This criterion is linked to a learning outcome
Criteria 1a: Case Study 1 Ethical dilemma within the case narrative is introduced, identified, and described.
|
5Pts Full marks Outstanding, well-articulated, introduction with clear identification and description of the ethical dilemma present in the narrative.
|
4Pts Exceeds expectations Very good introduction, identification and description of the ethical dilemma present in the scenario.
|
3Pts Meets expectations Good introduction of case narrative with ethical dilemma mostly introduced, identified, and explored.
|
2Pts Developing Limited introduction, identification, and description of the ethical dilemma within the case narrative.
|
1Pts Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory understanding of the ethical dilemma present within in the case.
|
0Pts No marks Criterion not addressed.
|
|
5pts
|
This criterion is linked to a learning outcome
Criteria 1b: Case study 1 Analysis of three (3) key legal and ethical considerations, with a focus on relevant legal principles, laws and/or ethical dimensions from multiple perspectives in relation to the provided clinical narrative.
|
15Pts Full marks Outstanding, well-articulated analysis of three key legal and ethical considerations with multiple perspectives considered. Three key areas described provide outstanding depth and critical thinking in relation to the case narrative provided, without assumptions or bias present. No mistakes or omissions.
|
12Pts Exceeds expectations Very good analysis of three key legal and ethical considerations with multiple perspectives considered. Three key areas described provide very good depth and critical thinking in relation to the case narrative provided, without assumptions or bias present. Minimal mistakes or omissions.
|
9Pts Meets expectations Good analysis of three key legal and ethical considerations with multiple perspectives mostly considered. Relevant legal principles, laws and/or ethical dimensions are mostly considered, with some evidence of critical thinking in relation to the case narrative provided. Some mistakes, omissions, assumptions, and/or bias made.
|
6Pts Developing Limited analysis of three or less key legal and ethical considerations and/or limited exploration of multiple perspectives. Limited evidence of critical thinking in relation to the case narrative provided. Significant assumptions, biases, mistakes, and/or omissions.
|
3Pts Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory analysis of up to three key legal and ethical considerations and/or no exploration of multiple perspectives. Assumptions and/or biases have been made and multiple perspectives have not been considered.
|
0Pts No marks Criterion not addressed.
|
|
15pts
|
This criterion is linked to a learning outcome
Criteria 1c: Case study 1 Ethical decision-making framework is used to demonstrate applicability of scenario to future self- practice within own health profession, with reference to codes, guidelines and policy.
|
20Pts Full marks Outstanding, well-articulated use of ethical decision-making framework within case narrative to inform future self-practice, with outstanding and clear linkage to relevant ethical principles, codes, guidelines, and policies.
|
16Pts Exceeds expectations Very good use of ethical decision-making framework within case narrative to inform future self-practice, with very good linkage to relevant ethical principles, codes, guidelines, and policies.
|
12Pts Meets expectations Good use of ethical decision-making framework within case narrative to inform future self-practice with relevant ethical principles, codes, guidelines, and policies mostly linked.
|
8Pts Developing Partial use of ethical decision-making framework within case narrative to inform future self-practice, and/or limited linkage to appropriate ethical principles, codes, guidelines, and policies.
|
4Pts Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory use of ethical decision-making framework to link case narrative to future self-practice in healthcare and/or limited use of limited to no use of ethical principles, codes, guidelines, and policies relevant to future practice.
|
0Pts No marks Criterion not addressed.
|
|
20pts
|
This criterion is linked to a learning outcome
Criteria 2a: Case Study 2 Ethical dilemma within the case narrative is introduced, identified, and described.
|
5Pts Full marks Outstanding, well-articulated, introduction with clear identification and description of the ethical dilemma present in the narrative.
|
4Pts Exceeds expectations Very good introduction, identification and description of the ethical dilemma present in the scenario.
|
3Pts Meets expectations Good introduction of case narrative with ethical dilemma mostly introduced, identified, and explored.
|
2Pts Developing Limited introduction, identification, and description of the ethical dilemma within the case narrative.
|
1Pts Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory understanding of the ethical dilemma present within in the case.
|
0Pts No marks Criterion not addressed.
|
|
5pts
|
This criterion is linked to a learning outcome
Criteria 2b: Case study 2 Analysis of three (3) key legal and ethical considerations, with a focus on relevant legal principles, laws and/or ethical dimensions from multiple perspectives in relation to the provided clinical narrative.
|
15Pts Full marks Outstanding, well-articulated analysis of three key legal and ethical considerations with multiple perspectives considered. Three key areas described provide outstanding depth and critical thinking in relation to the case narrative provided, without assumptions or bias present. No mistakes or omissions.
|
12Pts Exceeds expectations Very good analysis of three key legal and ethical considerations with multiple perspectives considered. Three key areas described provide very good depth and critical thinking in relation to the case narrative provided, without assumptions or bias present. Minimal mistakes or omissions.
|
9Pts Meets expectations Good analysis of three key legal and ethical considerations with multiple perspectives mostly considered. Relevant legal principles, laws and/or ethical dimensions are mostly considered, with some evidence of critical thinking in relation to the case narrative provided. Some mistakes, omissions, assumptions, and/or bias made.
|
6Pts Developing Limited analysis of three or less key legal and ethical considerations and/or limited exploration of multiple perspectives. Limited evidence of critical thinking in relation to the case narrative provided. Significant assumptions, biases, mistakes, and/or omissions.
|
3Pts Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory analysis of up to three key legal and ethical considerations and/or no exploration of multiple perspectives. Assumptions and/or biases have been made and multiple perspectives have not been considered.
