Summative Assessment

Assessment Brief 2

COURSEWORK
Essay 100% 3000 words
Compare and contrast two research approaches pertinent to a multidisciplinary public health issue of your choice. Critically consider the methodological and epistemological underpinnings of these approaches and, using examples, reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of each. Continue from your formative draft and† you are required to consider the recommendations from your formative submission.

Requirements

All work must be word processed.

The following word limit applies: 3000 words.

A word count must be given.

All work must be appropriately referenced. You are advised that routine sampling of work may occur in order to identify evidence of plagiarism. You are required to retain electronic copies of your work and to submit these as requested by the module leader

Submission of this work is required on† the 1st††of February 2022

 

School of Social Sciences

Level M (NQF level 7) Module Assessment and Feedback Template

Module Code: ENVH40425NTU Student No.: 
Module Name: RESEARCH METHODSModule Leader:Mathew Nyashanu
Marker: Mathew NyashanuModerator:Peter Jennings
Assignment: Essay (100%)Grade: 
Generic ObservationsAreas of good practice                 issues need consideration
       


Mapping Student performance to the assessed module learning outcomes 

 Grade Band
Module Outcomes linked to AssessmentDISTINCTION Exceptional DisDISTINCTION   High  Dis Mid  Dis Low  Dis    COMMENDATN (Very good)   High Com Mid Com Low ComPASS (Good) High Pass Mid Pass Low PassMarginal FailMid FailLow FailZero
    1.Critically engage with a broad and dynamic field of contested epistemological and methodological knowledge(s) pertinent to contemporary public health issues and practice.Contested epistemological and methodological Knowledge for the identified research approaches pertinent to public health issues and practice is clearly identified and explained. Use of a variety of sources from relevant,  peer reviewed academic journals and recent text books including  accurate referencing in line with Harvard conventions is presented.    Contested epistemological and methodological Knowledge for the identified research approaches pertinent to public health issues and practice are  identified and explained. Most of the sources used are from peer reviewed academic journals and published books related to research methods while most of the referencing clearly meet the Harvard style. .    Demonstration of the Contested epistemological and methodological Knowledge for the identified research approaches pertinent to public health issues and practice is presented. Some of the references used are from peer reviewed journals and published books related to research methods.                Demonstration of the  epistemological and methodological Knowledge for the identified research approaches pertinent to public health issues and practice is done with some errors. There is over reliance on website and outdated references and some of the referencing does not meet the Harvard style.                    Brief explanation of the  epistemological and methodological Knowledge for the identified research approaches pertinent to public health issues and practice is done. There is over reliance on very few references form websites and some work is not referenced. There are some spelling errors and grammatical mistakes.                            Insufficient demonstration of the epistemological and methodological Knowledge for the identified research approaches pertinent to public health issues and practice is done. Most  of the references used are not from peer reviewed journals and published books related to research methods. There is a lot of typographical errors and inconsistence in referencingLittle or no demonstration of the epistemological and methodological Knowledge for the identified research approaches pertinent to public health issues and practice is done. Very few or no references to support work. Typographical and grammatical errors throughout the assignmentWork of no merit. What would be a poor demonstration? Absent or work not submitted. Penalty awarded in a case of academic irregularity.  
    2.Critically debate the nature and application of  research approaches appropriate to enhancing the evidence base of multidisciplinary public health    Demonstrates breadth and depth of subject knowledge which critically evaluates a range of relevant contemporary literature on the debate of the nature and application of the identified  research approaches appropriate to enhancing the evidence base of multidisciplinary public health. The work demonstrates a degree of originality of thought.   Demonstrates extensive   subject knowledge and employs a clear, well-structured argument on the   nature and application of the identified  research approaches appropriate to enhancing the evidence base of multidisciplinary public health   The student is typically able to go beyond what has been taught  A broad knowledge of the nature and application of the identified  research approaches appropriate to enhancing the evidence base of multidisciplinary public health. Demonstrates ability to relate facts and concepts with some ability to apply to known or taught contexts.                   