Elucidate contemporary issues relating to the Healthcare Industry
MOD004061 Contemporary Issues in Healthcare
ASSIGNMENT INSTRUCTIONS
|
Assessment |
A Group Debate |
|
Assessment code: |
011 |
|
Academic Year: |
2022/2023 |
|
Trimester: |
1 |
|
Module Title: |
Contemporary Issues in Healthcare |
|
Module Code: |
MOD004061 |
|
Level: |
6 |
|
Module Leader: |
|
|
Weighting: |
30% |
|
Time Limit: |
20 minutes |
|
Assessed Learning Outcomes |
LO1: Knowledge and Understanding: Elucidate contemporary issues relating to the Healthcare Industry LO4: Intellectual, practical, affective and transferable skills: Analyse and critique current themes and best practice in Healthcare Management
|
|
Assessment date: |
Please refer to the deadline on the VLE |
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
- This is a group assignment.
- No extensions are available for this assessment.
- Exceptional Circumstances: The deadline for submission of Exceptional Circumstances in relation to this assignment is no later than five working days after the submission date of this work. Please contact the Director of Studies Team - DoS@london.aru.ac.uk. See rules 6.112 6.141:
http://web.anglia.ac.uk/anet/academic/public/academic_regs.pdf
- You will be required to send your lecturer a reference list, using Harvard referencing format, at least 24 hours prior to your allocated debate date and time.
- No Power Point or written form of the debate will be required.
PRESENTATION TASK
In groups of two, you will debate a contemporary issue relating to the healthcare industry against an opposing group. In preparation for the debate, you will research the debate question from both perspectives: the affirmative and opposing teams—each student will research one argument from the affirmative and opposing perspective. Arguments must be underpinned by sound evidence. On the day, your debate perspective will be chosen by the tutor.
During the debate, you will be required to use the Policy debate structure that has been introduced during the module. Each student will present their arguments within a time frame and be prepared for cross-examination from the opposing team. Each student must contribute 5 minutes overall, and the tutor will chair the debate.
Debate Structure
|
Debate segment |
Team |
Time |
|
Main argument |
Affirmative Team |
4 minutes max |
|
Main argument |
Opposing Team |
4 minutes max |
|
Cross examination |
Affirmative Team |
2 minutes max |
|
Cross examination |
Opposing Team |
2 minutes max |
|
Rebuttal |
Affirmative Team |
2 minutes max |
|
Rebuttal |
Opposing Team |
2 minutes max |
|
Final Statement |
Affirmative Team |
2 minutes max |
|
Final Statement |
Opposing Team |
2 minutes max |
|
|
||
Debate Topics
Groups will choose one of the following questions to debate:
- Artificial intelligence in health and social care – friend or foe?
- Women should be granted sick leave when experiencing menstrual ill health.
- The NHS should invest more resources into becoming environmentally sustainable.
ASSESSMENT CRITERIA
You will be assessed on your capacity to develop a well-supported argument for or against the selected debate topic. In addition to presenting at least one well- resourced argument during the main argument, you will also be expected to participate in the cross-examination or rebuttal.
Your debate will be assessed against the learning outcomes. You can find more information about the marks in table 1.
A Code of Conduct (CoC) violation can result in you losing marks for the assessed debate.
The CoC states that students must:
- Behave in a respectful and courteous manner towards the chair and other participants
- Avoid interrupting other participants; speak only when allocated to by number / the chair
- Not engage in verbally / physically offensive behaviour (e.g. swearing, shouting, prejudiced / personal comments)
- Avoid reading from a pre-prepared statement; the lecturer may ask you to stop, reduce your marks, or terminate your attempt altogether
- Abide by any other rules present within ARU, London disciplinary regulations not listed above
- Elucidate contemporary issues relating to the Healthcare Industry
While you may bring notes along to assist you, you must not read a prepared argument in place of presenting your own live. This assessment is designed to test your ability to participate in structured debates and present a sound researched argument, not whether you can read out loud.
READING REQUIREMENT
Students are required to evidence their argument using at least three academic sources from the ARU digital library. These can include:
- Journal articles relevant to the debate topic.
