SCO101

Why Do Good?

Group-Based
Discussion Board Assignment
July 2022
SCO101 Discussion Board Assignment

GROUP-BASED DISCUSSION BOARD ASSIGNMENT (DB01)

The Group-Based Discussion Board assignment (DB01) is worth 40% of the final mark for SCO101
Why do Good? It will be conducted on the Canvas Discussion Board for three weeks, and each DB
group will comprise no more than 15 members.

Students are to sign-up on Canvas DB for their preferred DB group in week 0 (see Canvas
announcement). Those without a DB group will be assigned one by their course instructors after the
deadline. No student will be allowed to change groups thereafter.

All post submissions and responses in the Canvas DB must be of original work. Please refer to the
Student Handbook for details regarding plagiarism and on how to avoid it. The University has strict
guidelines and will enforce severe penalties for direct and unacknowledged copying of course materials
or the work of any other authors as this is regarded as cheating. This includes the direct lifting of
sentences or parts of sentences, the lack of or incomplete citations, and the non-usage of quotation
marks.

DB posts require correct citations and a list of references. In-text citations and list of references are not
included in the word count.

Marks will be awarded only to submitted posts for the given tasks using the marking rubrics. The non-
fulfilment of any of the tasks will be awarded with a “0” score.

There is strictly no extension of assignment deadlines, and no late submissions are allowed. Timely
submission of posts and comments for each week is strongly encouraged. This will facilitate group
collaboration which will increase the overall group score.

The cut-off date for the DB01 assignment is:

Task (a) Task (b) Task (c)

TGs with classes in the 10 July 11:55pm 17 July 11:55pm 24 July 11:55pm
July 2022 OFF-TERM

TGs with classes in 31 July 11:55pm 7 August 11:55pm 14 August 11:55pm

TERM 1 WEEKS 1-3

TGS with classes in 21 August 11:55pm 28 August 11:55pm 4 September 11:55pm

TERM 1 WEEKS 4-6

TGs with classes in 25 September 11:55pm 2 October 11:55pm 9 October 11:55pm

TERM 2 WEEKS 9-11

TGs with classes in 16 October 11:55pm 23 October 11:55pm 30 October 11:55pm

TERM 2 WEEKS 12-14

SINGAPORE UNIVERSITY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES 2

SCO101 Discussion Board Assignment

DB01 (TOTAL 100 MARKS)

There are 2 components to this assignment weighted evenly at 50:50. The first is an individual
component (50 marks) consisting of tasks (a) and (b), to be completed in weeks 1 and 2 respectively.
The second is a group component (50 marks) consisting of task (c) that will require collaborative work
throughout weeks 1-3.

The window for discussion opens between Mon 00:00 a.m. to Sunday 11:55 p.m. of each week for tasks
(a), (b), and (c). Timely responses to each task will help facilitate contributions by other members. This
will allow the group to do well in the overall collaborative learning and communication scores in task
(c).

Individual Component (Total 50 marks)

In this assignment, you are required to reason (using claims and reasons) through an actual moral issue
in Singapore by applying two of the four moral principles/theories (Kant’s principle of
universalizability, Kant’s principle of humanity, Benthamite Utilitarianism, and Millian Utilitarianism)
covered in this course. The tasks for each week are broken down into (a) and (b), requiring one post
each. Your Task (a) post must be no more 150 words and your Task (b) post must be no more than 300
words. You will receive an individual score for your understanding of what makes this a moral issue,
your grasp of the moral theories, and the application of these moral theories to arrive at a stance
regarding the issue.

Week 1: Task (a) 20 marks

Present a case study of a moral issue in Singapore. You must identify the features that make
this a moral issue and the relevant ethical considerations for discussion. You should avoid
cluttering the issue with unnecessary information (for example, particular details of
personalities or statistics).

Week 2: Task (b) 30 marks

Respond to another DB member’s Task (a) case study. Demonstrate your understanding of
two out of the four moral principles/theories discussed in this course by applying them to
your group member’s Task (a) post. Your conclusions when applying the theories to your
chosen Task (a) case may differ.

Group Component (50 marks)

As a group, you must demonstrate that there are intelligent exchanges that promote collaborative
learning. This is achieved by showing that each of you are able to articulate, explain, and discuss your
ideas with other group members; raise concerns and questions; clarify doubts; and collaborate with and
persuade others through rational arguments over the duration of this course.

Your task is thus to improve the overall quality of the discussion of your DB group over 3 weeks.

SINGAPORE UNIVERSITY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES 3

SCO101 Discussion Board Assignment

There are numerous ways that you can do this, including but not limited to the following:

● Pointing out how a topic in a task (a) post is not, in fact, a moral issue.
● Pointing out that a task (a) post did not adequately explain how/why the stated topic is a
moral issue and suggesting some morally relevant considerations that were overlooked.
● Suggesting additional considerations not raised about a task (a) topic that might be
nevertheless morally relevant.
● Providing constructive critique of theory-use in a task (b) post—perhaps pointing out
that a peer did not use a theory correctly and suggesting amendments.
● Discussing possible criticisms, drawbacks, or limitations of an argument in a task (b)
post.
● Responding to another task (c) post, either by presenting additional morally relevant
information or considerations, or by providing a counter-argument.

There is no limit to the number of posts you can add to improve the quality of the group discussion, but
you must provide a minimum of 2 task (c) posts. Each post must be no more than 100 words. You will
be given a ‘0’ if you do not submit at least 2 task (c) posts. The overall quality of discussion will
determine the final score for those who add value to the group discussion.

