Questionnaire researchby Cori-Beth Harper

FILE

TIME SUBMITTED 11-DEC-2016 06:25PM

SUBMISSION ID 64007761

WORD COUNT 1536

CHARACTER COUNT 7762

OODLEDATA_TEMP_TURNITINTOOL_1370325653.QUESTIONNAIRE_STUDY.DOCX (8.22K)

QM

QM

FINAL GRADE

58/100

Questionnaire researchGRADEMARK REPORT

GENERAL COMMENTS

InstructorThis was quite a good report, with a f ewweaknesses.

You explained previous research quite well andpresented your Results quite clearly. However, yourMethod section was written in a very conf using way,which cost you several marks.

Next t ime, make sure you write in a more 'academic'style, where you ref er to yourself (or 'we') lessof ten. This should help you to achieve a highergrade.

David S (contact Sarah Barnes, if you would like toarrange a meeting to discuss your f eedback/mark).

PAGE 1

Comment 1Support claim with evidence.

Typotypo

Doesn't make senseThis doesn't make sense.

Comment 2two

Comment 3Support claims with evidence.

PAGE 2

Comment 4This is a very dif f icult prediction to test. You didn't use the right stat's to test this prediction.

QM

QM

Comment 5You weren't able to gather this inf o f rom this study. All this study could examine was whether ornot there was a gender dif f erence in belonging - nothing else.

Comment 6Avoid ref erring to yourself in your report.

Past TenseWrite in the past tense.

Comment 7It will not have been truly random. Very, very f ew studies are.

Typotypo

Comment 8Not needed.

Comment 9None of this is needed.

Comment 10Write this in a proper sentence.

Comment 11This isn't what is needed in your procedure section. Read a f ew journal articles, or see theWriting Guide on Moodle to get a better idea.

Comment 12How did you decide which graduates to contact?

PAGE 3

Comment 13Make your tables consistent with APA guidelines.

Comment 14SDs?

Comment 15See the Writ ing Guide on how to f ormat this properly. A f ew things wrong here.

QM

QM

Comment 16This is conf using.

Comment 17A very long paragraph. I'm not sure what your main argument is here.

PAGE 4

Doesn't make senseThis doesn't make sense.

Comment 18The dif f erence between the groups was not signif icant

ReferencingCheck how to f ormat ref erences correctly.

RUBRIC: PSY4012 ASSESSMENT2

ABSTRACT (5%)

ABJECT FAIL (<30)(1)

FAIL (30-39)(2)

3RD (40-49)(3)

2.2 (50-59)(4)

2.1 (60-69)(5)

1ST (70-79)(6)

OUTSTANDING 1ST(80-89)(7)

EXCEPTIONAL 1ST(90-100)(8)

INTRODUCTION (15%)

ABJECT FAIL (<30)(1)

FAIL (30-39)(2)

3RD (40-49)(3)

2.2 (50-59)(4)

2.1 (60-69)(5)

1ST (70-79)(6)

OUTSTANDING 1ST(80-89)(7)

4.75 / 8

5 / 8

Either absent or disorganised and uninf ormative.

Lacks organisation and is conf used.

Shows evidence of organisation and covers some of the relevant inf ormation.

Organised and covers most of the relevant inf ormation.

Organised, succinct and comprehensive.

Well organised, succinct and comprehensive.

Very well organised, succinct and comprehensive.

Exceptionally well organised, succinct and comprehensive

5 / 8

No introduction at all.

Introduction section, but no rationale or no basis in previous work.

Attempt to provide a rationale f or the study, although weak.

Rationale provided and it is largely clear how the study f ollows on f rom previouswork.

Rationale f ollows on logically f rom the literature review and extends previous work.

Very clear and convincing.

Extremely clear, ef f ective and convincing.

EXCEPTIONAL 1ST(90-100)(8)

HYPOTHESES (5%)

ABJECT FAIL (<30)(1)

FAIL (30-39)(2)

3RD (40-49)(3)

2.2 (50-59)(4)

2.1 (60-69)(5)

1ST (70-79)(6)

OUTSTANDING 1ST(80-89)(7)

EXCEPTIONAL 1ST(90-100)(8)

METHODOLOGY (15%)

ABJECT FAIL (<30)(1)

FAIL (30-39)(2)

3RD (40-49)(3)

2.2 (50-59)(4)

2.1 (60-69)(5)

1ST (70-79)(6)

OUTSTANDING 1ST

Exceptionally clear, ef f ective and convincing.

4 / 8

Absent or seriously f lawed.

Presented but with no link to previous studies.

Presented, but no, or unconvincing explanation.

Presented, with some explanation.

Clear, precise and explained.

Explicit, clear and f ully explained.

Explicit, very clear and f ully explained

Extremely clear and f ully explained.

4 / 8

Very poor. Very dif f icult to understand how the study was conducted.

Poor. Dif f icult to see how study was conducted.

Some description of the main details of the study. Would allow a broadly similar studyto be conducted.

Generally good and provides details of most major and minor aspects.

