LAW3467 Health Law Assessment instructions Assessment

Homework answers / question archive / LAW3467 Health Law Assessment instructions Assessment overview This course consists of three assignments

LAW3467 Health Law Assessment instructions Assessment overview This course consists of three assignments

Law

Share With

LAW3467 Health Law Assessment instructions

Assessment overview

This course consists of three assignments. There is no examination. The three assignments consist of an essay proposal, an On-Line Quiz and a research essay.

The essay proposal allows you to focus on issues that particularly interest you by selecting a topic of your choice. You will then demonstrate your research and writing skills throughout the semester by developing your proposal into your final research essay.

The short essays allow you to demonstrate your understanding and capacity to apply course concepts to the ‘real world’ through news articles selected by you. Then, you will be expected to identify and critically evaluate the legal and ethical issues in your news articles and respond accordingly.

Description Marks out of Wtg (%) Due date

Assignment 1

Essay Proposal 10 10.00% See study schedule

11 July 2023

Assignment 2

On Line Quiz 40 40.00% See study schedule

15 Aug 2023

Assignment 3

Final Essay 50 50.00% See study schedule

1 Sept 2023

Assessment Information

The items you will be submitting for assessment in this course are designed to act simultaneously as both learning devices and as mechanisms for assessment. All assessment items are mandatory and must be submitted in order to pass the course. Students who do not complete an assessment item forfeit the marks attached to that assessment. The student’s final grade will be determined by the accumulated marks awarded for each assessment item. These assessments introduce students to new knowledge in the field of health but also to expand their research skills so that they are comfortable researching health and scientific literature and databases. That being said, all assessments will be marked against the rubrics within this document. Therefore, students are advised to read the assignment guidelines, instructions and marking rubric carefully before commencing each of their assessments.

The assessments in this course falls into three linked parts. The first assignment, the essay proposal, is worth 10 marks. Importantly, the essay proposal is linked to and provides a foundation for the final research essay. The second assignment is worth 40 marks and requires the student to complete an On-Line Quiz which will consist of two (2) Parts. Part A is marked out of 15 marks and Part B marked out of 25 marks) electronically via the Assignment 2 – On-Line Quiz portal in the Assessment Section of the LAW3467 study Desk. Further information is available below relating to this Assessment.

Part A consists of multiple choice and short answer questions. Part B is a problem-solving task. The Online Quiz does not require significant independent research. Students should rely on their course learning materials and prescribed readings to complete this test but may research further if thought necessary.

The assessments in this course attempts to mimic a busy work environment in terms of developing the students’ ability to follow instructions with confidence. It also aims to equip students with time management and application skills and capabilities by providing effective authentic written responses to all parts by the due dates. In busy law firms, new employees are often expected to research and locate information, critically analyse the information in context so as to provide well-supported, clear, succinct and logical propositions/arguments. Each of the parts of this summative assessment has a different due date. Despite this, remember all parts are linked and build as we work through the course.

Skills Development Information

In line with the teaching and learning objectives in this course (see Study Notes), the assessments have been specially designed to encompass Teaching and Learning Objectives (TLO). In this course, while all TLOs are developed, including ethics and professional responsibility and self- management skills, it is:

Research skills (TLO4) – that rely on thinking skills including ability to identify and articulate legal and ethical issues in a new field and apply legal reasoning and research to generate appropriate responses to those issues - and Communication skills (TLO5) that are the focus. These objectives are reflected in all aspects of this course. They are taught, practised and assessed. In relation to self-management, students are expected to be responsible for learning and working autonomously with emotional intelligence and integrity (being authentic/’true to self’).

Good research and communication skills require self-management skills – together these skills are highly valued by the legal profession and most employers, USQ Law School and the course examiner. As such, they influence the assessment. The aim is to assist students to build on these so that they can better define themselves as virtuous professionals.

Markup Codes

The following abbreviations and mark-ups will be used in marking assignments to provide comment on your work. In electronically submitted assignments, the codes below may be inserted after your text [in square brackets like this] or inserted as comments using track changes.

