Your goal is to critically evaluate two of your peers’ presentations on GoReact by solving the ethical dilemma they presented and comparing the effectiveness of their chosen theory with the theory you discussed in your own presentation. Your feedback should be constructive, insightful, and based on the criteria outlined below.
Watch the Presentation:
View the recorded presentations of two of your peers; these should be theories that are DIFFERENT than the one you chose.
Take detailed notes on each presentation, focusing on the content and the ethical dilemma presented.
Ethical Dilemma Analysis:
Identify the Dilemma: Clearly describe the ethical dilemma your peer presented and summarize the key aspects of the dilemma and its relevance to the client population or issue.
Propose Solutions: Provide a well-reasoned solution to the ethical dilemma. Consider ethical principles, theoretical perspectives, and practical implications.
Your solution should be detailed and address all key aspects of the dilemma.
Theory Comparison:
Assess the Theory: Evaluate the effectiveness of the theory presented by your peer. Consider its application to the client population or issue, and any limitations or challenges.
Compare Theories: Compare the theory your peer used with the theory you discussed in your own presentation.
Discuss similarities and differences in terms of effectiveness, applicability, and theoretical foundations. Provide a analysis on which theory might be more or less effective for the given population or issue and justify your reasoning.
Constructive Feedback:
Strengths and Areas for Improvement: Highlight the strengths of each presentation, such as clarity, depth of analysis, and application of theory. Also, provide constructive feedback on areas that could be improved, such as additional details needed, clarity of explanations, or further exploration of theoretical concepts.
Suggestions: Offer practical suggestions for enhancing the presentation. This might include recommendations for additional sources, different approaches to the ethical dilemma, or ways to improve the theoretical application.
Submission:
Each of your peer evaluations will be uploaded using GoReact. Ensure that your feedback is respectful, detailed, and aligns with the criteria provided above.
Peer Evaluation Rubric – 10 points each and students must rate two of their peers
The following rubric will be used by the instructor to grade each of your two peer evaluations.
Criteria
2 – Excellent
1 – Satisfactory
0 – Needs Improvement
Ethical Dilemma Identification
Clearly and accurately identifies the ethical dilemma presented by the peer, summarizing key aspects and relevance.
Identifies the ethical dilemma with some clarity but may miss key aspects or relevance.
Fails to clearly identify the ethical dilemma or misses key aspects entirely.
Proposed Solution to Ethical Dilemma
Provides a well-reasoned, detailed solution to the ethical dilemma, considering ethical principles and practical implications.
Proposes a solution to the ethical dilemma, but may lack detail, reasoning, or consideration of key principles.
Solution to the ethical dilemma is unclear, lacking in reasoning, or incomplete.
Theory Assessment
Effectively evaluates the theory presented by the peer, considering its application and potential limitations/challenges.
Assesses the theory with some insight, but may miss key aspects of its application or limitations.
Fails to adequately assess the theory, with little to no consideration of its application.
Theory Comparison
Provides a clear and insightful comparison between the peer’s theory and their own, discussing similarities, differences, and effectiveness.
Compares theories but may lack depth or clarity in discussing similarities, differences, or effectiveness.
Fails to provide a meaningful comparison of theories, lacking clarity or insight.
Constructive Feedback
Offers constructive feedback that highlights strengths and areas for improvement, providing practical suggestions.
Provides feedback but may lack depth, specificity, or practical suggestions for improvement.
Feedback is vague, non-constructive, or fails to offer practical suggestions.
Rubric
Peer Evaluations for Recorded Presentations (F24)
Peer Evaluations for Recorded Presentations (F24)
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Peer Evaluation #1 – Ethical Dilemma Identification
Identify the Dilemma: Clearly describe the ethical dilemma your peer presented. Summarize the key aspects of the dilemma and its relevance to the client population or issue.
2 pts
Excellent
Clearly and accurately identifies the ethical dilemma presented by the peer, summarizing key aspects and relevance.
1 pts
Satisfactory
Identifies the ethical dilemma with some clarity but may miss key aspects or relevance.
0 pts
Needs Improvement
Fails to clearly identify the ethical dilemma or misses key aspects entirely.
2 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Peer Evaluation #1 – Proposed Solution to Ethical Dilemma
Propose Solutions: Provide a well-reasoned solution to the ethical dilemma. Consider ethical principles, theoretical perspectives, and practical implications. Your solution should be detailed and address all key aspects of the dilemma.
2 pts
Excellent
Provides a well-reasoned, detailed solution to the ethical dilemma, considering ethical principles and practical implications.
1 pts
Satisfactory
Proposes a solution to the ethical dilemma, but may lack detail, reasoning, or consideration of key principles.
0 pts
Needs Improvement
Solution to the ethical dilemma is unclear, lacking in reasoning, or incomplete.
2 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Peer Evaluation #1 – Theory Assessment
Assess the Theory: Evaluate the effectiveness of the theory presented by your peer. Consider its application to the client population or issue, and any limitations or challenges.
