Programme: MSc Psychology
Module Code: PE7025
Module Title: Psychological Data Analysis
Weighting This coursework accounts for 40% of the total mark for this module
Submission of Assessment
This assignment should be submitted electronically.
It should be submitted online via Turnitin by the given deadline. You will find a Turnitin link on the module’s eLP (Blackboard) site in the Assessments > Psychological Data Analysis Assignment folder. The link says ‘SUBMIT YOUR FINAL QUALITATIVE ASSIGNMENT HERE’. It must be formatted as a Microsoft word document or a PDF.
Submissions will not be accepted via any other means. If you do not submit your assignment using the designated online assignment submission tool on Blackboard, it will be treated as a non-submission leading to a failed assessment.
It is your responsibility to ensure that your assignment arrives before the submission deadline stated above. See the University policy on late submission of work below.
It is also your responsibility to ensure you have an email receipt from Turnitin confirming your submission. This email is your proof of submission and what you need to produce if there is any query about your submission, (including date and time).If you do not receive an email receipt from Turnitin assume your work has not been submitted.
Instructions on Assessment:
This assessment is an analysis of an interview using interpretive phenomenological analysis (IPA).
Acquired brain injury (ABI) profoundly affects a survivor’s life, abilities and identity. This has been examined intensely from a medical perspective exploring loss, overlooking the unique, nuanced experiences within survivor narratives. A study was conducted to explore how an ABI survivor experienced identity reconstruction (IR) fostered by post-traumatic growth (PTG), which is known to aid in the development of coping strategies and identity reconstruction. The qualitative investigation therefore explored the lived experience of an individual with a history of ABI. The transcript of the semi-structured interview is provided. Analyse the data using interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) to understand how this survivor may be making sense of their experiences through the lens of IR and PTG. Identify, describe and discuss the main themes and subthemes that arise, using relevant quotes from the interview to support your arguments.
References
Appropriate referencing is required for this assignment. All references must be in accordance with APA or BPS guidelines.
Module Specific Assessment Criteria and Rubric
The Module Learning Outcomes that this assignment assesses can be found on the module specification for this module which can be found on the eLP (Blackboard) site for your module. By satisfying this assignment brief you will have addressed the module learning outcomes.
The assessment criteria (used in conjunction with the marking rubric)
A successful answer should include the following:
Brief introductory information on Acquired brain injury, Post traumatic growth and identity reconstruction.
Description of the process and purpose of IPA.
Thematic map
Description of themes supported by relevant quotes from the transcript and interpretation.
Discussion of the findings with reference to previous research.
Brief conclusion
The rubric used to mark this assignment is attached at the end of this document.
Programme Learning Outcomes
The programme (level) learning outcomes that this module contributes to can be found in your Programme Handbook/Programme eLP site. By passing this module it means you have contributed to meeting the learning outcomes for the applicable level of your programme.
ASSESSMENT REGULATIONS
You are advised to read the guidance for students regarding assessment policies. They are available online here.
LATE SUBMISSION OF WORK
Where coursework is submitted without approval, after the published hand-in deadline, the following penalties will apply.
• For coursework submitted up to 1 day (24 hours) after the published hand-in deadline without approval, 10% of the total marks available for the assessment (i.e.100%) shall be deducted from the assessment mark. For clarity: work that is submitted up to 24 hours late that would have scored 65%, 55% or 45% had it been handed in on time will be awarded 55%, 45% or 35% respectively as 10% of the total available marks will have been deducted.
• Coursework submitted more than 1 day (24 hours) after the published hand-in deadline without approval will be regarded as not having been completed. A mark of zero will be awarded for the assessment.
The full policy can be found here.
WORD LIMITS AND PENALTIES
The word count is to be declared on the front page of your assignment.
If the assignment is within +10% of the stated word limit no penalty will apply.
Note that the word limit INCLUDES where applicable, the abstract, the main body of text, in text citations [e.g. (Smith, 2011)], direct secondary quotations [e.g. “dib-dab nonsense analysis” (Smith, 2011 p.123)] and footnotes.
However, the word limit DOES NOT INCLUDE a title page, contents page, direct quotations from primary or secondary source material arising from qualitative research, tables, figures, illustrations, references list or appendices. If you wish to include appendices, they must be clearly numbered, labelled, and referred to appropriately in the text. The purpose of appendices is to provide context or verification for the marker.
Students must retain an electronic copy of this assignment (including ALL appendices) and it must be made available within 24hours of them requesting it be submitted.
The full Word Limit Policy is available here.
ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT
The Assessment Regulations for Taught Awards (ARTA) contain the Regulations and procedures applying to cheating, plagiarism and other forms of academic misconduct. The full policy is available here
You are reminded that plagiarism, collusion and other forms of academic misconduct as referred to in the Academic Misconduct procedure of the assessment regulations are taken very seriously. Assignments in which evidence of plagiarism or other forms of academic misconduct is found may receive a mark of zero.
Avoiding academic misconduct
As Turnitin is also a plagiarism detection tool you are advised to submit a draft version of your assignment to Turnitin to check your work before submitting the final version to Turnitin for marking. Your assessment tutor will give details of how and where to submit a draft assignment. The originality report for your final marked submission will be made available to the marker via Turnitin.
Distinction
70-100 Commendation
60-69 Pass
50-59 Marginal Fail
40-49 Clear Fail
0-39
Introductory Material Very clear and concise. Evidence of independent reading. Clear and concise. Some evidence of independent reading. Covers the main points Limited coverage of relevant material Poor coverage of relevant material
IPA All the material is accurate and relevant Nearly all of the material is accurate relevant There are some minor factual errors or omissions There are a number of factual errors or omissions There are many major factual errors or omissions
Thematic Map or Table Very clearly presented with an appropriate title/legend Clearly presented with an appropriate title/legend Present but lacks some clarity or is missing an appropriate title or legend. Not clearly presented. Lacking title or legend. Very poorly presented or missing entirely.
Presentation of themes Excellent summary of each theme. Clearly linked appropriate quotes. Excellent interpretation. Good summary of each theme. Clearly linked appropriate quotes. Good interpretation. Summary of themes present. Appropriate quotes but not well linked. Limited interpretation. Little or no summary of themes. Poor use of quotes. Little or inaccurate interpretation. No summary of each theme. Poor use of quotes. No interpretation.
Discursive material Excellent reference to previous research with insightful points made. Reference to previous research. Comparison of findings made. Limited reference to previous research. Some comparison of findings made. Very limited reference to previous research. Little or no comparison of findings. No (or inaccurate) reference to previous research.
Conclusion Concise and very clear. Based on the analysis presented. Concise and clear. Based on the analysis presented. Lacks clarity or drifts beyond the analysis presented Present, but covers inappropriate material. There is an absence of a meaningful conclusion.