Applied Ethics — End of Unit Feedback

Year 13 — Applied Ethics

Question Level Analysis

Class performance overview • 20 students • 2 essay titles

24.8

Class mean
/40

62%

Mean score
percentage

Highest score
/40

Lowest score
/40

Score Distribution

All 20 students

28–40 ★

6 (30%)

22–27

10 (50%)

18–21

4 (20%)

Assessment Objective Breakdown

AO1 — Knowledge & Understanding

Mean: 10.7/16 (67%)

Level 3

Level 4

Level 5

Level 6

AO2 — Analysis & Evaluation

Mean: 14.2/24 (59%)

Level 3

Level 4

Level 5

Level 6

Essay Comparison

Whistle-blowing
(12 students)

Mean25.2/40

AO110.8/16

AO214.5/24

High30/40

Low21/40

Euthanasia
(8 students)

Mean24.2/40

AO110.5/16

AO213.8/24

High31/40

Low19/40

Class Strengths

📚 AO1 — Knowledge & Understanding ▼

✓ Class Strength

Strong grasp of core theoretical distinctions

The majority of students can accurately distinguish between Act and Rule Utilitarianism and correctly identify the foundational mechanics of Kantian deontology. Most responses showed competent use of terms such as the Categorical Imperative, Good Will, Hedonic Calculus, and Greatest Happiness Principle.

✓ Class Strength

Effective use of case studies

Students consistently deploy real-world case studies — particularly Rana Plaza, Ford Pinto, and Tony Nicklinson — to anchor abstract theory. This is a genuine strength and reflects good exam preparation. Several students also showed impressive reach with less obvious examples (Samuel Provance/Abu Ghraib, Tony Bland).

✓ Class Strength

Confident deployment of technical vocabulary

Most students use subject-specific terminology (teleological, deontological, universalisability, Agape, Sanctity of Life, Quality of Life) accurately and in appropriate context, demonstrating solid retention from teaching.

✓ Class Strength

Religious and secular sources integrated

In the euthanasia essays, students show a pleasing ability to bring in both religious sources (Aquinas, Summa Theologica, biblical references) and secular voices (Fletcher, Singer, Rachels), demonstrating the breadth of engagement expected at A-level.

✏️ AO2 — Analysis & Evaluation ▼

✓ Class Strength

Identifying the limits of the Hedonic Calculus

Nearly all students successfully critique the unpredictability and subjectivity of Bentham's Hedonic Calculus. The argument that consequences cannot be reliably calculated in a whistleblowing or euthanasia scenario is well-constructed across the cohort.

✓ Class Strength

Sustained focus on the question

Most students maintain a clear evaluative thread, returning to the specific question prompt (usefulness / convincingness) rather than drifting into description. This reflects disciplined exam technique for Year 13.

✓ Class Strength

Engaging with the Slippery Slope in Euthanasia essays

Students writing on Euthanasia show strong evaluative skill by not merely stating the slippery slope argument, but by actively debating it — some using Helga Kuhse and Dutch evidence to challenge it. This is genuine Level 5 evaluation.

Priority Areas for Improvement

🎯 AO2 — The critical gap across the cohort HIGH PRIORITY ▼

△ Key Gap

AO2 significantly lags AO1 across the cohort

The class mean for AO2 is 59% (14.2/24) versus 67% for AO1 (10.7/16). No student reached Level 6 in AO2, whereas three reached Level 6 in AO1. This disparity suggests students can recall and present knowledge well but are not yet consistently evaluating, weighing, and constructing sustained critical arguments. At A-level, AO2 is where marks are won or lost in 40-mark essays.

△ Key Gap

Failure to challenge their own argument (counter-evaluation)

The most common barrier to Level 6 AO2 across both essays is the absence of genuine counter-evaluation. Students argue convincingly for Kant or Situation Ethics but rarely steelman the opposing view with equal rigour. A Level 6 response requires the student to make the strongest possible case against their own conclusion before defending it.

△ Key Gap

Conflict of duties under-explored

In both essay titles, the most sophisticated evaluative point — the clash of duties within Kantian ethics (duty to employer vs. duty to truth; duty to loyalty vs. duty to universal law) — is either absent or superficially treated. This is the gateway to Level 5/6 AO2 and should be a core teaching focus.

📖 AO1 — Scholarly depth and sourcing MEDIUM PRIORITY ▼

△ Key Gap

Named sources of wisdom underused

Many students identify concepts correctly but do not cite the specific texts behind them. Referencing Bentham's Principles of Morals and Legislation, Mill's On Liberty, Kant's Groundwork, Fletcher's Situation Ethics (1966), Aquinas' Summa Theologica — rather than just the philosopher's name — is a clear Level 5/6 AO1 differentiator. Currently only a minority of students do this consistently.

△ Key Gap

Secondary scholars absent or underdeveloped

The OCR specification expects engagement with secondary scholars. Norman Bowie (duty of loyalty), Milton Friedman (shareholder primacy), Edward Freeman (stakeholder theory), Helga Kuhse (Netherlands evidence), Grisez and Boyle (natural law critique), and James Rachels (active/passive distinction) appear in some responses but are missing from many. These are the scholars that lift a response into the top bands.

