Learning Outcome s:
1: Explain the concept of the ‘common good’ and present
examples of the common good in action;
3: present a critical account of a topic or issue in social
justice;
Graduate Attributes:
GA2: recognise their responsibility to the common good, the
environment and society;
GA4: think critically and reflectively;
GA9: demonstrate effective communication in oral and written
English language and visual media.
Task: 2000 words (or equivalent)
The aim of this task is to define the common good in
relation to this topic. The common good is what is best for all, as opposed to
the particular goods that each stakeholder may pursue. Your response should
analyse the various perspectives and critique these using relevant principles
of human flourishing, in order to show how the common good might be achieved.
Choose one of the two Hot Topics and three of the perspectives represented by
the major stakeholders in the issue.
Structure your essay according to the following framework
(word count is given as a guide only):
• Briefly describe the issue and explain how this is an
issue which affects the common good. (200 words) (criterion 1) (INTRODUCTION)
• Describe and explain the perspectives of three
stakeholders. Include a discussion of the main arguments they put forward and
the resolution/s they would opt for. (700 words) (criterion 2)
• Choose three principles of human flourishing that are
relevant to this issue. Use these principles to analyse each perspective you described
above and discuss the ways in which the perspectives of these stakeholders
support or hinder the common good. (800 words). (criterion 3)
• How might the common good be achieved in relation to this
issue? Suggest a specific course of action and explain how this would best
serve the common good. Include a proposal for what each stakeholder could do
and what society as a whole could do to promote the achievement of the common
good in relation to this issue. (300 words) (criterion 4) (CONCLUSION)
Criteria High Distinction Distinction Credit Pass Fail Mark
1. Description and explanation of the issue as one which
affects the common good.
10%
Sophisticated and insightful description and explanation of
the issue as one which affects the common good.
Well developed description and explanation of the issue as
one which affects the common good. Clear and coherent description and
explanation of the issue as one which affects the common good. Adequate but
limited description and explanation of the issue as one which affects the
common good.
Inadequate or insufficient description and explanation of
the issue as one which affects the common good.
2. Description and explanation of three stakeholders’
perspectives in relation to the
issue. 30%
Sophisticated and insightful description and explanation of
each of the stakeholders’ perspectives and preferred resolutions; engages in
in-depth critical explanation. Well developed description and explanation of
each of the stakeholders’ perspectives and preferred resolutions; engages in
critical explanation. Clear and accurate description and explanation of the
stakeholders’ perspectives and preferred resolutions; begins to engage in
critical explanation.
Adequate, but limited, description, with a basic explanation
of the stakeholders’ perspectives and preferred resolutions.
Inadequate or inaccurate description and explanation of the
stakeholders’ perspectives, demonstrating an insufficient understanding of the
stakeholders’ arguments and preferred resolutions.
3. Critical analysis of the perspectives in relation to the
principles of human flourishing and the achievement of common good.
30%
Sophisticated and insightful critical analysis of the
perspectives in relation to the principles of human flourishing and the achievement
of the common good. Well developed and objective critical analysis of the
perspectives in relation to the principles of human flourishing and the
achievement of the common good. Clear analysis and assessment of the
perspectives in relation to the principles of human flourishing and the
achievement of the common good. Adequate, but limited, assessment of the
perspectives in relation to the principles of human flourishing and the
achievement of the common good. Inadequate or insufficient analysis of the
perspectives in relation to the principles of human flourishing and the
achievement of the common good.
4. Critical reflection on how the common good may best be
served. 20%
Sophisticated and insightful synthesis and critical
analysis, with persuasive reasoning and a strong, concrete suggestion for how
the common good may best be served. Well developed and effective synthesis,
critical analysis and reasoning, with a
concrete suggestion for how the common good may best be
served.
Clear synthesis, analysis and reasoning, with a concrete
suggestion for how the common good may best be served.
Basic critical reflection and reasoning, with a concrete
suggestion for how the common good may best be served. Inadequate or
insufficient critical reflection and/or no concrete
suggestion for how the common good may best be served.
5. Written and/or oral English expression including spelling
and grammar. 5%
Exceptional skills in oral or written communication, with
logical and clear scaffolding of arguments. No spelling or grammatical errors
evident. Highly accomplished skills in oral or written communication, with
clearly developed arguments. Minimal spelling or grammatical errors evident.
Competent skills in oral or written communication, with a logical development
of arguments. Few spelling and grammatical errors evident. Satisfactory skills
in oral or written communication. Some spelling and grammatical errors evident
but meaning is discernible.
Limited or insufficient skills in oral or written
communication.
6. Consistent and correct use of selected academic
referencing style. 5% Exceptional and consistently correct use of academic
referencing.
Correct use of academic referencing throughout.
Largely correct use of academic referencing.
Adequate use of academic referencing with some inaccuracies
of style. Significant errors of style or insufficient use of academic
referencing to adequately identify sources.
Comments:
GRADE: DATE: SIGNATURE:
0 comments:
Post a Comment