Ana səhifə

The university of edinburgh


Yüklə 263 Kb.
səhifə8/8
tarix26.06.2016
ölçüsü263 Kb.
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8

Appendix Three: May 2008 Exam Paper


THE UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH

COLLEGE OF HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCE

SCHOOL OF SOCIAL AND POLITICAL SCIENCE

SOCIOLOGY 1B

Monday 5th May 2008 14.30-16.30

Convenor of the Examination Board: Dr. Angus Bancroft

External Examiner: Professor David Inglis (University of Aberdeen)

Answer TWO questions in all

Answer ONE question from each section of the paper

Candidates in their third or later year of study for the degrees of MA (General), BA (Religious Studies, BD, BComm, BSc (Social Science), BSc (Science), BEng and LLB should put a tick () in the box on the front cover of the script book.

Section 1

1) What are the advantages and disadvantages of defining violence as an 'act of physical harm'?

2) Do you think that media or video-game violence 'causes' real-life violence? Justify your answer with examples.

3) Is violence always deviant?



Section 2
4) Discuss how sociologists use the terms ‘self’ and ‘identity’/’identities’. What might these views suggest about the possibilities for ‘being yourself’?

5) ‘Who we think we are or can be depends on systematic social inequalities.’ Discuss with reference to AT LEAST ONE of the following: social class, gender, ethnicity, and/or sexuality.

6) Discuss one or more sociological accounts of everyday talk or discourse about 'others' (these might be people of a different class, gender, ethnic group or sexuality). Consider whether the example or examples you have chosen demonstrate the construction of identity and/or social inequality.

END OF PAPER

Appendix Four: Guide to Online Tutorial Sign-Up


The following is a guide to using WebCT to sign up for your tutorial. If you have any problems using the WebCT sign up, please contact the relevant course secretary in the Undergraduate Teaching Office, ground floor, Chrystal Macmillan Building.

Step 1 – Accessing WebCT course pages


Access to WebCT is through the MyEd Portal. You will be given a log-in and password during Freshers Week. Once you are logged into MyEd, you should see a tab called ‘Courses’ which will list the active WebCT pages for your courses under ‘myWebCT’.

Step 2 – Welcome to WebCT


Once you have clicked on the relevant course from the list, you will see the Contents page for that course. This page will have icons for the different tools available on this page, including one called ‘Tutorial Sign Up’. Please click on this icon.

Step 3 – Signing up for your tutorial


Clicking on the Tutorial Sign Up icon will take you to the sign up page where all the available tutorial groups are listed along with any students who have already signed up.

Click on the ‘Sign up’ button next to the group that you wish to join. The Confirm Sign Up screen will display. Click ‘OK’ and you will be added to your chosen group.



IMPORTANT: If you change your mind after having chosen a tutorial you cannot go back and change it. You will need to contact the course secretary (Katie.teague@ed.ac.uk) who will be able to reassign you. If groups are full however this may not be possible.

Tutorials have restricted numbers and it is important to sign up as soon as possible. The tutorial sign up will only be available until the end of Week 1 of the Semester. If you have not yet signed up for a tutorial by this time, please contact the course secretary as soon as possible.

Appendix Five: Feedback on Sociology 1b exam, May 2008

General points:


  1. As ever, answer the question. This means paying attention to what the question is asking you to do, as well as what it is asking about. For instance, the question ‘Do you think that media or video-game violence ‘causes’ real-life violence? Justify your answer with examples,’ is asking you to present the arguments on both sides of the debate and come to a conclusion. The violence/deviance question is asking you to examine deviance in terms of violence. Good answers presented a structured argument with a clear direction. Poor answers tended to repeat the question, or the same point, several times without developing it.

  2. Show you have done the reading. Referencing by author was particularly welcome. You do not need the full reference, just the surname will do. Good answers showed familiarity with a range of readings, which they could draw on in original ways. For instance, citing theory on deviance from the ‘Deviance and intoxication’ unit when answering the question ‘Is Violence Deviant?’ was very effective. See the feedback on Question 2 below.

  3. Show some sense of having grasped the unit, and even better, the course as a whole, making connections between debates. Reliance on guesswork, unjustified personal opinion or ‘common sense’ brought marks down heavily. Good answers showed the ‘sociological imagination’ at work, so took nothing for granted. For instance, good answers to Questions 4, 5 and 6 looked at how identities were created and defined, and what the consequences of that were, rather than assuming that identities were things that people just have.

  4. Define the terms you are going to be using – e.g. violence, deviance, social class, gender, ethnicity. Defining terms is not mere pedantry, it shows that you know what you are talking about. In some cases, the question is precisely about that, for instance, whether violence is always physical violence, what makes some kinds of physical force defined as ‘violence’ and others as something else, what and what the implications of that definition are. See the feedback on Question 1 below.

  5. Make sure the conclusion is justified by the arguments you have made. Do not give a conclusion that you think we want to read.