SP Spelling error

WC Indicates faulty or unclear word choice IS Indicates incomplete sentence

SC or G Indicates sentence construction or grammar is faulty A' Indicates apostrophe is misused or omitted

S/P Single and plural should match

Exp Indicates poor expression – your point could be stated more clearly

Cit Indicates source omitted - lacks citation

Ref Indicates format for references is not complete or not correct

Except where drawing attention to either effective or flawed sections of your argument, the comments made on the body of your assignments will largely be confined to notations corresponding to the marking code above. It is important, therefore, to refer to this code as you review your assignment on its return.

General marking criteria

Besides any specific requirements for each item of assessment, as described under the heading for that item, the following criteria will be applied, as appropriate, to each item of assessment.

Critical Reflection through authentic and original thinking

Your demonstration of original thinking by drawing on what you already know to write in a useful productive way to achieve the desired outcome (persuade the reader). This process of thinking, evaluating, processing and synthesising new knowledge with existing knowledge is limited only by the necessity to maintain relevance to the course and the conventions of legal writing. Some possible ways of demonstrating this are:

i. combine ideas from multiple sources in novel ways. You need to reference your sources

to demonstrate you have done this;

ii. view the arguments in the text from an original perspective;

iii. be critical of the positions taken in the text, including the study material (i.e. don’t take me as gospel); and

iv. develop an original argument by thinking laterally (drawing from existing: personal, legal, [law in other courses], factual knowledge obtained from reputable sources, personal health experience etc.) or drawing logical analogies and synthesising this into the current work.

In other words, mere regurgitation of material provided is neither desirable nor sufficient. I acknowledge that being original is risky and the rewards uncertain. However, as courage is an intellectual virtue I wish to foster it, and High Distinctions cannot be obtained in this course without taking some risks.

Coherent written argument leading to well-founded conclusions

You are expected to develop coherent or well-structured arguments leading to well-founded conclusion. Original ideas unavoidably clash with received opinion. The key to success in developing a good argument is:

• to uncover sources of information from a new field of research (e.g. health and social sciences, WHO and so on), and be able to analyse them, and to integrate the

information obtained with your original idea into a well-argued essay. Keep in mind the following:

o in order to develop an argument, you have to adopt a point of view or position from which to argue. Simply alternating between everyone else’s views won’t suffice;

o provide reasons for accepting the validity or plausibility of your position, along with evidence substantiating those reasons. You must reference your sources to substantiate your evidence;

o structure your argument so it is clear how and to what extent your reasons support your argument. Your conclusion should follow from your reasons;

o take into account and respond to alternative points of view, or counter evidence to the position you are taking. Failure to take into account and answer objections or alternative positions or arguments to your own reduces the effectiveness and strength of your argument. This will reduce your grade against this criterion.

Note: In another life, I was a legal practitioner engaged in consistent court appearances. I am not well disposed to essays that contain no argument.

Presentation (Writing Skills)

The impact of a good idea or well thought out argument is undermined by poor presentation. So, pay attention to:

• the quality of writing, especially with respect to:

o grammar, spelling, punctuation, and clear expression; and

o correct in-text citation and list of references or bibliography;

• legibility – typed, adequate margin, proof-read, spacing and so on;

• coherence;

• the connection between ideas, and their relationship to the overall argument should be clear;

? conformance with word length.

Relevance and Evidence of Understanding

An otherwise successful argument is flawed by faulty evidence. There are two main sources of faulty evidence: misunderstanding or misinterpreting another text; or, inadequate research, so demonstrate understanding of the sources you have used by:

• successfully putting the ideas in your own words;

• providing substantiated interpretations of the text(s), cases and statutes;

• not misinterpreting or misreading sentences by taking them out of context;

• drawing connections between one set of ideas and another;

• using an idea appropriately to make a new point; and

• You need to cite your sources to demonstrate you have used them.

Breadth and Depth

You cannot develop a convincing argument without considering a breadth of evidence and a range of perspectives. Demonstrate breadth of research by:

• reading and referring to more than the textbook/s provided in relation to both the theoretical legal and ethical concepts discussed and the particular topic they are applied to;

• Proper text and primary source material referencing, as well as a properly formatted references, are critical to demonstrating breadth of research.

• Depth of arguments must match the breadth of references. Only include in your list of references sources you actually refer to in the body of your assignment.

