Research Methods and Evidence-Based Practice CYP 5073
Research Methods and Evidence-Based Practice CYP 5073Assessment Task Research Presentation |
|
A short introduction to the task. Key resources. Template to outline structure and content. Rubric to understand marking criteria. Video to explain it. |
|
A short introduction to the task The research presentation will assess students’ understanding of the research methods introduced during semester one. In this assignment, students will be required to:
The data extraction tool that students complete throughout the module will support this assignment. The assignment will encourage students to engage with research in their area of interest and provide them with the knowledge base and research skills required for the semester two module and the dissertation at Level 6. Submission: Your presentation must be submitted to Turnitin by - Research Presentation 10 minutes (1,000 words equivalent) 50% LO: 1, 2, 3 |
|
Key resources: Core texts
Recommended texts
|
|
Journals*
Websites *The journal most supportive of this module will depend on the area of interest you select to explore. As such, if your study relates to Education, you will need to identify relevant Education journals; if it concerns Psychology, you will need to identify relevant Psychology journals; if your study is about Social Work, you will need to identify relevant Social Work journals. You will be provided support throughout this module in identifying journals and/or articles that are relevant to your topic |
|
Template: Individual Presentation (10 min) – recorded The presentation must contain at least 500 words, including slide zero and references. Skills Topic Using a chosen topic for a research presentation, you will conduct a presentation similar to a research conference scenario. You will be assessed on your communication skills, self-awareness, reflection skills, knowledge of the chosen role, understanding of the relevant sector, and timekeeping skills. This will be 7 - 10 minutes long, plus 5 minutes for questions. Please title this “The research presentation, the ...” Please insert the topic that you wish to cover in your presentation. For example: The research presentation, the incidence rate of common mental health disorders linked with diabetes |
Guidance
Presentations should have 5-8 slides, contain references and a title page (including name, student number and title of presentation)
Please include
- Title page (Slide zero) The research presentation, the incidence of dementia in people aged 65 and over
- Introduction and definitions (Slide 1) This presentation will look at dementia. Dementia is a neurological condition that mainly affects the brain...
- Background (statistics, impact, risk factors and overall rationale of why this is a health and social care issue) (Slide 2)
- Outline your 1st study article (Study title, study design, methodology, study finding/results and discuss study limitations (Slide 3)
- Outline your 2nd study article (Study title, study design, methodology, study finding/results and discuss study limitations (Slide 4)
- Outline your 3rd study article (Study title, study design, methodology, study finding/results and discuss study limitations (Slide 5)
- Notes: that your studies should include at least THREE different methods (e.g., interviews, surveys, experiments, observations). These methods do NOT need to be on the same paper.
- Consider which method you could use for your research and why (Slide 6)
- PowerPoint slides should not be read in your presentation; they are supplementary.
- Prepare to have your presentation recorded.
- Prepare to be asked questions about your topic and research pathway. You must draw on your academic learning and research analysis on your chosen topic to do this.
Marking rubrics
|
Classification:
Criterion: |
Exceptiona l First 100, 95, 92 |
Outstandin g 1st/Dist 88, 85, 82 |
First/Distincti on 78, 75, 72 |
2 (i) 68. 65. 62 |
2 (ii) 58. 55. 52 |
Third 48. 45. 42 |
Fail 38. 35. 32 |
Abject Fail 25, 20, 10, 0 |
|
Knowledge & Understanding |
Polished grasp of subject. Astute and authoritativ e approach to complexity. |
Comprehen sive and confident grasp with a strong sense of subject complexity. |
Thorough understanding is evident and well applied to questions or projects. |
Secure, general understan ding and reasonabl e application to question or project. |
Sound knowledge relevant to the question or project. |
Limited knowledge shows basic understandi ng. Some awareness of the context of the question or project. |
Faulty understa nding of questions or concepts. Irrelevant or mostly absent content. |
No understanding of question or concepts. Irrelevant or absent content. |
|
Structure, Argument |
Effective and integrated over- arching argument or structure, clear, insightful synthesis. Highly creative understanding of topic. |
Effective overall argument with clear and insightful connections between claims. Creative understanding of topic. |
Clear and logical focus and direction with valuable connections made between claims. Good level of creativity. |
Well- focused on the question with some clear connectio ns made between claims and some overall direction. Some creativity. |
Addresses the topic with some direction and makes some connections between claims or different parts of artefact/assig nment. |
Argument is weak and difficult to detect. Connection s made between statements limited |
Lack of argument Faulty connectio n between statemen ts. |
No argument. Many faulty connections between statements. |
|
Analysis and Conclusions |
Original and searching analysis, critical appraisal of task and judicious conclusions . |
Searching analysis with pertinent conclusions drawn. |
Insightful analysis throughout with appropriate conclusions drawn. |
Strong analysis of salient illustrative examples. Some general conclusion s drawn. |
Some conclusions drawn based on some reasonable comparisons and examples. |
Basic analysis. Remains descriptive, little evaluation or comparison. Few clear conclusions |
Insufficie nt evaluatio n or attempt to make comparis ons. Conclusi ons illogical insufficient. |
No evaluation or attempt to make comparisons. Conclusions illogical or absent. |
|
Sources & Evidence
Adherence to Referencing Conventions, Technical Skills |
Extensive and evaluative use of evidential support for argument. Flawless referencing or technical skills. |
Extensive use of evidence with some evaluation. Flawless referencing or technical skills. |
Clear support of argument with well selected evidence. Excellent referencing or technical skills. |
Draws on relevant independe nt sources and evidence to support claims. Consistent and accurate referencin g or technical skills. |
Makes simple use of evidence from recommende d sources. Largely consistent accurate referencing. or technical skills. |
Relies on superficial statements with little supporting evidence. Limited referencing/ adherence to convention or technical skills. |
Lack of evidence or relevant sources. Inadequa te referenci ng or technical skills. |
No evidence or relevant sources. Inadequate or no referencing or technical skills. |
|
Written/Visual Oral Style & Clarity |
Professiona l and sophisticate d with exceptional clarity and coherence. Excellent, controlled, confident delivery, pace, and audience engagement. |
Professional and fluent with great clarity and coherence. Confident delivery, pace, and audience engagement |
Fluent and accurate with great clarity and coherence. Mostly confident delivery, pace, and audience engagement. |
Clear and coherent. Good delivery, pace, and audience engagement |
Some lapses of clarity. Some expression is ineffective. Satisfactory delivery, pace, and audience engagement |
Adequate, but awkward expression throughout with little clarity. Poor delivery, pace, and audience engagement |
Inadequa te and unclear presentation. Impaired communi cation. Error- strewn. |
Grossly inadequate and unclear presentation. Severely impaired communication. Error-strewn. |