Specific questions:


  1. What are the advantages and disadvantages of defining violence as an ‘act of physical harm’?

Excellent answers to this question considered both the pros and cons of such definitions and showed a familiarity with key texts and debates. Typically the answers discussed various definitions of violence and demonstrated how they changed over time and place. The papers highlighted the multiplicity of injurious behaviours and outcomes and noted that some effects of violence were neglected by a narrow definition. Throughout they provided examples to flesh out their arguments and back up their points, and they considered the merits of looking at a ‘spectrum’ of violence. Finally they concluded one way or the other by reference to the preceding arguments.

Good answers looked at different definitions of violence and referred to key texts. These papers highlighted the limitations of an overly narrow account of violence and pointed to holes in them. Examples were drawn on to show how even physical violence may be experienced psychologically and essays pointed to ways in which some violence is normalised whilst other forms of behaviour are not. The essays could have been improved by more originality and critical engagement.

Reasonable answers at least considered key readings and debates. They tended to define violence but perhaps not analyse these definitions as critically as better essays. They often looked at a range of violent behaviour but the examples used were often descriptive rather than detailed or critical accounts. Conclusions were typically not rigorously supported.

Weak answers showed some awareness of key texts and discussions but typically referred to very few texts, over-used lecture notes and personal examples and missed central concepts. There was typically an element of conceptual confusion.

Poor answers showed little knowledge of readings and tended to rely on ‘common-sense’ and descriptive accounts of violence.

  1. Do you think that media or video-game violence ‘causes’ real-life violence? Justify your answer with examples.

Excellent answers to this question put both sides of the argument, showed a familiarity with key texts and debates. Typically the answers problematised the notion of ‘media violence’ and raised question marks about causation. The papers highlighted the arguments that the media does have an effect and cited studies to substantiate this. They then looked at how media violence might influence real life and examined various theories of media influence. They then drew a distinction between active media and active user perspectives and pointed to the arguments made by the latter camp regarding the dubiety of media influence studies. Throughout they provided examples to flesh out their arguments and back up their points. Finally they concluded one way or the other by reference to the preceding arguments.

Good answers put both sides of the argument with reference to key readings. They perhaps focused in on central aspects of the debate rather than considering all the aspects touched on in excellent essays. They typically substantiated points with either examples or reading. They tended, however, to be slightly derivative or lacking in critical analysis. They did well to look at both sides of the debate and point to readings but could have come to stronger and better supported conclusions.

Reasonable answers at least considered both sides of the argument but tended to over-emphasise one position. They showed some familiarity with key readings and debates. They tended to provide examples, but these were often descriptive accounts culled from personal viewing/reading and could have been analysed more critically. Conclusions were typically not rigorously supported.

Weak answers showed some awareness of key texts and discussions but typically referred to very few texts, over-used lecture notes and personal examples and/or took a partisan line on one or other side of the debate. Expressing your opinion is fine, but it should not be at the expense of examining the evidence and considering both sides of the argument.

Poor answers showed little knowledge of readings and tended to rely on examples from their own reading of the media. This is fine when such examples are analysed carefully. In the poorer essays examples which could be used to support either side of the argument were used in one particular way. The essays tended to be descriptive and lacked critical insight.

  1. Is violence always deviant?

Excellent answers to this question demonstrated a familiarity with key texts and debates across the unit. Typically the answers drew on examples and debates relating to everyday violence, the Milgram and Stanford experiments and accounts of state violence. They highlighted how what is considered to be violence changes over time and place and noted that some forms of behaviour may be normalised. The papers highlighted the multiplicity of social discourses and actions that underpinned and legitimated violent behaviour. Throughout they provided examples to flesh out their arguments and back up their points. Finally they concluded one way or the other by reference to the preceding arguments.

Good answers referred to key texts from across the unit and showed an appreciation of how the same actions may be regarded differently in different contexts. These papers highlighted how violence could be normalised and discussed examples to support these claims. The essays could have been improved by more originality and critical engagement.

Reasonable answers at least considered key readings and showed how violence might be acceptable in one context but not another. They often looked at a range of examples showing how violence might be normalised but the examples used were often descriptive rather than detailed or critical accounts. Conclusions were typically not rigorously supported.

Weak answers showed some awareness of key texts and discussions but typically referred to very few texts, over-used lecture notes and personal examples and missed central concepts. There was typically an element of conceptual confusion.

Poor answers showed little knowledge of readings and tended to rely on ‘common-sense’ and descriptive accounts of both violence and deviance. There was little appreciation of the social constructedness of violence as a category.

  1. Discuss how sociologists use the terms ‘self’ and ‘identity’/’identities’. What might these views suggest about the possibilities for ‘being yourself’?

Excellent answers drew on a range of sociologists (Mead, Giddens, Cooley, Goffman) and constantly returned to the theme of ‘being yourself’. They did not take this for granted and continually interrogated what ‘being yourself’ meant, for individuals and sociologically.

Good answers told a ‘story’ about how concepts of self and identity have changed, both historically and sociologically, and related this to limits on ‘being yourself’, whether by class, gender or ethnicity.

Reasonable answers summarised concepts like socialisation, the presentation of self and multiple identities, but tended to be less certain about how they fitted together.

Poor answers tended to reproduce lecture material without showing knowledge of the source, and were vague about what ‘self’ and ‘identity’ were.



  1. Who we think we are or can be depends on systematic social inequalities.’ Discuss with reference to AT LEAST ONE of the following: social class, gender, ethnicity, and/or sexuality.

Excellent answers related their definition of key concepts (inequalities, class etc) to the theoretical literature (e.g. Bourdieu). They gave detailed examples of how class, sexuality etc. worked on different levels – in terms of performance, fitting in, standing out, socialisation and so on, relating these to systematic social inequalities.

Good answers used the literature to give detailed accounts of how inequalities showed themselves in everyday life.

Reasonable answers noted different ways in which inequalities could affect self (e.g. education, racism) but tended to guess at why that might be, rather than show it.

Poor answers were vague about what social class, gender etc were, and what kind of inequalities there were.



  1. Discuss one or more sociological accounts of everyday talk or discourse about 'others' (these might be people of a different class, gender, ethnic group or sexuality). Consider whether the example or examples you have chosen demonstrate the construction of identity and/or social inequality.

The key element here was the way in which the construction of identity/inequality could be identified in the examples chosen. Excellent answers drew out these elements of the examples used, and related them to the more general question of the relationship between discourse, identity and inequality. For instance, in discussing masculinity and homophobic ridicule, good work related the discourse to the ideology of hegemonic masculinity and the reality of gendered inequality. Good answers also did not take the topic in isolation and related it to other forms of inequality.

Poor work tended to reproduce some points from one example relating to one instance, but not put it in the context of identity or inequality.


Appendix Six: Common Essay Marking Descriptors


A1 (90-100%) An answer that fulfils all of the criteria for ‘A2’ (see below) and in addition shows an exceptional degree of insight and independent thought, together with flair in tackling issues, yielding a product that is deemed to be of potentially publishable quality, in terms of scholarship and originality.

A2 (80-89%) An authoritative answer that provides a fully effective response to the question. It should show a command of the literature and an ability to integrate that literature and go beyond it. The analysis should achieve a high level of quality early on and sustain it through to the conclusion. Sources should be used accurately and concisely to inform the answer but not dominate it. There should be a sense of a critical and committed argument, mindful of other interpretations but not afraid to question them. Presentation and the use of English should be commensurate with the quality of the content.

A3 (70-79%) A sharply-focused answer of high intellectual quality, which adopts a comprehensive approach to the question and maintains a sophisticated level of analysis throughout. It should show a willingness to engage critically with the literature and move beyond it, using the sources creatively to arrive at its own independent conclusions.

B B- (60-63%) B (64-66%) B+ (67-69%)

A very good answer that shows qualities beyond the merely routine or acceptable. The question and the sources should be addressed directly and fully. The work of other authors should be presented critically. Effective use should be made of the whole range of the literature. There should be no significant errors of fact or interpretation. The answer should proceed coherently to a convincing conclusion. The quality of the writing and presentation (especially referencing) should be without major blemish.

Within this range a particularly strong answer will be graded B+; a more limited answer will be graded B-.

C C- (50-53%) C (54-56%) C+ (57-59%)

A satisfactory answer with elements of the routine and predictable. It should be generally accurate and firmly based in the reading. It may draw upon a restricted range of sources but should not just re-state one particular source. Other authors should be presented accurately, if rather descriptively. The materials included should be relevant, and there should be evidence of basic understanding of the topic in question. Factual errors and misunderstandings of concepts and authors may occasionally be present but should not be a dominant impression. The quality of writing, referencing and presentation should be acceptable. Within this range a stronger answer will be graded C+; a weaker answer will be graded C-.



D D- (40-43%) D (44-46%) D+ (47-49%)

A passable answer which understands the question, displays some academic learning and refers to relevant literature. The answer should be intelligible and in general factually accurate, but may well have deficiencies such as restricted use of sources or academic argument, over-reliance on lecture notes, poor expression, and irrelevancies to the question asked. The general impression may be of a rather poor effort, with weaknesses in conception or execution. It might also be the right mark for a short answer that at least referred to the main points of the issue. Within this range a stronger answer will be graded D+; a bare pass will be graded D-.



E (30-39%) An answer with evident weaknesses of understanding but conveying the sense that with a fuller argument or factual basis it might have achieved a pass. It might also be a short and fragmentary answer with merit in what is presented but containing serious gaps.

F (20-29%) An answer showing seriously inadequate knowledge of the subject, with little awareness of the relevant issues or literature, major omissions or inaccuracies, and pedestrian use of inadequate sources.

G (10-19%) An answer that falls far short of a passable level by some combination of short length, irrelevance, lack of intelligibility, factual inaccuracy and lack of acquaintance with reading or academic concepts.

H (0-9%) An answer without any academic merit which usually conveys little sense that the course has been followed or of the basic skills of essay-writing.

1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8


Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur ©atelim.com 2016
rəhbərliyinə müraciət