All assessments for Units 1 and 2 are school-based. The determination of a satisfactory (S ) or not satisfactory (N ) for each of Units 1 and 2 is a separate consideration from the assessment of levels of achievement. This distinction means that a student can receive a very low numerical score in a formal assessment task but still achieve an S for the outcome.
The decision about satisfactory completion of outcomes is based on the teacher’s judgment of the student’s overall performance on a combination of set work and assessment tasks related to the outcomes. Students should be provided with multiple opportunities across the learning program to develop and demonstrate the Key Knowledge and Key Skills required for the outcomes for the unit. If a student, in the judgement of the teacher, did not meet the required standard for satisfactory completion of the outcome through the completion of the set work and assessment task(s) then they should be afforded additional opportunities to demonstrate the outcome through submitting further evidence; for example, a teacher may consider work previously submitted (class work, homework), additional tasks or discussions with the student that demonstrate their achievement of the outcome (i.e. a student can demonstrate their understanding in a different language mode, such as through speaking rather than writing) as further evidence provided it meets the requirements and is consistent with the established school processes.
Procedures for assessment of levels of achievement in Units 1 and 2 are a matter for schools to decide. Schools have flexibility in deciding how many and which assessment tasks they use for each outcome, provided that these decisions are in accordance with VCE Philosophy Study Design and VCE Assessment Principles.
Teachers should note the cognitive demand of the command terms in the outcome statements to determine the type of teaching and learning activities and evidence of student understanding that will be needed for students to demonstrate satisfactory completion of each outcome.
Unit 3 sample approach to an assessment task
Outcome 1
On completion of this unit the student should be able to discuss philosophical questions related to the good life and the individual.
When constructing assessment materials for outcomes 1 and 2 in unit 3, a number of styles of assessment are valid including:
- an essay
- a written analysis
- an extended written response to a stimulus
- short-answer responses
- a written reflection
- presentations (oral, multimedia)
- a dialogue (oral, written)
One essay task is required for Unit 3.
Example 1 – Short-answer test
A short-answer test is well suited to assessing textual and outcome knowledge. When constructing a short-answer test, consider two key factors
- What key information from the set text(s) to be included in the assessment are most relevant to this outcome?
- What Key Knowledge does the set text(s) most closely align to?
With this in mind, a short-answer test can be constructed.
For this example, the assumptions made are that two texts from the course will be included to assess the Key Knowledge of the outcome.
Short-answer tests often include instructional verbs such as:
- Outline
- Explain
- Evaluate
- Compare
- Justify
- Apply
- Give an example
An example of a two-text short-answer test aimed at taking students approximately 40 minutes might consist of the following:
-
Outline [philosopher 1]’s argument regarding the role that pleasure plays in a good life, using an example.
-
Outline [philosopher 2]’s argument regarding the role that pleasure plays in a good life.
- Which view ([philosopher 1 or 2]) do you agree with most?
Justify your view.
- Philosopher 1] claims [‘insert quote’].
Outline what they mean by this in relation to friendship.
- How might [philosopher 2] respond to this?
Explain why this is so, making reference to their ideas and/or arguments.
- How important is friendship to a good life in your opinion?
Justify your thinking by making reference to the views of either [philosopher 1] or [philosopher 2].
-
Outline [philosopher 1]’s understanding of freedom and
apply it to a contemporary example to illustrate what it would look like in practice.
Example 2 – Essay
Another common assessment approach, which is required at least once in Unit 3, is an essay where students are often given a prompt or a stimulus, or a combination of both, and asked to construct an extended piece of writing.
A stimulus could take the form of a quote, a short extract from a longer piece of writing, an image, or a piece of writing constructed by the assessor specifically for the task. It could also comprise several of these.
A prompt is often a question or statement to which students must respond. In the prompt, it is sensible to include key outcome language as well as instructions on specific philosophers that should be included in the response. This will help guide students towards the intended goal.
