Reflective Essay Assignment
Assignment Brief
Title: "Ethical Responsibilities and Population Risks in Weight Cutting Practices"
Word count: Approximately 500 words
Weighting: This essay is worth 20% of the course grade.
Structure
1. Introduction (75 to 100 words)
- Define weight cutting and its relevance in ITF Taekwon-Do
- Introduce the ethical dilemma: performance enhancement vs. athlete safety
- State your intention to reflect on how coaches should navigate this balance
2. Main Body (300 to 350 words)
A. Ethical Responsibilities
- Reflect on your role in supporting informed, safe, evidence-based strategies
- Acknowledge the power dynamics inherent in the coach-athlete relationship
- Discuss the implications of promoting or endorsing high-risk methods
B. At-Risk Populations and Red Lines
- Identify athlete profiles for whom weight cutting is ethically inappropriate
- Refer to medical contraindications and mental health risks
- Consider how cultural or competitive pressures can lead to unethical practices
3. Conclusion (75 to 100 words)
- Summarise your current stance on weight cutting in coaching practice
- Reflect on how this knowledge influences your future decision-making, athlete education, or club policies
- Reaffirm the priority of athlete health above competitive success
Guidance
This is a reflective essay, not a literature review. You are expected to articulate a personal position supported by evidence, not to summarise the readings. First person is appropriate. Use specific examples where possible (real or hypothetical scenarios you might face as a coach). Reference the course materials to support your points.
Suggested sources
- Reale et al. 2017a, 2017b, 2018
- Sullivan & Lennon 2023
- Ricci et al. 2025
- Sundgot-Borgen et al. 2013
- Mathiesen et al. 2023
Submission
- Write your essay in a word processor or text editor.
- Include your name and the essay title at the top of the document.
- Submit through the assignment submission area on this page.
Grade Descriptors
Grade | Mark | Descriptor |
|---|---|---|
A1 | 80%+ | Thoughtful, well-structured, deeply reflective; clearly articulates ethical concerns and population-specific risks with reference to evidence |
A2 | 75%+ | Clear, well-supported arguments with sound structure; demonstrates insight |
B1 | 70%+ | Persuasive and mostly complete; demonstrates ethical reflection; minor omissions |
B2 | 65%+ | Addresses key ethical points; lacks depth in one or two areas |
B3 | 60%+ | Basic structure; surface-level engagement with ethical issues |
C1 | 55%+ | Demonstrates understanding but limited critical reflection |
C2 | 50%+ | Minimal insight; shows effort but lacks structure |
C3 | 45%+ | Disorganised or poorly focused |
D1 | 40%+ | Weak or unclear; lacks coherence |
F | <35% | Incoherent or missing |
Sign in to submit your assignment