UNCC100: Final Task: 50%
STUDENT SHEET
Student Name: Tutor Name: Class day/time:
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: