School-Assessed Coursework Report: VCE Philosophy 2014 2018

School-assessed Coursework Report: VCE Philosophy 2014–2018

This report is provided for the first year of implementation of this study and is based on the coursework audit and VCAA statistical data.

Unit 3

General Comments In most regards, the assessment tasks that were audited were able to satisfy the requirements of the new VCE Philosophy Study Design in Unit 3. The assessment tasks that were audited indicated a consolidated understanding of a majority of the key skills. It was also apparent that teachers are taking inspiration from other sources, such as the VCE Philosophy Assessment Handbook or the recently published textbooks for VCE Philosophy, when constructing tasks. However, there was very little material that was copied directly from such sources, with all schools developing their own assessment tasks with their particular cohorts in mind. There have been several changes to the study design that require the careful attention of teachers. The most obvious changes include new areas of study, and, in general, assessment tasks have been attentive to the new key knowledge. However, there have been additions to key skills that warrant further attention. One such change in Outcome 1 is the critical consideration of historical and contemporary debates, including scientific developments. Another change is the critical discussion of thought experiments as required by the key skills in Outcome 2. While contemporary debates were consistently mentioned in assessment tasks in a broad manner, these particular changes warrant closer attention and will be discussed in more detail later on in the report, in relation to each outcome. Another major change is the requirement for at least two assessment tasks per outcome: for every outcome, one of these tasks must be an essay task. Many schools completed both an essay and one other task in one sitting; however, many schools chose to set these different tasks at different times. Either approach can be effective. The rubrics that teachers provided were all copied or derived from the Assessment Handbook. It is important to note that while these assessment criteria are designed to fit each outcome, they are not mandated. It is possible and even desirable to further specify or modify assessment criteria and rubrics to more clearly match the assessment tasks that have been developed. For instance, the broad rubric in the Assessment Handbook may not always help a student identify what is required to properly address a particular short-answer question. Several teachers were able to clarify how marks were allocated in essay tasks by creating simpler marking rubrics for students to use alongside the criteria as specified in the Assessment Handbook. This is commendable, however, in general teachers, should try to extend this practice to other assessment tasks. Giving students a clear indication of how marks are allocated within particular components of an assessment task is

© VCAA 2015 Page 1 School-assessed Coursework Report: VCE Philosophy 2014–2018 one possible way to help students address the common difficulty of addressing all aspects of a question. With this in mind, it was not always apparent where marks were allocated in a particular question: for instance, in a question instructing students to ‘analyse’ and ‘evaluate’ an argument from a set text, one instruction – either ‘analyse’ or ‘evaluate’ – may be worth more marks. Nor was the allocation of marks always proportionate between different types of questions within a particular task: two similar instructions may be allocated a different number of marks. Additionally, comparisons or critical comparisons are required for each outcome in Unit 3, along with some consideration of viewpoints and arguments in light of contemporary debates. This is a change from the previous study design. Questions of the latter type, which are arguably more demanding of students, were consistently given less weight in the assessment tasks that were audited. In all assessment tasks audited, there was a consistent attempt to provide an opportunity for all students to excel. Strategies used by schools include giving students a choice between multiple questions, or allowing them to draw from a variety of sources to address a particular question. A majority of the assessment tasks were able to clearly word questions to meet a variety of key skills. Each assessment task had at least some mention of contemporary debates and it was in these questions that students were usually given an opportunity to select a contemporary debate that they felt comfortable writing or speaking about. Given the strong focus on analysis and evaluation of philosophical arguments that was found in the audited assessment tasks, some further clarifying remarks need to be made regarding the opportunity for students to excel at VCE Philosophy. In devising questions that allow all students a fair opportunity to demonstrate their philosophical skills and knowledge, several considerations need to be made. Firstly, if there is choice between alternate questions, it must be ensured that students will be answering an equivalent set of questions both in terms of difficulty and mark distribution. For instance, the distribution of marks between different sorts of questions, such as outlining arguments or responding to contemporary debates, must be the same for each student regardless of their choice. This ensures consistency of their marking in relation to the outcome. Secondly, while it may benefit many students to be able to refer to a particular contemporary debate of their choosing, some students may need to be supported with more structured activities. Students should also be able to respond to a particular or specified contemporary debate: perhaps through reference to a provided stimulus piece, such as a quote, short article or image. In giving all students an opportunity to excel and demonstrate their abilities in VCE Philosophy, one last point deserves some clarification. Across the audited assessment tasks there was a strong emphasis on analysis and evaluation of particular arguments from within the prescribed set texts. While this is a requirement for VCE Philosophy, it is not sufficient. Nor is it good philosophy. Questions that only direct students towards the prescribed texts will not necessarily be reflecting the skills and understanding of philosophical debates that they are capable of, as not every key knowledge or skill explicitly mentions prescribed texts: students are also expected to understand important philosophical concepts, and critically discuss them in historical and contemporary contexts. There are only one or two key skills for each outcome that explicitly mention set texts. Students should be working towards this key skill in Area of Study 2 of Unit 4, in which prescribed texts and reference to wider sources should be drawn upon: locate viewpoints and arguments on the nature of the good life in a range of sources [emphasis added]

© VCAA 2015 Page 2 School-assessed Coursework Report: VCE Philosophy 2014–2018 It is clear from the audited tasks that teachers are explicitly teaching students common evaluations of arguments found within the prescribed texts. But as philosophers, we also want students to be justifying their own views and arguing to their own sophisticated conclusions. Questions asking students to outline and evaluate particular arguments can be successfully completed by rote learning, whereas questions that ask students to justify their own views in response to a novel debate or philosophical problem cannot be so easily responded to. In assessment tasks, students need to be given opportunities to go beyond the set texts in a manner that allows them to display their philosophical ability beyond the rote-learned standard critical appraisal of prescribed texts. This is needed to give students the opportunity to demonstrate their highest possible performance in assessment tasks.

Specific information

Unit 3 coursework

Outcome 1 Discuss concepts relating to the mind, psyche and body, and analyse and evaluate viewpoints and arguments concerning the relationship between the mind and body, and psyche and body, found within and across the set texts and in contemporary debates.

Task type options The student’s performance on each outcome is assessed by: at least one essay and at least one of the following: short-answer responses test written analysis written exercises written reflection dialogue (oral, written) presentation (oral, multimedia).

/ 50 marks The large majority of schools chose to approach this outcome with two or three separate assessment tasks. There was only one instance in which a single assessment task was designed to cover the entire outcome. However, every school chose to break the assessment tasks down into multiple parts, whether they were contained within the one or across multiple tasks. The use of short-answer questions, accompanied by an essay task, was the most common way of assessing Outcome 1. Short-answer tasks were always awarded a higher proportion of marks from the outcome than the essay tasks. Well-constructed questions in these tasks were able to use precise language to clearly direct students, requiring students to make use of key skills as specified in the study design. Short- answer questions easily allow more specific instruction in relation to key skills such as comparison

© VCAA 2015 Page 3 School-assessed Coursework Report: VCE Philosophy 2014–2018 and evaluation, making this type of task useful as ‘assessment for learning’. It should be noted, however, that other types of tasks, such as essays, can be scaffolded for learning, if clear and precise instruction is given. In general, short-answer questions regarding the mind and the body were constructed well, with questions that were able to clearly and precisely address specific arguments, viewpoints or concepts within the prescribed texts. One positive note is that every school in the audit was able to include at least one question referencing contemporary debates, and at least one question asking students to make comparisons between arguments in some form. In the previous study design, the first area of study in Unit 3 did not ask students to perform such tasks, so this indicates that teachers are familiar with the requirements of the revised study design. In regard to contemporary debates, some short-answer and essay questions simply asked students to refer to a contemporary debate in their response. Others specified a contemporary debate for students to discuss with reference to one or more particular philosophers. Most questions that specified a contemporary debate used examples common from the previous study design’s Unit 4 Outcome 1, such as how the relationship between the mind and the body impacts on the possibility of Artificial Intelligence. Few assessment tasks specified a contemporary debate with reference to the psyche and when they did it was invariably about the possibility of life after death. This might indicate that many of the short-answer questions on the mind-body have been recycled from tasks in previous years. There is no reason why the psyche cannot also be discussed in light of contemporary debates, such as stem-cell research, the status of animal intelligence or robotics. Several assessment tasks failed to meet the requirements of the study design in part due to the assessing of ‘the relationship between the … psyche and the body’ in Outcome 1. All of the assessment tasks that were audited were able to include questions that directly referenced the psyche. However, teachers must make sure that it is arguments regarding the relationship between the psyche and body that is being assessed. While it is necessary for students to understand what is meant by concepts such as the psyche, this is not sufficient to meet Outcome 1. Interestingly, few of the audited assessment tasks asked students to make a comparison between arguments from the Phaedo and arguments from other prescribed texts. Given that this text is being taught for the first time, it is perhaps not surprising. While it is acceptable that assessment tasks instruct students to make comparisons between particular set texts, but not all of them, this is an area within this outcome that teachers may wish to explore in more depth in the future as it touches on the more difficult aspects of the area of study. Given that many students in Unit 3 are studying philosophy for the first time, one approach would be to set a task addressing these more difficult aspects of the area of study for later in the semester. Here is an example of an essay question that required students to make such a comparison between Phaedo and other prescribed text: With reference to Socrates’ and Descartes’ ideas on the soul/mind, write a three-point defence of dualism/substance dualism. With reference to Armstrong’s Essay on Mind, what arguments might he use against dualism and support his understanding of what the mind is. Do you think modern science moved beyond the ideas expressed by DM Armstrong nearly 50 years ago? (30 marks) Although this is a complex question involving several instructions, it is noteworthy for explicitly addressing the key knowledge and skills regarding historical and contemporary developments in science:

© VCAA 2015 Page 4 School-assessed Coursework Report: VCE Philosophy 2014–2018 historical and contemporary debates related to the concepts of mind or psyche and body and their relationship, and the impact of the development of science on these debates situate the set texts and their viewpoints and arguments in the contexts of relevant historical and contemporary debates and scientific developments. This was an aspect of this area of study that few assessment tasks explicitly addressed in the wording of questions. However, a greater emphasis on these requirements might prove to be a useful foundation when considering contemporary debates in Unit 4. The use of philosophical terminology and concepts such as psyche was not always the same between schools. Some schools opted to use the word psyche as described by the study design, some used the word ‘soul’ as used in the Phaedo, and some used the word ‘mind’ when referring to Socrates’ viewpoints or arguments. Many used a mixture of all three within assessment tasks. Language as specified by the study design should be the primary source when constructing assessment tasks: including the teaching and learning activities that lead up to an assessment task, which should include understanding a link between terminology in the study design and translations found in prescribed texts. Teachers should be very careful when referencing philosophical concepts, precisely because they are contested: for example, there are different senses of psyche or soul, which are discussed within and across various prescribed texts across Units 3 and 4. To use contested concepts broadly or ambiguously in questions will mean that students are in danger of equivocating or making assumptions to the detriment of their arguments. In particular, teachers must be wary of students who may conflate the concept of psyche with that of the mind.

Assessment The assessment criteria for Outcome 1 provided in the Assessment Handbook were enthusiastically utilised in developing criteria for the assessment of student work. Some interesting modifications to these criteria included dividing them into dot-points, simplifying the language for students and specifying the mark allocation of each criterion in essay tasks. Many assessment tasks paid careful attention to the ratio of allocated marks between differing skills: while there was a general tendency to include more questions requiring skills of analysis and outlining of arguments, many tasks had a good balance between marks allocated for the analysis and those allocated for evaluation of viewpoints and arguments. Making comparisons between viewpoints or discussing contemporary debates were two aspects of this outcome that were allocated the least amount of marks overall. On average, in short-answer tasks, there was only one question allocated to either or both of these skills, often receiving less than 10 per cent of the allocated marks for the outcome. Given that many students may be studying philosophy for the first time, this may indicate that teachers feel such tasks to pose a more significant challenge for their cohorts. The essay tasks usually stressed that comparison between arguments was necessary with reference to criteria, however this instruction was left open for students to write on arguments of their choosing. Two further points need to be raised in response to several of the audited assessment tasks. Firstly, the mark allocation between equivalent questions should be consistent within a given assessment task: for example, a short-answer question asking students to outline an argument should not be given the same mark allocation as a question asking students to outline and evaluate another argument. In some audited tasks, questions with the exact same instructions were allocated a different amount of marks and it was unclear as to why this was the case. Secondly, if students are given a choice between different questions, it should be readily apparent

© VCAA 2015 Page 5 School-assessed Coursework Report: VCE Philosophy 2014–2018 that these questions are assessed by the same criteria: for example, a choice between two essay questions may be misleading if one question explicitly asks for a comparison between arguments whereas the other does not. Even if it is stated that these questions are assessed by the same criteria, the wording of a question may mislead some students. Teachers should aim to model the clear and precise language as specified in key skills across all outcomes of Units 3 and 4 of VCE Philosophy, particularly when allocating marks and devising questions in assessment tasks.

