From Barbara Frey at pitt.edu
http://www.udel.edu/janet/MARC2006/rubric.html
Criteria
Unacceptable
0 Points
Acceptable
1 Point
Good
2 Points
Excellent
3 Points
Assignment Posting
Posts no assignment.
Posts adequate assignment with superficial thought and preparation; doesn’t address all aspects of the task.
Posts well developed assignment that addresses all aspects of the task; lacks full development of concepts.
Posts well developed assignment that fully addresses and develops all aspects of the task.
Follow-Up Postings
Posts no follow-up responses to others.
Posts shallow contribution to discussion (e.g., agrees or disagrees); does not enrich discussion.
Elaborates on an existing posting with further comment or observation.
Demonstrates analysis of others’ posts; extends meaningful discussion by building on previous posts.
Content
Contribution
Posts information that is off-topic, incorrect, or irrelevant to discussion.
Repeats but does not add substantive information to the discussion.
Posts information that is factually correct; lacks full development of concept or thought.
Posts factually correct, reflective and substantive contribution;
advances discussion.
References & Support
Includes no references or supporting experience.
Uses personal experience, but no references to readings or research.
Incorporates some references from literature and personal experience.
Uses references to literature, readings, personal experience to support comments.
Clarity & Mechanics
Posts long, unorganized or rude content that may contain multiple errors or may be inappropriate.
Communicates in friendly, courteous and helpful manner with some errors in clarity or mechanics.
Contributes valuable information to discussion with minor clarity or mechanics errors.
Contributes to discussion with clear, concise comments formatted in an easy to read style that is free of grammatical or spelling errors.
Please be professional and courteous.
· Make Connections.
· Share Examples.
· Share- Have another resource?
· Agree and add to it
· Disagree but share why
· Themes appearing?
Reading Task 1: Explore the history of ethics in research timeline.
One of the responsibilities of the National Institute of Health is to provide ethics training for researchers. They developed an online research in ethics training course. That course shares some of the historical issues and studies concerning ethics in research. This task will take you to the NIH timeline of the ethics in research, and to two recent ethics in research events. You should consider the implications of research ethics in these studies as well as for conducting research in your own professional setting. (forum prompts to consider are in italics)
A. Go to the Timeline of Events http://phrp.nihtraining.com/history/07_history.php
Move through the timeline, clicking on each event. The timeline shows what has been happening in ethics in research since 1932. There are several different kinds of ethics issues presented in the timeline. As you explore the timeline, think about: what do you notice? What stands out?
Try to look for a few similarities and differences as you move through the events on the timeline, and the second hand smoke and red wine and autism events.
B. Ethics issue – about exposing children to second hand smoke
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2012/07/new-study-violates-ethical-principles.html
C. about the benefits of red wine and about the autism vaccination and a few others
http://www.menshealth.com/health/when-scientists-lie
What does the writer set out to explain and to what sort of reader? What are the components of his/her argument? Do you agree or disagree? Why? In what way is this article useful?
Attachments:
application/pdf iconlawrence.pdf