Note: Your assignments will be returned with a feedback sheet with comments and marked against the criteria listed in the relevant rubrics. If you cannot work out why you received the evaluation you did for any of the criteria please read the Reconsideration of Marks section at the end of this document before you contact the course lecturer. It is important for you to understand what you have done well and what you need to improve on for future assessment but to optimise any discussion, you must be specific.

Specific Marking Criteria and Rubrics

Students are encouraged to study the various marking rubrics in this course. The rubrics provide guidance on what is required to obtain marks for a specific assessment.

In this course, students must strictly adhere to the instructions to obtain the marks. The intention is to develop the students’ resilience to busy work environments (such as law firms) where:

• it is critical that instructions are followed (autonomous work - to be able to locate and report information is expected of law employees with research skills, digital literacy etc);

• access to instructing solicitors for further clarification is sometimes limited (senior partners may be absent in court, very busy with clients or difficult to approach and so on); and

• effective, succinct, ethical written communication, sensitive to audience, is critical.

Students are to use logical reasoning, deduction, reflection and the research skills they have developed in their law studies. While students may ask the course examiner for more information on what is required, a response will be given only once they have exhausted other avenues to inform themselves. This might involve, for example, using the Student Forum on the Study Desk to ask other students (as they would with other junior law employees) for assistance in clarifying what is required. This form of student interaction is considered to be engagement and is encouraged in this course.

NOTE, however, to avoid allegations of collusion, the final written work must remain independent. Avoid using the same news stories, for example. Further, apart from the materials available on the Study Desk, there is a great deal of information on the internet about research assessment and writing clearly, succinctly and reflectively that can be independently researched by students.

All marks are awarded at the discretion of the marker and part marks are rarely awarded. ‘Top marks’ are marks allocated for evidenced higher learning and independent learning through engagement with additional materials located by the student. This includes, for example, reputable materials on effective/good written communication, effective writing and critical reflection etc. This type of information can then be cited in the assessment. Evidence of this deeper engagement requires more than mere citations, however. It must also be woven into the text of the answer to gain marks.

Assignment 1 & 3: Research Proposal and Essay

Assignments 1 and 3 form part of the research essay. Together they are worth 60% of the marks in this course. As such they will be discussed together. Assignment 2 is discussed under a separate heading.

Background

Legal practitioners are often required to manage responses to new policy projects. This requires a critical analysis of policy options and their legal and ethical implications. As such, this assessment aims to develop students’ ability to:

A. project manage a response to a policy issue;

B. analyse policy options and their legal and ethical implications; and

C. familiarise themselves with databases beyond those generally used in law.

Note: Like a supervisor, the course examiner is available to guide you in this project. Engagement with the supervisor is encouraged and part of formative assessment. Allow time for regular discussions by zoom or by phone.

The key theme of this assignment is the involvement of the law in the medical arena when autonomy of the citizen and voluntariness clashes with beneficence by the state and mandatorism (students will learn these terms in this course). Students are to unpack the discourse in Government Policy. I provide a Taskforce Discussion paper on how to improve Australia’s health by 2020 that is relevant to several topics listed in step 1. Alternatively, you are free to choose another equivalent current health related policy in Australia if you are passionate about a different health issue but this will need to be approved by the course leader at the start of semester. The policy is a starting point from which you can choose your essay topic.

The theme of this assignment is wide and while you must frame your assignment in response to the assignment theme: how effective and efficient has the law been in achieving the policy objectives, alongside supporting/clashing ethical considerations in the control/prevention of obesity, tobacco or alcohol related health and safety issues to date?

You are free to choose how you will structure your particular assignment and the focus of your work (see some topic suggestions in step 2 below – these are simply suggestions and by no means intended to be limiting).

How to get started

Step 1: Find the Policy

In April 2008, the National Government established the National Preventative Health Taskforce to develop a National Preventative Health Strategy by June 2009. The Taskforce is to provide a blueprint for tackling the burden of chronic disease currently caused by obesity,

tobacco and excessive consumption of alcohol. The Taskforce has produced a discussion paper,

Australia, the healthiest country by 2020 (available by clicking here).

