Introduction

Welcome to your new module. We hope you enjoy your studies. This document specifies the assessment/s for this module. We want you to be successful at the highest possible levels. You should find the assessment/s to be clear, relevant, accessible, appropriate and challenging.

From September 2017, all assessment briefs have a set structure. So, you will become familiar with the 8 main sections in them. This assessment brief tells you:

1. what the module is about overall
2. what the module Learning Outcomes are
3. what assessment/s you must pass, in order to successfully complete the module
4. what you need to do in the assessment/s
5. how your work will be assessed and marked
6. how to present your work for marking
7. where to access the University of Derby Assessment regulations
8. where to get other assessment-related help and support.

1.Module Overview

All modules have an overview. This gives you an indication of the aim or purpose of the module, and its content. This module’s overview is below.

This module covers research design; ethical practice in research and qualitative and quantitative approaches to research. Students will develop the ability to perform appropriate statistical analyses to address research questions about human behaviour. In addition, students will demonstrate an ability to design, conduct and report an ethically sound quantitative research study exploring human behaviour. Students will also demonstrate their critical understanding by evaluating qualitative research designs and findings. The content of this module is essential preparation for the Independent Study empirical MSc/PGDip Research Project that is required to complete the Masters level 7 programme

2.Learning Outcomes

All modules in UK Higher Education have learning outcomes that you will study towards and then demonstrate you have met them. In order to do this, you will draw on many factors such as:

• your prior learning and experience
• the module learning units and task
• your wider reading, reflection (and possibly practice)
• and, also the expertise of your tutors and other students.

In most modules, it will be clear exactly which of these learning outcomes is assessed in which of the assessments you have to submit and pass.

On successful completion of this learning, and this module, you will be able to:

1. Develop an ethically and methodologically sound empirical research study exploring a pertinent psychological theory.
2. Analyze, interpret, and critically evaluate the findings of the study to form coherent conclusions about the research question(s).
3. Critically appraise a contemporary qualitative research paper using selected criteria.

 

 

3.Assessment types used in this module

Formative Feedback Opportunities

Formative activities are opportunities for you to apply, practice and make sense of the learning materials and content that you have worked with. These will mainly be located in the End of Unit Activities.

We have written these to help you to (for example) practice some academic or professional skills, such as referencing, literature searching and analyzing materials. You can choose how much time and effort you put into these activities.

These may take the form of individual tasks, such as: reading some text, or watching a video and documenting your reaction to it; responding to some discussion points on the discussion forum; considering a case study; or, participating in a live online classroom session.

The main aim of formative activities is for you to receive feedback on your contribution, performance, or progress that will help you prepare for and complete your final summative module assessment.

All modules you take will vary in several ways, and the type of feedback you get for each formative assessment or activities will vary too. If your tutors give you marks as part of the feedback, these will not be counted in your final module grade.

Summative Assessment

Summative assessments are the pieces of coursework that you must complete which contribute towards your final grade in this module. If you have a Support Plan you can discuss with your module tutor what reasonable adjustments you need.

Summative assessment in this particular module is via three pieces of submitted work.

You will be expected to submit your summative assessments via the Turnitin assessment points on the Assessment page in My Learning section of the module.

You should take the feedback that you receive from the completion of summative assessments in this module and use it to help you improve your performance in future assessments.

 

 

4.Specific Assessment Component Guidelines

Assessment description:

Assessment Component 1: Coursework Assessment Component 2: Practical Assessment Component 3: Coursework

 

Assessment Component:	Assessment weighting:	Assessment limits:	Assesses module learning outcome/s:
1	Pass/Fail	Ethics Form using appropriate template	1
2	70%	1. Empirical Report – 2000 word limit (excluding: the title, abstract, tables/figures, reference section and appendices)	1, 2
3	30%	3. Paper Critique – 1,000 word limit (excluding: the title, reference section and any appendices)	3

 

Last submission Date/Time:	Provisional feedback released:
Coursework 1 (ethics form): 21st June, 2019, 9pm UK time	Up to 3-5 working days later
Coursework 2: 6th August, 2019, 9pm, UK time	Three (3) working weeks after submission
Coursework 3: 8th August, 2019, 9pm UK time	Three (3) working weeks after submission

 

Detailed guidance

Coursework 1

Summary of Assessment Method: Ethics Form

Weighting:  Pass/Fail

Assesses Learning Outcomes:

1. Develop an ethically and methodologically sound empirical research study exploring a pertinent psychological theory.

You are required to work in small groups of 3-6 individuals in order to prepare and submit a detailed ethics form. The ethics form is necessary for obtaining ethical clearance so that you can conduct the study referred to in Coursework 2 of this assessment brief. You will be allocated to a group by your module tutor and each group will have a dedicated area on the discussion forum that they can use to facilitate collaboration relating to this aspect of the assignment. All group members should contribute equally to preparing the ethics form.

You should use the appropriate ethics form template and ensure that you follow the ethical guidelines as laid out by the British Psychological Society. Your participant target sample must not be one that is classified as being vulnerable, such as being under the age of 18 years old or having a known psychiatric disorder. You also must not ask your participants any questions that may cause embarrassment, or cause any upset to them. Remember to assure your participants of the confidentiality of their responses and make sure that you use the correct wording to satisfy General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) requirements. You should indicate how you intend to address each of the following ethical considerations:

• Consent
• Deception
• Debriefing
• Withdrawal from the investigation
• Confidentiality
• Protection of participants
• Observational research (if applicable)
• Giving advice

 

Once you have completed your ethics form, you should submit it to the CW1 submission point in Turnitin. The ethics form must be signed by each member of the group, but only one group member needs to upload the ethics form to Turnitin. Please note that you should include the final version of your participant information form, consent form, and debrief with your ethics form.

YOUR OVERALL ASSESSMENT WILL BE CAPPED AT 30% IF YOUR STUDY HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED BY A MEMBER OF THE MODULE TEAM. 

Coursework 2

Summary of Assessment Method:  Empirical Research Report

Weighting:  70 %

Assesses Learning Outcomes:

 

1. Develop an ethically and methodologically sound empirical research study exploring a pertinent psychological theory.
2. Analyze, interpret, and critically evaluate the findings of the study to form coherent conclusions about the research question(s).

 

This will be a 2,000-word (no 10% allowance) individual report of an empirical study that you will conduct. The word limit excludes the title, abstract, tables/figures, reference section and appendices. You must avoid plagiarism and auto-plagiarism (using your own previous work; group work).

For the purposes of this practical assessment component, you will be provided with a selection of questionnaires relating to core areas of psychology as well as topics that may be familiar or of interest to you. The empirical report will require you to conduct a study that uses Multiple Regression to analyse data. The general purpose of multiple regression is to learn more about the relationship between several independent or predictor variables (PV) and a dependent or outcome variable (OV). For this report, you will have two predictor/independent variables and one outcome variable.

Working in groups, you should select an area of interest from the table below:

The predictive value of internal and external motivations of prejudice on attitudes towards women	PV1 – Internal motivations for prejudice score PV2 – External motivations for prejudice score OV – Attitudes towards women score
The predictive value  of religious belief and self-esteem on spiritual belief	PV1 – Religious belief score PV2 – Self-esteem score OV – Overall spiritual belief  score
The predictive value of self-efficacy and perceived academic behaviour confidence on procrastination	PV1 – Self-efficacy score PV2 – Academic behaviour confidence score OV – Student procrastination score
The predictive value  of role overload and alcohol consumption on happiness	PV1 – Role overload PV2 – Alcohol consumption OV2 – Happiness

 

The questionnaires will be provided for you and the links to these are available in the Assessment folder, along with some brief suggestions of prior research and psychological theories that you may choose to base your research on.

When your study has received ethical approval, you should distribute the questionnaires to approximately 50 people using Qualtrics – a task that should be divided among the group members.

When you have collected the data, you should use the relevant scoring guidance for the questionnaires that you have used. Each participant should have one score for each variable.

When you have added up the scores, this data should be shared with the group to check that there are no errors or omissions relating to data collection. From this point on, you are required to work individually. You will need to input your data into SPSS and carry out the appropriate data analysis. This data analysis should then be used to write up your report independently.

