Write 1500 critical reflection

AEST

This assessment brings together perspectives on wellbeing from different academic disciplines to develop a holistic view of wellbeing.

There are two (2) options for completing this assessment. Please choose one (1) of the following options.

Option 1

1. Create a mind map of wellbeing incorporating 2 (two) theories of wellbeing from different perspectives

2. Use this map to develop a written critical reflection (750 words +/- 10%) of the similarities and differences between the theories, and the research support for each.

Option 2

Write a 1,500 word (+/- 10%) critical reflection on the similarities and differences between two theories of wellbeing, their associated practices (e.g. tithing, prayer, fasting) and the research support for the relationship between these practices and wellbeing.

Some theories covered in this unit that you could compare include:

a. Aristotle and Bentham

b. Epicurean and Stoic

c. PERMA and existential positive psychology

d. Subjective well-being (SWB) and objective wellbeing (specifically, Nussbaum’s capability theory of wellbeing)

e. Kwon’s theory of wellbeing in LGB communities and Deci and Ryan’s self-determination theory

f. Aboriginal perspectives and Western perspectives (e.g. Subjective Well-being or PERMA)

The mind map

For each theory, identify the practices (e.g. engaging with the community, exercise, spending money on others) that each deems is essential for wellbeing.

Your mind map should include:

1. Your central concept, which is wellbeing

2. 2 main branches each representing a theory

3. Child branches for each of the main branches showing the practices of wellbeing identified by that theory

The mind map should help you organize not only the theories but also the associated wellbeing practices each suggests. The aim is to gain a perspective on wellbeing that highlights the different ways it is conceptualized and practiced.

An example mind map is available on Moodle, as well as a link to a good article on mind mapping which includes online tools if you would like to use these.

Presentation of the mind map: You can draw by hand or use a computer program to design your mind map.

Layout: Keep it as simple or complex as you like, just bear in mind that I will need to be able to identify the key elements I’ve set out above in order to grade the mind map.

Mind map theory: there are several of these and each has slightly different ideas about how to set up a mind map and what to include. If you are already using mind maps and you have a particular style that you like, please feel free to use this. If you’re new to mapping thinking in this way then explore a little to find what works for you.

I don’t mind which tool you use to develop the mind map, nor which mind mapping theory you use, as long as it includes the information outlined in the task description above.

The critical reflection

In the critical reflection, you will:

1. Compare and contrast definitions and practices of wellbeing:

a. What are similarities and differences between the theories of wellbeing?

i. That is, in what ways do these theories conceptualise wellbeing using similar ideas and suggesting similar practices?

ii. Where do they contradict/challenge each other?

2. Research evidence:

a. What does the research evidence tell us about which of these practices are associated with increasing wellbeing?

3. Bringing the theories together:

a. Which ideas and practices from both theories are important for improving wellbeing?

b. What insights does bringing the theories together create for you in understanding wellbeing more holistically?

You need to reference the critical reflection and provide a separate References page. Please ensure that you use appropriate academic references. Don’t use a newspaper article from Huff Post (as fun as that is to read!) as your evidence. Go for peer-reviewed research – even better, peer-reviewed meta-analyses of a theory/a particular wellbeing practice and its relationship to wellbeing.

PSYC20039 – Interdisciplinary & Cross-cultural Approaches to Wellbeing

Marking Rubric for Assessment 3

OPTION 1

Criteria

HD D C P F

Mind Map

The quality of the mind map

A very high-quality presentation – excellent organization and use of creative thinking in the design and creation. A high-quality presentation – very well organized and very good use of creative thinking in the design and creation. A moderate-quality presentation – mostly well organized and good use of creative thinking in the design and creation. A basic-quality presentation –evidence of basic organization and creative thinking in the design and creation. Poor-quality presentation – disorganized with limited evidence of creative thinking in the design and creation.

Identifying 2 theories, the definition of wellbeing and the wellbeing practices advocated by each theory.

Accurately reflects the theory’s conceptualization of wellbeing. Accurately reflects, with some minor omissions, the theory’s conceptualization of wellbeing Several minor or a major omission in identifying the theory’s conceptualization of wellbeing A number of inaccuracies identifying wellbeing practices – only partially reflects the theory’s conceptualization of wellbeing Largely inaccurate or incomplete reflection of the theory and the associated practices.

Critical reflection

Identifying and summarizing the research evidence for the theory/wellbeing practices in terms of its relationship with wellbeing.

Identifies and summarises research support of the theories (or specific practices) to a very high standard, well considered and accurate.

Excellent quality of resources, including peer-reviewed articles or books. Identifies and summarises research support of the theories (or specific practices) to a high standard, well considered and accurate.

Very good to excellent quality of resources, including peer-reviewed articles or books. Identifies and summarises research support of the theory (or specific practices) to a fair standard, well considered and accurate.