The Discussion Paper provides a range of approaches to achieve the then Government’s Policy to make Australia the healthiest nation by 2020. Students can choose one topic and use the document to determine where the then Rudd Government was leaning and whether from what we know today, we will likely reach the goal. How does the discussion paper sit alongside current national policies and responses? Where do the bioethical principles on autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice fit into the debate today? Can you, for example, detect a preference on the spectrum from compulsory beneficence by the state to complete autonomy of the person? Regardless of which of the three topic areas in this document or other policy document you select, you will need to use the same concepts to work out your approach.

Step 2: Choose a topic from the policy – for example:

• The case for prevention/control: obesity - links with diabetes/heart disease and Supersize-me advertising campaigns & consume to death = gastric band surgery; obese children, mandatory reporting and removal for child’s protection; responses to obesity v responses to anorexia – regulation & marketing.

• The case for prevention/control: tobacco - links between smoking, heart disease/lung cancer and limitations on organ transplants and some surgical procedures.

• The case for prevention/control: alcohol - links with renal failure or cirrhosis of the liver and limitations to dialysis or organ transplants; impacts on indigenous communities, NT Intervention, Reports on Aboriginal conditions.

• Alcohol, tobacco and/or obesity - marketing and the internet (eg. Links between alcopops sales targeting children/young adults and Govt response - taxes as revenue; links with mental health issues).

Step 3: Work out your Approach

Turn to the ‘Contextual Mindmap’ located at the end of this document, in landscape. You will see what I call the ‘5Cs’: Concept, Comparative, Critique, Change and Context. Your essay should address all 5 Cs as different aspects of your work.

Context: The context will be law reform aspect. This occurs when you locate a relevant government health policy and situate your topic within the policy to consider how well its objectives are progressing or being met.

Critique: The critique must include a discussion of the role of law and ethics in the approach taken by policy makers to resolve the health law problem you have identified (e.g. impact of obesity on health care system in Australia or impact of passive smoking on non-smokers). While any of the ethical theories in health can be used, students must use the 4 bioethical principles (autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice) to discuss the approach taken by policy makers to meet policy agendas. Your arguments must be supported by your balanced analyses of the role of the law in your topic area and the role of ethics in suggesting what the law ought to be doing or do.

Comparative: 1. Jurisdiction - The laws used to support policy may differ from Federal to State, State to State or from other countries. If your project compares different jurisdictions, students are encouraged to limit their comparisons to only one other jurisdiction unless otherwise agreed with the course examiner (eg. Qld and NSW). Alternatively, you can limit the scope of your project to the federal level (Australia) and still limit the comparisons to one or two jurisdictions eg. Aust and Canada or UK or Fed and Qld etc.

Change: This is also a comparative but it is focused on historical changes – for instance, the following policy was launched in 2008. The essay could then be an update comparing the past (2008-9) and how well the goals were achieved by this year – the position today; or whether there are new issues today on the same topic that may need to be considered and new solutions found…Comparing the past and now.

Concept: this refers to the reasoning idea of rights to health care services and the basis or case for decisions concerning health care/services/pharmaceutical etc... Basis for the provision of specific health services/goods. Liability concept: fear of litigation for wrongs against the person/class of people. Rights concept: a legal or human right? Eg. consent & autonomy (people may think they have a right to eat whatever they like v strain of obesity on equal right for all to limited health resources); Property concepts eg. Experimentations and new discoveries from stem cells can save lives v humans own their bodies and body parts and the intellectual property associated with them or a woman’s right to remove her dead husband’s sperm to use to become pregnant v rights of the child arguments that it not in their best interest to be born without a father…This closely relates to the bioethical principles and helps to conceptualise the problem.

Remember, the Taskforce document is your starting point. It is for the student to conduct research in the area of their choice in light of current scientific and health knowledge and the law.

Essay Proposal – 10%

Your essay proposal must be submitted by no later than 11:55pm on the due date as a word document through the study desk portal.

Essay Topic Approval: Your specific essay topic should be agreed to by the lecturer in weeks 1- 4, prior to submission of the proposal. Ideally this will involve a face-to-face meeting with the lecturer or a telephone conversation (preferably during the consultation times) so as to channel your essay topic to produce a manageable outcome within the allowable time frame. Online students may use the essay topic discussion forum In the Assessment Section on the study desk to post their topic for feedback. The more preparation you undertake prior to submission the more you will benefit and feel confident to proceed with the final essay.

