77-704854-AF 3000-word research proposal

Department of Psychology, Sociology & Politics

Assessment Brief

Module Title: Research Issues in Applied Developmental Psychology

Module Code: 77-704854-AF

Level: 7

Module Leader: Steven Brown

Academic year: 2022-23

Trimester: 1

Task number: 1/2

Weighting: 70%

SIT

Task:

Students will submit a 3000-word research proposal. Students can choose to base their proposal on any area of developmental psychology covered by the lectures within the module. Students must ensure that the proposal is developmental in design. To do so, the proposal must cover at least one of three elements:

The design includes the measure of a change across different ages (longitudinal, cross-sectional with different age groups, or cross-sequential)
The design has a baseline measure – an intervention – then a post intervention measure in order to observe any development/differential development
Investigate an element of an established developmental phase

Make sure that you are clear about the age range of your proposed sample and that your proposed method is suitable for that sample. Furthermore, the proposed research must fall within the scope and scale of a short-term (i.e. 6-12 month), ‘post-doctoral’ research project (it is not marked at this level, that is just how it is framed for assessment purposes – see the ‘Research proposal – Outline of structure & additional information’ on the BB pages for more details).

To ensure that your area of research is appropriate, students should complete the ‘Task 1 approval document’ (see BB) and have it approved by a member of the teaching team before you commence. These can be sent via email, or there will be time to consider these during your seminar after the reading week.

PLEASE SEE BLACKBOARD SITE FOR GUIDELINES RELATING TO THE SUBMISSION OF YOUR WORK.

Information for ALL students on submission of this coursework

Essays, reports, portfolios and dissertations must be in Arial 11 or Times New Roman font size 12

Please use APA referencing convention. Follow this link for further support: http://libguides.shu.ac.uk/referencing

Please note that if your work exceeds the specified limit(s), it will be marked up to the word limit (plus or minus 10%) only. The number of words you have used in the assessment must be stated at the end of the main body of your answer.

Materials listed in your bibliography or appendices will not be included in your word count

Everything in your main text including quotations and headings will be included in your word count.

The date and time of the submission of your work for this assessment can be found on your module BB site.

University Regulations on academic conduct apply to all assessments. You are reminded that to represent as your own work the work of another person without acknowledgement is defined as plagiarism and is a breach of these regulations. All quotations need to be referenced appropriately. By submitting the work you are confirming that this work is your own. You are required to familiarise yourself with the University’s Academic Misconduct Policy. Academic misconduct can have serious repercussions for your academic (and later, professional) career. Please note that all students’ work could be subjected to plagiarism checks using text matching software.

If you have a Learning Contract that tutors must take account of when marking your work, please include appropriate wording on your assessment submission. Contact Disabled Student Support on 0114 225 3964 for further advice if required.

If you are experiencing problems, you should contact Student Services staff via Hallam Help on 0114 225 2222 or via email to: hallamhelp@shu.ac.uk.

Additional information about electronic submission

All coursework submitted electronically need to be submitted in accordance with the following guidelines:

Submission means that a correctly formatted electronic copy has been submitted in the correct method via Blackboard, by the deadline set. Failure to do so may result in a mark of zero being awarded.

Your work must be submitted via Blackboard – please refer to the Module Blackboard site for further details on how to upload your work.

Blackboard will allow you to submit unlimited times up to the deadline, but only your final submission will be marked

It is your responsibility to ensure that your work is successfully submitted. You will receive an email receipt confirming your submission. Please check this and keep it for your reference.

For essays, reports and portfolios your work must be submitted using a Microsoft Word file format (doc or docx)

For posters and presentations, your work should be submitted using Microsoft PowerPoint or Prezi.

Submissions using file formats other than those listed above may affect your work being marked, and the feedback you may receive.

The work you submit must not be password protected.

Coursework sent by fax or by email will not be accepted.

You must retain an electronic copy of your work. Failure to produce a copy on request will result in a mark of zero for the assessment task.