You should structure the write-up of your report using the headings shown below. The Introduction should present a rationale and hypotheses that are suitable for your methodological design.

*You should use appropriate sub-headings to structure your Methods [e.g., Design, Participants, Materials, Procedure, Ethical Considerations (just a couple of lines that your study is ethically approved), Analytical Strategy (just a couple of lines about the data screening procedures and your inferential test)] and Results sections. For more detailed instructions on what to include in each section, please read the report writing guidance in the assessment thread.

Coursework 3

Summary of Assessment Method:  Qualitative Paper Critique

Weighting:  30 %

Assesses Learning Outcomes:

3. Critically appraise a contemporary qualitative research paper using selected criteria.

This will be a 1,000-word (no 10% allowance) critique of a chosen qualitative paper. The word limit excludes the title, reference section and any appendices.

First, go to http://www.casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists and download the CASP Qualitative Checklist.

Standard Submissions, Late Submissions and AED Submissions

If you are submitting to the standard deadline, if you have received approval to make a late submission or if you have an Advanced Agreed Extended Deadline, then you should choose one of the following two papers and critically assess it using the CASP checklist. Both papers are available to download from the Assessment area of the Module Pages:

1. Timmons, L., Ekas N. V., & Johnson, P. (2017). Thankful thinking: A thematic analysis of gratitude letters by mothers of children with autism spectrum disorder. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 34, 19-27.
2. Gustafsson, E., Dellve, L., Edlund, M., & Hagberg M. (2003) The use of information technology among young adults – experience, attitudes and health beliefs. Applied Ergonomics, 34, 565-570.

For this assessment component, you should select 3 sections/questions from the 10 sections/questions that comprise the CASP Qualitative Checklist. You should focus your critique on the 3 sections that you select and should aim to use the allocated word count evenly between each section. For example, you should use approximately 250-300 words for each section and make sure to introduce your paper and to provide a conclusion (i.e., whilst ensuring not to exceed the overall assignment word limit).

5. Feedback, marking criteria and grading of your assessment

This section tells you how the marker will assess your work fairly. All markers aim for our feedback to be: timely, individual to you, helpful, empowering and manageable.

They will also offer you opportunities to discuss the marking criteria they intend to use, and the type of feedback they intend to give you. You should create a shared understanding of this with them and your peers during the course of the module. They may also give you opportunities to assess your own work and the work of your peers. Look out for these opportunities.

Assessment markers can give you feedback and allocate marks to you using a range of methods and tools that are appropriate to the specific module and assessment. The marker may make comments within your script (in bubbles) and may also give you written comments in the long box. They may give you a form of audio or video feedback.

When they give you feedback on your assessment, as a minimum, your marker will tell you:

• if and how you have met the relevant learning outcomes
• the areas within which you did well in this assessment (they will commend you)
• the areas you could have improved in this assessment (they will make suggestions)
• what activities you can work on to help you in your next studies (you can take these ideas forward with you, and may discuss them with your Personal Tutor. You can also build them into your Action Planning.

In this module specifically, they will use the following tools. This feedback and marking structure will be specific to each component as relevant.

Coursework 1: Ethics Form

The ethics form will be reviewed according to whether it carefully considers and addresses all of the ethical issues relating to the proposed study. In particular, it will be necessary to demonstrate how the planned study conforms with the ethical guidelines outlined in the British Psychological Society Code of Ethics and Conduct as well as the British Psychological Society Code of Research Ethics for Human Participants.

Coursework 2: Empirical Report

Here are the assessment criteria that will be used for your practical report:

Title

• Is it clear what the investigation was about?
• Are the IVs and DVs mentioned?
• Is the length reasonable?

Abstract

• Is the background briefly reviewed?
• Are the methods summarised?
• Are results stated in words?
• Are conclusions briefly stated?
• Can the abstract be clearly understood?
• Is the abstract succinct?