- Relevant reports/data/information from credible websites and organisations (please refer to the resources section on the VLE for more guidance)
- Academic books/textbooks
- Kortext
- Academic databases and/or Google Scholar
Artificial intelligence in health and social care – friend or foe? Women should be granted sick leave when experiencing menstrual ill health. The NHS should invest more resources into becoming environmentally sustainable.
|
Table 1 The work will be assessed in an integrative manner as indicated in the marking rubric, that is consistent with Anglia Ruskin University generic assessment criteria and marking standards |
||||||||
|
Criteria / Grade |
0-29%: Absent, deficient or inadequate evidence of knowledge, Absent, deficient or inadequate evidence of academic/ expressive/ professional skills |
30-39%:
Little evidence of knowledge. Little evidence or use of scholarly conventions. |
40-49%: Adequate knowledge, use of scholarly conventions inconsistent. Adequate academic/ expressive/ professional skills. |
50-59%: Sound knowledge, use of scholarly conventions inconsistent. Sound academic/ expressive/ professional skills. |
60-69%: Good analysis- consistent use of scholarly conventions. Good Academic/ Expressive/ Professional skills |
70-79%: Excellent analysis-high level of intellectual rigour and consistency. Excellent academic/ expressive/ professional skills |
80-89%: Outstanding analysis-Work pushes the boundaries of the discipline. Outstanding Academic/ Expressive/ professional skills and creativity |
90-100%: Exceptional analysis -Work pushes the boundaries of the discipline. Exceptional Academic/ Expressive/ professional skills and creativity |
|
LO1: Knowledge and Understanding Elucidate contemporary issues relating to the Healthcare Industry |
Inadequate or deficient level of relevancy of key arguments to given topic. Inadequate or deficient justification of / elaboration on key arguments. Inadequate or deficient range & level of evidence used to support cross examination & rebuttals |
Limited level of relevancy of key arguments to given topic. Limited justification of / elaboration on key arguments. Limited range & level of evidence used to support cross examination & rebuttals |
Adequate level of relevancy of key arguments to given topic, Adequate justification of / elaboration on key arguments. Adequate range & level of evidence used to support cross examination & rebuttals |
Sound level of relevancy of key arguments to given topic. Sound justification of / elaboration on key arguments. Sound range of mid-level evidence used to support cross examination & rebuttals |
Good level of relevancy of key arguments to given topic. Good justification of / elaboration on key arguments. Good range of mid-to-high- level evidence used to support cross examination & rebuttals |
Excellent relevancy of key arguments to given topic. Excellent justification of / elaboration on key arguments. Excellent range of high- level evidence used to support cross examination & rebuttals |
Outstanding relevancy of key arguments to given topic. Outstanding justification of / elaboration on key arguments. Outstanding range of high- level evidence used to support cross examination & rebuttals |
Exceptional relevancy of key arguments to given topic. exceptional justification of / elaboration on key arguments. Outstanding range of high-level evidence used to support cross examination & rebuttals |
|
40 Marks |
0-11 |
12-15 |
16-19 |
20-23 |
24-27 |
28-31 |
32-35 |
36-40 |
|
LO4: Intellectual, practical, affective and transferable skills Analyse and critique current themes and best practice in Healthcare Management |
Contributions wholly inappropriate for the context. Cross examination & rebuttals inadequate or deficient in terms of tone and delivery. Inadequate or deficient management of initiation & turn-taking. Little-to-no attempt to interact with other debaters. |
Contributions are limited & inappropriate. Cross examination & rebuttals limited in terms of tone and delivery. Limited management of initiation & turn-taking. Prohibitively dominant in discussion / significant difficulty sustaining interaction |
Contributions are adequate & frequently not appropriate. Cross examination & rebuttals adequate in terms of tone and delivery. Adequate management of initiation & turn-taking. May frequently dominate the discussion or have difficulty sustaining interaction. Elucidate contemporary issues relating to the Healthcare Industry |
Most contributions are mainly appropriate & effective. Cross examination & rebuttals sound in terms of tone and delivery. Sound management of initiation & turn-taking. May dominate the discussion or have some difficulty sustaining interaction |
Contributions are generally both appropriate & effective. Cross examination & rebuttals good in terms of tone & delivery. Good management of initiation & turn-taking. Occasionally dominates the discussion, although shows awareness & appropriate strategies to rectify this. |
Contributions are consistently both appropriate & effective. Cross examination and rebuttals excellent in terms of tone & delivery. Excellent management of initiation & turn-taking. Rarely dominates the discussion / demonstrates awareness & appropriate strategies to rectify where appropriate |
Contributions are universally appropriate & effective. Cross examination and rebuttals outstanding in terms of tone & delivery. Outstanding management of initiation & turn- taking. Proportionality of contributions is outstanding |
Contributions are universally appropriate & effective. Cross examination and rebuttals in terms of tone & delivery. Exceptional management of initiation & turn- taking. Proportionality of contributions is exceptional |
|
40 Marks |
0-11 |
12-15 |
16-19 |
20-23 |
24-27 |
28-31 |
32-35 |
36-40 |
|
Debate delivery/ Academic skills Presentation in terms of structure, language and Harvard referencing.
