This rubric assesses students’ ability to analyze ethical issues in healthcare AI, consider multiple perspectives, construct well-reasoned arguments, and propose thoughtful solutions while demonstrating clear written communication.
| Criteria | Exemplary (14–15) | Proficient (11–13) | Developing (8–10) | Beginning (0–7) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clear Ethical Issue | Identifies specific, significant ethical issue with precise definition and clear scope | Identifies clear ethical issue with adequate definition | Identifies ethical issue but definition lacks clarity | Ethical issue is vague, too broad, or poorly defined |
| Thesis Statement | Strong, arguable thesis that takes clear position while acknowledging complexity | Clear thesis with identifiable position | Basic thesis present but may be unclear or too simplistic | Thesis is absent, unclear, or not arguable |
| Relevance and Significance | Compellingly explains why this ethical issue matters to healthcare, patients, and society | Adequately explains significance of the issue | Basic explanation of significance with limited depth | Fails to establish significance |
| Criteria | Exemplary (23–25) | Proficient (19–22) | Developing (14–18) | Beginning (0–13) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Multiple Perspectives | Analyzes 3+ distinct stakeholder perspectives with sophisticated understanding | Analyzes 2–3 stakeholder perspectives with adequate depth | Analyzes 1–2 perspectives with limited depth | Single perspective or superficial analysis |
| Empathy and Understanding | Demonstrates genuine understanding of each stakeholder’s concerns, values, and constraints | Shows adequate understanding of stakeholder positions | Basic understanding with some gaps | Limited or stereotypical understanding |
| Conflicting Interests | Insightfully explores tensions and trade-offs between stakeholder interests | Identifies conflicts between stakeholder interests | Mentions conflicting interests without deep exploration | Does not address conflicting interests |
| Specific Examples | Uses multiple concrete examples to illustrate stakeholder perspectives | Uses adequate examples | Uses few examples or examples lack detail | Examples absent or not relevant |
| Criteria | Exemplary (27–30) | Proficient (23–26) | Developing (17–22) | Beginning (0–16) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Depth of Analysis | Demonstrates sophisticated, nuanced analysis going beyond surface-level observations | Provides solid analysis with adequate depth | Basic analysis with limited depth or nuance | Superficial or simplistic analysis |
| Evidence and Support | Uses multiple, credible sources effectively integrated | Uses adequate evidence to support analysis | Uses limited evidence or integration is weak | Minimal evidence or sources not credible |
| Complexity | Acknowledges and explores complexity, avoiding simplistic framing | Recognizes some complexity in the issue | Acknowledges complexity but analysis remains somewhat simplistic | Presents issue in oversimplified or binary terms |
| Counterarguments | Anticipates and thoughtfully addresses potential counterarguments | Considers some alternative perspectives | Minimal consideration of alternative views | Ignores counterarguments or alternatives |
| Ethical Frameworks | Explicitly applies ethical principles (autonomy, beneficence, justice, etc.) | Implicitly considers ethical principles | Limited ethical reasoning | No clear ethical reasoning |
| Criteria | Exemplary (18–20) | Proficient (15–17) | Developing (11–14) | Beginning (0–10) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feasibility | Proposes realistic, specific solutions that acknowledge practical constraints | Proposes reasonable solutions with some consideration of feasibility | Proposes basic solutions with limited consideration of constraints | Solutions are unrealistic, vague, or impractical |
| Multiple Approaches | Offers 2+ complementary solutions addressing different aspects of the problem | Offers 1–2 adequate solutions | Offers single solution or solutions lack development | No clear solutions proposed |
| Stakeholder Consideration | Solutions thoughtfully address needs and concerns of multiple stakeholders | Solutions consider some stakeholder needs | Solutions show limited stakeholder consideration | Solutions ignore stakeholder needs |
| Innovation | Demonstrates creative, original thinking about addressing the ethical issue | Shows some original thinking | Solutions are mostly conventional | Solutions lack originality or depth |
| Criteria | Exemplary (9–10) | Proficient (7–8) | Developing (5–6) | Beginning (0–4) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Organization | Logical, sophisticated structure with smooth transitions; compelling introduction and conclusion | Clear structure with adequate transitions; appropriate introduction and conclusion | Basic structure; some organizational issues; weak introduction or conclusion | Poor organization; difficult to follow; missing introduction or conclusion |
| Clarity | Ideas expressed with exceptional clarity and precision; sophisticated yet accessible language | Ideas clearly expressed; language is appropriate and effective | Some clarity issues; language is adequate but may be imprecise | Frequent clarity problems; language is confusing or inappropriate |
| Grammar and Mechanics | Virtually error-free; demonstrates mastery of conventions | Few errors that don’t interfere with meaning | Some errors that occasionally interfere with meaning | Frequent errors that interfere with comprehension |
| Category | Points Possible | Points Earned |
|---|---|---|
| Thesis and Focus | 15 | |
| Stakeholder Analysis | 25 | |
| Analysis and Critical Thinking | 30 | |
| Proposed Solutions | 20 | |
| Writing Quality | 10 | |
| Total Score | 100 |
Student may revise and resubmit for improved grade
Revision deadline:
Focus areas for revision:
Strengthen thesis and focus
Develop stakeholder analysis
Deepen critical analysis
Improve proposed solutions
Enhance writing quality
Address grammar/mechanics
1. What ethical principle(s) did you focus on in your essay?
2. Which stakeholder perspective was most challenging to understand and represent fairly?
3. What is the strongest part of your essay?
4. If you had more time, what would you improve or expand?
5. How has analyzing this ethical issue changed your thinking about AI in healthcare?
Reviewer Name: Date:
Before turning in your essay, have a peer review it using these questions:
Is the ethical issue clearly defined?
Does the essay analyze multiple stakeholder perspectives?
Are the proposed solutions realistic and well-explained?
Does the essay avoid oversimplifying the issue?
Is the writing clear and organized?
Does the introduction engage your interest?
Does the conclusion leave you thinking?
One thing the writer did really well:
One suggestion for improvement: