Little Evidence of Engagement with Learning Module Content or Stimulus Material - Management Assignment Help

Assignment Task:

Task:

Assessment Task Two: Short Answer Questions (35 marks)
Overview

• This task has two parts. It is important that you complete both parts to ensure that you are in a good position to maximise your marks.
• The first part is an initial response to each short answer question that you prepared for your workshops.
• You should have completed a draft of all 8 short answer questions in preparation for your workshops 1-4. This will have given you an opportunity to reflect on your initial responses whilst working through this with your peers during the workshop. This engagement may have solidified your response or inspired you to rethink your initial thoughts concerning the questions.
• Your response should be your thoughts on the question and the key content based on what you have learned. It may also include relevant personal, professional, or academic perspectives and experiences
• There are no right/wrong answers; it is the quality of your argument we are interested in: how it is stated, how it is explained, and how it is justified.
• In class discussion should help you to think about how your response can be improved and/or refined.
• The second part is a refined response to 4 of the short answer questions, utilising a variety of readings and resources.
• Final Submission Due Date: Tuesday 21st September 2021, 11.59pm.
• Module Question
• Module 1 SAQ1: Are people inherently good?
• Module 1 SAQ2: Would you go back and kill Baby Hitler?
• Module 2 SAQ3: Should COVID 19 vaccinations be made mandatory?
• Module 2 SAQ4: Can ‘eugenics’ be defended?
• Module 3 SAQ5: Should monuments dedicated to those involved in colonisation be torn down?
• Module 3 SAQ6: Does cancel culture stifle freedom of speech?
• Module 4 SAQ7: Is it ethical to be a billionaire?
• Module 4 SAQ8: Should humans explore outer space?
• Final Submission
• Final Submission Due Date: Tuesday 21st September 2021, 11.59pm.
• Turnitin Submission of one document with your final responses to four questions.
• You need to refine responses to FOUR of the Short Answer Questions: ONE from each of modules 1, 2, 3 and 4. Only ONE question for each module will be marked.
• Your response should reflect your engagement with both individual and group learning, showing considered philosophical reflection of theory and applied ethics settings. It is important that you link the question to (some of) the theory covered within the unit.
• There are no right/ wrong answers; it is the quality of your argument we are interested in: how it is stated, how it is explained, and how it is justified.
• Each response should be 250 words (word count for entire document is 1000 words).
• There is a 10% leeway on the entire submission (i.e. minimum word count = 900 words, maximum word count = 1100 words).
• ***YOU WILL BE PENALISED IF YOU GO ABOVE THE OVERALL 10% WORD COUNT BUFFER***
• That is:
• 1101 - 1201 words = 1 mark
• 1202 - 1302 words = 2 marks, and so forth
• Each question will be marked on its own merits, so you should not sacrifice the word count of 1 question, to allow a longer response on another question.
• DO NOT provide an introduction nor conclusion to your submission.
• You should clearly indicate which question you are responding to using appropriate sub-headings (not included counted in the word count).
• You should respond to each question as succinctly as possible. You should use Formal Academic English. You are encouraged to make use of Studiosity and the Study Smart resources to ensure a well-written response
• Rubric for each question
• No Attempt Unsatisfactory Satisfactory Good Very Good Excellent
• No attempt Shallow response to the question. Little evidence of engagement with learning module content or stimulus material. Little understanding of the issue being discussed, and the ethical theory at work. Satisfactory response to question. Evidence of engagement with learning module content and/or stimulus material. Weak Awareness of the issue being discussed, and attempts to link to theoretical material of the module. Good response to question. Clear evidence of engagement with provided learning module content and/or stimulus material. Evidence of growth and refinement of ideas following group learning. Good awareness of the issue being discussed, and demonstrates insightful links to theoretical material of the module. Very good response to question. Strong engagement with learning module content and/or stimulus material. May also utilise additional resources to develop and support angle of argument and philosophical perspective. Strong evidence of growth and refinement of ideas following group learning. Strong awareness of the issue being discussed, and demonstrates insightful links to theoretical material. Excellent response to question. Very strong Engagement with provided and additional resources to develop and support angle of argument and philosophical perspective. Strong evidence of growth and refinement of ideas following group learning. Outstanding awareness of the issue being discussed, and demonstrates insightful links to theoretical material, perhaps with a novel perspective.