Introduction

• Is there a logical structure, outlining a broad area then focusing on a precise topic?
• Is there a clear argument for why the topic has been studied and why it is interesting?
• Is there sufficient relevant background material?
• Are relevant contemporary and classic sources discussed?
• Is there critical analysis and evaluation of previous research in the area (i.e., theories, models or theoretical frameworks; empirical evidence; methods used in previous research)?
• Is there a clear rationale for the study and methods?
• Is there a sound justification of the factors chosen for the design of the study, and of the measure/s (DV/s)?
• Are the hypotheses well justified by the background material?
• Are the hypotheses specific and testable, and clearly stated?

 

Methods

Design

• Is the design appropriate to investigate the hypotheses?
• Is the type of design described completely and accurately?
• Are any independent variables described clearly?
• Are measured (dependent) variables and their measurement described clearly?
• Were potential confounding variables considered?

 

Participants

• Are participants described sufficiently?
• Are inclusion and exclusion criteria clear and appropriate?
• Are participant recruitment/sampling methods explained?
• How many participants took part?
• Are relevant attributes of this sample described?
• Are methods of selection appropriate?

Procedure

• Does the description of how the study was conducted allow replication?
• Are participant instructions and debriefing fully described?
• Are ethical aspects of the procedure described and appropriate?

Materials and/or Apparatus

• Has enough detail been given to allow replication?
• Has the source or development of instruments and stimuli (items) been detailed?
• Have example items been given in this section and has the reader been directed to the full set of items/materials in the appendices?

Analytic strategy

• Is a clear strategy set out for the data analysis?
• Is there an explanation of how the data analysis strategy relates to the hypotheses?
• Does the data analysis strategy fit with the hypotheses/research questions/study aims?

Results

• Are appropriate descriptive/summary statistics given?
• Were tables/graphs used effectively to summarise results?
• Does the table/graph provide an appropriate indication of the mean results and a measure of variance (where relevant)? Is the table/graph referred to appropriately in the text?
• Are results clearly and completely summarised in words?
• If graphs and tables are used, are they appropriate and informative?
• Are analytical (inferential) statistics appropriate to the design, hypotheses, and scales of measurement?
• Are the results of analytical statistics fully and correctly reported?
• Are the findings clearly described, but not interpreted?

 

Discussion

• Does this section begin by summarising what the study did and what it found (without including numerical values)?
• Are the results discussed in terms of the background material presented in the introduction?
• Is there an attempt to interpret and explain the current findings with respect to previous studies and theories or models?
• Is there a discussion of what the present study adds to our understanding of the chosen topic?
• Are the strengths and limitations of the study discussed and evaluated?
• Are there specific and well justified suggestions for further research?
• Is there a discussion of the wider or applied potential impact of the present study?
• Does the report end with a summing up of the general conclusions? Do these conclusions follow from the preceding discussion (they should not add anything new)?

 

References

• Are all references that were cited in the text also included in the Reference List?
• Does the Reference List only include cited works?
• Are references correctly formatted?

Coursework 3: Qualitative Paper Critique

Here are the assessment criteria that will be used for your paper critique:

• Has the study you are critiquing been clearly identified by citing the full reference at the top of the section?
• Is the critique for the chosen paper up to 1,000 words in length?
• Is there a clear structure that includes both an introduction and conclusion?
• Does the critique use no more or less than 3 – 4 sections/questions from the CASP checklist?
• Is the critique structured under the selected headings from the checklist?
• Does the critique provide sufficient detail to address each of the questions/sections that you are focussing on?
• Is there consistent evidence of critical evaluation of the paper reviewed?
• Does the critique present a balanced argument that focuses on both strengths and weaknesses of the paper you have selected?

• Are all arguments justified using appropriate evidence?

• Does the critique show an understanding of the principles of qualitative research design that is clearly supported by background reading?
• Is an appropriate level of coherence and logic evident in the writing of the paper?

 

Indicative grading criteria for CW2

Criteria	Excellent – Distinction (70 – 100%)	Very Good – Merit (60 – 69%)	Good/ Satisfactory – Pass (50 – 59%)	Unsatisfactory – Marginal fail (40 – 49%)	Very poor – Fail (5 – 39%)	Nothing of merit (1 – 4%)
Knowledge and understanding	Excellent subject knowledge and understanding of key issues and debates   Exceptional level of critical understanding of psychological theories and research   Evidence of excellent understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the methodologies and theories/models employed   Only a small number of minor mistakes May be close to publishable	Very good subject knowledge and understanding of key issues and debates   Evidence of a very good understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the methodologies and theories/models employed   Very level of critical understanding of psychological theories and research   Minor errors and misunderstandings only. Some deficiencies in presentation.	Evidence of sound knowledge of relevant theory and debates   Work is fairly factual or derivative, with less evidence of original thinking.   Evidence of good understanding and knowledge used in evaluating theoretical and methodological approaches   Fair level of critical understanding of psychological theories and research   Might contain some conceptual gaps   Some significant errors and misunderstandings	Has narrowly failed to achieve the learning outcomes.   Satisfactory subject knowledge to some extent, but lacking depth and detail.   Some understanding of key issues, debates and methodologies, but ideas might be unclear and/or incoherent.   Factual errors and conceptual gaps might be present.	Has failed to achieve the learning outcomes in several critical aspects.   Serious omissions and misunderstandings of relevant theory, issues and debates   Ideas confused/incoherent. Lacking depth and sound development.     Evidence of accurate but mechanical reproduction of material but with no interpretation or little evidence of deeper understanding	Material presented is marginal or irrelevant to the topic or issue   No evidence of awareness of appropriate principle, theories and method   Significant misconceptions and basic errors in understanding
Analysis	Excellent evidence of ability to make a sustained argument on the basis of appropriate evidence   Excellent evidence of incisive original thinking and an ability to synthesise information in a way that shows a full grasp of the material   Excellent level of critical analysis and evaluation of research	Evidence of ability to make a sustained argument on the basis of appropriate evidence   Evidence of ability to evaluate explanations of evidence   Evidence of an appropriate level of critical analysis and evaluation of research	Some evidence of ability to make an argument on the basis of appropriate evidence   Some evidence of ability to weigh up evidence and construct general conclusions about the information   Evidence of a satisfactory level of critical analysis and evaluation of research but criteria used not always clearly stated	Limited evidence of ability to make an argument on the basis of appropriate evidence   Limited use of appropriate techniques.   Inadequate critical analysis.   Evidence of accurate reproduction of published material but with only limited interpretation or evaluation	No real evidence of evaluation or interpretation. No evidence of originality.     No real articulation of positions or arguments   Poor critical analysis and evaluation.	No attempt at evaluation or interpretation   No attempt to state positions or arguments
Empirical research skills	Excellent or original design and methods to address the research questions/aims   Excellent use of statistical or other data analysis techniques   High level of technical competence	Sound design and appropriate research methods competently executed and reported     Appropriate knowledge and skills in data analysis methods which are competently executed and reported	Adequate design and research methods with some flaws in execution and reporting       Evidence of correct approach to data analysis with some flaws in execution and reporting	Some evidence of research design and methods skills but with flaws in execution and/or reporting   Evidence of some understanding of data analysis but with serious flaws in execution and reporting	Empirical work conducted but in an ineffective and unsystematic way   Data analysis presented but inappropriate or inadequate	No empirical work, or empirical work that is incoherent, disorganised or inadequate   No data analysis, or data analysis that is incoherent or disorganised
Reading and research	Excellent depth and breadth of reading   Excellent ability and insight in the use of a wide range of relevant sources   Highly skilled deployment of reading in supporting arguments	Appropriate reading, showing good depth and breadth         Good use of a wide range of relevant sources         Skilled deployment of reading in supporting arguments	Appropriate reading, showing some depth and breadth             Use of an appropriate range of relevant sources           Satisfactory deployment of reading to support arguments	Evidence of selection of mainly relevant material from a range of sources, but evidence not deployed accurately   Materials used come from inappropriate sources but are treated as if they were from more usual sources   Narrow selection of material   Limited evidence of research	Scant or superficial reading   Inadequately researched. No evidence of research beyond some basic reading   Over-reliance on a single textbook source, without analysis, criticism or interpretation	Superficial reading of inappropriate sources   Failure to use reading appropriately in support of argument   No evidence of reading
Academic writing	Excellent standard of academic writing, with commendable clarity of ideas; exceptional coherence and logic.   Articulate writing that shows evidence of knowledge and strong control of the arguments being deployed	Very good standard of academic writing, ideas are generally clear and coherent.   Very good evidence of knowledge and control of the arguments being deployed	Sound standard of academic writing, ideas are fairly clear and coherent.   Satisfactory level of articulation and control of the arguments being deployed	Unsatisfactory standard of academic writing, ideas are unclear and incoherent.   Limited familiarity with appropriate technical terminology   Unsatisfactory level of articulation and control of the arguments being deployed	Unacceptable standard of academic writing, ideas are confused or incoherent   Substantially incorrect use of English   Consistent failure to use terminology appropriately   Notes in place of prose text   Failure to adhere to specified report format	Nothing of value is contained in the submitted work.   The presentation is irrelevant or unconnected to the task