It is common for an essay task to include multiple options from which students can choose.
The following is an example of an option that could be included as part of an essay task. This stimulus is in the form of a piece of writing constructed by the assessor:
‘It seems to me that in a world where the population is swelling to an unimaginable size, it is more than ever imperative to prioritise the individual. There is little scope as an individual to focus on the group and make a particularly meaningful difference when they are so many and I am so few, but in focusing on ourselves we can make a staggering difference in our own life. Establishing clear personal desires, developing plans to achieve them, and activating our strategy – this is what happiness is derived from. Not from some misguided notion of helping others through small actions that make little actual difference.
Critically discuss this perspective on the role of pleasure in happiness. In your response, draw on viewpoints and arguments from [philosopher 1] and/or [philosopher 2]. You may also draw on other philosophical concepts and sources.
Unit 4 Sample approaches to developing an assessment task
Outcome 1
On completion of this unit the student should be able to discuss philosophical questions relating to belief, belief formation and justification, and discuss the interrelationship between believing well and living well.
When constructing assessment materials for Outcomes 1 and 2 in unit 4, a number of styles of assessment are valid including:
- an essay
- a written analysis
- an extended written response to a stimulus
- short-answer responses
- a written reflection
- presentations (oral, multimedia)
- a dialogue (oral, written)
Example 1 – An extended written response to a stimulus
An extended written response can be a strong approach for assessing multiple texts in a single piece of writing. These tasks are usually intended to take students 20–30 minutes of consistent writing. They usually involve a stimulus and multiple instructional verbs or key questions to which students must respond in that piece of writing.
A stimulus could take the form of a quote, a short extract from a longer piece of writing, an image, or a piece of writing constructed by the assessor specifically for the task. It could also comprise several of these.
The following is an example of a stimulus constructed by the assessor. It is followed by a key question to which students must respond, based on the stimulus.
‘One common issue with legal testimony is the question of expertise and peer disagreement. When presented with two equally qualified and knowledgeable experts who testify opposing positions, it is not unreasonable for the jury of average everyday people to question the validity of the scientific process that led to such debate. How can any testimony be believed when it is apparently so easy to present counter points that challenge it robustly, on presumably short notice for a trial, and with a reputable expert? Of course, it may be the case that one expert is ultimately found by their own peers in the scientific community to have the more valid approach and is hence more reliable. But the jury may have no way of knowing that in the confines of the trial and hence, when deciding whether they believe the account of a crime presented by the prosecution or the defense, it is apparent that they may have to defer to sources other than the expert to justify their belief. This of course begs the question of what relevance the expert’s testimony really played in aiding the jury in their deliberation and belief formation.’
Question: How damaging is peer disagreement to the value of expert testimony for belief formation?
In answering this question, you should:
- consider the argument presented in the stimulus
- consider how [philosopher 1] would respond to this question
- consider how [philosopher 2] would respond to this question
- give your own justified response to this question.
Example 2 – Essay
Another common approach, which is required at least once in Unit 4, is an essay where students are often given a prompt or a stimulus, or a combination of both, and asked to construct an extended piece of writing.
A stimulus could take the form of a quote, a short extract from a longer piece of writing, an image, or a piece of writing constructed by the assessor specifically for the task. It could also comprise several of these.
A prompt is often a question or statement to which students must respond. In the prompt, it is sensible to include key outcome language as well as instructions on specific philosophers that should be included in the response. This will help guide students towards the intended goal.
It is common for an essay task to include multiple options from which students can choose.
The following is an example of an option (a prompt) that could be included as part of an essay task:
‘When someone disagrees with us but we believe we are right, we are morally obliged to challenge them with a view to proving them wrong.’
Critically discuss this claim on the moral imperatives associated with disagreement. In your response, draw on viewpoints and arguments from [philosopher 1] and/or [philosopher 2]. You may also draw on other philosophical concepts and sources.