Extensions and Extenuating Circumstances

If you are unable to meet the assessment deadline, you can find further advice here Extenuating Circumstances Policy and Procedure. Please also be aware of the differences between Exceptional Extension Requests and a Request to Repeat an Assessment Attempt. Where possible, we strongly advise you to speak to Student Services staff (see contact details below) in such circumstances, so that the correct support and advice can be given.

Further Support

Further assessment information can be found on the Module Blackboard site in the content area called ‘Assessment’.

The skills centre provides academic skills support for all students.

If you have any queries relating to the assessment please contact the module leader

Please note: Tutors are not allowed to comment on drafts.

If you are experiencing personal difficulties which may impact on your assessment performance and/or your ability to meet the assessment deadline, you should contact Student Services staff via the Helpdesk as soon as possible on 0114 225 2222 or via email to: hallamhelp@shu.ac.uk.

—————————————————————————————————————-

Level 7: Generic grade descriptor

Class	Category	Grade	%	General Characteristics
Distinction	Exceptional Distinction	16	82	Exceptional breadth and depth of knowledge and understanding evidenced by own independent insight and critical awareness of relevant literature and concepts at the forefront of the discipline; evidence of extensive and appropriate independent inquiry operating with advanced concepts, methods and techniques to solve problems in unfamiliar contexts; Cogent arguments and explanations are consistently provided using a range of media demonstrating an ability to communicate effectively in a variety of formats using a sophisticated level of the English language in an eloquent and professional manner to both technical and non-technical audiences; a sustained academic approach to all aspects of the tasks is evidenced; academic work extends boundaries of the disciplines and is beyond expectation of the level and may achieve publishable or commercial standard.
Distinction	High Distinction	15	78	Excellent knowledge and understanding evidenced by some clear independent insight and critical awareness of relevant concepts some of which are at the forefront of the discipline; evidence of appropriate independent inquiry operating with core concepts, methods and techniques to solve complex problems in mostly familiar contexts; Arguments and explanations are provided that is well-supported by the literature and in some cases uses a range of media demonstrating an ability to communicate effectively in a limited number of formats using own style that is suited to both technical and non-technical audiences; a sustained academic approach to most aspects of the tasks is evidenced; one or more aspects of the academic work is beyond the prescribed range and evidences a competent understanding of all of the relevant taught content.
Mid Distinction	14	75
Low Distinction	13	72
Merit	High Merit	12	68	Very good knowledge and understanding is evidenced as the student is typically able to independently relate taught facts/concepts together some of which are at the forefront of the discipline; evidence of some competent independent inquiry operating with core concepts, methods and techniques to solve familiar problems; Arguments and explanations are provided that are typically supported by the literature and in some cases may challenge some received wisdoms; competently uses all taught media and communication methods to communicate effectively in a familiar settings; an academically rigorous approach applied to some aspects of the tasks is evidenced; some beyond the prescribed range, may rely on set sources to advance work/direct arguments; demonstrates autonomy in approach to learning.
Mid Merit	11	65
Low Merit	10	62
Pass	High Pass	9	58	Satisfactory knowledge and understanding of the area of study balanced towards the descriptive rather than critical or analytical and mostly confined to concepts that are not at the forefront of the discipline; evidence of some independent reading and research to advance work and inform arguments and approaches; Arguments and explanations are limited in range and depth although some are adequately supported by the literature albeit descriptively rather than critically; competently uses at least one taught media and communication method to communicate appropriately in familiar settings; although the approach applied to some aspects of the tasks may lack academic rigour, there are some clear areas of competence within the prescribed range. Relies on set sources to advance work/direct arguments and communicated in a way which shows clarity but structure may not always be coherent.
Mid Pass	8	55
Low Pass	7	52
FAIL	Borderline Fail	6	48	Knowledge and understanding is insufficient as the student only evidences an understanding of small subset of the taught concepts and techniques; fails to make sufficient links between known concepts and facts to adequately solve relevant aspects of the brief/problem; little ability to independently select and evaluate reading/research with almost total reliance on set sources and unsubstantiated arguments/methods; communication/presentation may be competent in places but fails to demonstrate structure, clarity and/or focus; inability to adequately define problems and make reasoned judgements; the general approach to tasks lacks rigor and competence.
Mid Fail	4	45
Low Fail	2	42
FAIL	Very Low Fail	1	38	Knowledge and understanding is highly insufficient as the student is unable to evidence any meaningful understanding of taught concepts or methods; very limited evidence of reading and research to advance work; inadequate technical and practical skills as the student is unable to use and apply such skills to address problems or make judgements; limited or lack of understanding of the boundaries of the discipline and does not question received wisdom; approach to learning lacks autonomy and approach to tasks is not sustained; inability to communicate coherently.
ZERO	Zero	0	0	Work not submitted, work of no merit, penalty in some misconduct cases.