2 pts
Excellent
Effectively evaluates the theory presented by the peer, considering its application and potential limitations/challenges.
1 pts
Satisfactory
Assesses the theory with some insight, but may miss key aspects of its application or limitations.
0 pts
Needs Improvement
Fails to adequately assess the theory, with little to no consideration of its application.
2 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Peer Evaluation #1 – Theory Comparison
Compare Theories: Compare the theory your peer used with the theory you discussed in your own presentation. Discuss similarities and differences in terms of effectiveness, applicability, and theoretical foundations. Provide a analysis on which theory might be more or less effective for the given population or issue and justify your reasoning.
2 pts
Excellent
Provides a clear and insightful comparison between the peer’s theory and their own, discussing similarities, differences, and effectiveness.
1 pts
Satisfactory
Compares theories but may lack depth or clarity in discussing similarities, differences, or effectiveness.
0 pts
Needs Improvement
Fails to provide a meaningful comparison of theories, lacking clarity or insight.
2 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Peer Evaluation #1 – Constructive Feedback
Strengths and Areas for Improvement: Highlight the strengths of each presentation, such as clarity, depth of analysis, and application of theory. Also, provide constructive feedback on areas that could be improved, such as additional details needed, clarity of explanations, or further exploration of theoretical concepts.
Suggestions: Offer practical suggestions for enhancing the presentation. This might include recommendations for additional sources, different approaches to the ethical dilemma, or ways to improve the theoretical application.
2 pts
Excellent
Offers constructive feedback that highlights strengths and areas for improvement, providing practical suggestions.
1 pts
Satisfactory
Provides feedback but may lack depth, specificity, or practical suggestions for improvement.
0 pts
Needs Improvement
Feedback is vague, non-constructive, or fails to offer practical suggestions.
2 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Peer Evaluation #2 – Ethical Dilemma Identification
Identify the Dilemma: Clearly describe the ethical dilemma your peer presented. Summarize the key aspects of the dilemma and its relevance to the client population or issue.
2 pts
Excellent
Clearly and accurately identifies the ethical dilemma presented by the peer, summarizing key aspects and relevance.
1 pts
Satisfactory
Identifies the ethical dilemma with some clarity but may miss key aspects or relevance.
0 pts
Needs Improvement
Fails to clearly identify the ethical dilemma or misses key aspects entirely.
2 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Peer Evaluation #2 – Proposed Solution to Ethical Dilemma
Propose Solutions: Provide a well-reasoned solution to the ethical dilemma. Consider ethical principles, theoretical perspectives, and practical implications. Your solution should be detailed and address all key aspects of the dilemma.
2 pts
Excellent
Provides a well-reasoned, detailed solution to the ethical dilemma, considering ethical principles and practical implications.
1 pts
Satisfactory
Proposes a solution to the ethical dilemma, but may lack detail, reasoning, or consideration of key principles.
0 pts
Needs Improvement
Solution to the ethical dilemma is unclear, lacking in reasoning, or incomplete.
2 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Peer Evaluation #3 – Theory Assessment
Assess the Theory: Evaluate the effectiveness of the theory presented by your peer. Consider its application to the client population or issue, and any limitations or challenges.
2 pts
Excellent
Effectively evaluates the theory presented by the peer, considering its application and potential limitations/challenges.
1 pts
Satisfactory
Assesses the theory with some insight, but may miss key aspects of its application or limitations.
0 pts
Needs Improvement
Fails to adequately assess the theory, with little to no consideration of its application.
2 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Peer Evaluation #2 – Theory Comparison
Compare Theories: Compare the theory your peer used with the theory you discussed in your own presentation. Discuss similarities and differences in terms of effectiveness, applicability, and theoretical foundations. Provide a analysis on which theory might be more or less effective for the given population or issue and justify your reasoning.
2 pts
Excellent
Provides a clear and insightful comparison between the peer’s theory and their own, discussing similarities, differences, and effectiveness.
1 pts
Satisfactory
Compares theories but may lack depth or clarity in discussing similarities, differences, or effectiveness.
0 pts
Needs Improvement
Fails to provide a meaningful comparison of theories, lacking clarity or insight.
2 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Peer Evaluation #2 – Constructive Feedback
Strengths and Areas for Improvement: Highlight the strengths of each presentation, such as clarity, depth of analysis, and application of theory. Also, provide constructive feedback on areas that could be improved, such as additional details needed, clarity of explanations, or further exploration of theoretical concepts.
Suggestions: Offer practical suggestions for enhancing the presentation. This might include recommendations for additional sources, different approaches to the ethical dilemma, or ways to improve the theoretical application.
2 pts
Excellent
Offers constructive feedback that highlights strengths and areas for improvement, providing practical suggestions.
1 pts
Satisfactory
Provides feedback but may lack depth, specificity, or practical suggestions for improvement.
0 pts
Needs Improvement
Feedback is vague, non-constructive, or fails to offer practical suggestions.
2 pts