Submission of the essay proposal is not compulsory, but you are urged to complete and submit it as failure to do so will mean you will forfeit 10% of the marks available for this course.

Essay Proposal - Instructions and requirements

1. The proposal must be set out clearly, coherently and succinctly.

2. It must not contain any grammatical or spelling errors.

3. It must not be longer than 600 words. The word limit will be strictly enforced.

4. It must not contain any footnotes.

5. Ensure your name appears at the top of the page and the word count.

6. The proposal must contain the following information:

a. Your chosen topic framed as an essay research question;

b. The significance of the research question: a short explanation of what the health law question involves, the magnitude of the problem and why it is important that the question is answered;

c. A proposed essay structure to address your research question (intro with clear propositions, body with possible arguments supported by references, link to conclusions - all easy to follow, clear)

d. A brief annotated bibliography of 5 important sources from the literature, which you have identified and considered relevant to your research topic and, specifically explain why you chose these works in terms of their value in supporting your research topic. The bibliography does NOT form part of the word count;

e. Optional: Any additional literature you are planning to use (list up to five additional possible sources with a brief explanation of their relevance);

f. A summary of the timetable of achievable steps you have set for yourself to ensure that you complete your final essay by the submission date. To get full marks for this, your timetable should include more than dates and tasks. It can refer to specifics like posting your topic on the essay topic discussion forum for feedback etc. It should also show competing obligations you may have over the course of the semester and how you will work around those to finish the essay on time. You can display the timetable in a table format or as dot points. The timetable or essay schedule does NOT form part of the word count.

You have a number of weeks in which to begin your literature review and think and write 600 words about your topic/focus. Remember there is a word limit and it is very easy to ‘blow out’. The more focused the better. Try not to cover everything, you can’t in the word limit. Start thinking of your assignment question and propositions strait away. What are you proposing? What evidence will you present to support your propositions? What will you include in your introduction, body of the essay and conclusion? What steps will you take, how and when?

Completion of each step may be taken into consideration in the final grades for the subject.

After submitting the proposal, students should allow for regular discussion time with the course examiner by email, Zoom or telephone etc. during consultation times or by prior appointment to

discuss their progress in writing the final essay, and raise any concerns they may have. Preparation is again the key to achieving the most benefit from this time.

Marking Rubric for Essay Proposal

There are two criteria for this assessment item, but note that the first criterion requires you to demonstrate that you have met all the report instructions (above).

HD A B C Unsatisfactory

Meets instructions for Essay proposal. All instructions have been clearly, carefully and fully met. All instructions have been met even though some responses lack clarity. Most of the instructions have been met. Some of the instructions have been met. None or too few instructions followed.

(2 marks) 2 1.75 1.5 1 .5 – 0

Topic framed as a Research Question (RQ) of

Significance (eg. current, topical, significant issue affects many/all)

Structure and Planning

Annotated Bibliog (AB)

Progress summary (PS) Topic excellently framed as a highly significant RQ

Excellent Proposed Structure

AB shows excellent depth and uses high quality multi- disciplinary resources

Excellent PS: clear, well considered, realistic timeline. Topic well framed as a significant RQ to many

Very good Proposed Structure

AB shows good depth and use of some high quality multi- disciplinary resources

Very Good PS, meets almost all: clear, well considered, realistic timeline. Topic Reasonably framed as a RQ & is shown to be significant to some

Good proposed structure

AB shows some depth and reasonable use of least one high quality resource

Good PS, clear, but needs some fine tuning to show well considered and realistic timeline. Topic is framed as a RQ that is shown to be somewhat significant

Reasonable proposed structure

AB shows lack of depth but uses reasonably current and quality resources

Reasonable PS, somewhat clear, provides just enough information; includes a timeline, but this needs further work. Topic poorly or not framed as a RQ and/or is not shown to be of significance

Too little structure

- steps not sufficiently clear; do not all relate to each other; appears to be limited grasp of requirements.

No/incomplete AB shows insufficient depth & use of current quality resources

No/underdevelope d PS: unclear, insufficient information, unrealistic timeline.

(8 marks) 8 7 6 5 4 – 0

Total /10

Final Research Essay – 50%

• The Final Essay is to be written as a Microsoft Word document, in essay style, using Times New Roman font 12, and 1.5 or double line spacing.