Reasonable quality of resources, including peer-reviewed articles or books. Identifies and summarises research support of the theory (or specific practices) to a basic standard, some inaccuracies or missing evidence.

Mixed quality of resources. Research support is inaccurate or not included. Suitable resources have not been drawn upon.

Bringing the two theories and associated wellbeing practices together

A comprehensive, creative and insightful analysis showing excellent critical thinking.

A thorough analysis which demonstrates considerable insight and very good critical thinking A good analysis which demonstrates some evidence of critical thinking and insight. A basic analysis. Some opportunities for identifying similarities and differences were missed. A reasonable effort in thinking critically. Limited or no evidence of analyzing similarities and difference. Limited or no evidence of critical thinking.

Overall comprehension, clarity and quality of your submission.

Purposeful, very well integrated, and succinct writing, which clearly conveys key points and insights, and flows logically. Writing is to the point (no waffle or extraneous information), and persuasive and compelling, with appropriate use of spelling, grammar, and syntax.

Largely purposeful, integrated, and succinct writing, which mostly clearly conveys key points and insights. Writing is mostly to the point (no waffle or extraneous information), and mostly persuasive and compelling, with appropriate use of spelling, grammar, and syntax. Writing occasionally lacks focus, integration, clarity and/or succinctness, and/or there may be errors or instances of ineffective use of vocabulary, grammar, punctuation, word choice, spelling, and/or recognizable. The errors occasionally affect comprehension and readability. There are a number of errors, and instances of ineffective use of vocabulary, grammar, punctuation, word choice, spelling, and/or recognizable, which obscures the meaning and readability some of the time. There are many errors, and instances of ineffective use of vocabulary, grammar, punctuation, word choice, spelling, and/or recognizable, which obscures meaning and readability.

Word limit

Word limit met Over or under word limit by 10 words Over or under word limit by 25 words Over or under word limit by 50 words More than 50 words over or under the word limit

OPTION 2

Criteria

HD D C P F

Identifying 2 theories, the definition of wellbeing and the wellbeing practices advocated by each theory.

Accurately reflects the theory’s conceptualization of wellbeing. Accurately reflects, with some minor omissions, the theory’s conceptualization of wellbeing Several minor or a major omission in identifying the theory’s conceptualization of wellbeing A number of inaccuracies identifying wellbeing practices – only partially reflects the theory’s conceptualization of wellbeing Largely inaccurate or incomplete reflection of the theory and the associated practices.

Identifying and summarizing the main research evidence for each theory/associated wellbeing practices in terms of its relationship with wellbeing.

Identifies and summarises research support of the theories (and/or associated practices) to a very high standard, well considered and accurate.

Excellent quality of resources, including peer-reviewed articles or books. Identifies and summarises research support of the theories (and/or associated practices) to a high standard, well considered and accurate.

Very good to excellent quality of resources, including peer-reviewed articles or books. Identifies and summarises research support of the theory (and/or associated practices) to a fair standard, well considered and accurate.

Reasonable quality of resources, including peer-reviewed articles or books. Identifies and summarises research support of the theory (and/or associated practices) to a basic standard, some inaccuracies or missing evidence.

Mixed quality of resources. Research support is inaccurate or not included. Suitable resources have not been drawn upon.

Bringing the two theories and associated wellbeing practices together

A comprehensive, creative and insightful analysis showing excellent critical thinking.

A thorough analysis which demonstrates considerable insight and very good critical thinking A good analysis which demonstrates some evidence of critical thinking and insight. A basic analysis. Some opportunities for identifying similarities and differences were missed. A reasonable effort in thinking critically. Limited or no evidence of analyzing similarities and difference. Limited or no evidence of critical thinking.

Overall comprehension, clarity and quality of your submission.

Purposeful, very well integrated, and succinct writing, which clearly conveys key points and insights, and flows logically. Writing is to the point (no waffle or extraneous information), and persuasive and compelling, with appropriate use of spelling, grammar, and syntax.

Largely purposeful, integrated, and succinct writing, which mostly clearly conveys key points and insights. Writing is mostly to the point (no waffle or extraneous information), and mostly persuasive and compelling, with appropriate use of spelling, grammar, and syntax. Writing occasionally lacks focus, integration, clarity and/or succinctness, and/or there may be errors or instances of ineffective use of vocabulary, grammar, punctuation, word choice, spelling, and/or recognizable. The errors occasionally affect comprehension and readability. There are a number of errors, and instances of ineffective use of vocabulary, grammar, punctuation, word choice, spelling, and/or recognizable, which obscures the meaning and readability some of the time. There are many errors, and instances of ineffective use of vocabulary, grammar, punctuation, word choice, spelling, and/or recognizable, which obscures meaning and readability.

Word limit

Word limit met Over or under word limit by 10 words Over or under word limit by 25 words Over or under word limit by 50 words More than 50 words over or under the word limit