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
one possible way to help students address the common difficulty of addressing all aspects of a
question.
© VCAA 2015
School-assessed Coursework Report: VCE Philosophy 2014–2018
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]
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
© VCAA 2015
Page 2
School-assessed Coursework Report: VCE Philosophy 2014–2018
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. Shortanswer questions easily allow more specific instruction in relation to key skills such as comparison
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
© VCAA 2015
Page 3
School-assessed Coursework Report: VCE Philosophy 2014–2018
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:


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
© VCAA 2015
Page 4
School-assessed Coursework Report: VCE Philosophy 2014–2018
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
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.
© VCAA 2015
Page 5
School-assessed Coursework Report: VCE Philosophy 2014–2018
Outcome 2
Analyse, compare and evaluate theories of personal identity in the set texts and discuss related
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
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:


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
© VCAA 2015
Page 6
School-assessed Coursework Report: VCE Philosophy 2014–2018
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:
‘[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
© VCAA 2015
Page 7
School-assessed Coursework Report: VCE Philosophy 2014–2018
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.
© VCAA 2015
Page 8
School-assessed Coursework Report: VCE Philosophy 2014–2018
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.
Task type options
The student’s performance on each outcome is assessed by:
© VCAA 2015
Page 9
School-assessed Coursework Report: VCE Philosophy 2014–2018

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
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
© VCAA 2015
Page 10
School-assessed Coursework Report: VCE Philosophy 2014–2018
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.
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).
/ 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
© VCAA 2015
Page 11
School-assessed Coursework Report: VCE Philosophy 2014–2018
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; 5162), 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.’
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:
© VCAA 2015
Page 12
School-assessed Coursework Report: VCE Philosophy 2014–2018


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.
© VCAA 2015
Page 13