Module Title: Contemporary Welfare and Social Policy

Module Code: 326HSC

Assessment Type:

Coursework

Assessment Number:

1

Study Mode:

FT

Weighting:

Submission Date:

Choose Date

Submission Time:

Choose an item.

Campus:

CUC-CUL-CUS

40%

Introduction:

The aim of this module is to introduce social policy and its application in the UK, as well as making comparisons between UK welfare services and the rest of the world. It investigates the origins of social policies in the UK and their development as well as delivery mechanisms in contemporary society and the impact that policy has on service users. The many factors that influence social policy, including conceptual, political, and other agents of social change will be explored. Tracing developments primarily from 1945 to the present, students will compare and contrast major competing perspectives and examine key contemporary issues for policy makers, welfare recipients, providers and stakeholders. Students will develop an understanding of sources of state welfare services and other diverse sources such as the market, family and voluntary sector

Completion of this assignment will address the following learning outcomes:

2

Critically evaluate the UK welfare provision and compare to welfare systems that exist outside of the UK

3

.

Critically appraise key concepts and ideas from social policy.

5

Compare and contrast major ideological perspectives relating to the operation of social policy.

6

Critically analyse key contemporary issues for policy makers, welfare recipients, providers or stakeholders.

Task:

Policy debate 15-20 min (Groups of up to 4) with individual contribution assessed.

Required Task

In groups of 4 you have 15-20 minutes to conduct a debate on
ONE
of the below propositions:

·
Government activity does more harm than good when it comes to welfare

Or

·
Uk Social policy has failed the ageing population

2 of you will argue for a proposition, 2 against. The debate structure will be in 2 parts:

1. Opening arguments

Person A: 3 mins arguing FOR the proposition

Person B: 3 mins arguing AGAINST the proposition

Person C: 3 mins arguing FOR the proposition

Person D: 3 mins arguing AGAINST the proposition

2. Cross examination

Person A & C: 2 mins rebuttal to the points raised by opponents (or 2 mins questions from examiners?)

Person B & D: 2 mins rebuttal to the points raised by opponents (or 2 mins questions from examiners?)

Students will be
marked individually
during this task

Debating Tips

· Do not worry if you find yourself arguing for a position you do not actually agree with – in fact a good debater should be able to summarise their opponents case at least as well as their own.

· Given the limited time available it is important to be succinct; think about how to make your points clearly and convincingly.

· Carefully plan your argument in collaboration with your partner; ensure that you do not repeat points made by one another.

· Try and anticipate arguments that you think your opponent will make, so that you are ready to rebut them.

· When your opponents speak, make notes of their points and respond to them during the rebuttal period. If you can argue against specific points made by an opponent your own case will look stronger.

· However, remember that a debate is not an argument – it is not about winning at all costs. If an opponent makes a good point do not worry about conceding it, perhaps considering how this could be incorporated into your own position.

Guidance notes and considerations

· Ensure that you prepare well to ensure that you can make your argument within the time limit

· Be sure to draw on appropriate evidence to strengthen your case. This may take the form of statistics, academic studies or expert opinion.

· Agree the proposition your group will debate early and begin research and planning as soon as you can.

· Use tutorials and allocated class time to prepare and practice debating

· Ensure you have good communication and presentation skills

Banding

Knowledge and Understanding

(30%)

Analysis, Interpretation and Application of Theory

(30%)

Quality of Research

(20%)

Academic Presentation

(20%)

90-100%

Exceptional knowledge base exploring and analysing the discipline and its theory with extraordinary originality and autonomy.

Demonstrates an exceptional grasp of relevant analytical techniques, and the ability to apply these to new and/or abstract information and situations. Shows a highly developed appreciation of the limits and/or appropriate uses of particular analytical and evaluative approaches. Knowledge and understanding of theory, where relevant, is highly detailed. Exceptional appreciation of the limits of theory demonstrated throughout all assessment outcomes. Approach to assessment task is theoretically informed to an exceptional standard.

Exceptional exploration of wider academic sources with a high degree of independent learning which exceeds the assignment brief. Sources have been accurately interpreted and integrated with flawless synthesis, leading to innovative and interesting ideas. With some adjustments, work may be considered for internal publication.

Exceptional answer with coherent and logical presentation of ideas. The answer exhibits a clear argument/line of reasoning with flair and originality. Discipline specific vocabulary used with precision. No language errors present and oral communication fully captivates the audience through highly engaging resources and visual aids, if applicable, exceptionally high levels of eye contact and no reliance on notes. If applicable, exceptional responses are given to any questions posed. Referencing in the CU version of Harvard has been employed in an accurate manner. With some adjustments, work may be considered for internal publication.

80-89%

Outstanding knowledge base exploring and analysing the discipline and its theory with clear originality and autonomy.

Demonstrates an outstanding grasp of relevant analytical and/or evaluative techniques. Shows a developed appreciation of the limits and/or appropriate uses of particular analytical and/or evaluative approaches. Knowledge and understanding of theory, where relevant, is detailed and sophisticated. Appreciation of the limits of theory demonstrated throughout the work. Approach to assessment task is clearly and appropriately theoretically informed.

Outstanding exploration of wider academic sources with a high degree of independent learning which exceeds the assignment brief. Sources have been accurately interpreted and integrated with a high degree of analysis and application, leading to innovative and interesting ideas.

Outstanding answer with coherent and logical presentation of ideas. The answer exhibits a clear argument/line of reasoning with flair and originality. Discipline specific vocabulary used with precision. No language errors present and oral communication captivates the audience through engaging resources and visual aids, if applicable, outstanding levels of eye contact and little to no reliance on notes. If applicable, outstanding responses are given to any questions posed. Referencing in the CU version of Harvard has been employed in an accurate manner.