• The latest version of the Australian Guide to Legal Citation (4th) is to be used. A copy is available on the USQ Library web page.

• Footnotes to be limited to referencing literature discussed in text and must not contain substantive legal or ethical arguments.

• NO ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY in the final essay

Word Limit:

LLB students:

• It must be no longer than 3,500 quality words based on the proposal and written in a narrative form. Citations, section headings and references are not included in the word count. Your essay must not exceed the maximum word length.

JD students:

• It must be no longer than 4,500 quality words based on the proposal and written in a narrative form. Citations, section headings and references are not included in the word count. Your essay must not exceed the maximum word length

Marking Rubric for Research Essay

HD A B C Unsatisfactory

Quality of writing:

Structure & Present’n (SP)

Evidence of critical analysis within a broader policy framework

Balanced evaluation of law/ethics (LE)issues

Arguments show knowledge in specialized area. Highly persuasive;

Excellent overall SP, high quality, clear expression, logical, very easy to read.

Clear evidence of careful & effective critical analysis and evaluation of relevant issues

Excellent balance & connection of competing LE issues

Arguments show high level of knowledge in field. Mostly persuasive;

Good overall SP, quality good; mostly clear expression, mostly logical, readable.

Most of the text reveal both careful analysis and evaluation of relevant issues

Good balance & connection of competing LE issues

Arguments show good level of knowledge in field. Somewhat persuasive;

Sound overall SP reasonable quality, but room for refinement/ improvement in parts.

Some evidence of analysis, evaluation of some issues

Reasonable balance & connection of competing LE issues

Arguments show reasonable level of knowledge in field. Adequately persuasive;

Acceptable overall SP, but refinement is required throughout.

Evidence of analysis & evaluation of only a few issues

Limited attempt at balancing & connecting LE issues

Arguments show passable level of knowledge in field. Unpersuasive;

Limited coherence in overall S&P, lacks clarity, logic & readability

Little or no evidence of critical analysis

Insufficient balance or connection of LE issues

Too few arguments that show passable level of knowledge in field

(20%) 20 - 17 16.5 - 15 14.5 - 13 12.5 – 10 9.5 – 0

Persuasive Referencing:

Quality & Depth of research literature

Application: Author’s

personal ‘original’ reflections on literature used to support arguments & propositions Excellent evidence of independent & deep research into high quality, relevant literature

High level of personal reflections demonstrated to clearly advance & support research question and all arguments proposed in essay. Good evidence of independent & deep research into good quality relevant literature

Good level of personal reflections demonstrated to advance and support research question and most arguments proposed. Reasonable evidence of independent research with some depth into reasonable quality relevant literature

Reasonable level of personal reflections demonstrated to advance & support research question & some propositions. Some evidence of independent research into some of the relevant literature

Some level of personal reflections demonstrated to somewhat advance & support research question & some propositions. Insufficient evidence of ‘independent’/dept h of research into high quality relevant literature

No or too little personal reflections demonstrated to support or advance research question or propositions made.

(20%) 20 - 17 16.5 – 15 14.5 - 13 12.5 – 10 9.5 – 0

Standard of Legal writing, referencing &

Bibliography Demonstrates consistent use of current AGLC in all aspects of essay writing, referencing, citations & Bibliography Demonstrates consistent use of AGLC but one or two minor & distinct errors.

Bibliography comprehensive and accurate Demonstrates mostly consistent use of AGLC but a few errors throughout essay

Bibliography with few errors, omissions or inaccuracies Demonstrates passable use AGLC but a number of errors throughout essay interfering with flow of essay.

Bibliography with several errors, omissions or inaccuracies. Too many errors, omissions or inaccuracies and inconsistent use of AGLC throughout essay;

Limited or no bibliography.

(10%) 10 – 8.5 8 – 7.5 7 – 6.5 6 – 5 4.5 – 0

Total /50

Criteria

Quality of writing: (20%)

Structure:

? Essay structure and overall presentation: clear, logical, coherent, readable.

? Scope and relevance of research question explained in introduction.

? Research question addressed in essay as a whole (leaving the reader in no doubt about the relevance of the research question or that it is comprehensively addressed).