Very good with clear and explicit accounts of all major and most minor details.

Accurate with complete attention to detail, while remaining concise.

Flawless. Complete attention to detail, while remaining concise.

(80-89)(7)

EXCEPTIONAL 1ST(90-100)(8)

RESULTS (15%)

ABJECT FAIL (<30)(1)

FAIL (30-39)(2)

3RD (40-49)(3)

2.2 (50-59)(4)

2.1 (60-69)(5)

1ST (70-79)(6)

OUTSTANDING 1ST(80-89)(7)

EXCEPTIONAL 1ST(90-100)(8)

DISCUSSION (20%)

ABJECT FAIL (<30)(1)

FAIL (30-39)(2)

3RD (40-49)(3)

2.2 (50-59)(4)

2.1 (60-69)(5)

1ST (70-79)

Flawless. Complete attention to detail. Entirely concise.

5 / 8

Either no analysis, or inappropriate analysis.

Unclear and reported incorrectly.

Shows a basic understanding of the results and how to report them.

Correct and mainly clear. Some evidence of insight.

Clear, correct and largely concise. Reasonably insightf ul.

Clear and correct with insight, conciseness, and sophistication.

Very high standard of clarity, insight, conciseness, correctness and sophistication.

Prof essional standard of clarity, insight, conciseness, correctness andsophistication.

5 / 8

No discernible account.

Superf icial account of some basic issues.

Some discussion. Descriptive with litt le evaluation. A limited account of some basicissues.

Reasonably good account but slightly basic and unsophisticated.

Very good account of the theoretical and practical implications and limitations of thef indings. Good summary.

Insightf ul analysis. Very sophisticated. Very ef f ective.

(6)

OUTSTANDING 1ST(80-89)(7)

EXCEPTIONAL 1ST(90-100)(8)

DESIGN (15%)

ABJECT FAIL (<30)(1)

FAIL (30-39)(2)

3RD (40-49)(3)

2.2 (50-59)(4)

2.1 (60-69)(5)

1ST (70-79)(6)

OUTSTANDING 1ST(80-89)(7)

EXCEPTIONAL 1ST(90-100)(8)

APA FORMAT (5%)

ABJECT FAIL (<30)(1)

FAIL (30-39)(2)

3RD (40-49)(3)

2.2 (50-59)(4)

Searching and crit ical analysis. Outstanding account of theoretical and practicalimplications and limitations of the f indings.

Original and searching crit ical analysis. Comprehensive and highly ef f ective.

5 / 8

Entirely misconceived. Severe and f undamental weaknesses.

Basic f laws. Very litt le evidence of methodological understanding. Inappropriate wayof testing the hypothesis.

Basic and ill-conceived. A limited way of testing the hypothesis

Sound although not novel, original or ground breaking. An appropriate way of testingthe hypothesis.

Novel, creative and sophisticated, although not necessarily particularly original orground breaking. A very good way of testing the hypothesis.

Excellent in terms of its originality and has a design that is novel, creative andsophisticated. An excellent way of testing the hypothesis.

Outstanding in its originality and has a design that is novel, creative andsophisticated. Outstanding way of testing the hypothesis.

Exceptional in its originality and has a design that is novel, creative and sophisticated.Optimal way of testing the hypothesis.

5 / 8

Inadequate or absent.

Inadequate.

Limited ref erencing and/or adherence to APA style.

Largely consistent and accurate, including in- text citations and the f ormat andcontent of the ref erences list.

2.1 (60-69)(5)

1ST (70-79)(6)

OUTSTANDING 1ST(80-89)(7)

EXCEPTIONAL 1ST(90-100)(8)

STYLE (5%)

ABJECT FAIL (<30)(1)

FAIL (30-39)(2)

3RD (40-49)(3)

2.2 (50-59)(4)

2.1 (60-69)(5)

1ST (70-79)(6)

OUTSTANDING 1ST(80-89)(7)

EXCEPTIONAL 1ST(90-100)(8)

Consistent and accurate, including in- text citations and the f ormat and content of theref erences list.

Excellent, including in- text citations and the f ormat and content of the ref erences list.

Flawless, including in- text citations and the f ormat and content of the ref erences list.

Flawless, including in- text citations and the f ormat and content of the ref erences list.

4 / 8

Grossly inadequate and unclear presentation. Severely impaired communication.Error-strewn.

Inadequate and unclear presentation. Impaired communication. Error-strewn.

Adequate, but awkward expression throughout with litt le clarity. Poor delivery, paceand audience engagement.

Some lapses of clarity. Some expression is inef f ective. Satisf actory delivery, paceand audience engagement.

Clear and coherent. Good delivery, pace and audience engagement.

Fluent and accurate with great clarity and coherence. Mostly conf ident delivery, paceand audience engagement.

Prof essional and sophisticated with great clarity and coherence. Excellent, controlled,conf ident delivery, pace, and audience engagement.

Prof essional and sophisticated with great clarity and coherence. Excellent, controlled,conf ident delivery, pace, and audience engagement.