How research evidence has improved policy and practice in an educational context

How research evidence has improved policy and practice in an educational context

Overview

In this first assessment, you will prepare a 15-minute presentation which critically analyses how research evidence has improved policy and practice in an educational context. In your presentation, you need to identify an educational context, locate an example of research which has impacted policy and/or practice in that context, and discuss the nature of that impact. You will record your presentation and upload it, along with the associated slides, to vUWS.

An educational context is broadly defined as a place where the primary purpose of the people interacting in that environment is education. This includes, but is not limited to, early childhood education centres, primary and secondary schools, tertiary education institutions, home schooling, and cultural institutions.

What you should do:

1. Identify and describe the educational context.
2. Describe an example of research conducted in that context. What did the researchers do (design and methods) and why (research questions and theoretical paradigms)? What did they find?
3. Critically analyse the impact of the research findings in that context. How has policy and/or practice changed as a result of the research?
4. Illustrate the impact with one or two examples.
5. Reference list in APA format. There should be 1-3 references listed.

Key considerations:

You must provide support for your claims through in-text citations and a reference list. Format these according to the APA style. An in-text citation looks like this (Berger & Archer, 2016). The corresponding entry for this journal article in a reference list looks like:

Berger, N., & Archer, J. (2016). School socio-economic status and student socio-academic achievement goals in upper secondary contexts. Social Psychology of Education, 19(1), 175-194. doi:10.1007/s11218-015-9324-8

Marking Criteria:

Criteria	High Distinction	Distinction	Credit	Pass	Unsatisfactory
Context 5 marks	5 Identifies, and describes, the critical features of the educational context relevant to the research.	4 Identifies, and describes, the highly relevant features of the educational context relevant to the research.	3 Identifies, and describes, the relevant features of the educational context relevant to the research.	2 Identifies, and describes, somewhat relevant features of the educational context relevant to the research.	0-1 Inaccurately identifies, or inadequately describes, the features of the educational context relevant to the research.
Research 5 marks	5 Describes an example of research conducted in the context with critical descriptions of research questions, design and methods, and theoretical paradigms.	4 Describes an example of research conducted in the context with highly relevant descriptions of research questions, design and methods, and theoretical paradigms.	3 Describes an example of research conducted in the context with relevant descriptions of research questions, design and methods, and theoretical paradigms.	2 Describes an example of the research conducted in the context with somewhat relevant descriptions of research questions, design and methods, and theoretical paradigms.	0-1 Inadequately describes an example of research conducted in the context with inaccurate descriptions of research questions, design and methods, or theoretical paradigms.
Critical analysis 10 marks	9-10 Critically analyses the impact of the research findings for policy and/or practice in the context, and illustrates with critical examples.	7-8 Analyses the impact of the research findings for policy and/or practice in the context, and illustrates with highly relevant examples.	5-6 Evaluates the impact of the research findings for policy and/or practice in the context, and illustrates with relevant examples.	3-4 Describes the impact of the research findings for policy and/or practice in the context, and illustrates with somewhat relevant examples.	0-2 Inadequately describes the impact of the research findings for policy and/or practice in the context, or does not illustrate with relevant examples.
Presentation 10 marks	9-10 Well-structured paper or innovative presentation within the word/time limit; explicitly identifies the key issues; cohesive, grammatically correct structure; very few typographic or spelling errors. With competent integration of evidence, submitted to Turnitin; original work with insignificant matches.	7-8 Clear and concise structure; strengthened by relevant research; grammar and syntax mostly correct; cohesive text within word/time limit; discriminating use of appropriate vocabulary; few typographic or spelling errors.	5-6 Well-structured and coherent text; effective grammatical expression; adheres to word/time limit; uses appropriate terminology; minor typographic and /or spelling errors.	3-4 Some appropriate use of evidence but needs to be better integrated; submitted to Turnitin; originality report detects some insignificant matches.	0-2 Work lacks structure; little evidence paper has been edited; terminology inappropriate; frequent spelling/ typographic errors. Poor paraphrasing or overreliance on quotes. Submitted to Turnitin; originality report detects some insignificant matches. Significantly below or above the word/time limit.
Referencing 5 marks	5 As for distinction, additionally complex citations or unusual source materials are cited and referenced correctly, following APA conventions for particular reference types.	4 As for credit, additionally all references and citations consistently demonstrate correct punctuation. Full stops, commas, colons, parenthesis follow APA conventions for particular reference types.	3 As for pass, additionally all references and citations consistently demonstrate correct formatting. Italics, capitalisation, regular text and spacing follow APA conventions for particular reference types.	2 The 4 elements of the APA referencing style are present in all reference list citations, (creator, copyright date, title of work and source of work).	0-1 A reference list was not included or demonstrated multiple errors. In-text citations were omitted or were used incorrectly.