Specific grade descriptor:

Grade	Description
Distinction 72% +	The research protocol draws upon a wide range of resources with evidence of substantial independent research. The proposal is suitable in terms of scope and scale. Evidence of an in-depth knowledge and understanding of relevant theory and research which has been critically interpreted. Excellent structure and sophisticated development of argument. Excellent evaluation and synthesis of the source material, providing a clear research / methodological rationale. Aim and research questions are clearly identified and justified. Comprehensive understanding, evaluation and application of research methods. Excellent consideration of ethics and developmental design/research methods. The research protocol clearly identifies the potential contribution of the findings and any limitations that are likely to result from the chosen design. Writes clearly, accurately and concisely with a logical structure. Correct formatting of in text citations and reference section is set out appropriately using the APA Referencing system.
Merit 62-68%	The research protocol draws upon a range of resources with evidence of independent research. The proposal is likely to be suitable in terms of scope and scale. Evidence of knowledge and understanding of relevant theory and research which has been interpreted appropriately. Clearly structured, with a logical development of argument. Good evaluation and synthesis of the source material, identifying a clear research / methodological rationale. Aim and research questions are clearly identified. Good understanding, evaluation and application of research methods. Good consideration of ethics and/or developmental design/research methods. Well written with a logical structure. Correct formatting of in text citations and reference section is set out appropriately using the APA Referencing system.
Pass 52-58%	The research protocol overly relies on a limited number of resources (mostly secondary sources) with little evidence of independent research. The proposal may not be suitable in terms of scope and scale. Demonstrates some understanding of the relevant theory and/or research, but has limited grasp of wider issues and limited in scope. Arguments reasonably clear but underdeveloped. A largely descriptive account, lacking originality or clarity of thought. Some irrelevant material included. Consideration of ethics and/or developmental design/research methods is poor. Superficial understanding, evaluation and/or application of research methods. Writes clearly, but there may be some grammatical or spelling errors. Errors or omissions in citations and reference list.
Fail 0-48%	The research protocol is based on a very superficial reading of the literature, with little evidence of independent research. The range of sources is too narrow, basic or seriously adrift. The proposal is likely to be unsuitable in terms of scope and scale. The research protocol is fragmentary and may contain inaccuracies or omissions, with limited understanding demonstrated of developmental theory and/or research. Poor ordering of ideas, lacking structure and development of argument. Wholly descriptive with little or no evidence of evaluation, synthesis or interpretation. Limited or no consideration of ethics and/or developmental design/research methods. Limited or no understanding, evaluation and/or application of research methods. Poor grammar and spelling, impeding meaning and understanding. Referencing errors and omissions.

Assessment feedback:

Comments (~150 words):

Where you have done well:

Where you could improve going forward:

Also see:

Support Resources section of the BB module pages for further skills development opportunities including writing workshops, referencing advice, critical analysis and more (log ins required).

77-704854-AF 3000-word research proposal

Department of Psychology, Sociology & Politics

Assessment Brief

Level 7: Generic grade descriptor

Stop Stressing. Your Academic Success is Guaranteed.