Outcome 2 Analyse, compare and evaluate theories of personal identity in the set texts and discuss related contemporary debates.

/ 50 marks Schools again chose to either develop multiple assessment tasks for Outcome 2, or to break the assessment task into two or more sections. A wider range of assessment task types were used for this outcome, including various written tasks and an oral presentation to accompany the required essay task. Significantly, many schools elected to focus on lengthier extended response questions in addition to the essay. This corresponds with the release of the Sample Exam paper, which could suggest that teachers are hoping to give students more practice with these lengthier written responses. ‘Teaching to the exam’ does not necessarily allow students the opportunity to best display their philosophical abilities. School-assessed Coursework provides the opportunity to collect a wider range of evidence of philosophical understanding and ability. The manner in which schools approached assessment tasks for this new outcome varied in that there was little repetition between either tasks or individual questions. This suggests that teachers are drawing from a number of resources when developing these tasks. Most of the prescribed texts were referred to explicitly by questions; however, Locke and Hume were the most consistently mentioned philosophers. Interestingly, no task referred to specific sections of the Santideva text. The most common reason that assessment tasks failed to address this outcome was the lack of comparison or evaluation. Whilst all assessment tasks made reference to the suggested criteria provided in the Assessment Handbook, many failed to explicitly mention comparisons or evaluation of arguments in questions or task instructions. This was particularly the case with the wording of essay questions, but the issue also arose in short-answer questions. In a majority of cases, this seemed more like a lack of clarity or precision in the phrasing of questions. All schools were able to incorporate an explicit mention of thought experiments in their assessment tasks, in accordance with the requirements of the key knowledge and key skill:

© VCAA 2015 Page 7 School-assessed Coursework Report: VCE Philosophy 2014–2018 a range of thought experiments used by philosophers to explore positions on personal identity explore the consequences of thought experiments for philosophical positions on personal identity. These key skills and knowledge were incorporated in assessment tasks in a number of different ways. Many essay tasks made explicit mention of thought experiments, as did other types of written task. Some tasks asked students to critically discuss a particular thought experiment found within the set text, whereas other asked students to draw from any particular thought experiment relating to personal identity. Occasionally students were instructed to respond to other thought experiments with reference to arguments from within the prescribed texts. Multiple schools decided to explore thought experiments in the context of contemporary debates, which opens up an interesting dialogue between the relevant key knowledge and skills. Some contemporary debates referenced were issues surrounding body image, gender, cloning, and other ongoing scientific developments regarding our bodies, such as bio-enhancements. While most schools seem to understand ‘contemporary debates’ as referring to actual contemporary problems or issues, some teachers approach this more broadly: for instance, the implications of potential scientific advancements. This broader definition may be more compatible with thought experiments as given in our current set of prescribed texts; however, this is not the only way to approach these key skills and knowledge. The Advice for Teachers document includes some examples of how this may be approached, however it is not mandatory advice. In contrast to assessment tasks described in Outcome 1, tasks for Outcome 2 were more likely to use open-ended or concept-based questions. For instance, a more open question might ask students to refer to Locke’s arguments, or to empiricist/Buddhist arguments regarding personal identity. A concept-based question might inquire about memory and its relation to personal identity, with reference to arguments from the prescribed texts. The fact that such questions were more common in this outcome might be a response to the number of texts prescribed for this outcome, or the diversity of arguments therein, or it could simply be a response to a large change in the study design. That there were less short-answer type questions used in this outcome may also be relevant on this point. The more clearly-worded assessment tasks were able to find a balance between open-ended questions and a clear focus on key skills and knowledge, such as knowledge of arguments from the prescribed texts. For example, this question allows students to have flexibility in their response, yet provides a clear structure that they must adhere to in developing a critical response: ‘Outline one of Locke’s thought experiments and explain how it supports his argument about personal identity. Critically compare this with a relevant argument that Hume, Nagasena or Santideva might present in response. (10 marks)’ Questions may also provide stimulus for students to respond to within an assessment task, whether this is an outline of an argument from within the prescribed texts, or another resource relevant to the area of study. Many questions contained multiple instructions, as does the example given above. For some questions, this caused difficulties. For example, it is still quite common for a question to instruct students to ‘outline and evaluate’ a particular argument. One difficulty with this bifurcated instruction is that students who make errors in their outline of an argument will often then fail to receive marks for their ensuing evaluations. A useful strategy is to break a question up into multiple parts, or to simplify the question. For example, if one wanted to focus on comparisons between arguments, some further content could be provided for students to simplify instruction:

© VCAA 2015 Page 8 School-assessed Coursework Report: VCE Philosophy 2014–2018 ‘[Short summary of particular thought experiment.] Critically compare this with a relevant argument that Hume, Nagasena or Santideva might present in response. (6 marks)’

Again, as in Outcome 1, there is a connection between key knowledge in Outcome 2 and the knowledge students will be developing in Unit 4. For instance: Western and Buddhist arguments for scepticism about personal identity and the implications of these arguments for questions of moral responsibility None of the schools participating in the audit chose to explicitly address this key knowledge when constructing assessment tasks. While it is not a requirement of the study that students make connections between Units 3 and 4, this does not mean that an opportunity to do so must be ignored. One approach to this key knowledge is to make a connection with Unit 4, just as one approach to some of the questions in Unit 4 is to include consideration of what was covered in Unit 3. Some assessment tasks made reference to the contemporary debates referenced in Area of Study 2 in Unit 4. These debates included bio-enhancements, medical science (such as drugs that affect our moods or memories) or robotics, as well as our relationship with others. The new study design provides opportunities to make connections between different areas of study, directly, as shown in the key knowledge above, or indirectly, as shown by contemporary debates in Unit 4 Area of Study 2.

Assessment The assessment criteria for Outcome 2 provided in the Assessment Handbook were again enthusiastically utilised in developing criteria for the assessment of student work. There has been a conscious effort by some teachers to help students prepare for the exam by structuring their assessment tasks in a similar manner to the new exam structure. While this is a common approach, School-assessed Coursework provides the opportunity to gather a wider range of evidence of student ability. Schools should feel encouraged to modify assessment criteria to better reflect the tasks that they will be assessing. In regards to mark allocation in particular, it was unclear exactly how student responses would be graded on a number of different tasks. Including a clear rubric or criteria for particular types of questions is one way to help assessment be for, and not just of, learning. However, in doing so, teachers should carefully reference the study design to ensure that integral aspects of the outcome are not neglected. Making comparisons between viewpoints, evaluating arguments or critically discussing views were the aspects of this outcome that were allocated the least amount of marks overall. Again, questions instructing students to evaluate or compare viewpoints or arguments were allocated a smaller ratio of the overall marks in comparison to questions asking outlines or analysis of arguments. However, this was less of a concern in this second area of study. The most underrepresented skill in assessment tasks for Outcome 2 was making comparisons between different texts, arguments or viewpoints: several assessment tasks failed to explicitly ask students to make comparisons between different viewpoints and arguments. As previously stated, this difficulty can be easily rectified with more precisely-worded questions.

Unit 4

General Comments A large majority of Unit 4 assessment tasks that were audited met the requirement of the study design successfully. This is not surprising, given that the current study of the good life in Unit 4 closely resembles previous study designs in many ways. The significant changes were clearly identified by most teachers, and while each area of study was approached well, it was also clear that teachers were most comfortable with Area of Study 1. Most problems arose in relation to the allocation of marks given in a particular task, or how an overall mark would be determined between the tasks from both outcomes. Again, there were some tasks that did not give enough opportunity for students to demonstrate particular key skills: such as comparing viewpoints and arguments in Area of Study 1, or the ability to ‘formulate and defend a reasoned philosophical response’ in Area of Study 2. In some cases these skills were not clearly emphasised in the provided assessment criteria or rubrics. All of the schools that were audited were again able to show careful consideration of assessment requirements. While Outcome 1 was assessed primarily through written tasks, Outcome 2 was assessed in a number of different ways. The Assessment Handbook was again used in the creation of assessment criteria and rubrics. There were many different types of assessment criteria used for Outcome 2, which may be due to the differences in this area of study compared with previous study designs. In noting the different approaches that teachers have taken in their assessment tasks, it is encouraging that the specification of ‘general questions’ and ‘contemporary debates’ in Unit 4 has not narrowed the range of philosophical or contemporary debates that teachers feel that they can approach through coursework or assessment tasks. Students were in general provided with more open-ended tasks in Unit 4, allowing them the opportunity to draw from the philosophical sources that best allowed them to demonstrate their abilities. There are still signs that the set texts are a key focal point in the construction of assessment tasks in Unit 4, with many tasks for Outcome 1 in particular focusing on analysis and evaluation of particular arguments within the prescribed texts at the expense of other key skills. This concern was previously noted in the Unit 3 report. Of course, skills such as making comparison or developing justified critical responses can often depend upon successfully understanding viewpoints, arguments and concepts found in the set texts. From the selection of assessment tasks audited, it can be inferred that teachers may be finding it difficult to design tasks that assess such higher-order skills, particularly in relation to the amount and the length of set texts that are currently prescribed within the available time allocated to the study of Unit 4.

