Marking Criteria for certain 'comparison' questions??

[izzykose]

For example :

Any help would be appreciated .

Explain the difference between mediation and arbitration and give an example of where each may be used.

My thoughts : Define mediation (1mark). Example (encouraged throughout civil pre-trial procedures) (1 mark).  whereas, define arbitration (1 mark). Example (under 10,000 claims in the mag court), (1 mark).

However my teacher says that you have to focus mainly upon differences.... But isnt the definitions pointing out the key differences:

-Mediator, arbitrator
-Facilitates party discussion, impartial third party
-Decision not binding, decision binding

[cltf]

All year i've just explained what mediation is and then the same for arbitration but saying how it is different to mediation.

[burbs]

The Define-Whereas-Define is really for 2 mark questions, not 4. Go into the actual differences such as cost/formality/outcome (legally binding or not/suitability

[RobDog]

I'm guessing that question is worth 4 marks.
When it comes to the differences between dispute resolutions such as mediation, conciliation and arbitration, my teacher always told me the safest bet was to outline how the role of the independent third party was different for each method.
The way you have done seems fine but make sure you make it clear that you are contrasting the two and not just listing some of the features.
By this i mean, make it obvious as you write:
'The decision in mediation is made by the disputing parties, without the assistance of the third party, and is not legally binding, however, the decision made in arbitration is formed solely by the impartial arbitrator, and is legally enforceable.'

[smithy16]

Is this a good enough response,
Although both dispute resolution methods; mediation and arbitration differ in that the role of the third party in mediation is to facilitate discussion without providing possible solutions; whereas the role of the third party in arbitration is to make a legally binding decision. The outcomes of mediation and arbitration also contrast between one another, as decisions made in arbitration by the third party are legally binding, whereas decisions reached between the two parties in mediation are not, unless a contract is signed. Furthermore, mediation often produces a win-win solution, where both parties have been able to reach some form of compromise and have felt as though they have in a way ‘won’; whereas arbitration often results in a win-lose solution, as a decision is made in favour of one of the parties, leaving the other party feeling as though they have ‘lost’. One example of when arbitration may be used is for claims less than $10,000 at the Magistrates Court, as the dispute is automatically referred to arbitration. One example of when mediation may be used is throughout the civil pre-trial stages. The Supreme Court especially refers cases to mediation to be resolved before the case is heard in court.

[izzykose]

I think that would work. You have given two differences and then two examples= 4 marks.

However, @burbs, isnt the definition stating three differences.... the ones i pointed out in dot points, wouldnt i get 4 marks for that response?

[smithy16]

Yeah it is pointing out three differences, however you are not identifying exactly where the two adr methods differ. You need to break it up and say why they are different.

[izzykose]

Well it kind of is...

One part of the definition is: A mediator works to facilitate discussion between parties, to work towards a resolution that provides a win-win solution, which is constructed by the parties themselves; however this resolution is not binding and thus is not legally enforceable.

-Whereas, an arbitrator is an impartial third party which listens to the facts of the case presented by two opposing parties, and works to make a decision  upon a win-lose basis due to the adversarial nature of arbitration, which is binding on the parties and therefore is legally enforeceable.

In my response it is not presented like that, but those statements are within my definition. It clearly shows where they differ. (Facilitates discussion/impartial third party, Win-win/win lose, not binding/binding). How does that not show where the differences lie....

This is what i dont understand.

[RobDog]

Pretty much you've got all the right information in you're answer, but as you can see in smithy16's answer, he directly contrasts each feature that he intends to show a difference in.
When the examiner is marking you're paper, it's going to be in you're best interests to clearly show what the differences are so they can just tick of the marks and see you have everything required, rather than make them fish through an answer and spend time to see if you have done what the question requires you to do.
This is just what my teacher has been ramming down my class's throats all year.

[izzykose]

Yeah, so instead of going with a definition, i should pick two differences and state how they are different and then give an example?

Thanks.

[smithy16]

Yeah my teacher told us over and over again to sign post all of your answer. If you stuck with the two definitions, they could simply say that you didn't identify that they were different. Its bullshit yes, but its what you have got to do.