 

Indicative grading criteria for CW3

Criteria	Excellent – Distinction (70 – 100%)	Very Good – Merit (60 – 69%)	Good/ Satisfactory – Pass (50 – 59%)	Unsatisfactory – Marginal fail (40 – 49%)	Very poor – Fail (5 – 39%)	Nothing of merit (1 – 4%)
Knowledge and understanding	Excellent subject knowledge and understanding of key issues and debates   Exceptional level of critical understanding of psychological theories and research   Evidence of excellent understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the methodologies and theories/models employed   Only a small number of minor mistakes May be close to publishable	Very good subject knowledge and understanding of key issues and debates   Evidence of a very good understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the methodologies and theories/models employed   Very level of critical understanding of psychological theories and research   Minor errors and misunderstandings only. Some deficiencies in presentation.	Evidence of sound knowledge of relevant theory and debates   Work is fairly factual or derivative, with less evidence of original thinking.   Evidence of good understanding and knowledge used in evaluating theoretical and methodological approaches   Fair level of critical understanding of psychological theories and research   Might contain some conceptual gaps   Some significant errors and misunderstandings	Has narrowly failed to achieve the learning outcomes.   Satisfactory subject knowledge to some extent, but lacking depth and detail.   Some understanding of key issues, debates and methodologies, but ideas might be unclear and/or incoherent.   Factual errors and conceptual gaps might be present.	Has failed to achieve the learning outcomes in several critical aspects.   Serious omissions and misunderstandings of relevant theory, issues and debates   Ideas confused/incoherent. Lacking depth and sound development.     Evidence of accurate but mechanical reproduction of material but with no interpretation or little evidence of deeper understanding	Material presented is marginal or irrelevant to the topic or issue   No evidence of awareness of appropriate principle, theories and method   Significant misconceptions and basic errors in understanding
Analysis	Excellent evidence of ability to make a sustained argument on the basis of appropriate evidence   Excellent evidence of incisive original thinking and an ability to synthesise information in a way that shows a full grasp of the material   Excellent level of critical analysis and evaluation of research	Evidence of ability to make a sustained argument on the basis of appropriate evidence   Evidence of ability to evaluate explanations of evidence   Evidence of an appropriate level of critical analysis and evaluation of research	Some evidence of ability to make an argument on the basis of appropriate evidence   Some evidence of ability to weigh up evidence and construct general conclusions about the information   Evidence of a satisfactory level of critical analysis and evaluation of research but criteria used not always clearly stated	Limited evidence of ability to make an argument on the basis of appropriate evidence   Limited use of appropriate techniques.   Inadequate critical analysis.   Evidence of accurate reproduction of published material but with only limited interpretation or evaluation	No real evidence of evaluation or interpretation. No evidence of originality.     No real articulation of positions or arguments   Poor critical analysis and evaluation.	No attempt at evaluation or interpretation   No attempt to state positions or arguments
Reading and research	Excellent depth and breadth of reading   Excellent ability and insight in the use of a wide range of relevant sources   Highly skilled deployment of reading in supporting arguments	Appropriate reading, showing good depth and breadth         Good use of a wide range of relevant sources         Skilled deployment of reading in supporting arguments	Appropriate reading, showing some depth and breadth             Use of an appropriate range of relevant sources           Satisfactory deployment of reading to support arguments	Evidence of selection of mainly relevant material from a range of sources, but evidence not deployed accurately   Materials used come from inappropriate sources but are treated as if they were from more usual sources   Narrow selection of material   Limited evidence of research	Scant or superficial reading   Inadequately researched. No evidence of research beyond some basic reading   Over-reliance on a single textbook source, without analysis, criticism or interpretation	Superficial reading of inappropriate sources   Failure to use reading appropriately in support of argument   No evidence of reading
Academic writing	Excellent standard of academic writing, with commendable clarity of ideas; exceptional coherence and logic.   Articulate writing that shows evidence of knowledge and strong control of the arguments being deployed	Very good standard of academic writing, ideas are generally clear and coherent.   Very good evidence of knowledge and control of the arguments being deployed	Sound standard of academic writing, ideas are fairly clear and coherent.   Satisfactory level of articulation and control of the arguments being deployed	Unsatisfactory standard of academic writing, ideas are unclear and incoherent.   Limited familiarity with appropriate technical terminology   Unsatisfactory level of articulation and control of the arguments being deployed	Unacceptable standard of academic writing, ideas are confused or incoherent   Substantially incorrect use of English   Consistent failure to use terminology appropriately   Notes in place of prose text   Failure to adhere to specified report format	Nothing of value is contained in the submitted work.   The presentation is irrelevant or unconnected to the task