Specific information

Unit 4 coursework

Outcome 1 Analyse, compare and evaluate the philosophical viewpoints and arguments in the set texts in relation to the good life.

© VCAA 2015 Page 10 School-assessed Coursework Report: VCE Philosophy 2014–2018 Task type options The student’s performance on each outcome is assessed by: at least one essay and at least one of the following: short-answer responses test written analysis written exercises written reflection dialogue (oral, written) presentation (oral, multimedia).

/ 60 marks Outcome 1 is similar to other outcomes relating to the good life in previous study designs, and this was usually reflected in the precise and carefully constructed assessment tasks that were audited. The main concerns in this outcome revolved around ambiguities in mark allocation or task conditions. Students should be given ample opportunity to understand the requirements of a task and how it contributes to their overall grade for the unit. A majority of schools opted to use multiple assessment tasks in assessing Outcome 1. Those who chose to assess the outcome using one assessment task again broke the task up into different sections, including the required essay task. Assessment tasks for this outcome generally took the form of written responses, with short-answer questions featuring prominently alongside the essay. Some extended response questions were used. Several tasks asked students to critically reflect on their response to a previous question within the given task. Many tasks made use of quotes or images as stimulus pieces for written responses. Again, short-answer tasks did not include many questions asking students to make comparisons between philosophers, nor did they include many questions asking students to justify their own position. This may indicate that questions drawn from the previous study design have been recycled here without careful consideration of their suitability for the revised study. Teachers should ensure that enough weight is given to all aspects of an outcome. Well-designed questions were often able to explicitly draw from concepts within the ‘general questions’ described in the key knowledge: assumptions made and viewpoints and arguments proposed in the set texts relating to these general questions: What, if anything, does an understanding of human nature tell us about the good life? What does the good life have to do with being morally good? What is the nature of happiness and what is its role in the good life? What is the relationship between the good life for an individual and for broader society? These general questions were used as a basis from which to instruct students to outline, evaluate, or make comparisons between the viewpoints and arguments of particular philosophers. For example, one school created an essay task that allowed students to compare and evaluate © VCAA 2015 Page 11 School-assessed Coursework Report: VCE Philosophy 2014–2018 arguments from the set texts in relation to a particular concept of their choosing. Several essay topics were provided to choose from, each taking a similar structure and referring to a different concept relating to the good life. This is an example of one of these essay questions: ‘Socrates, Callicles, Aristotle, Nietzsche and Singer all have different views on what makes for a happy life. Evaluate the position of ONE classical philosopher (Callicles included) and ONE modern philosopher on how happiness might be attained. Which view would you support and why?’

Assessment The assessment criteria for Outcome 1 provided in the Assessment Handbook were again enthusiastically utilised in developing criteria for the assessment of student work. Often this was modified for the sake of a task, or simplified to help students understand the requirements of a task. When assessing essays, some teachers are using older marking criteria, which although compatible with the study design, may lead to confusion among students, particularly if it uses vastly different terminology to the study design. The instructions given to students need to be clear and consistent across the year. Teachers should continue modelling the clarity and precision of language that the study design asks for. In all assessment tasks involving short-answer questions, there was a good balance between tasks requiring analysis and tasks requiring evaluation of arguments, which was an area of concern in the last Coursework Report. In comparison, tasks requiring students to make comparisons between viewpoints or arguments were occasionally given less emphasis than other tasks – as was the case in Unit 3. This was made more confusing in the instances where a marking criteria for the whole outcome was provided, but did not match with how marks were actually allocated in short-answer questions or between different tasks.

