Skip to main content
iRubric: Technical/Ethical Biotech Paper rubric

iRubric: Technical/Ethical Biotech Paper rubric

find rubric

edit   print   share   Copy to my rubrics   Bookmark   test run   assess...   delete   Do more...
Technical/Ethical Biotech Paper 
Rubric for a general education course in Biotechnology. Students describe the biotech product and discuss the ethics behind the use of the product.
Rubric Code: J6A99W
By bgressler
Ready to use
Public Rubric
Subject: (General)  
Type: Writing  
Grade Levels: Undergraduate

Powered by iRubric Biotech Final Paper
Enter rubric description
  Excellent/Exemplary

5 pts

Good/Above Average

4 pts

Fair/Average

3 pts

Developing/Poor

2 pts

Formatting
1 pts

Minimum 10 pages, 12 point Times New Roman Font, 1 inch margins
Excellent/Exemplary

All criteria for paper length were met.
Good/Above Average

Some slight modifications were made in order to "stretch" the paper, but the topics were adequately covered in the paper.
Fair/Average

Obvious modifications were made to "stretch" the paper or the paper was just under 10 pages. The topic was not as thoroughly examined as it could have been.
Developing/Poor

Paper was obviously stretched to reach the 10 page length or was fewer than 8 pages. The paper was missing discussion on major topics.
Citations
1 pts

Excellent/Exemplary

A single citation style was consistently applied. Sources for every non-original thought in the paper were cited.
Good/Above Average

A single citation style was consistently applied, but there were a few spots where the citation was omitted.
Fair/Average

Citation styles may be mixed and inconsistent. Several non-original thoughts were not cited throughout the paper.
Developing/Poor

Citations were very few and far between. The reader may suspect plagiarism due to infrequent citations.
References
1 pts

Minimum of 10 distinct sources cited
Excellent/Exemplary

At least 10 distinct sources were cited. Material was taken from highly reliable sources. Few, if any, uses of general interest sites such as Wikipedia.
Good/Above Average

At least 10 sources were cited, but some may not be considered distinct (multiple pages from a single website). Some sources may be questionable, such as the Wikipedia and blogs.
Fair/Average

Fewer than 10 sources cited or the sources were not distinct. General interest sites heavily used.
Developing/Poor

Much fewer than 10 sources were cited. Quality of the sources is doubtful.
Figures
1 pts

Excellent/Exemplary

Judicious use of figures throughout the paper. Figure captions were used, sources were cited. Figure was obviously related to the text.
Good/Above Average

Good use of figures, although some may be considered as "filler". Or, a figure should have been used but was not. Figure captions used but did not explain very well. Sources were cited.
Fair/Average

Paper missing crucial figures or may have too many (filler). Figure captions and citations are incomplete.
Developing/Poor

Very few or no figures used, or way too many that their use as "filler" was obvious. Figure captions and citations are missing or highly incomplete.
Paper Organization
1 pts

Excellent/Exemplary

Information flowed well from one paragraph to another. Only one main idea per paragraph. Reader could follow the technical descriptions and ethical arguments easily.
Good/Above Average

Generally only one main idea per paragraph. Structure of the paper was logical. Occasionally paragraphs did not transition well but was not bad enough to affect the reader greatly.
Fair/Average

Some paragraphs contain too many topics. Transitions from one paragraph to another are rough. Overall the reader could follow the discussion, however.
Developing/Poor

Paper is illogical and disjointed. Reader is surprised by the topic of the next paragraph--no helpful transitions. Difficult to follow the discussion and arguments.
Grammar
1 pts

Sentence structure, spelling, punctuation
Excellent/Exemplary

Sentences well constructed. Very few spelling and punctuation errors.
Good/Above Average

Poorly constructed sentences are very rare. Some spelling and punctuation errors, but they do not distract the reader too badly.
Fair/Average

Some sentences are poorly constructed. Spelling and punctuation errors appear frequently enough to distract the reader, but not enough to cause concern about the content of the paper.
Developing/Poor

Many sentences are poorly constructed. Frequent errors in spelling and punctuation that distract the reader and detract from the paper's validity.
Technical Portion
Production & Function
3 pts

How product is made or how the procedure is done, and what does it do in the body
Excellent/Exemplary

Process is thoroughly described in the paper using step-by-step instructions and quality figures. Action in the body is clearly defined. No gaps in the process. Student has an advanced knowledge of the material.
Good/Above Average

Process is mostly described step-by-step, but some steps may be incomplete or missing. Action in the body is defined but may be somewhat unclear. Student comprehension is at the beginner level.
Fair/Average

Some steps in the process are incompletely described or missing. Action in the body is unclear. Student comprehension is short of the level expected after 3 weeks immersed in the topic.
Developing/Poor

Several process steps are poorly described or missing. Student did not make much effort to research and process the technical information.
Limitations
2 pts

Excellent/Exemplary

All technical limitations to the product are described (errors in the assay, malfunction of drug, etc). Current status of the technology is clearly delineated from what we hope the product will do.
Good/Above Average