You can lose some or all marks for an assessed debate by committing a Code of Conduct (CoC) violation. |
Use of formal, academic language appropriate to the debating arena / debate theme is limited or deficient.. Limited or deficient use of persuasive tone and academic caution. Limited or deficient use of rhetorical structures such as definition, metaphor / analogy etc. Limited use of language to develop logical arguments via deployment of linking words & repetition of key terminology |
Use of formal, academic language appropriate to the debating arena / debate theme is limited. Limited use of persuasive tone and academic caution. Limited use of rhetorical structures such as definition, metaphor / analogy etc. Limited use of language to develop logical arguments via deployment of linking words & repetition of key terminology |
Use of formal, academic language appropriate to the debating arena / debate theme is adequate. Adequate use of persuasive tone and academic caution. Adequate use of rhetorical structures such as definition, metaphor / analogy etc. Adequate use of language to develop logical arguments via deployment of linking words & repetition of key terminology |
Use of formal, academic language appropriate to the debating arena / debate theme is sound.. Sound use of persuasive tone, balanced with academic caution where appropriate. Sound use of rhetorical structures such as definition, metaphor / analogy etc. Sound use of language to develop logical arguments via deployment of linking words & repetition of key terminology |
Use of formal, academic language appropriate to the debating arena / debate theme is good. Good use of persuasive tone, balanced with academic caution where appropriate. Good use of rhetorical structures such as definition, metaphor / analogy etc. Good use of language to develop logical arguments via deployment of linking words & repetition of key terminology |
Use of formal, academic language appropriate to the debating arena / debate theme is excellent. Excellent use of persuasive tone, balanced with academic caution where appropriate. Excellent use of rhetorical structures such as definition, metaphor / analogy etc. Excellent use of language to develop logical arguments via deployment of linking words & repetition of key terminology |
Use of formal, academic language appropriate to the debating arena / debate theme is outstanding. Outstanding use of persuasive tone, balanced with academic caution where appropriate. Outstanding use of rhetorical structures such as definition, metaphor / analogy etc. Outstanding use of language to develop logical arguments via deployment of linking words & repetition of key terminology |
Use of formal, academic language appropriate to the debating arena / debate theme is exceptional. Exceptional use of persuasive tone, balanced with academic caution where appropriate. Exceptional use of rhetorical structures such as definition, metaphor / analogy etc. Exceptional use of language to develop logical arguments via deployment of linking words & repetition of key terminology |
|
20 Marks |
0-5 |
6-7 |
8-9 |
10-11 |
12-13 |
14-15 |
16-17 |
18-20 |
ANGLIA RUSKIN UNIVERSITY GENERIC ASSESSMENT CRITERIA AND MARKING STANDARDS LEVEL 6 (was level 3)
|
Level 6 is characterised by an expectation of students’ increasing autonomy in relation to their study and developing skill sets. Students are expected to demonstrate problem solving skills, both theoretical and practical. This is supported by an understanding of appropriate theory; creativity of expression and thought based in individual judgement; and the ability to seek out, invoke, analyse and evaluate competing theories or methods of working in a critically constructive and open manner. Output is articulate, coherent and skilled in the appropriate medium, with some students producing original or innovative work in their specialism. |
||||
|
Mark Bands |
Outcome |
Generic Learning Outcomes (GLOs) (Academic Regulations, Section 2) |
||
|
Knowledge & Understanding |
Intellectual (thinking), Practical, Affective and Transferable Skills |
|||
|
Characteristics of Student Achievement by Marking Band |
90-100% |
Achieves module outcome(s) related to GLO at this level |