Outcome 2 Discuss contemporary debates related to the good life and the interplay between social and technological developments and conceptions of the good life.

© VCAA 2015 Page 12 School-assessed Coursework Report: VCE Philosophy 2014–2018 / 40 marks Tasks created for the final area of study were varied; however, schools generally noted the requirement to include an essay task. Many schools included a research task in this area of study, with the research collected used in essays, oral or multimedia presentations, and written tasks of a variety lengths. The range of contemporary debates concerning the good life has been broadly specified as ‘debates on consumerism, technology and our obligations to others in relation to the good life’. This was clearly identified and assessed by all of the audited tasks, and there was a wide range of appropriate contemporary debates that were drawn from this broad requirement. The specification of debates in the study design does not appear to have restricted teachers in the construction of tasks: students were often given the opportunity to choose from a range of debates, or were given guidelines to develop their own research topic. The fact that students are expected to draw from ‘a range of sources’ when locating philosophical viewpoints or arguments in Area of Study 2 has meant that assessment tasks have been approached in many different ways. When designing tasks for Outcome 2, teachers have usually asked students to draw from particular set texts from the previous area of study. In particular, it has been common to reference arguments from set texts identified as relevant to debates concerning consumerism, such as those found in Singer and Gorgias. Suggestions from the Advice for Teachers and Resources documents were drawn upon by many teachers; however, it is clear that a number of other relevant sources of philosophical viewpoints or arguments have been identified from a variety of different mediums (books, podcasts, online articles, videos, and so on). Students were often provided with an impressive list of resources from which to explore, and/or encouraged to identify relevant material for themselves. None of the audited schools indicated that they would be referring back to previous knowledge from Unit 3 in developing their coursework for Unit 4 Area of Study 2. As previously noted in this report, while not an essential requirement of the study, this could provide an interesting opportunity for students to both consolidate and extend their previous knowledge from Unit 3, particularly when exploring debates surrounding technology and our responsibility to others. Interestingly, this key skill (and its corresponding key knowledge point) received little attention in the majority of assessment tasks: evaluate the interplay between conceptions of the good life and social and technological developments. The ‘interplay’ described above is integral to the outcome description. Here is one good example of an essay question which incorporates this key knowledge, provided in an essay task as one possible question that students could select from: ‘In his article ‘The Case Against Perfection: What's wrong with designer children, bionic athletes, and genetic engineering’ (The Atlantic Monthly, April 2004, Volume 293, No. 3; 51-62), Michael Sandel writes, “I do not think the main problem with enhancement and genetic engineering is that they undermine effort and erode human agency. The deeper danger is that they represent a kind of hyperagency − a Promethean aspiration to remake nature, including human nature, to serve our purposes and satisfy our desires. The problem is not the drift to mechanism but the drive to mastery. And what the drive to mastery misses and may even destroy is an appreciation of the gifted character of human powers and achievements.” Make your own case, either for or against the use of the genetic engineering of humans.’

© VCAA 2015 Page 13 School-assessed Coursework Report: VCE Philosophy 2014–2018 Assessment Outcome 2 tasks were commonly assessed by criteria that referred to the development of arguments, critical reflection, and the evaluation of argument. Many of the criteria used were borrowed from previous years, and are appropriate as a general summary of key skills and knowledge in philosophy. This was the same for essay tasks, as well as other research or presentation tasks. Criteria used were able to refer back to the specified contemporary debates of consumerism, technology and our obligation to others. The best rubrics were able to clearly identify to students how marks were allocated in particular tasks and across Outcome 2. The distribution of marks across key knowledge and skills was generally done well here. However, there are two key skills in this Outcome – also new to this study design – which may be beneficial to make explicit in future assessment criteria or rubrics: interpret and synthesise source material formulate and defend a reasoned philosophical response using precise language. While these skills could arguably fall under the banner of ‘critical reflection’ or ‘development of argument’, the fact that they do not arise until this last outcome indicates that they bring sophistication that is not necessarily implied in critical reflection. In particular, being able to ‘defend’ a philosophical response should include the ability to overcome or respond to criticisms that might be raised against a position. The more sophisticated student responses to Outcome 2 tasks will be able to use counterarguments to support their conclusions, and making this clear in assessment criteria will help students to understand the level of sophistication to which they should be aiming for in their own argumentation.