Able to relate facts and concepts with some ability to apply to known or taught contextsDemonstrates some subject knowledge, referring to a limited range of the nature and application of the identified  research approaches appropriate to enhancing the evidence base of multidisciplinary public health. The work is balanced towards the descriptive rather than critical or analytical.Knowledge and understanding of the       nature and application of the identified  research approaches appropriate to enhancing the evidence base of multidisciplinary public health      is sufficient. Knowledge and understanding is sufficient to deal with terminology, basic facts and concepts and level of research is limited.Insufficient detail in relation Knowledge in critically analysing the main issues uncovered through independence research.Highly insufficient detail in relation Knowledge of critically analysing the main issues uncovered through independence. Typically facts are reproduced in a disjointed or inappropriate way.  Work of no merit. Absent or work not submitted. Penalty awarded in a case of academic irregularity.  
        3.Demonstrate advanced scholarship and a critical awareness of current research                                   4.Construct and confidently deliver appropriate and robust, research-informed positions about contemporary public health issues to a range of audiences            The authors' own ideas, synthesising the literature accurately and with some originality of thought, are very well constructed, and clearly articulated demonstrating critical awareness of current research. Use of a wide variety of peer reviewed journals and published books related to research methods are utilised. Submission contains approaches beyond the prescribed range             Demonstrates breadth and depth of subject knowledge which critically evaluates a range of relevant public health issues to a range of audience. Submission contain issues beyond the prescribed level            Representing an accurate review and evaluation of the literature, are clearly articulated while demonstrating critical awareness of current research. Evidence of use of peer reviewed journals and published books related to research methods. The work typically goes beyond what has been taught                         Demonstrates extensive   subject knowledge and employs a clear, well-structured arguments to confidently deliver appropriate and robust, research-informed positions about contemporary public health issues to a range of audiences.       The work typically goes beyond what has been taught.Evidence of appropriate selection and critical evaluation/synthesis/ analysis of detail in theory and practice showing some critical awareness of current research. Competent use of references from peer reviewed journals and published books related to research methods. Demonstrates ability to relate facts and concepts with some ability to apply to known or taught contexts.         A broad knowledge of the subject is in evidence with a range of theories/ sources compared and critiqued while              Constructing and confidently delivering appropriate  research-informed positions about contemporary public health issues to a range of audiences Demonstrates ability to relate facts and concepts with some ability to apply to known or taught contexts.Demonstrates some subject knowledge, referring to a limited range of theories/ sources used in the module Limited awareness of current research but balanced towards the descriptive rather than critical or analytical.                             Demonstrates some subject knowledge, referring to a limited range of theories/ of research informed positions about contemporary public health issues. Work balanced towards the descriptive rather than critical or analytical  Knowledge and understanding is of the subject is sufficient to deal with terminology, basic facts and concepts however level of research is limited.                                 Knowledge and understanding is sufficient to deal with terminology, basic facts and concepts and level of research is limited.  Knowledge and understanding is at a very basic level and research is very limited                                           Arguments are not clearly set out or the writing may contain spelling, typographical and grammatical errors. Research positions and contemporary public health issues not clearly articulated. .The submission has failed to address the topic in a way which offers an evidence based discussion                                             Arguments are poorly constructed and the writing contains many spelling, typographical and grammatical errors. No clear discussion of research informed positions about contemporary public health issuesWork of no merit. Absent or work not submitted. Penalty awarded in a case of academic irregularity;                                             Work of no merit. Absent or work not submitted. Penalty awarded in a case of academic irregularity
  5.Identify, articulate and manage complexity and change in the public health field using a range of problem solving approachesThe author clearly identifies, articulate and manages complexity of issues using a range of problem solving approaches in the changing public health arena. Submission contain issues beyond the prescribed levelDemonstration to identify, articulate and manage complexity of issues using a range of problem solving approaches in the changing public health arena.   The work typically goes beyond what has been taught.Competent identification and managing complexity and change in the public health field using a range of problem solving approaches.   Demonstrates ability to relate facts and concepts with some ability to apply to known or taught contexts. understanding the ability to identify ,articulate and manage complexity  and change in the public health field using some problem solving approaches  Adequate understanding of the key areas. Limited  but adequate demonstration in identifying and managing  complexity and change in the public health field using a range of problem solving approaches  Limited understanding of  managing complexity  and change in the public health field using a range of problem solving approaches  Arguments are poorly constructed and the writing contains many spelling, typographical and grammatical errors. No clear identification of the key issues in the changing public health field.Work of no merit. Absent or work not submitted. Penalty awarded in a case of academic irregularity.  
6.Synthesise and critically evaluate a wide range of information, from varied sources  Clear demonstration of  the ability to synthesise  and critically evaluate research information from a wide variety of sources   Submission contain issues beyond the prescribed level  Clearly synthesises and evaluate a wide range of information from varied sources.   The work typically goes beyond what has been taught Competent synthesise and critical evaluation of information from a wide range of information, from varied research sources.   Demonstrates ability to relate facts and concepts with some ability to apply to known or taught contexts Ability to synthesise and evaluate a range of information from research methods  sourcesAdequate  but limited demonstration  of  the ability to synthesise  and evaluate research information from sourcesArguments are not clearly set out or the writing may contain spelling, typographical and grammatical errors. No synthesis and evaluation of information. Sources of information utilised are limitedArguments are poorly constructed and the writing contains many spelling, typographical and grammatical errors. No clear evaluation and critical analysis of information. Limited sources utilised. Work of no merit. Absent or work not submitted. Penalty awarded in a case of academic irregularity
7.Identify and apply appropriate research strategies to address public health issues within these contexts    Clear demonstration of the ability to identify and apply appropriate research strategiesí to address public health issues   Submission contain issues beyond the prescribed level  Clear identification and application of appropriate research strategiesí to address the public health issues in question.   The work typically goes beyond what has been taught  Competent identification and application of appropriate research strategies to address public health issues identified.     Demonstrates ability to relate facts and concepts with some ability to apply to known or taught contextsDemonstrate the ability to identify and apply research strategies to address public health issues identifiedLimited but sufficient demonstration of the ability to identify and apply research strategies address public health issues identified.Arguments are not clearly set out or the writing may contain spelling, typographical and grammatical errors. No identification and application of appropriate research strategies to address public health issues within the contexts in question.Arguments are poorly constructed and the writing contains many spelling, typographical and grammatical errors. No identification of appropriate research strategies to address the identified public health issue.Work of no merit. Absent or work not submitted. Penalty awarded in a case of academic irregularity
ClassScaleGeneral Characteristics
Distinction (Excellent)Exceptional Distinction    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 or be very close to publishable or commercial standard.  
High Distinction    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  
Low Distinction  
Commendation (Very good)  High Commendation.    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 Commendation.  
Commendation  
Pass (Good)High Pass    Good 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
Low Pass
FAIL (Insufficient)Marginal Fail  Insufficient knowledge and understanding of the area of study; some ability to select and evaluate reading/research however work is more generally descriptive; fails to address some aspects of the brief; uses set sources to advance work; arguments may be weak/poor or weakly/poorly constructed; demonstration of relevant skills over a reduced range; communication shows limited clarity, poor presentation, structure may not be coherent.  
Mid Fail  Highly insufficient knowledge or understanding of the area of study; understanding is typically at the word level with facts being reproduced in a disjointed or decontextualised manner; fails to address the outcomes addressed by the brief; typically ignores important sources in development of work and data/evidence inappropriately used; weak technical and practical competence hampers ability to demonstrate/communicate achievement of outcomes.  
Low Fail
ZEROZero  Work of no merit OR absent, work not submitted, penalty in some misconduct cases.