 

Other reasons for fail grades

• Intentional plagiarism – formal University procedures will be followed
• Collusion – formal University procedures will be followed
• Use of work that has been previously or simultaneously presented for assessment
• Falsifying data in empirical research
• Failure to follow ethical procedures and guidelines
• Partial submission of work

6.Assessment Presentation.

When marking this assessment, the markers will also be looking for the following.

• Legible presentation.
• Good use of spelling, grammar and language throughout.
• Appropriate focus, meeting learning outcomes/assessment criteria.
• Logical progression and structure of arguments.
• Evidence of a range of relevant supporting reading.
• Use of accurate, evidence-based information to support the arguments made.
• Follow normal Academic Regulations in terms of Academic Offences, style and language.
• Use of the APA system of referencing.
• Empirical report formatted and presented according to APA guidelines.
• A declaration statement which says you have checked your Turnitin originality report and that you are certain that the work is your own (and has never been submitted for marking before by you, or anyone else).
• A statement that says you have maintained the confidentiality of clients/customers and persons associated with them, including colleagues and organizations.

You will note that most of these will have been incorporated within the marking criteria (on the previous page) and marks will have been allocated to them. Different modules will give different priority to these.

7. Assessment regulations

The standard University assessment regulations apply for this assessment. Please note that in line with the University common assessment regulations, failure to submit coursework (i.e. non-submission) could lead to you failing the module.

Details of assessment regulations are available at: https://www.derby.ac.uk/about/organisation/academic-regulations/ (sections F and E).

Work submitted late, will be marked according to University regulation, please see             the University guidance on Late Submissions.

8.Where to get other help to do your assessment.

During the course of the module your tutor will offer you a range of help and support. There are contact details for them within the module.

Other colleagues will offer help and guidance on the Student Portal.

In addition, the Academic Administrators will post helpful notices on your module announcement board.

When emailing academics, staff and peers in the university, please ensure you are using your university mail email address and remember to regularly check your account, programme and module pages in blackboard.

You could also use the following links if you want extra help with:

Referencing and avoiding making an academic offence

Study Skills

EEC (External Examiners)

Students with an EEC for CW1 will be advised to finish their reports.

Students with an EEC for CW1 will be advised to choose one of the different papers listed below to be assessed using the CASP checklist:

1. Schinke, R. J., MacGannon, K. R., Battochio, R. C., & Wells, G. D. (2013). Acculturation in elite sport: a thematic analysis of immigrant athletes and coaches. Journal of Sports Sciences, 31, 1676-1686.
2. Frederiksen, P., Karsten, M., Indahl, A., & Bendix, T. (2015). What Challenges Manual Workers’ Ability to Cope with Back Pain at Work, and What Influences Their Decision to Call in Sick? Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 25, 707-716.