Weeks 1- 3: Task (c) 50 marks

Comment on and discuss other group members’ tasks (a) to (c) posts. Explain your
response, clarify doubts others may raise, and seek to persuade others with your
reasoning.

SINGAPORE UNIVERSITY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES 4

SCO101 Discussion Board Assignment

This assignment will be marked holistically and the following rubrics will be used.

Individual Component - tasks (a) and (b), Total 50 marks

Task (a) 20 marks 20 -15 marks 14 – 9 marks 8 – 4 marks 3-0 marks

Present a moral issue
and identify its
relevant considerations
for discussion.
(Communication and
Sense- making)
Provides relevant and
thorough details of the
moral issue which help to
clarify key ethical
considerations.
Demonstrates perceptive
analysis of the ethical
issue, and a clear
articulation of ethical
considerations.
Provides adequate Provides vague details of Presentation of the issue
details of the moral the moral issue. is cluttered with
issue and ethical distracting information.
considerations for Shows an inability to
discussion. articulate the broad and Shows confusion about
relevant ethical what constitutes an ethical
Shows an ability to considerations. issue or ethical
clearly articulate the considerations.
broad but relevant
ethical considerations.

Task (b) 30 marks 30 – 25 marks 24 – 19 marks 18 – 13 marks 12 – 7 marks 6 – 0 marks

Respond to a case Articulates a Articulates an Articulates a broad Position on the issue There is a lack of
study presented by precise position on adequately clear position on the issue is confused or position on the issue,
another member of the issue in an position on the issue using a somewhat lacking, demonstrating that a
your DB. ambiguous setting using a structured structured process of demonstrating weak decision has not been
Demonstrate your using structured process of reasons- reasons-and -claims, decision- making. reached.
ability to formulate reasons-and-claim. and- claim. albeit loosely at The reasons-and- The reasons-and-
an argument (i.e., 1 times. claim structure is claim structure is
claim with Demonstrates an Demonstrates a good loosely formed. unclear.
supporting reasons) excellent grasp of knowledge of the Demonstrates
using two out of the the theory and theory with some sufficient knowledge Demonstrates a bare Demonstrates a lack
four moral theories provides a correct slips, and is able to of the theory, with minimum of of understanding of
discussed in this and thorough apply the theory some minor understanding of the the theory except for
course, and apply application to the adequately to the mistakes, and is able theory, committing its key principle.
each theory to your case study. case study, albeit not to apply the theory to some major mistakes
chosen case study. thoroughly. the case study, albeit or showing an
vaguely or inability to apply it to
Use a structured generically. the case study.
decision- making
process and analyse
multiple sources of
information to take
a moral stance on
the issue. (decision-
making)

Moral stands may

differ for each
theory applied.

SINGAPORE UNIVERSITY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES 5

SCO101
Task (c)
Are you on task and engaging
with one another
meaningfully?
Appropriateness and timely
posting of comments and/or
answers to tasks (a) to (c), and
to questions/responses raised by
other group members.
Are you conveying your
thoughts and ideas effectively
to work towards a common
goal (i.e., to work
collaboratively and create a
dynamic exchange of ideas and
arguments)?
Tailor communication
approaches to the group’s needs
and determine suitable methods
to convey and exchange thoughts
and ideas effectively.
(Communication)
SINGAPORE UNIVERSITY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES
Discussion Board Assignment
Group Component – task (c) Total 50 marks
25 - 20 marks 19 - 14 marks 13 – 8 marks 7 – 0 marks
Comments were Comments were posted Comments were Comments were not posted in
posted in a timely in a timely manner and posted mostly in a a timely manner nor did they
manner and fully adequate in addressing timely manner and address most of the tasks (a)
adequate in tasks (a) to (c), and the somewhat adequate to (c); some were out of
addressing tasks (a) discussion was in addressing tasks context. No or few questions
to (c), and there was somewhat focused. (a) to (c), but the were raised to clarify the
a clear direction to Some questions were discussion was not issues or generate insights.
the discussion. raised and responses always focused. Members’ posts did not
Members raised given, slightly Some questions were respond to others within the
relevant questions improving the quality raised and some discussion or build on one
and others were able of the discussion, but responses given, but another’s ideas.
to address these members did not members did not
questions/ responses always respond to the respond to all the
to significantly questions or responses questions or
improve the quality raised by other group responses raised by
of the discussion. members. other group
members, and neither
did the responses
improve the quality
of the discussion.
Discussion shows Discussion shows fairly Discussion lacked Communication was largely
clear, concerted, and concerted and sustained clear, concerted, and missing and/or redundant.
sustained attempts to attempts to work sustained attempts to Ideas were merely
work towards a towards a common work towards a descriptions (not discussion),
common goal. goal. common goal. with little connection to the
tasks at hand.
Differences in Differences in opinion Differences in
opinion and moral and moral stances were opinion and moral
stances were encouraged and stances were neither
encouraged and presented, but were not encouraged nor
presented, and were addressed. Students presented. Students
addressed were able to fairly were unable to
effectively. Ideas conduct a discussion conduct an effective
were clearly but were unable to discussion and were
articulated and communicate their unable to
insightful, and views and ideas communicate their
students explored effectively. Thoughts views and ideas
various ways of and ideas were not effectively. Thoughts
communicating their always clearly and ideas were not
thoughts and ideas. articulated or always clearly
adequately developed. articulated or
adequately
developed.
---- END OF ASSIGNMENT ---
6