• Reference requirements for final submission (3 marks)
• A minimum of 3 references utilised for each question.
• A reference list should be provided at the end of each question (not included in the word count).
• These must be cited at some point within your response to the question.
• At least 2 of these should be scholarly references.
• Acknowledge all sources and influences on your ideas.
• Due to the small word counts for each question, you are encouraged to paraphrase in your own words, rather than to directly quote material from readings.
• No attempt Unsatisfactory Satisfactory Excellent
• No References Doesn’t meet minimum number of references for each question (3 references) or scholarly reference requirements, or references are not cited within the text. Meets minimum number of references for each question (3), as well as having 2 scholarly references for each question. May have some issues with referencing or in-text citation style. Exceeds expectations with regards to reading. Referencing and in-text citation style is consistently correct (Harvard or APA).
• DETAILED LIST OF SHORT ANSWER QUESTIONS
• MODULE 1
• SAQ1: Are people inherently good?
• This asks whether people are at their core good. Your response should reflect your learning throughout the modules (but in particular module one), as well as other personal, professional, or academic perspectives and experiences. Remember it is the quality of your argument: how it is stated, how it is explained, and how it is justified; that we are interested in.
• STIMULUS
• Read:
• Dulaney, M. (2020) ''Real-life Lord of the Flies' author Rutger Bregman on why we need a kinderview of human nature', ABC Conversations, 21st May 2020, https:// www.abc.net.au/news/2020-05-21/rutger-bregman-lord-of-the-flies-human-nature/ 12263980
• and/or
• Listen: Fidler, R. (2020) 'A true Lord of the Flies story and what we got wrong about human nature', ABC Conversations, 12th May 2020,https:// www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/conversations/rutger- bregman-2020/12217968
• SAQ2: Would you go back and kill baby Hitler?
• If you had a time machine, would you go back and kill baby Hitler? Your response should reflect your learning throughout the modules (but in particular module one), as well as other personal, professional, or academic perspectives and experiences. Remember it is the quality of your argument: how it is stated, how it is explained, and how it is justified; that we are interested in.
• STIMULUS
• Read:
• Ford, M. (2015) 'The Ethics of Killing Baby Hitler. A moral dilemma is better understood as a historical one.', The Atlantic, 24th October2015, https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/10/killing- baby-hitler-ethics/412273/
• MODULE 2
• SAQ3: Should COVID 19 vaccinations be made mandatory?
• This question asks whether it is ethical to make COVID 19 vaccinations compulsory? Your response should reflect your learning throughout the modules, as well as other personal, professional, or academic perspectives and experiences. Remember it is the quality of your argument: how it is stated, how it is explained, and how it is justified; that we are interested in.
• STIMULUS
• Watch:
• "Mandatory COVID-19 vaccination: the arguments for and against": Julian Savulescu & Sam Vanderslotthttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXLaxP3VRu8“The ethics of vaccination: individual, collective, and institutional responsibilities”
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EEVhMX3Cqw“The ethics of mandatory vaccination”
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJ35iVTdbrA“Vaccination Ethics”
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bisOSGZRgpoand/or
• Read:
• Breakey, H (2020) “Acting selfishly has consequences right now – why ethical decision making is imperative in the coronavirus crisis” 24 March 2020, The Conversation, accessible via < https://theconversation.com/acting-selfishly-has-consequences-right-now-why-ethical-decision-making-is-imperative-in-the-coronavirus-crisis-134350>
