT KNOWLEDGE/CONTENT RELEVANCE (GROUP GRADE)
Level 1 No subject knowledge is evident. Information is confusing, incorrect or flawed. Content not-
aligned with EU policy and not relevant to CSR.
Level 2 Some subject knowledge is evident. However, some information is confusing, incorrect or
flawed. Content not-aligned with EU policy and not entirely relevant to CSR.
Level 3 Subject knowledge has been evident in most of the project. Information is clear, appropriate,
and correct. All information is mostly clear, appropriate, and correct. Proposal mainly aligned
with the EU standards on CSR and relevant to some trends on Corporate Responsibility.
Level 4 Subject knowledge is evident throughout, exceeding requirements. All information is clear,
appropriate, and correct. Proposal aligned with the EU standards on CSR and very relevant to
the last trends on Corporate Responsibility.
OUTCOME/PRESENTATION (GROUP GRADE)
Level 1 Presentation was not organized and clearly written/presented. The underlying logic of the
proposal was not clearly articulated and it was not easy to follow. The presentation failed to
capture the interest of the audience and/or it was confusing in what was communicated.
Level 2 Presentation was not always organized and clearly written/presented. The underlying logic of
the proposal was mostly clearly articulated but not always easy to follow. The presentation
techniques used were effective in conveying main ideas to the audience, but a bit
unimaginative.
Level 3 Presentation was organized and clearly written/presented. The underlying logic of the
proposal was clearly articulated and mostly easy to follow. It was also imaginative and effective
in conveying ideas to the audience.
Level 4 Presentation was very well organized and clearly written/presented. The underlying logic of
the proposal was clearly articulated and easy to follow. It was also imaginative and effective in
conveying ideas to the audience.
Overall total of marks (Max. 20 marks)