ASSESSMENT 3

ASSESSMENT 3

Assessment Type:     Research Paper: Individual paper with focus on area of interest to student
Weighting:             40%
Duration:             7 weeks
Conditions of Assessment:     Individual with faculty guidance.
Due Date:             Week 15

Task Description:
Students will select an aspect of the course on which to write a detailed research paper (2000-2500 words, exclusive of title page, tables, figures, and references). This paper will combine the skills of examining, evaluating, and presenting information and ideas combining current practices and research with individual professional contexts.

Criteria and Marking:
A detailed rubric will be given and this will be based on a set of criteria predetermined by the faculty member. The research paper will be marked according to the following criteria:
•    Understanding the task:  content of the task is covered;
•    Level of analysis, critical reflection and meta-cognition;
•    Level of depth in presenting professional ideas and perceptions;
•    Links to theory and course material;
•    Evidence-based
•    Structure, organization and language;
•    Citation, referencing  and formatting- American Psychology Association (APA) style, font- Times Roman, size- 12, line Spacing : Double spaced and margins: Normal 1 inch.

Submission Details: Submit to  D2L by Week 15.

Assignment 3 – Research Paper
40% of Final Grade
Research Paper

Task Description:
Students will select an aspect of the course on which to write a detailed research paper (2000-2500 words, exclusive of title page, tables, figures, and references). This paper will combine the skills of examining, evaluating, and presenting information and ideas combining current practices and research with individual professional contexts.

Criteria and Marking:
A detailed rubric will be given and this will be based on a set of criteria predetermined by the faculty member. The research paper will be marked according to the following criteria:
•    Understanding the task:  content of the task is covered;
•    Level of analysis, critical reflection and meta-cognition;
•    Level of depth in presenting professional ideas and perceptions;
•    Links to theory and course material;
•    Evidence-based
•    Structure, organization and language;
•    Citation, referencing  and formatting- American Psychology Association (APA) style, font- Times Roman, size- 12, line Spacing : Double spaced and margins: Normal 1 inch.

Student:                                                                       ID number:                                       Course:  Critical Perspectives on Teaching & Learning
A (85-100)    B (70-84)    C (55-69)    D (50-54)    F (below 49)
Understanding of the task: content of the task is covered
Outstanding understanding of the task.
Excellent and clear view of models and practices and the way they provide the larger context within which the specific cases are presented.
Comprehensive coverage and in-depth analysis.     Good understanding of the task.
Good view of models and practices and a good link between them and the cases presented.
Good coverage of issues but the analysis and the links to the content should be stronger.    Satisfactory understanding of the task.
Satisfactory view of models and practices and some link between them and the cases presented.
Limited analysis of issues.
Some understanding of the task.
Vague understanding of models and practices and weak link between them and the cases presented.
Lack of analysis.

Inadequate understanding of the task.
Lack of understanding of models and practices and the task as a whole.

Critical  explanation and analysis,  as demonstrated  through  presenting evidence      Original and critical ideas are presented in the explanation.
Excellent evidence presented from experiences, class readings and additional materials, including a rich range of sources (at least 5).
In-depth and comprehensive analysis.
Appropriate arguments presented.
Good evidence presented from experiences, class readings and additional materials (at least, 5).
Good analysis but it can be strengthened.
Satisfactory explanation and analysis
Limited evidence presented from experiences, class readings and/or additional materials.
Some analysis but not sufficient.    Basic explanation and analysis
Very weak evidence presented from either experiences, class readings and/or additional materials.
Lack of analysis.    Inadequate explanation

Lack of evidence and analysis.
ink between   issues and concepts discussed in class    Strong, original and creative link between the content of the paper and themes and concepts discussed in class and in the additional readings.    Good link between the content of the paper and themes and issues addressed in class and in the additional readings.
The links could be further developed and strengthened.    Satisfactory link between content of the paper and themes and concepts discussed in class. The links are not developed and strong.    Inadequate link between content of the paper and themes and concepts discussed in class.

No link between content of the paper and themes and concepts discussed in class.

Structure,  organization, language of the written paper and using APA  Style,    Very well structured and well organized paper. Strong logical connections and flow. Appropriate length. Excellent control of language. All sources appropriately acknowledged and written in APA Style.    Clear and good structure of written paper. Minor issues with logical connections and overall flow. Appropriate length. Good control of language. Errors may occur but meaning is generally clear. Most sources are appropriately acknowledged and written in APA Style.    Satisfactory structure and presentation. Appropriate length. Satisfactory control of language. Errors intrude but meaning is still clear with some effort.
Some sources appropriately acknowledged and not fully written in APA Style    Attempt made for a coherent written paper. Length may be considerably off target. Limited control of language.
Errors intrude making meaning unclear.  Sources are not properly acknowledged.    Unstructured written paper. Length is problematic. Control of language is problematic.
Errors are so frequent they impede meaning. Sources are not properly acknowledged.

Comments:

Grade:                                                                                                                                                                          Date: