Case study

Case Study Evaluation Protocol and Procedures

Evaluation of the overall quality of each case study will be made on the following criteria:

CASE STUDY PARTS
CRITERIA
Abstract
Summary paragraph introducing the project, building, hypothesis, highlights of findings.

concise brief of the parts to the case study.

Introduction
Description of building, background information, designer’s intent, observations, and how team decided on topic. selection of an interesting or challenging building; relevant issues to current building performance topics that address energy-use and conservation and/or occupant well-being and associated topics covered during the Fall term.

Hypothesis / Inquiry Questions
A question converted to a statement that can be tested, deals with one relevant topic, and has only one clause. suitability in scope and context to the case study building; testable and well-framed statement linking design intent to performance topic.
Significance in going beyond the mundane.

Methods / Equipment
Step-by-step procedure that explains how, who, what, where and details of the collection of information. innovative utilization of field methods which are well-matched to the hypothes(es) and based upon direct experience with the selected building; appropriate approach and use of equipment for this case study.

Data / Analysis
Collection of data and explanation and interpretation of the results.

effective communication and analysis of results in response to the research questions; this may include creative or unique ways of representing data;
Conclusions / Design Lessons Learned
Concise statements of key findings and what was learned.

understanding of the complexities and variables of the project. appropriateness of concluding statements suggestions for studies to build upon this case study.

Web Design ease and logic of navigation; readability and clarity; creativity in using the web to enhance the representation of data. appropriate attribution, acknowledgement, etc.

A = demonstrates meeting the objectives and criteria above; serves as a useful model of information for the design community.
B = demonstrates meeting the objectives and criteria above
C = meets several of the objectives and criteria above, is deficient in areas.
D = does not demonstrate meeting the objectives and criteria above
Evaluation Procedures
The following process enables us to give a fair and objective review to each of the case study projects, according to the objectives and criteria set forth in the assignment.
1. Instructors will review an initial set of selected case studies together and assign letter grades (see below) for content and web design according to the criteria above. As a group, we will discuss the merits and deficiencies and come to agreement on the final content and web grade, by consensus or averaging the grades. Comments and grades will be entered into a master spreadsheet (which contains team names, email addresses, GTF, title) which will facilitate sending feedback to the teams and provide a master document should students come in to talk to us later.
2. For efficiency of time and because of the number of case studies, we will break into grading teams (one instructor, two GTFs) and use the same process to evaluate the rest of the case studies. Adjustments and re-calibration of grades can occur as we progress through the grading process. The instructors may float between teams.
3. Presentation grades from the instructor and GTF will be entered into the master spreadsheet.
4. Generally, GTFs will not be on a team grading their own students’ case studies. They can be however, consulted to ask about the team’s initiative and general performance. GTFs should review the grades with the grading team.
5. All instructors will “vote” for case studies to be place in the Hall of Fame (4-5 total). Once these have been selected we will notify them after grades have been submitted and case study files can be posted to the Hall of Fame site. (this may be early winter term)