Assignment Brief: Clinical Issues in Psychology Essay

3906005-13779500

Assignment Brief: Clinical Issues in Psychology Essay

Unit title (and code) Clinical Issues in Psychology (2F6Z0028_2324_9Z2F)

Programme Psychology Undergraduate Courses

Assignment title Essay

Unit leader Dr Robert Dempsey

Submission instructions Format of submission

The assignment should be submitted as a Word document.

Where and how to submit

You should submit your work to the relevant Turnitin link on the Unit Assessment area of the Moodle page.

Please refer to the Unit Assessment area of the Moodle page for the submission deadline. The standard university submission time is 9:00pm on the submission deadline.

You are strongly advised to upload your submission earlier than the 9:00pm deadline to ensure the system uploads your work successfully.

For online submissions, you can submit your work as many times as you like before the deadline (you have until 9:00pm on the deadline date) to check the similarity score. Please allow time for the similarity score to generate.

Once 9:00pm passes on the deadline day, your work will finalise and you cannot replace the submission. Therefore, please ensure the final version is submitted.

After you have submitted your assignment, you will receive an email confirmation receipt.

MMU Graduate Outcomes assessed The assignment is mapped against the following MMU Graduate Outcomes:

1. Apply skills of critical analysis to real world situations within a defined range of contexts.

2. Demonstrate a high degree of professionalism (e.g., initiative, creativity, motivation, professional practice, and self-management).

3. Express ideas effectively and communicate information appropriately and accurately using a range of media including ICT.

6. Find, evaluate, synthesise, and use information from a variety of sources.

7. Articulate an awareness of the social and community contexts within their disciplinary field.

Learning outcomes assessed Learning Outcome 1: Explain and discuss critically the assessment and treatment of different mental health conditions.

Learning Outcome 2: Synthesise and critically evaluate the practical application of psychological theory and research.

Task details and instructions Students will be required to submit one 2000-word essay answering the below question. Students will need to cover two different mental health conditions covered in the unit and (briefly) consider how aetiological understanding explains outcomes and any relevant assessment or treatment issues or implications. Essays should be based on the published research literature (i.e., journal articles).

The essay question is:

Using relevant psychological theory and research, evaluate how well key biopsychosocial aetiological factors explain outcomes for two different mental health conditions covered on the unit. Your evaluation should briefly consider issues/implications associated with assessment and treatment.

Conditions: Bipolar Disorder; Depression*; Anxiety*; Suicidality; Schizophrenia; Addiction*; Eating Disorders*; Trauma*.

*You should choose a specific diagnosis/form of this condition to discuss in your essay.

Formatting guidance: Essays should be presented using 1.5x or 2x line spacing and a standard clear font size and type (i.e., 12-point Times New Roman). No subheadings, appendices, tables, images or pictures should be used in the essay. APA Referencing style should be used for cited sources.

Guidance on size of submission

The word count limit is 2000 words (absolute) and the word count should be clearly stated on the title page with the essay question (detailed above).

The word count limit applies to the main text (including in-text references). The essay question/title and the references list are not included as part of the word count.

Penalties for overlong submissions Penalties will be applied to work which is over length.

Up to 10% over the word limit = mark reduced by 5%

11% - 30% over the word limit = mark reduced by 10%

>31% over the word limit = mark reduced by 20%

For example, a 2,000-word essay that would be graded at 65 is over the word limit by 150 words. Therefore, a 5% reduction will be applied to the 65 grade as follows: (65/100) x 5 = 3.25. 65 3.25 = 61.75, which would be rounded up to the nearest whole number (i.e., 62). The new grade that reflects the word count penalty would be 62.

Late submissions If you have missed the deadline, you can submit your work withinseven daysof the original date (before 9:00pm) and receive a maximum-capped pass mark of 40% (Level 3-6). All work submitted after seven days will receive a mark of zero.

If at any point you are concerned about your ability to complete an assessment on time, please speak to a member of staff (e.g., the Unit team, your personal tutor, a Programme Support Tutor).

Support arrangements Assignment support

Support for this unit will be provided in the following ways:

Assignment Information Folder including various online resources and guides available in Moodle

The Assignment Queries Forum including the FAQs forum which will be regularly updated by academic staff

Programme Support Tutors

From the unit staff during taught sessions (including the assignment support surgery sessions)

Study SkillsNote that unit teaching staff will not answer general assignment queries or comment on essay plans sent electronically (e.g., via email). Students should speak to staff during the taught sessions, including the dedicated assignment surgery taught sessions, and/or post queries on the relevant Moodle Forums.

Assessment Mitigations Policy

The unit teaching team cannot authorise extensions to the submission deadline. If you require an extension, you can apply for a self-certification extension or an evidenced extension via the unit Moodle page. For more information on how to apply for either extension, go to the MMU Assessments and Results page and follow the guidance under the Extensions heading.

Personal Learning Plans (PLPs)

Students can also seek advice on learning support and issues related to Personal Learning Plans (PLP) from the Department Disability Coordinator, Dr Verity Longley, and Deputy Coordinator, Dr Gillian McChesney.

Email: PsychologyDisability@mmu.ac.uk

Feedback policy and plan Feedback policy

The feedback and mark for your assignment will be provided within 20 working days of submission. The University standard time for releasing marks and feedback is 8:30am.

Feedback plan

Formative feedback

You will have opportunities to receive formative feedback in the unit during the taught sessions and the Assignment Surgery sessions (see Moodle for details of the unit schedule to help develop the skills needed for your final summative assignment).

The Unit will include dedicated Assignment Surgery sessions where unit staff will provide guidance on the Assignment Brief, how to plan and structure your essay, and will provide formative feedback on your essay plan. Note that plans will only be commented on during the taught sessions.

Summative feedback

Your final assignment mark can be accessed by clicking on the Turnitin submission link on Moodle. To access the written feedback, click on the pencil icon.

The feedback will include annotations on the submission, and overall summary feedback. The summary feedback can be accessed by clicking on the Feedback Summary button on the Turnitin window. The feedback will identify areas of strength and areas for development.

Marking and Moderation policy Marking policy

This assignment will be marked in accordance with the marking criteria for Clinical Issues in Psychology with the University Standard Descriptors for Level 6.

The marking criteria focuses on:

Argument & Linkage

Critical Evaluation

Structure & Presentation

Sources & Referencing

A copy of the marking rubric is attached at the end of this Assignment Brief.

Moderation policy

A process of internal and external moderation will be undertaken to ensure that marking criteria has been fairly, accurately, and consistently applied.

Please note that marks received are provisional until they are agreed by the Assessment Board.

In line with University regulations, students cannot appeal a mark on the basis that they disagree with the mark awarded. If you are unhappy with a mark, you should discuss this with the Unit Leader in order to reach a better understanding of why the mark was awarded. However, please note that no marks will be altered or changed after they have been moderated and agreed. Please read the Universitys policy on Academic Appeals.

Clinical Issues in Psychology - Assignment Marking Rubric

Students are required to prepare a critical essay discussing how well biopsychosocial aetiologies explain outcomes for two different mental health conditions covered in the unit and consider any relevant issues/implications associated with assessment or treatment in the evaluation of the literature.

Mental Health conditions (students pick two from this list): Bipolar Disorder; Depression*; Anxiety*; Suicidality; Schizophrenia; Addiction*; Eating Disorders*; Trauma*. (*Students should choose a specific diagnosis/form of this condition to discuss in their essay)

Students have the choice of aetiologies (any combination of bio-psycho-social aetiologies) and outcomes to discuss as appropriate for their chosen conditions.

Criteria Argument & Linkage Critical Evaluation Structure & Presentation Sources & Referencing

Production of an argument answering the brief and linkage of biopsychosocial aetiologies with outcomes Evaluation of how well aetiologies influence outcomes Essay Presentation and (macro/micro) structure Use of and reference to appropriate sources

Outstanding work. Creative, insightful, illuminating, inspiring, exciting, authoritative.

First

100%

95%

90%

85% Inspiring, powerful argument containing original critical evaluation and authoritative/creative linkage of how the chosen biopsychosocial aetiologies explain outcomes for the chosen conditions. Insightful justification provided with extensive reference to relevant academic theory and published research. The essay takes an extremely critical view of the literature and embeds evaluation throughout the work. Evaluation is creative, illuminating, and authoritative. The essay is creatively and extremely clearly structured with a logical flow of arguments. Provides a clear, compelling, and/or insightful conclusion to answer the brief. Evidence of extensive independent wider reading based on reference to a substantial range of academic literature. No errors with referencing.

Excellent work. Persuasive, sophisticated, original, reflective, ambitious, meticulous, critical, convincing, unexpected.

First

80%

75%

72% Exceptionally strong argument containing original critical evaluation and convincing linkage of how the chosen biopsychosocial aetiologies explain outcomes for the chosen conditions. Original justification provided with significant reference to relevant academic theory and published research. The essay takes an original, critical view of the literature and embeds evaluation throughout the work. Evaluation is critical, convincing, and sophisticated. The essay is creatively and very clearly structured with a logical flow of arguments. Provides a clear, original, and/or insightful conclusion to answer the brief. Evidence of substantial independent wider reading based on reference to a substantial range of academic literature. Only very minor errors with referencing.

Very good work. Clear, confident, consistent, thoughtful, accurate, careful, congruent, coherent.

2:1

68%

65%

62% Strong argument with evidence of original critical evaluation and thoughtful linkage of how the chosen biopsychosocial aetiologies explain outcomes for the chosen conditions. Coherent justification provided with wide reference to relevant academic theory and published research. The essay takes a consistently critical view of the literature with good evaluation throughout the work. Evaluation is generally considered and thoughtful. The essay is generally well presented and structured, with a generally clear flow of argument throughout. There is an original and somewhat insightful conclusion. Evidence of independent wider reading based on reference to a fairly wide range of academic literature. There may be some minor errors with referencing.

Good work. Clear, confident, consistent, thoughtful, accurate, careful, congruent, coherent.

2:2

58%

55%

52% Generally good argument with some evidence of original critical evaluation and fair linkage of how the chosen biopsychosocial aetiologies explain outcomes for the chosen conditions. There might be some evidence of a limited understanding of the conditions/topic. Arguments have some justification based on reference to relevant academic theory and published research.

The essay takes a fairly consistent critical view of the literature with some good evaluation throughout the work. Evaluation is generally considered. The essay is reasonably well presented and structured, with a fairly clear flow of argument throughout. A somewhat thoughtful conclusion is offered. Evidence of some wider reading but this may be somewhat limited beyond the taught materials. There may be some errors with referencing.

Satisfactory work. Satisfactory, sufficient, adequate, descriptive.

Third

48%

45%

42% A satisfactory argument is offered with an adequate amount of critical evaluation and fair linkage of how the chosen biopsychosocial aetiologies explain outcomes for the chosen conditions. There might be some confusion or a lack of understanding. Arguments have an adequate justification based on reference to relevant academic theory and published research.

There is a somewhat satisfactory focus on evaluation, although this may not be consistent throughout the work. Evaluation may be limited in scope and originality. The essay may have a reasonable if not consistent structure. There may be some minor issues with the flow of writing and presentation. An adequate if limited conclusion might be offered. Limited evidence of wider reading. Reading may be limited to materials provided in the unit. There may be errors with referencing.

Erroneous/wrong, incomplete, inadequate, insufficient, contradictory, superficial, irrelevant, limited, unstructured.

Fail

38%

35%

32%

28%

25%

22% An insufficient, superficial, or inadequate argument is offered. There may be evidence of confusion, lack of understanding, and/or errors with the linkage of biopsychosocial aetiologies with outcomes for the chosen conditions. There might be evident confusion or a lack of understanding. Arguments may be weakly justified and there may be some lack of reference to relevant academic theory and published research.

There may a very limited, confused, or inadequate focus on evaluation. Evaluation may be very limited in scope and originality. The essay may have a very limited structure, have a confused structure, or appear unstructured. There may be substantial issues with the flow of writing and presentation. A conclusion may be offered but this may be limited in detail/length.

Very limited evidence of wider reading beyond the materials provided in the unit. There may be recurrent errors with referencing.

Absent/no work. Lacking, formless, detrimental.

Clear Fail

18%

15%

12%

8%

5%

2% The essay offers an insufficient, superficial, incomplete and/or inadequate argument. There may be substantial confusion or a lack of understanding of the conditions/topic, and/or significant errors with the linkage of biopsychosocial aetiologies with outcomes for the chosen conditions. Arguments may be very weakly justified and there may be significant lack of reference to relevant academic theory and published research.

Likely to be a significant lack of critical evaluation and/or no attempt to be critical of the literature. The essay has a very poor or missing structure. There may be significant issues with the writing quality and presentation. A very limited-to-poor conclusion might be offered or be missing from the work. Little-to-no evidence of wider reading beyond the materials provided in the unit. There may be substantial errors with referencing.

0% No submission.