? Essay contains strong and persuasive argument in support of conclusions, recommendations, or outcomes.

? Answer or response to research question stated in succinct concluding section.

? Evidence of analysis of relevant issues and information under discussion.

? Critical evaluation of competing considerations, arguments, principles, and values (as appropriate).

? Application of theoretical knowledge to problems identified in research question.

Persuasive Referencing (20%)

• Independent research into existing literature - depth of research includes references beyond materials provided in course.

• Literature relied upon is of reputable high standard, relevant to research question.

• Author’s personal reflections on the literature, the question and on the answers proposed.

• Demonstrates understanding of specialised area of law, or of interlinked areas of law

Standard of Legal writing: (10%)

• All writing, including footnotes and references etc., follow rules of legal writing (Grammar, syntax and clarity of expression) in line with latest version of AGLC.

• Bibliography or reference list.

Assignment 2: On-Line Quiz

Marked out of 40: 40% weighting.

Answer all questions via Study Desk portal by in-filling text.

Assessment Instructions

1. Answer two Parts (Part A marked out of 15 marks and Part B marked out of 25 marks) electronically via the Assignment 2 – On Line Quiz portal in the Assessment section of the LAW 3467 Study desk. Part A consists of multiple choice and short answer questions. Part B is a problem-solving task.

2. Answer legal problem questions involves knowledge and thinking skills. The relevant law is to be identified and applied to legal issues arising from ALL of the given questions in this quiz.

3. Answering a problem based question required demonstration of intellectual and practical skills necessary to identify, evaluate and synthesize factual, legal and ethical issues. The task compromises completion of a client-focused problem-solving structure similar to the use of IRAC – identify the issues, apply the relevant law to identified facts to support legal arguments, and state conclusions. Sample problem questions are considered in LAW3467 recorded zoom tutorial sessions. Communication must be effective, appropriate and persuasive.

4. The tasks relate to LAW3467 content – Health Law – and, for this Online Quiz, does not require significant independent research. Students should rely on their course learning materials and prescribed readings to complete this test but may research further if thought necessary.

5. All students are to answer all of the questions. The questions, and the design of this assessment, are directed to allowing demonstrated achievement of the LAW3467 objectives.

6. The portal will open at 5am on the 9th of August 2023 and close immediately at 11.55pm on the 15th of August 2023 USQ time, to all students without approved extensions.

7. While the portal is open it is possible to log in and out to complete and edit problem answers, providing they have NOT been finally submitted. Students may find it easier to complete answers in a Word document prior to copying into the in-fill box. However, when entering answers, save entered text regularly to the USQ server and ensure it is saved within one hour. TIP: To avoid distortions in the text from Word to the Quiz system, to paste, click the keys ‘Control, Shift, V’.

8. Only press submit once you have checked your answers are in final form.

9. If internet difficulties prevent submission, answers must be emailed to Katrina.Pedersen@usq.edu.au and that email must be received prior to 11.55pm on the due date. To avoid submission issues, students should aim to submit their quiz an hour prior to the close of the portal.

10. Answer all questions in plain English sentences with appropriate use of punctuation and grammar, accurate spelling, and referencing. Optional: students may use footnotes in AGLC style for the problem questions. Referencing will then copy from a Word document into the text-infill box.

11. Please ensure you conform to the word limits – eg. 1 to 2 sentences means short, succinct answers. Lengthy quotes will not be counted in marking since the marks are allocated for original presentation of answers (ie. Your own words).

12. To avoid suggestions of plagiarism or cheating, all responses to the test must be independently written in your own words. Also, students must have completed the Academic Integrity Tool to access the Quiz.

Refer to Page 21 – Assessment Submission Details.

Assessment Submission Details

Format - Assignments are to be submitted as Microsoft Word documents in font 12 and single line spacing.

Provide the following key information on the first page of your assignment:

? Your student number & name

? Course number & name

? Assignment description, including topic details

Referencing - Students must use the latest edition of the Australian Guide to Legal Citation (AGLC) style guide in their written assessment. A copy of the AGLC manual is available at the USQ Library’s home page. Alternatively, students may contact the Law librarian for assistance.

