Order ID | 53563633773 |
Type | Essay |
Writer Level | Masters |
Style | APA |
Sources/References | 4 |
Perfect Number of Pages to Order | 5-10 Pages |
Educational Psychology
The assessment for this module will comprise one 2000-word case-study assessment. This assignment should make full consideration of the content of this module and address Learning Outcomes 1-3:
Assignment outline
Consider the follow:
• Each child will present with a unique profile of strengths and weaknesses on a range of different skills involved in learning. When assessing a child, the educational psychologist or SENCo will need to establish this profile. They will bring together information from standardised tasks, family history and reports of behaviour both in and out of the classroom. From this they will create an intervention plan that enables the student to achieve better in the classroom.
Task One (No word limit – not marked – but essential to include)
To begin, we would like you to create / invent a case-study for a child (KM) who has been experiencing difficulties in the classroom. Over the course of the module, we have looked at examples of case studies and you may wish to revisit these to help guide you in the creation of your own case study.
You will also need to draw on your knowledge of theory surrounding disorders to ensure that the case study you create is plausible. For example, if a child was having trouble decoding words in text, it would follow that they may also experience difficulty in phonological awareness (blending / segmenting).
Remember this is a summary, you will not need to mention standardised tasks / results in this section specifically, but instead give an overall pattern of impairment (i.e., KM shows difficulty in spelling). Consider not only the underlying cognitive process and skills but also behavioural elements, family history and other key information relevant to the case.
Task Two (1000 words)
Now imagine that you are an educational psychologist and you have been presented with ‘your’ case study for the child KM. What assessments would you perform to confirm the profiles of strengths / weaknesses described? What standardised tasks would you administer or what information would you request in terms of family history and behaviour? Remember this might include observations, information from interviews, questionnaire or psychometric scale scores, or reports from other professional psychologists or therapists. The important thing is that you highlight the difficulty and then link to empirical evidence and theory to say why it is an important element to highlight from your case study. You should then also consider this critically.
You should name the processes / skills that should be tested (i.e., phonological decoding, attention, emotional regulation) and provide an example of a standardised measure / observation / psychometric scale to assess this (i.e., the phonological decoding task from the TOWRE, or the SWAN questionnaire to assess attention / hyperactivity). You should then link to theory and empirical evidence to justify why you have highlighted behaviour.
** TIP – Remember each time you include a standardised measure or scale you should provide author names / reference
Task Three (1000 words)
Based on ‘your’ case-study of KM, and the key difficulties / strengths confirmed in task two, you should now put together a short intervention program. You should include at least 2 – 3 interventions or tools targeting different difficulties as identified in tasks one / two.
This can be based on existing interventions or one of your own creation but must be evidenced with links to empirical literature. For example, if you are suggesting / creating an intervention for phonological decoding, you must evidence how and why this might be effective by making links to relevant theoretical and empirical work on the topic and the skill.
Alternatively, you may select existing interventions that are either commercially available (Hint – Pearson website below in useful resources), or those which have been designed and tested and then reported in empirical research.
Again, where possible please reference the authors if the intervention is commercially available, or at very least reference the paper in which the intervention was first tested, and norms were established. If no ‘norms’ exist for the intervention / tool, then please reference a paper that made use of the intervention and tested its effectiveness empirically.
Remember for top marks in tasks two and three, we expect critical consideration of the topic as well as the theory / empirical evidence used. Where possible please make reference to recent empirical studies also. Please be mindful of the University criteria for BSc level assessments |
Policies and Procedures
A number of procedures/policies are consistent across modules. These are detailed in your Course Handbooks (on the Programme Web) and include (but are not necessarily limited to);
Plagiarism & collusion
Short (extension) and long deferral requests
Penalties for the late submission of coursework
Bona fide attempts at assessment
Coursework return
Special Educational Needs
Marking criteria for essays and reports
Use of social networking sites
You need to ensure that you are familiar with these processes and how they apply to each of the modules that you are studying. It is your responsibility to make sure that you adhere to these policies.
Please note that if you are unable to submit coursework you may be eligible to apply for an extension or a deferral.
Plagiarism and Cheating
The University takes very seriously any attempt to cheat in coursework or examinations by any student and if a case is proven this can result in expulsion from the University. Cheating refers to plagiarism, collusion, taking unauthorised materials into an examination (this list is not exhaustive). Please refer to the essential information within your Student Handbook.
Referencing
University have adopted the American Psychological Association (APA 7th) Referencing System as the standard format for citations and references.
Paraphrasing 1
Why is it useful for students to practise paraphrasing?
Paraphrasing is a way of presenting a text, keeping the same meaning, but using different words and
phrasing. Paraphrasing is used with short sections of text, such as phrases and sentences to closely
represent the writer’s meaning.
A paraphrase may result in a longer, rather than shorter, version of the original text. It offers an
alternative to using direct quotations and helps students to integrate evidence/ source material into
assignments. Paraphrasing is also a useful skill for making notes from readings, note-taking in
lectures, and explaining information in tables, charts and diagrams.