70-79%

Excellent knowledge base that supports analysis and/or interpretation and problem-solving in theory and/or practice within the discipline, with considerable originality.

Demonstrates a detailed, accurate, theoretical understanding. Appropriately selected theoretical knowledge is applied to the individual learning outcomes. Makes excellent use of established techniques of analysis and/or evaluation relevant to the discipline and applies these effectively. Shows developed ability to appraise alternative theories and/or analytic approaches, where relevant,

Excellent exploration of wider academic sources with evidence of independent learning which may exceed the assignment brief. Sources have been accurately interpreted and integrated with an attempt made at synthesis, leading to interesting ideas.

Excellent answer with coherent and logical presentation of ideas. The answer is entirely relevant and focused with a clear argument/line of reasoning throughout. Discipline specific vocabulary used with precision and oral communication captivates the audience through engaging resources and visual aids, if applicable, excellent levels of eye contact with minimal reliance on notes. If applicable, excellent responses are given to any questions posed. No language errors present. Referencing in the CU version of Harvard has been employed in an accurate manner.

60-69%

Very good knowledge base that supports analysis and/or interpretation and problem-solving in theory and/or practice within the discipline, with some originality displayed.

Makes very good use of established techniques of analysis and/or evaluation relevant to the discipline. Shows developing ability to compare alternative theories and/or analytic approaches, where relevant.

Very good evidence of wider academic reading and independent learning. Sources have been accurately interpreted and integrated with some evidence of synthesis.

Very good answer with coherent and logical presentation of ideas. The answer is relevant and focused. Discipline specific vocabulary is used. Minimal language errors may be present but do not impact on clarity of expression. Oral communication somewhat captivates the audience through resources and visual aids, if applicable, which are mostly engaging, very good levels of eye contact with only some reliance on notes. If applicable, very good responses are given to any questions posed. Referencing in the CU version of Harvard is accurate.

50-59%

Good knowledge base that supports some analysis and/or interpretation and problem-solving in theory and/or practice within the discipline.

Makes good use of established techniques of interpretation, application and/or analysis, where relevant to the module learning outcomes. Sound descriptive knowledge of key theories, where relevant, with some appropriate application.

Good evidence of academic reading, with attempt at moving beyond the recommended texts. Interpretation of sources is acceptable with evidence of integration.

Good answer with coherent and logical presentation. The answer is largely relevant but lacks focus at points. There is an attempt at using discipline specific vocabulary. Some language errors are present which impacts on clarity at times. Oral communication generally captivates the audience through resources and visual aids, if applicable, which are generally engaging, with good levels of eye contact but a noticeable reliance on notes. If applicable, good responses are given to any questions posed. Referencing in the CU version of Harvard is mostly accurate.

40-49%

Satisfactory knowledge base demonstrating comprehension and formulation of basic knowledge with some omissions at the level of theoretical understanding.

Limited ability to discuss theory and solve problems within the discipline.

Makes satisfactory but limited use of established techniques of analysis and/or evaluation, relevant to the discipline. Selection of theory, if relevant to the assessment outcomes is satisfactory but application and/or understanding is limited.

Satisfactory evidence of academic reading, with minimal attempt to move beyond the recommended texts. Interpretation of sources is acceptable, but there may be some instances of misunderstanding.

Satisfactory answer with some attempt at coherence and logical presentation. The answer contains some irrelevant material and lacks focus at points. There is minimal use of discipline specific vocabulary. Some language errors may be present which impacts on clarity at times. Oral communication satisfactorily captures the audience, but resources and visual aids, if applicable, have clear areas for development. Eye contact with the audience is minimal and there is a strong reliance on notes. If applicable, satisfactory responses are given to any questions posed. Referencing in the CU version of Harvard is mostly accurate but with some errors.

35-39%

(Marginal Fail)

Outcomes not or only partially met. Restricted knowledge base demonstrated. Limited understanding of discipline. Difficulty with linking theory and problem solving within the discipline.

Attempts at analysis, where relevant, and interpretation are ineffective and/or uninformed by the discipline. Knowledge of theory, where relevant, is inaccurate and/or incomplete. Choice of theory inappropriate. Application and/or understanding demonstrated is very limited.

Limited evidence of reading at an academic level. Sources used may be inappropriate and interpreted poorly. Little evidence of integration.

Answer is attempted but limited. Lack of coherence and logical presentation. The answer contains mainly irrelevant material and lacks focus throughout. Language errors are present and impact on clarity of expression. Oral communication does not sufficiently capture the audience, and resources and visual aids, if applicable, have significant areas for development. Eye contact with the audience is minimal and there is a complete reliance on notes. If applicable, limited responses are given to any questions posed. Referencing in the CU version of Harvard is inconsistent.

0 – 34%

Little or no evidence of knowledge base. Little evidence of understanding of discipline. Significant difficulty with theory and problem solving within the discipline.

Absence of relevant theoretical content and/or use of theory, where relevant. Lacks any analysis and interpretation.

Inadequate evidence of reading at an academic level with poor application of sources and ideas. Answer is likely to include inappropriate references which are misunderstood and not integrated. Possibility of plagiarism OR no evidence of academic research. Answer may not be research based.

Answer is inadequate with serious flaws in coherence and presentation. Poorly structured with multiple language errors which impact on clarity. Oral communication does not sufficiently capture the audience, and resources and visual aids, if applicable, are insufficient. No eye contact with the audience there is a complete reliance on notes. If applicable, limited or no responses are given to any questions posed. Weak application of CU version of Harvard referencing style.