• Bufacchi, V (2021) “Coronavirus: do we have a moral duty not to get sick?” 17th of March 2021, The Conversation, accessible via < https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-do-we-have-a-moral-duty-not-to-get-sick-148837>.
• SAQ 4: Can ‘eugenics’ be defended?
• This question asks if there is a case for the practice of eugenics. Your response should reflect your learning throughout the modules, as well as other personal, professional, or academic perspectives and experiences. Remember it is the quality of your argument: how it is stated, how it is explained, and how it is justified; that we are interested in.
• STIMULUS
• Read:
• Anomaly, J (2018) Defending eugenics. Monash Bioethics Review, 35(1), pp.24–35.
• Ryan, T (2018) “Open Letter to the editors of the Monash Bioethics Review”, 4 Dec 2018, ACRAWSA, available via < https://acrawsa.org.au/2018/12/04/open-letter-to-the-editors-of-the-monash-bioethics-review/>.
• Veit, Walter, Anomaly, J; Agar, N; Singer, P; Fleischman, D S ; Minerva, F, (2021) Can ‘eugenics’ be defended? Monash bioethics review, https://doi-org.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/10.1007/s40592-021-00129-1
• Wilson, R. 2019. Eugenics Undefended. Monash Bioethics Review 37 (12): 68–75.
• MODULE 3
• SAQ5: Should monuments dedicated to those involved in colonisation be torn down?
• This question speaks to the recent discussions over whether statues of those involved in colonialization should be removed from public spaces. Your response should reflect your learning throughout the modules, as well as other personal, professional, or academic perspectives and experiences. Remember it is the quality of your argument: how it is stated, how it is explained, and how it is justified; that we are interested in.
• STIMULUS
• Read:
• Associated Press (2021), “Confederate statue removed from city hall in Louisiana after 99 years”, 19 July 2021, The Guardian, accessible via < https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jul/18/confederate-statue-removed-city-hall-louisiana>.
• Carlson, B (2020), “Friday Essay: taking a wrecking ball to monuments – contemporary art can ask what really needs tearing down”, 12 June 2020, The Conversation, accessible via < https://theconversation.com/friday-essay-taking-a-wrecking-ball-to-monuments-contemporary-art-can-ask-what-really-needs-tearing-down-140437#comment_2250539>.
• Longstaff, S (2020) “The Ethics of tearing down monuments”, 12 June 2020, The Ethics Centre, accessible via <https://ethics.org.au/the-ethics-of-tearing-down-monuments/.
• Lydon, J & Laidlaw, Z (2021) “Friday essay: beyond ‘statue shaming’ — grappling with Australia’s legacies of slavery”, 9 July 2021, The Conversation, accessible via < https://theconversation.com/friday-essay-beyond-statue-shaming-grappling-with-australias-legacies-of-slavery-162934 >.
• Van Hensbergen, C (2020) “Public sculpture expert: why I welcome the decision to throw Bristol’s Edward Colston statue in the river”, 8 June 2020, The Conversation, accessible via < https://theconversation.com/public-sculpture-expert-why-i-welcome-the-decision-to-throw-bristols-edward-colston-statue-in-the-river-140285>.
• SAQ6: Does “cancel culture” stifle freedom of speech?
• This speaks to the phenomenon where public figures are “cancelled” on social media for expressing their (often controversial) views, and asks if this is a freedom of speech concern. Your response should reflect your learning throughout the modules, as well as other personal, professional, or academic perspectives and experiences. Remember it is the quality of your argument: how it is stated, how it is explained, and how it is justified; that we are interested in.

The above Management  Assignment has been solved by our  Management Assignment  Experts at My Uni Paper. Our Assignment Writing Experts are efficient to provide a fresh solution to this question. We are serving more than 10000+ Students in Australia, UK & US by helping them to score HD in their academics. Our experts are well trained to follow all marking rubrics & referencing style.

Be it a used or new solution, the quality of the work submitted by our assignment experts remains unhampered. You may continue to expect the same or even better quality with the used and new assignment solution files respectively. There’s one thing to be noticed that you could choose one between the two and acquire considered worthy of the highest distinction.