Some technical limitations are given, but not all. Overall the reader can distinguish between what the product can do vs. what we hope to do.
Fair/Average

Little discussion of technical limitations. It may be difficult to distinguish between current state-of-the-art and future hopes for the technology.
Developing/Poor

Almost no limitations to the technology are presented. Reader is misled as to what the technology can do.
Paraphrasing
1 pts

Excellent/Exemplary

Student has paraphrased technical information from the sources into his/her own words. Technical terms are all clearly defined. Student clearly demonstrates mastery of the technical information.
Good/Above Average

Student has paraphrased most of the technical information into his/her own words, but some is still quoted directly. Some technical terms may not be well defined.
Fair/Average

Much technical information appears to be quoted from the source or just barely paraphrased. Few technical terms are defined by the student.
Developing/Poor

Technical information is barely processed by the student. Quotations and minimal paraphrasing are heavily used with very few terms defined.
Ethical Portion
Essential Arguments
3 pts

Excellent/Exemplary

All arguments pro and con are presented in the paper with equal weight and respect. If arguments are technical, statistics and quantitative information are given. If arguments are moral, appropriate sources for beliefs are given.
Good/Above Average

All major arguments pro and con are presented, but one or two minor ones may be omitted. Views contrary to the student's views may not be given as much attention in the paper. Sources (statistics or moral) supporting or refuting the arguments are present but some may be missing.
Fair/Average

All major arguments pro and con are presented with some minor omissions. Arguments are not given equal weight in some cases. Use of statistics or numbers for argument is used very little. Moral arguments are based on student's feelings rather than sources.
Developing/Poor

Major arguments pro or con are missing. Paper is obviously skewed towards student's viewpoint throughout the paper. Numerical reasoning omitted, moral arguments derived solely from student's feelings.
Thesis
1 pts

Excellent/Exemplary

Thesis is clearly stated and is easily determined early in the paper. Support of the thesis is obvious by the end of the paper.
Good/Above Average

Thesis is clearly stated but may not be apparent early in the paper. Support of the thesis is obvious by the end of the paper.
Fair/Average

Thesis may be ambiguously stated but can be derived from overall paper structure. Support of the thesis is apparent by the end of the paper.
Developing/Poor

Thesis difficult to determine or absent. Reader vaguely knows the author's conclusions about the technology by the end of the paper.
Weighing Arguments
2 pts

Excellent/Exemplary

Arguments in favor of thesis are strongly supported using factual and moral reasoning. Arguments opposed to the thesis are dismantled based on factual and moral reasoning. Logical progression is clear.
Good/Above Average

Arguments in favor of the thesis are supported using factual and moral reasoning, but support is lacking in some respects. Arguments opposed to the thesis are discredited based on factual and moral reasoning, but some opposing arguments may be insufficiently addressed.
Fair/Average

Not all arguments are addressed sufficiently (supported or discredited). Reasons for supporting or opposing an argument are generally sound but insufficiently supported by research or logic.
Developing/Poor

Arguments supporting or opposing the thesis are generally weak and insufficiently supported. Some arguments are illogical and poorly constructed.
Limits and Alternatives
2 pts

Excellent/Exemplary

Student clearly delineates how the technology should or should not be used. If the technology should be restricted in some way, the suggested limits are practical and compassionate. If the technology should go forward, student suggests an appropriate direction.
Good/Above Average

Student delineates how the technology should or should not be used but reasons are vague (i.e., what constitutes "medically necessary?") Suggested limits may be somewhat impractical or lacking in sensitivity to human needs or desires. Overall desired direction of technology is stated.
Fair/Average

One major element is missing to this criterion: how technology should or should not be used, reasons for this, limits, and direction. Reader vaguely knows where the student wants the technology to go.
Developing/Poor

Insufficient limits or alternatives are suggested if the student is opposed to the technology. Little to no direction is proposed if the student is for the technology.



Keywords:
  • biotechnology, ethics, technology, Christian worldview

Subjects:

Types:

Discuss this rubric




Do more with this rubric:
Preview

Preview

Preview this rubric.
Edit

Edit

Modify this rubric.
Copy

Copy

Make a copy of this rubric and begin editing the copy.

Print

Print

Show a printable version of this rubric.
Categorize

Categorize

Add this rubric to multiple categories.
Bookmark

Bookmark

Bookmark this rubric for future reference.
Assess
Test run

Test run

Test this rubric or perform an ad-hoc assessment.
Grade

Grade

Build a gradebook to assess students.
Collaborate

Collaborate

Apply this rubric to any object and invite others to assess.
Share
Publish

Publish

Link, embed, and showcase your rubrics on your website.
Email

Email

Email this rubric to a friend.
Discuss

Discuss

Discuss this rubric with other members.
 

Do more with rubrics than ever imagined possible.

Only with iRubrictm.


Copyright © 2024 Reazon Systems, Inc.  All rights reserved.
n232