Paraphrasing is a particularly challenging skill because:
! It requires a deep and accurate understanding of the meaning of the original text;
! It requires skill with language to faithfully reformulate the original meaning;
! It occupies a discursive and intellectual space between direct quotation, free-written commentary and plagiarism.
Further resources
https://www.pearsonclinical.co.uk – commercially available standardised measures for assessing skills and also interventions for remediation.
Marking Criteria Rubric |
First – Outstanding
85, 90, 95, 100
|
First – Excellent
72, 75, 78 |
Upper Second – Very Good
62. 65, 68 |
Lower Second – Good
52, 55, 58 |
Third – Satisfactory
42, 45, 48 |
Fail
35, 30, 20, 10, 0 |
RELEVANCE of the ANSWER (30%) | Outstanding, innovative response, answers the question fully and beyond,, addressing the learning objectives of the assessment task. Evidence of critical analysis, synthesis and evaluation. Demonstrates authority, originality and creativity. (25-30) | Innovative response, answers the question fully, addressing the learning objectives of the assessment task. Evidence of critical analysis, synthesis and evaluation. At the higher end the work may demonstrate authority, originality and creativity. (21-24) | A very good attempt to address the objectives of the assessment task with an emphasis on those elements requiring critical review. (18-20) | Competently addresses objectives, but may contain errors or omissions and critical discussion of issues may be superficial or limited in places. (15-17) | Addresses most objectives of the assessment task, with some notable omissions and with fair attention to the key topic/s and some attempt at critical analysis and/or evaluation. (12-14) | Some deviation from the objectives of the assessment task. May not consistently address the assignment brief. At the lower end fails to answer the question set or address the learning outcomes. There is minimal evidence of analysis or evaluation. (0-11) |
ARGUMENT and COHERENCE (30%) | An outstanding, clear, consistent in-depth critical and evaluative argument, displaying the ability to develop original ideas from a range of sources. Engagement with theoretical and conceptual analysis is outstanding. (25-30) | A clear, consistent in-depth critical and evaluative argument, displaying the ability to develop original ideas from a range of sources. Engagement with theoretical and conceptual analysis. (21-24) | A generally clear line of critical and evaluative argument is presented. Relationships between statements and sections are easy to follow, and there is a sound, coherent structure. (18-20) | Some critical discussion, but the argument is not always convincing, and the work is descriptive in places, with over-reliance on the work of others. (15-17) | The work is descriptive with minimal critical discussion and limited theoretical engagement. (12-14) | Descriptive with no evidence of theoretical engagement, critical discussion or theoretical engagement. At the lower end displays a minimal level of understanding. (0-11) |
EVIDENCE (30%) | Outstanding range of appropriately supporting evidence provided, going consistently beyond the recommended texts. (25-30) | Excellent range of appropriately supporting evidence provided, going consistently beyond the recommended texts. (21-24) | A very good range of relevant sources is used in a largely consistent way as supporting evidence. There is use of some sources beyond recommended texts. (18-20) | A range of relevant sources is used, but the critical evaluation aspect is not fully presented. There is limited use of sources beyond the standard recommended materials (15-17) | A limited range of relevant sources are used, without appropriate presentation as supporting or conflicting evidence, and very limited critical analysis. (12-14) | Very limited use and application of relevant sources as supporting evidence. At the lower end demonstrates a lack of real understanding. (0-11) |
Finished Standard (10%) | An outstanding, well-structured and appropriately referenced answer, demonstrating a high degree of understanding and critical analytic skills. Wordcount is very accurate according to the brief.(10) | An excellent, well-structured and appropriately referenced answer, demonstrating a high degree of understanding and critical analytic skills. Wordcount is very accurate according to the brief.(9) | The standard of writing is very good, and the work is mostly formatted according to the coursework brief. Wordcount has been adhered to, with evidence of reading beyond the recommended minimum. Well organised and clearly written. Mostly appropriately referenced(8) | The standard of writing is good, and the work is generally formatted according to the coursework brief. Wordcount has been mostly adhered to. Citations and references are generally formatted to APA / CU Harvard with a few minor errors.(7) | The standard of writing is fair, and the work is partly formatted according to the coursework brief but not entirely. Wordcount has been fairly adhered to. Citations and references may be partly or inconsistently formatted to APA / CU Harvard, and some citations or references may be missing. (6) | Poor structure and poor presentation, including referencing. At the lower end there is evidence of a lack of comprehension, resulting in an assignment which is well below the required standard. Wordcount may not have been adhered to. Citations and references are missing and / or need formatting to APA / CU Harvard. (0-5) |
Educational Psychology
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GET THIS PROJECT NOW BY CLICKING ON THIS LINK TO PLACE THE ORDERCLICK ON THE LINK HERE: https://www.perfectacademic.com/orders/ordernowAlso, you can place the order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow / www.phdwriters.us/orders/ordernow |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|