Summative Assignment for Module Two
This 1,000 word review essay requires you to submit a critical response to three readings:
Leslie Sklair’s two papers and another of your choice of the following two:
Rizvi, F. (2004). Debating globalisation and education after September 11. Comparative Education, 40(2), 157-171.
OR:
Mohanty, C.T. (2013) Transnational Feminist Crossings: On Neoliberalism and Radical Critique, Signs, Vol. 38, No. 4, Intersectionality: Theorizing Power, Empowering Theory, pp. 967-991.
Note: For this essay, focus on concepts of globalisation in general. In the next Module, we will turn to consider education specifically. In this essay, there is no need to discuss education in any detailed way.
A “critical response” is not necessarily negative. It involves identifying the key features of an argument, assessing the validity and relevance of claims made in support of it, and weighing up the overall strengths and weaknesses of the author’s position.
For this assignment, you are to respond critically to each paper individually before analyzing them together and exploring how the papers interact. In other words, analyse the ideas/arguments in one paper, then analyse the ideas/arguments in the other, and finally explore how these two papers relate, connect, contradict, overlap, etc.
|
EDPB5002 Assignment 2 |
Fail <10 |
Pass 10-12.5 |
Credit 13-14.5 |
Distinction 15-16.5 |
High Distinction 17-20 |
|
Write a 1,000 word critical review essay focused on the Module Two articles. Respond critically to each article in turn and consider ways you see the papers interacting. Focus on concepts of globalisation in general (not on education). Support argumentation and discussion with insights from additional sources. |
Describes or summarises the content of the article(s) only; potentially misses or misrepresents key aspects. May be characterized by unsubstantiated assertions or assumptions, and/or based mainly on anecdote or opinion. Substantially below/above word count, with no or very limited additional references and/or with significant technical errors that obscure meaning. |
Describes both articles and may begin some analysis. Identifies basic contrasts between the two. Use of other sources may be limited. There may be substantial inaccuracies in grammar and/or referencing. |
Clear understanding and insightful critical analysis of both articles is evident. Effectively contrasts and compares them and consistently applies additional evidence in support of points. Well organized and presented; referencing is accurate on the whole. |
Balanced, comprehensive and persuasive critical analysis of both articles, which are strongly contrasted. Consistent and skillful integration of well selected additional reference materials. An articulate, sophisticated and polished response that demonstrates nuanced awareness of complex concepts. Very few mistakes in grammar, referencing or presentation. |
As for Distinction, and extended through original comparative critical analysis and highly skilled synthesis of concepts and additional source material. May be organized around a cohesive unifying theme, or include distinguished conceptual, theoretical and/or creative insight or representation of ideas. No referencing or presentation errors. |