Exceptional information base exploring and analysing the discipline, its theory and ethical issues with extraordinary originality and autonomy. Work may be considered for publication within Anglia Ruskin University |
Exceptional management of learning resources, with a higher degree of autonomy/exploration that clearly exceeds the assessment brief. Exceptional structure/accurate expression. Demonstrates intellectual originality and imagination. Exceptional team/practical/professional skills. Work may be considered for publication within Anglia Ruskin University |
|
80-89% |
Outstanding information base exploring and analysing the discipline, its theory and ethical issues with clear originality and autonomy |
Outstanding management of learning resources, with a degree of autonomy/exploration that clearly exceeds the assessment brief. An exemplar of structured/accurate expression. Demonstrates intellectual originality and imagination. Outstanding team/practical/professional skills |
||
|
70-79% |
Excellent knowledge base that supports analysis, evaluation and problem-solving in theory/practice/ethics of discipline with considerable originality |
Excellent management of learning resources, with degree of autonomy/research that may exceed the assessment brief. Structured and creative expression. Very good academic/ intellectual skills and practical/team/professional/problem-solving skills |
||
|
60-69% |
Good knowledge base that supports analysis, evaluation and problem-solving in theory/ practice/ethics of discipline with some originality |
Good management of learning resources, with consistent self-directed research. Structured and accurate expression. Good academic/intellectual skills and team/practical/ professional/problem solving skills |
||
|
50-59% |
Sound knowledge base that supports some analysis, evaluation and problem-solving in theory/practice/ethics of discipline |
Sound management of learning resources. Some autonomy in research but inconsistent. Structured and mainly accurate expression. Acceptable level of academic/ intellectual skills going beyond description at times. Sound team/practical/professional/problem- solving skills |
||
|
40-49% |
A marginal pass in module outcome(s) related to GLO at this level |
Adequate knowledge base with some omissions at the level of theoretical/ethical issues. Restricted ability to discuss theory and/or or solve problems in discipline |
Adequate use of learning resources with little autonomy. Some difficulties with academic/intellectual skills. Some difficulty with structure/accuracy in expression, but evidence of developing team/practical/professional/problem-solving skills |
|
|
30-39% |
A marginal fail in module outcome(s) related to GLO at this level. Possible compensation. Satisfies qualifying mark |
Limited knowledge base. Limited understanding of discipline/ethical issues. Difficulty with theory and problem solving in discipline |
Limited use of learning resources. Unable to work autonomously. Little input to teams. Weak academic/ intellectual skills. Still mainly descriptive. General difficulty with structure/accuracy in expression. Practical/professional/ problem-solving skills that are not yet secure. Elucidate contemporary issues relating to the Healthcare Industry |
|
|
20-29% |
Fails to achieve module outcome(s) related to this GLO. Qualifying mark not satisfied. No compensation available |
Little evidence of knowledge base. Little evidence of understanding of discipline/ethical issues. Significant difficulty with theory and problem solving in discipline |
Little evidence of use of learning resources. Unable to work autonomously. Little input to teams. Very weak academic/ intellectual skills. Work significantly descriptive. Significant difficulty with structure/accuracy in expression. Little evidence of practical/professional/problem-solving skills |
|
|
10-19% |
Deficient knowledge base. Deficient understanding of discipline/ethical issues. Major difficulty with theory and problem solving in discipline |
Deficient use of learning resources. Unable to work autonomously. Deficient input to teams. Extremely weak academic/intellectual skills. Work significantly descriptive. Major difficulty with structure/accuracy in expression. Inadequate practical/professional/ problem-solving skills |
||
