iRubric: Ethical Reasoning VALUE Rubric

edit print share Copy to my rubrics Bookmark test run assess... delete Do more...

Ethical Reasoning VALUE Rubric

Students will design a Free Speech Monument after reviewing several Supreme Court Cases regarding Free Speech (i.e. Tinker v. Des Moines). Students will have to take their audience into account and work to create the best, most applicable monument for their preassigned audience type.

Rubric Code: FB79X6

By nschiffhauer

Ready to use

Public Rubric

Subject: Journalism

Type: (Other)

Grade Levels: 9-12, Undergraduate, Graduate

Ethical Reasoning VALUE Rubric
	Excellent Understanding 4 pts	Good Understanding 3 pts	Fair Understanding 2 pts	Needs Improvement 1 pts
Ethical Self-Awareness	Excellent Understanding Student discusses in detail/analyzes both core beliefs and the origins of the core beliefs and discussion has greater depth and clarity.	Good Understanding Student discusses in detail/analyzes both core beliefs and the origins of the core beliefs.	Fair Understanding Student states both core beliefs and the origins of the core beliefs.	Needs Improvement Student states either their core beliefs or articulates the origins of the core beliefs but not both.
Different Perspectives Understanding Different Ethical Perspectives/Concepts	Excellent Understanding Student can state the many possibilities in difference of beliefs and work to include all understandings.	Good Understanding Student can name a good deal of possible differences and can work with some of the groups to include multiple understandings.	Fair Understanding Student can only name a few of the possible differences in beliefs and can only accommodate those said few.	Needs Improvement Student struggles to identify any differences in beliefs and does not take any into account while creating their monument.
Ethical Issue Recognition	Excellent Understanding Student can recognize ethical issues when presented in a complex, multilayered (gray) context AND can recognize cross-relationships among the issues.	Good Understanding Student can recognize ethical issues when issues are presented in a complex, multilayered (gray) context OR can grasp cross-relationships among the issues.	Fair Understanding Student can recognize basic and obvious ethical issues and grasp (incompletely) the complexities or interrelationships among the issues.	Needs Improvement Student can recognize basic and obvious ethical issues but fails to grasp complexity or interrelationships.
Application Application of Ethical Perspectives/Concepts	Excellent Understanding Student can independently apply ethical perspectives/concepts to an ethical question, accurately, and is able to consider full implications of the application.	Good Understanding Student can independently apply ethical perspectives/concepts to an ethical question, accurately, but does not consider the specific implications of the application.	Fair Understanding Student can apply ethical perspectives/concepts to an ethical question, independently (to a new example) and the application is inaccurate.	Needs Improvement Student can apply ethical perspectives/concepts to an ethical question with support (using examples, in a class, in a group, or a fixed-choice setting) but is unable to apply ethical perspectives/concepts independently (to a new example.).
Evaluation Evaluation of Different Ethical Perspectives/Concepts	Excellent Understanding Student states a position and can state the objections to, assumptions and implications of and can reasonably defend against the objections to, assumptions and implications of different ethical perspectives/concepts, and the student's defense is adequate and effective.	Good Understanding Student states a position and can state the objections to, assumptions and implications of, and respond to the objections to, assumptions and implications of different ethical perspectives/concepts, but the student's response is inadequate.	Fair Understanding Student states a position and can state the objections to, assumptions and implications of different ethical perspectives/concepts but does not respond to them (and ultimately objections, assumptions, and implications are compartmentalized by student and do not affect student's position.)	Needs Improvement Student states a position but cannot state the objections to and assumptions and limitations of the different perspectives/concepts.
Participation Ability to verbally participate in ethical discussions	Excellent Understanding Student is able to provide insight and participate accurately in ethical scenarios presented by all of his/her peers.	Good Understanding Student is able to provide insight and participate accurately in ethical scenarios presented by some of his/her peers but not in all discussions.	Fair Understanding Student provides minimal insight or information the student presents lacks substance in discussion in the ethical scenarios his/her peer presents.	Needs Improvement Student minimally or does not participate at all in peers ethical scenario discussion.
Project Completion Completion of worksheet to aid in ethical discussions	Excellent Understanding All aspects of project thoroughly completed with strong clinical reasoning evidenced by material present in project.	Good Understanding Some aspects of project thoroughly completed with strong clinical reasoning evidenced by material present in project.	Fair Understanding Few aspects of project thoroughly completed with strong clinical reasoning evidenced by material present in project.	Needs Improvement Few aspects of project thoroughly completed but lack strong clinical reasoning evidenced by material present in project.

Subjects:

Types:

(Other)

Discuss this rubric