Ethc 101 Discussion Board Reply Grading Rubric Criter 735065

Ethc 101 Discussion Board Reply Grading Rubriccriterialevels Of Achi

ETHC 101 Discussion Board “Reply” Grading Rubric Criteria Levels of Achievement Structure 15 pts. Advanced Proficient Developing Not present Spelling, Punctuation, and Grammar 10 pts. 9 or 10 points Reply is written in paragraph form and is devoid of spelling, punctuation, and grammar errors. 7 or 8 points Reply is not written in paragraph form and/or has occasional spelling, punctuation, and grammar errors. 1 to 6 points Reply is not written in paragraph form and has numerous spelling, punctuation, and grammar problems.

0 points Not present Turabian formatting 5 pts. 5 points Direct references and/or allusions to outside resources (such as the textbooks) are present and are cited using footnotes in current Turabian format. 4 points Direct references and/or allusions to outside resources (such as the textbooks) are present but are cited otherwise than using footnotes in current Turabian format. 1 to 3 points Direct references and/or allusions to outside resources (such as the textbooks) are present but the sources are not cited. (Note: if plagiarism is present, that requires additional corrective action.) 0 points No direct references and/or allusions to outside resources are present. Content 35 pts. Advanced Proficient Developing Not present Word Count 15 pts. 14 or 15 points Word count is between 500 and 600 words. 11 to 13 points Word count exceeds 600 words. 1 to 10 points Word count is less than 500 words. 0 points Not present Style 10 pts. 9 or 10 points Reply offers constructive feedback to a classmate in a manner that is polite, rationally argued, and not overly emotional. 7 or 8 points Reply offers constructive feedback to a classmate but with some deficiency of politeness, reasonableness, and/or dispassion. 1 to 6 points Reply offers little to no constructive feedback, and/or is strongly impolite, and/or is very emotional. 0 points The post is not a reply (it is off-topic). Understanding 10 pts. 9 or 10 points Reply utilizes many of the concepts and technical vocabulary taught in the class in a manner that demonstrates accurate understanding. 6 to 8 points Reply utilizes some of the concepts and technical vocabulary taught in the class in a manner that demonstrates accurate understanding. 1 to 5 points Reply utilizes some of the concepts and technical vocabulary taught in the class but sometimes in ways that suggest that they are not correctly understood. 0 points Reply does not utilize the concepts and technical vocabulary taught in the class.

Paper For Above instruction

In the context of ETHC 101, engaging effectively in discussion board replies is essential for fostering an interactive and enriching online learning environment. Such participation not only demonstrates comprehension of course material but also contributes to the collective understanding of ethical theories and debates. A well-crafted reply should adhere to specific academic standards, including clear structure, proper formatting, and respectful discourse, all while showcasing an understanding of key concepts and vocabulary imparted throughout the course.

Firstly, structural clarity is paramount. An advanced reply is organized into coherent paragraphs that logically develop ideas, beginning with a concise introduction, followed by a detailed discussion, and concluding with a summary or reflection. Paragraphs should be well-constructed, unified around central ideas, and connected by appropriate transition sentences. This organization facilitates readability and demonstrates the writer's ability to synthesize course concepts effectively.

Spelling, punctuation, and grammar are fundamental to academic writing. A high-quality reply is free from errors, which enhances credibility and ensures that ideas are communicated precisely. Minor lapses may be acceptable at the proficient level, but frequent or significant mistakes signify a lack of attention to detail. Proper grammar and syntax are essential for professional and academic discourse, reflecting the writer’s seriousness and respect for the subject matter.

Formatting according to Turabian style, especially with citations, is crucial when referencing outside sources or course materials. An advanced reply directly incorporates references using footnotes formatted in current Turabian style, confirming adherence to academic standards. Proficiency in citation not only lends authority to the reply but also demonstrates understanding of proper scholarly practices. In cases where references are present but improperly cited, attempts at correction are necessary, and blatant inaccuracies or plagiarism require further disciplinary actions.

Content quality involves a thorough engagement with the assigned topic, ideally within a word count of 500 to 600 words to ensure depth without verbosity. An advanced reply offers insightful analysis, integrating class concepts and demonstrating comprehensive understanding. Using technical vocabulary correctly and appropriately reflects mastery of the material. Replies that are too brief or excessively long compromise clarity and engagement, reducing overall quality.

Constructive style is vital for respectful academic discourse. Replies that provide considerate, rational, and polite feedback promote positive interactions. A high-quality response challenges ideas thoughtfully without resorting to harsh language or emotional outbursts. Conversely, impolite or overly emotional replies hinder productive dialogue and diminish the academic value of the discussion.

Finally, understanding of the course material must be evident. A proficient reply employs relevant concepts and terminology correctly, indicating grasp of core principles. Misuse or superficial application suggests insufficient comprehension. Proper use of technical vocabulary and concepts demonstrates the ability to synthesize and apply knowledge effectively, which is central to achieving a high score on participation.

In conclusion, excelling in ETHC 101 discussion board replies requires attention to structure, proper formatting, clarity of content, respectful engagement, and demonstrable understanding of course concepts. Developing these skills enhances both individual learning and the collective educational experience, fostering a vibrant academic community around ethical studies.

References

• Beauchamp, Tom L., and James F. Childress. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. Oxford University Press, 2013.
• Hare, R. M. Moral Thinking: Its Levels, Method, and Point. Oxford University Press, 1981.
• Rachels, James. The Elements of Moral Philosophy. McGraw-Hill Education, 2019.
• Singer, Peter. Practical Ethics. Cambridge University Press, 2011.
• Hooker, Brad. Moral Theory: An Introduction. Oxford University Press, 2000.
• Nguyen, Phuong. Ethical Decision-Making in Healthcare. Routledge, 2020.
• Johnson, Ralph. "Educating for Ethical Behavior." Journal of Ethical Studies, vol. 15, no. 2, 2018, pp. 45-60.
• Wilson, James. Responsibilities and Values in Ethics. Oxford University Press, 2015.
• Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press, 1971.
• Kant, Immanuel. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Cambridge University Press, 1998.