HLSC220 Written Essay (1) Marking Rubric
HLSC220 Written Essay (1) Marking Rubric
Criteria Ratings Points
Ethical concepts
30 to >25 pts
HD
Ethical concepts (e.g., bio-ethical principles, virtues, ethical theories) are discussed comprehensively
-66041233998 and accurately in relation to the topic.
25 to >22.5 pts
DI
Ethical concepts (e.g., bio-ethical principles, virtues, ethical theories) are discussed at a high level and
-11493521717000 accurately in relation to the topic.
22.5 to >19 pts
CR
Ethical concepts (e.g. bio-ethical principles, virtues, ethical theories) are discussed soundly
-66041220345and usually accurately in relation to the topic.
19 to >15 pts
PA
Ethical concepts (e.g. bio-ethical principles, virtues, ethical theories) are discussed satisfactorily
-89852263843and often accurately in relation to the topic.
15 to >0 pts
NN
Ethical concepts (e.g. bio-ethical principles, virtues, ethical theories) are not discussed satisfactorily
-75565264478or accurately in relation to the topic.
0 pts
No marks
Ethical concepts (e.g. ethical theories, human dignity, veracity, professional codes and standards
of practice) are not discussed in relation to the topic. / 30 pts
Application
8959855629275876935447675088169722288508959851052513 HD
30 to >25 pts
Identifies all aspects of relationship between the selected topic & professional practice. Comprehensively
describes these relationships and their relevance to healthcare practice.
25 to >22.5 pts
DI
Identifies most aspects of relationship between the selected topic & professional practice. Describes
these relationships and their relevance to healthcare practice to a high-standard.
22.5 to >19 pts
CR
Identifies a sound range of aspects of relationship between the selected topic & professional practice.
-89853215583 Describes these relationships and their relevance to healthcare practice to a sound standard.
19 to >15 pts
PA
Identifies an adequate range of aspects of relationship between the selected topic & professional practice.
Describes these relationships and their relevance to healthcare practice to an adequate standard.
15 to >0 pts
NN
Identifies few of the aspects of relationship between the selected topic & professional practice.
Inadequately describes these relationships and their relevance to healthcare practice.
0 pts
No marks
Does not identify any aspects of the relationship between the selected topic & professional practice. Does not attempt to describe these relationships and their relevance to healthcare practice. / 30 pts
835660-129032000852170-242951000Critique & Defence
25 to >21 pts HD
Ethical arguments (use of argument and/or counter arguments) demonstrate a sophisticated level of
critical thinking, reasoning, defence & evaluation. All ethical arguments are informed by diverse, credible,
well-chosen scholarly sources, and professional codes & standards.
21 to >18.5 pts DI
Ethical arguments (use of argument and/or counter arguments) demonstrate a highly developed level of
critical thinking, reasoning, defence & evaluation. Almost all ethical arguments are informed by credible,
well-chosen scholarly sources and professional codes & standards.
18.5 to >16 pts CR
Ethical arguments (use of argument and/or counter arguments) demonstrate a well-developed level of
critical thinking, reasoning, defence & evaluation. Many ethical arguments are informed by credible
-9144025717500scholarly sources, &/or professional codes & standards.
16 to >12.5 pts
PA
Ethical arguments (use of argument and/or counter arguments) demonstrate a sound level of critical
thinking, reasoning, defence &/or evaluation. Some ethical arguments are informed by credible scholarly
-7874016446500sources, &/or professional codes & standards.
12.5 to >0 pts
NN
Ethical arguments (use of argument and/or counter arguments) are limited and demonstrate a developing
level of critical thinking, reasoning, defence &/or evaluation. Arguments are not adequately informed by
-11493520637500 credible ethical thought and or scholarly sources, professional codes & standards.
0 pts
No marks
No evidence of critical thinking, reasoning & evaluation evident. No ethical arguments are presented.
-10668028384500No arguments are informed by credible scholarly sources &/or professional codes & standards. / 25 pts
Composition
15 to >12.5 pts
HD
The essay begins with an exemplary introduction introducing the topic and main ethical arguments. The
argument is organised in an exemplary manner: repetitiveness is avoided; the argument flows logically
and succinctly. Exemplary use of academic writing and writing conventions. APA intext citations and
reference protocols are followed at an exemplary level. The assessment ends with a comprehensive and
-85090177483rational conclusion.
12.5 to >11 pts
DI
The essay begins with a high-level introduction that introduces the topic and the main ethical arguments.
The argument is organised in a logical manner: repetitiveness is avoided; the argument usually flows
logically. High quality use of academic writing and writing conventions. APA intext citations and reference
-9652025146000 protocols are followed at a high-level. The assessment ends with a very clear and rational conclusion.
11 to >9.5 pts
CR
The essay begins with a strong introduction that introduces the topic and main ethical arguments. The
argument is mostly organised in a logical manner: repetitiveness is generally avoided; the argument often
flows logically. Strong use of academic writing and writing conventions. In most cases APA intext citations
-11049024955500and reference protocols are followed appropriately. The assessment ends with a clear conclusion.
9.5 to >7.5 pts
PA
The essay begins with a satisfactory introduction that introduces the topic and main ethical arguments.
The argument is somewhat organised: some repetitiveness is evident. Satisfactory use of academic
writing and writing conventions. APA intext citations and reference protocols are followed adequately.
The assessment ends with an adequate conclusion.
7.5 to >0 pts
NN
The essay has an introductory paragraph but does not clearly introduce the topic and does not refer to the
ethical argument. The argument is poorly organised: repetitiveness is evident; does not demonstrate
logical progression of ideas. Poor use of academic writing and writing conventions. APA intext citations
-94615210185and reference protocols are poorly followed. The conclusion is weak or is poorly presented.
0 pts
No marks
There is no relevant introduction. There is no organisation to the content. Use of APA intext citations and
-14033523241000 reference protocols not evident. There is no relevant conclusion. / 15 pts
Total points: 0