|
0Pts No marks Criterion not addressed.
|
|
15pts
|
This criterion is linked to a learning outcome
Criteria 2c: Case study 2 Ethical decision-making framework is used to demonstrate applicability of scenario to future self- practice within own health profession, with reference to codes, guidelines and policy.
|
20Pts Full marks Outstanding, well-articulated use of ethical decision-making framework within case narrative to inform future self-practice, with outstanding and clear linkage to relevant ethical principles, codes, guidelines, and policies.
|
16Pts Exceeds expectations Very good use of ethical decision-making framework within case narrative to inform future self-practice, with very good linkage to relevant ethical principles, codes, guidelines, and policies.
|
12Pts Meets expectations Good use of ethical decision-making framework within case narrative to inform future self-practice with relevant ethical principles, codes, guidelines, and policies mostly linked.
|
8Pts Developing Partial use of ethical decision-making framework within case narrative to inform future self-practice, and/or limited linkage to appropriate ethical principles, codes, guidelines, and policies.
|
4Pts Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory use of ethical decision-making framework to link case narrative to future self-practice in healthcare and/or limited use of limited to no use of ethical principles, codes, guidelines, and policies relevant to future practice.
|
0Pts No marks Criterion not addressed.
|
|
20pts
|
This criterion is linked to a learning outcome
Criteria 3: Scholarly approach to assignment Scholarly academic writing using evidence to inform arguments, support definitions and an ethical approach to using the ideas and academic work of others.
Evidence of relevant literature used to support discussion includes:
Current evidence-based practice guidelines, standards of practice, codes; Relevant, peer-reviewed academic literature published within five (5) years, XXXXXXXXXX; Legislation and case law, seminal works where relevant.
|
5Pts Full marks Outstanding use of evidence to inform arguments, support definitions and adhere to an ethical approach when using the ideas and work of others. Evidence is current and applicable to case narratives.
|
4Pts Exceeds expectations Very good use of evidence to inform arguments, support definitions and adhere to an ethical approach when using the ideas and work of others. Evidence is current and relevant to case narratives with minor errors, which do not detract from the applicability of the work.
|
3Pts Meets expectations Good use of evidence to inform arguments, support definitions and adhere to an ethical approach when using the ideas and work of others. Evidence is current and mostly relevant to case narratives with some errors and/or omissions which somewhat detracts from the applicability of the work.
|
2Pts Developing Partial use of evidence to inform arguments, support definitions and adhere to an ethical approach when using the ideas and work of others. Not all evidence used is current and/or relevant to case narratives with frequent errors and/or omissions which detract from the applicability of the work.
|
1Pts Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory use of evidence to inform arguments, support definitions and adhere to an ethical approach when using the ideas and work of others. Evidence used is not current and/or relevant to case narratives with significant errors and/or omissions which significantly detracts from the applicability of the work.
|
0Pts No marks Criterion not addressed.
|
|
5pts
|
This criterion is linked to a learning outcome
Criteria 4: Scholarly approach to assignment Answers are informative, concise, and structured with an introductory statement, an informative discussion, and a concluding statement.
Responses are written with minimal grammatical/spelling errors.
|
5Pts Full marks Outstanding adherence to academic language principles including (but not limited to) sentence and paragraph structuring, spelling, grammar, punctuation, and terminology.
|
4Pts Exceeds expectations Excellent adherence to academic language principles including (but not limited to) sentence and paragraph structuring, spelling, grammar, punctuation, and terminology.
|
3Pts Meets expectations Good adherence to academic language principles including (but not limited to) sentence and paragraph structuring, spelling, grammar, punctuation, and terminology.
|
2Pts Developing Partial adherence to academic language principles including (but not limited to) sentence and paragraph structuring, spelling, grammar, punctuation, and terminology.
|
1Pts Unsatisfactory Partial adherence to academic language principles including (but not limited to) sentence and paragraph structuring, spelling, grammar, punctuation, and terminology.
|
0Pts No marks Criterion not addressed.
|
|
5pts
|
This criterion is linked to a learning outcome
Criteria 5: Scholarly approach to assignment Assignment is formatted as per APA guidelines (Times new roman font, size 12, double spacing, margins 2.54cm, first line in paragraph indented, student number and page number in top right corner).
Referencing follows APA 7th Style, including, but not limited to correct use of intext citations, reference list commences on new page at the end of the document.
|
5Pts Full marks Outstanding adherence to APA 7th edition with no errors or omissions.
|
4Pts Exceeds expectations Very good adherence to APA 7th edition with minimal errors or omissions that do not detract from the academic validity of the work.
|
3Pts Meets expectations Good adherence to APA 7th edition with some errors or omissions which minorly detract from the academic validity of the work.
|
2Pts Developing Partial adherence to APA 7th edition but errors or omissions present throughout which detract from the academic validity of the work.
|
1Pts Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory adherence to APA 7th edition, with significant errors and omissions that detract from the academic validity of the work.
|
0Pts No marks Criterion not addressed.
|
|
5pts
|
This criterion is linked to a learning outcome
Criteria 6: Presentation A Cover Page is included with assessment title, student ID number, actual word count.
Word count is followed (1000 +/- 10% per case narrative)
|
5Pts Full marks Completed cover page is present. Word count is followed
|
2.5Pts Developing Completed cover page is absent, or word count is not followed.
|
0Pts No marks Cover page is absent and word count is not followed.
|
|
5pts
|
Total points:100
|