Applied Sciences Signature Assignment
angiebell1
EDUU698SignatureAssignmentDescriptionRubric1.docxSignature Assignment (to be completed on WIKI and submit to submit to Turnitin via Blackboard)
Total points = 75
Solving an Ethical Dilemma
Course Learning Outcome:
Students will understand how to identify an ethical challenge and apply decision making principles according to the Ethical Code for Behavior Analysts (E1).
Your Signature Assignment for this class is to respond to one peer’s ethical dilemma on their WIKI page. Analyze the dilemma through the lens of Rosenberg and Schwartz (2019) steps 1-5, and refer to Broadhead (2019) if appropriate to support your response.
See the rubric for expectations related to each criteria of your response. Your paper should closely follow the steps outlined in Rosenberg & Schwartz (2019) and incorporate cultural information as suggested by Broadhead (2019).
Respond to your classmates WIKI by attaching a word document. They will appreciate the guidance.
Directions for submitting to Turnitin via Blackboard
Create one document to upload to Turnitin via Blackboard. Your document should have the following elements included:
· Title Page
· Heading 1: Ethical dilemma (from your classmate’s week 6 WIKI)
· Heading 2: Associated values and/or biases
· Heading 3: Proposed Solution #1 (per Rosenberg & Schwartz, 2019 steps 1 - 5 augmented with Broadhead, 2019)
· Heading 4: Proposed Solution #2 (per Rosenberg & Schwartz, 2019 steps 1 - 5 augmented with Broadhead, 2019)
· Heading 5: Select action, use all resources to justify selection
· Heading 6: Document implementation steps in the format of an action plan so that it can be followed with fidelity that addresses actions to ameliorate potential risk per the Ethical Code for Behavior Analysts.
(See rubric for grading details)
SIgnature assignment rubric:
|
|
Exemplary |
Proficient |
Emerging |
insufficient |
Missing |
|
Identify the dilemma, codes, stakeholders |
5 Exemplary description of the dilemma, codes and stakeholders. |
4 Proficient description of the dilemma, codes and stakeholders.
|
3 Accurate description of 2: dilemma, codes and stakeholders.
|
2 Accurate description of 1: dilemma, codes and stakeholders. |
0 Missing or inaccurate description of Description of 2: dilemma, codes and stakeholders. |
|
Reflect on personal values or biases that influence decision |
10 Exemplary reflection of personal values or biases that might influence decision |
8 Proficient reflection of personal values or biases that might influence decision |
6 Partial reflection on reflection on personal values or biases that might influence decision |
4 Minimal description but no reflection on personal values or biases that might influence decision n |
0 Missing reflection of personal values or biases that might influence decision |
|
Step 2 and 3 Evaluate 1st solution per client safety, dignity, outcomes, impact and family preference, considering cultural implications. |
15 Exemplary evaluation of all elements (client safety, dignity, outcomes, impact and family preference) and considers cultural implications.
|
12 Proficient evaluation of all elements (client safety, dignity, outcomes, impact and family preference) and considers cultural implications.
|
9 Partial evaluation of all elements (client safety, dignity, outcomes, impact and family preference) and considers cultural implications.
|
6 Minimal evaluation of all elements (client safety, dignity, outcomes, impact and family preference) and considers cultural implications.
|
0 Missing evaluation of all elements (client safety, dignity, outcomes, impact and family preference) and considers cultural implications.
|
|
Step 2 and 3 Evaluate 2nd solution per client safety, dignity, outcomes, impact and family preference. |
15 Exemplary evaluation of all elements (client safety, dignity, outcomes, impact and family preference) and considers cultural implications.
|
12 Proficient evaluation of all elements (client safety, dignity, outcomes, impact and family preference) and considers cultural implications.
|
9 Partial evaluation of all elements (client safety, dignity, outcomes, impact and family preference) and considers cultural implications.
|
6 Minimal evaluation of all elements (client safety, dignity, outcomes, impact and family preference) and considers cultural implications.
|
0 Missing evaluation of all elements (client safety, dignity, outcomes, impact and family preference) and considers cultural implications.
|
|
Step 4: Justify the selected acceptable solution |
15 Exemplary analysis and justification for selection option that incorporates the Ethical Code and information for two other sources.
|
12 Proficient analysis and justification for selection option that incorporates the Ethical Code and information for two other sources. |
9 Partial analysis and justification for selection option that incorporates the Ethical Code and information from one other source. |
6 Minimal analysis and justification for selection option that incorporates the Ethical Code but no other sources. |
0 Missing analysis and justification for selection option. |
|
Step 5: Document the steps and parameters of the selected course of action, linking in the Code of Ethics and core principles. |
15 Exemplary and detailed description of course of action that addresses parameters to ameliorate potential risk for code violations. |
12 Proficient and detailed description of course of action that addresses parameters to ameliorate potential risk for code violations. |
9 Partial description of course of action that addresses parameters to ameliorate potential risk for code violations. |
6 Minimal description of course of action that does not address parameters to ameliorate potential risk for code violations. |
0 Missing description of course of action that does not address parameters to ameliorate potential risk for code violations |
