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
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:
1. The same principles of person-centred care should apply to those in the criminal justice system.
2. People should be able to register with a GP without a fixed address.
3. Cervical screening should take place every year.
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 wellresourced 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 following learning outcomes.
LO1 – Analyse contemporary issues within the health and/or social care sector.
LO3 – Examine how contemporary issues impact local and/or national policy.
Please consult the rubric in table 1 to find out more about how your marks will be calculated.
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
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.
You will be expected to support your argument using at least three reliable sources of evidence. These can be from government or institutional reports, websites, journals, or articles from credible news sources.
References must be submitted to your lecturer prior to the debate assessment.
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%: Deficient
or no evidence of knowledge, Absent or inadequate evidence of academic/
expressive/ professional skills |
30-39%: Limited
evidence of knowledge. Little evidence or use of
scholarly conventions. |
40-49%: Adequate knowledge, use of
scholarly conventions inconsistent. Basic academic/ expressive/ professional
skills. |
50-59%: Sound
knowledge, use of scholarly conventions inconsistent. Satisfactory academic/
expressive/ professional skills. |
60-69%: Good analysis- consistent use of
scholarly conventions. Good Academic/ Expressive/
Professional
skills |
70-79%: Excellent analysishigh
level of intellectual rigour and consistency.
Excellent academic/ expressive/ professional skills |
80-89%: Outstanding
analysisWork 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 |
Deficient or no level of relevancy of key arguments
to given topic. Inadequate justification of / elaboration on key
arguments. Inadequate 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,
Basic justification of / elaboration on key arguments. Basic range & level of evidence used to support
cross examination & rebuttals
|
Sound level of relevancy of key arguments to given topic. Satisfactory justification
of / elaboration on key
arguments. Satisfactory 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 midto-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 deficient in terms of tone and delivery. Inadequate management of
initiation & turntaking. 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.
Cross examination & rebuttals
basic in terms of tone and delivery. Basic management of initiation
& turntaking. May frequently dominate the discussion
or have difficulty sustaining
interaction. |
Most contributions are
mainly sound & effective. Cross examination & rebuttals
adequate in terms of tone and
delivery. Satisfactory management of
initiation & turntaking. 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 & turntaking. 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 &
turntaking. 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 &
turntaking. 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 deficient. No use of persuasive tone and academic caution. Deficient use of rhetorical structures such as definition, metaphor / analogy etc. Deficient 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. Basic use of
persuasive tone and academic caution. Adequate use of rhetorical structures such as definition, metaphor / analogy
etc. Basic 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. Satisfactory use of persuasive tone, balanced with academic caution where
appropriate. Sound use of rhetorical structures such as definition, metaphor / analogy etc. Satisfactory 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 |