Perspectives on Teaching, Learning and Development HT5002

Unit

Details

Name

Perspectives on Teaching, Learning and Development

Code

HT5002

Year, Trimester

2025, T1

Assessment

Details

Name

Research essay

Due Date and Week

Individual Student

Details

Student Number

First Name

Family Name

Submission

Declaration

Integrity Declaration

I have read and understand academic integrity policies and practices and my assessment does not violate these.

Full Name

Submission Date

Academic

Integrity

Information

Holmes Institute is committed to ensuring and upholding academic integrity. All assessment must comply with academic integrity guidelines. Important academic integrity breaches include plagiarism, collusion, copying, impersonation, contract cheating, data fabrication and falsification. Please learn about academic integrity and consult your teachers with any questions. Violating academic integrity is serious and punishable by penalties that range from deduction of marks, failure of the assessment task or unit involved, suspension of course enrolment, or cancellation of course enrolment.

Format

Instructions

Most assessments must be in MS Word format with no spacing, 11-pt Calibri font and at least 2cm margins on all four sides with appropriate section headings and page numbers.

You must name your file with the Unit Code and Student ID (e.g. HI5003-GWA1995).

Check that you submit the correct document as special consideration is not granted if you make a mistake.

Student ID needs to be indicated on the cover page.

Penalties

All work must be submitted on Blackboard by the due date and time along with a completed Assessment Cover Page. Late penalties apply.

Reference sources must be cited in the text of the report, and listed appropriately at the end in a reference list using Holmes Institute Adapted Harvard Referencing. Penalties are associated with incorrect citation and referencing.

Framing and situating of the topic and ideas

25%

Title irrelevant to the topic. No sufficient introductory information to the topic. Little or no discussion of problem background. Problem statement is not concise. Objectives and research question are irrelevant to the topic. Framing is not specific. Incorrect model or theory or ideas used or irrelevant to unit.

Title does not accurately reflect what the project is all about. Vague discussion of introductory information and problem background. Objectives and questions relevant but do not accurately reflect what the paper is meant to achieve. Scope is not realistic. Correct subject-relevant theory not explained or not applied.

Title reflects what the paper is about. Good discussion of cited works. Adequate depth of insight and analysis of existing work and problem to be solved. Objectives and research question accurately reflect what the project is meant to achieve. Scope discussion is thorough and achievable. Correct subject-relevant theory explained and applied.

Thesis and purpose are fairly clear and match the writing task. Thesis and purpose are somewhat original. Good situation of paper within larger topic. Correct subject-relevant theory well- explained and applied correctly.

Concise title Well-written introduction. Excellent articulation of the problem and question to be solved. Scope is achievable, inclusions and exclusions are supported by logic/evidence. Meaningful connections to proposed work are communicated effectively. Excellent grasp on relationship of paper to the larger topic. Correct subject-relevant theory clearly explained and applied comprehensively.

Argument and content

25%

Offers simplistic, undeveloped, or cryptic support for ideas; inappropriate or off-topic generalizations; faulty assumptions; and/or errors of fact.

Offers some support that may be dubious, too broad or obvious. Details are too general, not interpreted, irrelevant to thesis, or inappropriately repetitive

Offers solid but less original reasoning. Assumptions are not always recognized or made explicit. Contains some appropriate details or examples

Well-formed , logical, and concrete development of

ideas. Good discussion of cited works.

Substantial, logical, and concrete development of

ideas. Assumptions are made explicit. Details are germane,

original, and convincingly interpreted

Findings and insights

25%

Results are not stated or are incomplete; little or no relevant discussion of their significance or value to the topic. Conclusion is not provided or not relevant.

Results are stated; little or no relevant discussion of their significance or value to the area of research. Conclusion provided but is missing certain components.

Results are described; adequate discussion of their significance or value to the topic. Conclusion provide a decent summary of what the project is all about.

Good discussion of results in light of topic, problem context and theory. Good quality references cited with strict adherence to the prescribed referencing style.

Excellent discussion of results; exceptional insight and understanding of their significance or value to the area of research. Well-written conclusion which wraps-up the project and provides direction for next steps.

Overall organisation and writing

25%

Includes an unacceptable number of grammatical errors; contains formatting errors; fails to properly cite sources; fragmented and very hard to read. References not provided or very few references provided, poor quality sources cited.

Includes some grammatical and or formatting errors; writing style is sometimes difficult to read; descriptions are hard to understand, verbose, or repetitive; uses too much jargon. References provided, however not fully adopt the prescribed referencing style.

Includes occasional grammatical and formatting errors; writing style is generally easy to follow; description depicts the project well but uses some jargon. A complete list of references. Adhere to the prescribed referencing style.

Free from grammatical and formatting errors; description is clear, concise, and very easy to follow; uses appropriate technical and non-technical descriptions as appropriate.

Well formatted and presented written assessment, free from errors and well expressed. Tone is mature, consistent, suitable for topic and audience. Adheres to required length. High quality references cited with strict adherence to the prescribed referencing style.

Total

100%