Essay
Length: 2700
TASK
Instructions:
- You must complete one of the following options.
- Each option contains a number of tasks. Read all options fully and be sure you are clear on the tasks you need to complete for your selected option.
- Carefully read the Essential Notes for each option. The instructions here are mandatory.
- Refer to the marking criteria and grade descriptors (below), which provide additional – important – information on how you will be assessed.
- Your response must be in essay format and demonstrate APA referencing style.
- All assignments should be 2700 words +/- 10% [use the marking criteria to judge which tasks should get more attention in your assignment].
- You may use sub-headings to help keep track of each task, but these are not mandatory.
TASK:
You must complete the following one task:
1. Discuss the following quote from an Office of Police Integrity report (2012):
“The ultimate objective of reporting wrongdoing in the workplace must be organisational improvement. Without learning from and preventing wrongdoing – making the organisation better – there is no point compelling or even encouraging police to report the wrongdoing of their colleagues. If there is to be no organisational improvement, then the best way to protect police would be to have them not speak up at all.” [https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/file_uploads/VPARL2010-14No144_q5L31XtM.pdf]
Essential Notes
- You must use academic journal articles and/or books to support your responses. Do not rely solely on information provided in the study modules and/or work-related materials (e.g., policy documents, legislation).
- Your discussion must include references to:
- Being accountable, understood as per Module 2, and
- Being held accountable, and
- A topic from each of 2 other modules
RATIONALE
SUBJECT LEARNING OUTCOMES
This assessment task will assess the following learning outcome/s:
- be able to analyse and evaluate the impact of ethical decision making in the course of their sworn policing duties and private lives.
- be able to analyse and evaluate both formal and informal accountability mechanisms.
- be able to articulate an enhanced understanding of the ethical issues raised by various policing methods and be able to explain what constitutes the ethical use of those methods.
- be able to analyse and evaluate various institutional values and the impact of those values on personal and professional values.
- be able to demonstrate the communication literacies and digital skills required of a competent criminal justice practitioner.
Assessment item 2 – Option 3
| Assessment item 2, Option 3 | 85-100% Exceptional | 75-84% Excellent | 65-74% Above average | 50-64% Satisfactory | 0-49% Unsatisfactory |
| 1. Discuss the following quote from an Office of Police Integrity report (2012): “The ultimate objective of reporting wrongdoing in the workplace must be organisational improvement. Without learning from and preventing wrongdoing – making the organisation better – there is no point compelling or even encouraging police to report the wrongdoing of their colleagues. If there is to be no organisational improvement, then the best way to protect police would be to have them not speak up at all.” Maximum marks: 90 | A definition or explanation of being accountable is provided based on that given in Module 2, and the term is used proficiently throughout the response. A definition or explanation of being held accountable is provided and the term is used proficiently throughout the response. There is a clear and focused discussion. All key aspects of the quote have been addressed. Reasoning is comprehensive and succinct, with some evidence of original or novel thought having been applied and/or subtle issues identified. A clear and unambiguous position is stated as to agreement with the quote, either in part or full. Academic journal articles and/or books have clearly informed the reasoning and references are skillfully worked into the response. (76.5 – 90 marks) | A definition or explanation of being accountable is provided based on that given in Module 2, and the term is used correctly throughout the response. A definition or explanation of being held accountable is provided, and the term is used correctly throughout the response. There is a clear and focused discussion. All key aspects of the quote have been addressed. Reasoning is clear, unambiguous, and compelling. A clear position is stated as to agreement with the quote, either in part or full. Academic journal articles and/or books have clearly informed the reasoning and references are integrated into the response. (67.5 – 76 marks) | A definition or explanation of being accountable is provided based on that given in Module 2, and the term is used correctly throughout the response. A definition or explanation of being held accountable is provided, and the term is used correctly throughout the response. There is a clear and mostly focused discussion. Most key aspects of the quote have been addressed. Reasoning is clear and unambiguous, though does not make a compelling case. A clear position is stated as to agreement with the quote, either in part or full. References to academic journal articles and/or books study modules and other sources of information are clear, though these may not be well-integrated in the response. (58.5 – 67 marks) | A definition or explanation of being accountable is provided based on that given in Module 2, and the term is mostly used correctly throughout the response. A definition or explanation of being held accountable is provided, and the term is mostly used correctly throughout the response. There is some relevant discussion. Some key aspects of the quote have been addressed. Some reasoning is present – however, there is some ambiguity and/or unnecessary information or argument included, but not to the extent that it overwhelms the reasoning. There is no clear position stated as to agreement with the quote, either in part or full. Academic journal articles and/or books are referred to, but the references do not contribute clearly to the response. (45 – 58 marks) | No definition or explanation of being accountable is provided or the one provided is inconsistent with that in Module 2. No definition or explanation of being held accountable is provided. There is no relevant discussion (no aspects of the quote have been addressed). No reasoning is included, or that which is included is mostly unclear and unfocused. Academic journal articles and/or books are not referred to at all or are referred to in a way that does not make any discernible contribution to the response. (0 – 44.5 marks) |
| Tertiary standards of academic literacy Maximum marks: 5 | The content has been logically and succinctly structured to create a cohesive and coherent piece of analytical work. Formal academic language and precise and correct terminology have been used to clearly communicate meaning. There is consistent adherence to grammatical conventions. (4.25 – 5 marks) | The content has been logically structured to create a cohesive and coherent piece of analytical work. Formal academic language and precise and correct terminology have mostly been used to clearly communicate meaning. There is mostly consistent adherence to grammatical conventions. (3.75 – 4.24 marks) | The content has mostly been logically structured to create a cohesive and coherent piece of work. Mostly formal academic language has been used to clearly communicate meaning. There is mostly consistent adherence to grammatical conventions, although some errors remain. (3.25 – 3.74 marks) | The content has been partially structured to create a comprehensible descriptive piece of work consisting of loosely linked rudimentary paragraphs. Relatively formal academic language has mostly been used to communicate meaning. Grammatical conventions have been adhered to in some areas, and although there are multiple errors, these do not obscure the intended meaning. (2.50 – 3.24 marks) | Written text is not cohesive (e.g., consists mostly of unlinked paragraphs, demonstrates no apparent organisation of ideas). Sentence structure, paragraphing, punctuation, and/or spelling are poor and in at least some instances, obscure the intended meaning. The work includes multiple grammatical errors. (0 – 2.49 marks) |
| Accurate use of APA referencing formats for in-text citations and final reference list. Maximum marks: 5 | In-text references are all included where necessary. In-text references include no formatting errors. Reference List included with no omissions. Reference List includes no errors. Consistent use of APA referencing formats. (4.25 – 5 marks) | In-text references are missing in some places, but correct attribution can be inferred. In-text references include no formatting errors. Reference List included with no omissions. Reference List includes no errors. Consistent use of APA referencing formats. (3.75 – 4.24 marks) | In-text references are missing in some places, but correct attribution can be inferred. In-text references include some formatting errors. Reference List included with no omissions. Reference List includes some errors. Mostly demonstrated use of APA referencing formats, except as per the above criteria. (3.25 – 3.74 marks) | In-text references are missing in several places. In-text references include many formatting errors. Some items are missing from the Reference List. Reference List includes many formatting errors. Some demonstrated use of APA referencing formats. (2.50 – 3.24 marks) | No in-text references used, where required and/or in-text references mostly missing. No Reference List included or most sources missing from Reference List. No demonstrated use of APA referencing formats. (0 – 2.49 marks) |
