Write 750 words on
Disability and Ageing Services Critique ( focus to Australia )
WELF 3025 CA 1.1 Tips Text below is taken from the instructions on the assessment page – my comments in blue unpack instructions further. Happy to discuss further in the forum or via zoom! The critique should be structured in the following manner: • In approximately 200 words, write a brief introduction that explains: o the key descriptors, including the URL, of each organisation o Write 100 words for each organisation o Succinctly outline who they are and what they do o Including the URL allows us to click on it and explore it with you, it’s really important that you include it • In approximately 600 words, write a body section that comprises: o Your critique of the organisations including evidence and scholarly references o Write 300 words for each organisation o Prompts: how does each organisation appear to be doing terms of access, inclusion, person-centred, web design, building design, program design etc.? • In approximately 400 words, write a conclusion that: o Summarises your findings and makes 1 recommendation for each organisation on how they might improve their services (including scholarly references where relevant) o Write 200 words for each organisation o Keep summaries very brief, spend more time on the recommendations (more marks available for the recommendations than the summary, be strategic!) o Higher marks are achievable if the recommendation is logically linked to your critique. For example, in the body you might identify/critique something that needs improvement or isn’t clear – then in the conclusion you can formulate an appropriate recommendation for the organisation to adopt to address the gaps you identify in their service (with a view to improving the experiences of service users in some way) Disability and Ageing: Diversity and Discrimination: Continuous Assessment 1.1: Disability and Ageing Services Critique: 1,200 words: 25% STANDARDS Criteria Task Outstanding Performance HD/D Exceeds Core Requirements C Meets core requirements P1/P2 Does not meet requirements F1/F2 ANALYSIS [30%] Critically evaluates one disability and one aged care service provider in the context of current theory, research and best practice (30%) Critically and logically evaluates one disability and one aged care service provider in the context of current theory, research, and best practice. Critical voice is clear and consistent. Critically evaluates one disability and one aged care service provider in the context of current theory, research, and best practice. Critical voice is clear but may lack consistency at times. Attempts to critically evaluate one disability and one aged care service provider in the context of current theory, research, and best practice. Critical voice may lack clarity and/or consistency. Weak attempt to critically evaluate one disability and one aged care service provider in the context of current theory, research, and best practice. RECOMMENDATIONS [30%] Demonstrates a critical understanding of the concepts around human services by formulating evidence-based recommendations for service improvements informed by relevant literature (30%) Critically formulates evidence- based recommendations informed by discerning choices of relevant literature. Recommendations are relevant and insightful for service improvements. Clearly formulates evidence-based recommendations informed by relevant literature. Recommendations are relevant for service improvements. Demonstrates some ability to formulate evidence-based recommendations informed by relevant literature. Recommendations are mostly relevant for service improvements. Weak attempt to formulate evidence- based recommendations informed by relevant literature. Recommendations may not be relevant for service improvements. REFERENCING [20%] Integrates appropriate scholarly literature and course material. (10%) Employs appropriate referencing conventions (10%) Provides the minimum of 6 scholarly references and critically cites material obtained. UniSA Harvard referencing style used with no errors. Provides the minimum of 6 scholarly references and accurately cites material obtained. One or two minor errors in UniSA Harvard referencing style. Provides the minimum of 6 scholarly references and adequately cites material obtained. UniSA Harvard referencing style used with some errors. Provides less than 6 scholarly references and does not adequately cite material obtained. Fails to use UniSA Harvard referencing style or consistently uses the style incorrectly. STRUCTURE [20%] Demonstrates clarity in presenting the issues and arguments and employs appropriate use of language conventions such as grammar, spelling and punctuation. (20%) Sentence structures, word choice, transitions and/or sequencing of ideas make reading effortless. No errors in spelling, grammar and writing conventions. Sentence structures, word choice, transitions and/or sequencing of ideas ensure meaning is clear. Minor errors in spelling, grammar and writing conventions. Sentence structures, word choice, lack of transitions and/or sequencing of ideas make reading and understanding difficult at times. Some errors in spelling, grammar and writing conventions. Incorrect sentence structures, word choice, lack of transitions and/or sequencing of ideas make reading and understanding demanding. Significant errors in spelling, grammar and writing conventions.