Word Count - The word count should be conducted in accordance with a Microsoft Word word-count function (not including titles or footnotes). This limit does not include footnote references (to cases, legislative provisions, books, articles and websites etc.) or explanatory notes required in the instructions. However, the word count does include substantive text set out in the footnotes. That is, the word limit cannot be circumvented by relocating significant text from the body of the answer to the footnotes, or by pacing text in the footnotes in the first instance.

For assessment that has a word limit, students MUST include the word count for the assessment in square brackets at the start of the relevant part or section. For example, if the assessment instructs/requires 1.'write up to 100 words' explaining X', then at the beginning of 1. insert your word count as follows [100 words]. The word limit is a definite maximum. The marker is entitled to stop marking when the assessment word length has been reached. Any material in excess of the word length need not be included in the marking. Too few words (>10%) may also result in loss of marks.

The challenge in this course will be to write succinctly and as close to the word limit without exceeding it while accurately and persuasively communicating the intended message to the reader. This will inevitably require several drafts and is a valuable skill to master. Verbose documents often lose their meaning and the attention of the reader. Try to say what you mean and say it succinctly.

Submission – all students must submit their assignments electronically using the appropriate link on study desk. You will receive a confirmation message when your assignment has been submitted. The advantage of electronic submission is that you will receive feedback on your assignment online as soon as it has been marked.

Due date – submission should be completed in accordance with the instructions (due date and time) specified in the above study schedule/Assessment Details.

Extensions for Assignments

Students are to consult the Assignment extensions located in the assessment folder on the study desk of this course.

Note: The essay proposal does not fall under this process described in the extensions document. It is an exercise in setting a case study and timetable for achieving the essay assignment.

Plagiarism

The School of Law does not tolerate plagiarism in any form. Cases of plagiarism are dealt with harshly and students in the School of Law and Justice who are suspected of plagiarism, unauthorised collusion or cheating must be reported to the Head of School. The legal profession admission authorities take this issue very seriously and to be clear, reporting must occur for any assessment task or exam which shows evidence of plagiarism, that is, even simply copying of one sentence or a cluster of significant words from course notes, a book or another person’s work is sufficient. All students must read and abide by the USQ plagiarism policy and misconduct policy.

Reconsideration of Marks

1. There is no automatic ‘right’ or ‘entitlement’ to a remark of an item of assessment by the course leader or another qualified person. All care is taken in the marking of on-course assessment and awarding of marks. Individual marks based on the marking criteria will be returned with each assessment portfolio submitted by a student.

When is reconsideration available? For the purposes of this course, once a mark is allocated to an assessment item, the only ground on which it will be reconsidered is that the student has shown in writing that –

? The marking criteria have not been legitimately applied to that particular assessment; AND

? A legitimate application of all of the criteria to that assessment would lead to a higher mark.

2. No right to a second marking and moderation. Again, there is no right to a second marking of an assessment item. It is only in the circumstances above (1) that reconsideration of a mark will be undertaken in this course. Also, in accordance with USQs assessment policy, moderation of assessment is undertaken in relation to all grades in the course once those grades are finalised and recommended. There is no moderation of individual assessment i.e. moderation is not second marking.

3. Procedure. If you are unhappy with a mark on an assessment item, you are advised to:

(1) consider the feedback and/or mark sheet returned with the assessment; (2) consider

any comments made by the marker about the assessment; and (3) mark the assessment yourself using all of the marking criteria. Then, you should only consider applying for reconsideration if you clearly and persuasively articulate in a courteous/respectful manner that the marking criteria may have been applied incorrectly to your overall disadvantage. For example, a persuasive argument would mention the relevant criteria, suggest it was erroneously applied by pinpointing the exact wording (eg. para 3 line 4-8) in the assessment that speaks to the criteria to highlight the error [apply the facts]. Where you have reasons to believe that, if the criteria were applied correctly, a higher mark would clearly result (eg criteria worth 5 marks and you received 1 but argue, by supporting your proposition with evidence, that you should have been granted 4), you should email the course leader with:

? Your marked assessment;

? The mark sheet; and

? Written reasons that explain how, if all of the criteria had been applied correctly, the overall mark would have been higher.

? In relation to the last, a mere assertion that ‘criterion X was not applied properly’ is not giving reasons.