△ Key Gap

PIDA 1998 not consistently referenced

The Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 is directly relevant to the whistle-blowing essay and connects ethical theory to real legal and business practice. Only a small number of students referenced it. Connecting Rule Utilitarianism and Kantian universalisability to actual legislation significantly elevates AO1 mark scores.

💬 Both essays — Conclusion quality MEDIUM PRIORITY ▼

△ Key Gap

Conclusions are summative rather than evaluative

A common pattern across the cohort is conclusions that summarise what has been said rather than deliver a weighted, reasoned judgment. At Year 13, the conclusion should clearly state which theory is more useful/convincing and why, acknowledging the strongest counter-argument before dismissing it. A good model: "While Utilitarianism offers flexibility that mirrors real-world decision-making, Kantian ethics remains the more useful approach because it removes the impossible burden of consequence-prediction from the whistleblower and provides a universal moral standard that transcends cultural and economic context."

Recommended Teacher Strategies

🧠 Whole-class interventions ▼

🔧 Strategy

PEEL counter-argument drill

Run a structured exercise where students must write one paragraph arguing against their own conclusion using PEEL (Point, Evidence, Explain, Link). This directly targets the counter-evaluation gap. Model it first using a student response (anonymised) on the visualiser, showing how a Level 4 paragraph becomes Level 6 with a genuine challenge added.

🔧 Strategy

'Scholars Wall' classroom resource

Create a permanent classroom display mapping each key scholar to the specific argument they support, the text it comes from, and the essay question it applies to. Students frequently know the concept but not the attribution. The wall should include: Bentham, Mill, Kant, Friedman, Freeman, Bowie, Singer, Rachels, Kuhse, Fletcher, Aquinas, Grisez & Boyle, Benjamin Constant.

🔧 Strategy

Timed conclusion writing practice

Dedicate 10 minutes of a lesson to conclusion-only writing. Give students their introduction and three body paragraphs and ask them to write only the conclusion. Peer-mark against a success criteria that includes: named judgment, strongest counter-argument acknowledged, reasoned dismissal, synoptic link. This isolates a weakness that affects the whole cohort.

🔧 Strategy

Conflict of Duties case study lesson

Design a lesson specifically around the Conflict of Duties as a Kantian problem. Use scenario cards: You know your employer is engaged in tax fraud. You have signed a confidentiality agreement. You have a family to support. What does Kant say? Students must identify the competing duties and work out which takes precedence — and why. This thinking is the gateway to Level 5/6 AO2 on both essay titles.

🎯 Targeting specific grade boundaries ▼

🔧 Strategy: Level 3 → Level 4 (19–21 marks)

Vocabulary and scholar attribution focus

For the 4 students scoring below 22, the primary intervention is technical vocabulary. Replace generic phrases with precise OCR terminology: 'rigid rules' becomes 'Legalism'; 'the situation' becomes 'Relativism or Pragmatism'; 'most people' becomes 'the utilitarian calculus of the greatest number.' Pair each concept with the scholar who coined it. Run weekly vocabulary retrieval starters using these terms in context.

🔧 Strategy: Level 4 → Level 5 (22–27 marks)

Moving from assertion to justified argument

The majority of the class (10 students) sit in this band. The barrier is that evaluation is asserted rather than developed. Teach the 'So what? Says who? What if?' technique: every evaluative claim must say what follows from it (So what?), cite a scholar who agrees (Says who?), and acknowledge a counter (What if?). Practise this on one paragraph per lesson until it is automatic.

🔧 Strategy: Level 5 → Level 6 (28–40 marks)

Synoptic links and philosophical sophistication

Six students are already in this band. To reach Level 6 AO2 they need synoptic connections across the specification (e.g., linking the Conflict of Duties to Kant's Groundwork more precisely; connecting the euthanasia debate to the Doctrine of Double Effect and Telos; using Integrative Social Contracts Theory in business ethics). They also need to demonstrate that they can see where two competing theories converge — e.g., where Mill's Rule Utilitarianism and Kant's Universal Law arrive at the same practical conclusion on whistle-blowing.

📝 Next steps for marking and feedback ▼

🔧 Strategy

Green for growth re-draft task

Ask each student to select one AO2 paragraph from their essay and rewrite it to reach the next level band, using their individual feedback as a guide. Collect and mark only the redrafted paragraph. This focuses effort and makes the improvement visible in a short time window — ideal for a Year 13 cohort with limited time before final exams.

🔧 Strategy

Peer assessment using the level descriptors

Share the OCR Level descriptors for AO1 and AO2 explicitly. Ask students to level their partner's essay using the descriptors, then compare with the teacher mark. Discrepancies become a discussion point. Year 13 students benefit enormously from understanding how mark schemes work from the examiner's perspective — it transforms the way they write.

🔧 Strategy

Mock exam under timed conditions before next unit

Given that AO2 is the clear bottleneck, consider a short timed mock (40 minutes, one question) before the next unit begins, using one of the same essay titles. The class has now received detailed feedback; a timed re-attempt will show whether the interventions are working and give you a second data point for QLA.