Normative theories of ethics

B C O 2 0 1 E s s a y r u b r i c 3 0 % o f f i n a l g r a d e

Criteria HD 85-100% D 75-84% C 65-74% P 50-64% F 0-49% Weighting 18-20 16-17 13-15 10-12 <10 grade Research and data acquisition

Evidence of broad,

systematic and creative

research. Selection of data

goes beyond the mainstream

literature/tutorial/textbook.

Consistent and accurate

referencing used throughout,

showing ability to reference a

range of source types. Ideas

and words of others

acknowledged.

Evidence of controlled and

systematic research.

Demonstrates selection of

credible, relevant data from

quality literature/tutorial

notes/textbooks. Mostly

accurate referencing

demonstrates an ability to

reference a variety of source

types. Ideas and words of

others are acknowledged.

Evidence of good research

skills. Information is

gathered from a good range

of electronic and non-

electronic sources.

Referencing is at times

inconsistent or demonstrates

ability to reference only

some source types accurately

Words, but not always the

ideas of others are

acknowledged.

Research conducted

demonstrates an attempt to

collect credible and/or

relevant data. Information

is gathered from a limited

range of electronic and non-

electronic sources. Overuse

of another’s words or ideas

which may also

inconsistently or inaccurately

referenced.

Limited research skills

demonstrated. Poorly

selected data. Failure to

acknowledge the words and

ideas of others. Plagiarised:

reads like a “data dump”

from other sources.

/20

Weighting 10 8-9 6-7 5 <5 grade Referencing Excellent reference list and

application of in text

references. A wide range of

sources used. Presented

correctly.

Good reference list and

application of in text

references. An adequate

range of sources. Odd error

in style.

Reasonable reference list but

needed more sources. Some

referencing errors.

Limited references used. A

wider range of sources

needed. A number of errors.

Major errors in referencing

or no evidence of

referencing.

/10

Weighting 10 8-9 6-7 5 <5 grade Format, structure, expression

Clear and fluent expression

indicates the report has been

successfully edited and

proofread before submission.

Correct form for text type:

(headings, indentations etc.);

spelling, punctuation error-

free.

Mastery of sentence patterns

demonstrated; may have

occasional grammatical

errors on the sentence level

suggesting that some closer

proofreading was needed

Form, punctuation, and

spelling mostly error free.

Sentence patterns most often

successfully used; several

grammatical errors at the

sentence level. Occasional

errors in, form, punctuation,

and spelling; sometimes

distracting. Some additional

editing and proofreading is

warranted.

Clear and fluent expression

indicates the report has been

successfully edited and

proofread before submission.

Correct form for text type:

(headings, indentations etc.);

spelling, punctuation error-

free.

Run on sentences, attempts

at simple sentences often

not successful; many errors

in sentence structures

detract from

communication purpose.

Form, punctuation and

spelling, errors throughout.

/10

Weighting 25-30 21-24 18-20 15-17 <15 grade

Critical analysis and conceptual development

An extensive critical analysis of ethical theory. Sound use of example to explain argument.

Good critical analysis of ethical theory. A good use of example to make argument.

Reasonable attempt to critically analyse ethical theory. Reasonable attempt to use example to explain argument.

Some analysis of ethical theory, mainly descriptive. An attempt made to use examples to explain argument.

No critical analysis of ethical theory. Mainly definitional. No example used or minimal used to develop argument.

/30

Weighting 25-30 21-24 18-20 15-17 <15 grade

Conclusions Excellent ability to interpret, evaluate and formulate logical sound conclusions.

Good demonstration of the capacity to critically analyse information and formulate own conclusions.

Able to draw warranted conclusions and generalisations.

Limited ability to draw conclusions.

No critical analysis, poor conclusions and no original thought.

/30

Total