Undergraduate Case Analysis Rubric

Parent Collection
Parent Resource
Genomics, Ethics and Society Grading Rubrics
Rights
Use of Materials on the OEC
Discipline(s)
Teaching Ethics in STEM
Topics
Evaluation and Assessment
Assessment Tools
Description

This rubric can be used for guiding undergraduate case analysis for the course "Genomics, Ethics, and Society."

Body
  Levels of Achievement
Criteria Completely Inadequate Slightly Inadequate Competent Excellent Total Points
Problem identification
1.5 Points
Fails to identify the main ethical issues; Does not show understanding of why different approaches may be taken to this problem and why stakeholders may disagree.
2 Points
Some difficulties in identifying the main ethical issues; some difficulties understanding why different approaches may be taken to this problem and why stakeholders may disagree.
2.5 Points
Some success identifying the main ethical issues; Shows some understanding of why different approaches may be taken to this problem and why stakeholders may disagree
3 Points
Accurately identifies main ethical issues; Shows good understanding of why different approaches may be taken to this problem, and why stakeholders may disagree.
3

 
Providing empirical information and use of sources
1.5 Points
Fails to provide any, or accurate empirical information; makes empirical claims with no evidence to back them up; uses no or inappropriate sources.
2 Points
Some difficulties in identifying sufficient or relevant information; insufficient support for empirical claims from reliable sources; us of few or somewhat inappropriate sources.
2.5 Points
Some success in making sufficient and relevant empirical claims and in providing sufficient support for them from a reasonable number of reliable sources.
3 Points
Accurately identifies sufficient and relevant empirical information, and draws on support from sufficient and reliable sources.
3
Engages with appropriate range of value concerns
1.5 Points
Fails to discuss a range of appropriate values that might be at stake (eg justice, suffering, privacy, liberty, naturalness).
2 Points
Discusses a very limited range of appropriate values that may be at stake(eg justice, suffering,liberty, privacy, naturalness).
2.5 Points
Some success in discussing a range of appropriate value sthat might be at stake (eg justice, suffering, liberty, privacy, naturalness).
3 Points
Successfully discusses a range of appropriate values that might be at stake (eg justice, suffering, liberty, privacy, naturalness).
3
Open-minded and fair discussion
1.5 Points
Assumes basic position without arguing for it; shows obvious bias; is unfair in argument; sets up straw man arguments.
2 Points
Basic position is only partially defended; some biases evident; occasional unfairness in argument; a tendency to caricature others' arguments.
2.5 Points
Sufficient reasons to support basic position; no biases evident; no unfairness in argument; no caricature of others' arguments
3 Points
Basic position effectively justified; fair presentation of others' positions; charitable interpretation of others' arguments.
3
Thinking critically about own and others' views
1.5 Points
Complete lack of critical thinking about sources and arguments used; doesn't offer objection to own argument.
2 Points
Insufficient degree of critical thinking about sources and arguments used; considers limited objections to own argument.
2.5 Points
Some degree of critical thinking about sources and arguments used; some objections to own argument.
3 Points
Engages critically with sources and arguments used, and offers plausible objections to his or her own argument.
3
Makes an appropriate argument
1.5 Points
Fails to make an argument at all; fails to make an ethical argument; argument fails to answer the prompt; no creativity is expressed.
2 Points
Argument is weak and difficult to follow; argument doesn't clearly draw on ethical ideas; some disassociation between prompt and response; little creativity is expressed.
2.5 Points
A comprehensible argument is present; the argument makes an ethical case and addresses the prompt; some creativity is expressed where relevant.
3 Points
A clear and rigorously developed argument is present; the argument directly addresses ethical questions and clearly responds to the prompt; the argument displays creativity where relevant.
3
Writing Quality
0.8 Points
Poor spelling and grammar throughout. Writing is barely coherent. No indication of what the argument will be or how the case study analysis will be structured at the beginning of the analysis.
1.2 Points
Some spelling and grammar errors. Does not express opinions or ideas clearly.Only vague guidance as to how the case study analysis will be structured at the beginning of the analysis.
1.6 Points
Few grammatical or spelling errors. Ideas are expressed reasonably clearly. Some guidance as to what the argument will be and how the case analysis will be structured at the beginning of the analysis.
2 Points
Consistently uses correct grammar with rare misspellings. Expresses ideas in a clear and concise manner. Clear guidance given as to what the argument will be and how the case study analysis will be structured at the beginning of the analysis.
2
         
20
Citation
. . Undergraduate Case Analysis Rubric. Online Ethics Center. DOI:. https://onlineethics.org/cases/undergraduate-case-analysis-rubric.