School of xx

Assessment
Brief
Module Code Module Title
PSY4105 Developmental Psychology

Academic Year Semester

22/23 2

Module Leader email

Ms. Haqeeqa Munas: haqeeqamunas@gmail.com

Content
Assessment Details....................................................2
Submission Details.....................................................3
Assessment Criteria...................................................4
Further Information.....................................................6
Who can answer questions about my assessment?............6
Referencing..............................................................................6
Submission problems.............................................................6
Unfair academic practice........................................................6
How is my work graded?........................................................7
Assessment Details
Assessment title Abr. Weighting
Essay WRIT1 50%

Pass marks are 40% for undergraduate work and 50% for postgraduate work unless stated otherwise.

Task/assessment brief:

You will need to complete both of the essay topics mentioned below.

1. "Teratogens are known to affect pre-natal development." Critically evaluate this statement by
focusing on the following. (750 words)

a. Define and explain what teratogens are.

b. Consider how/when they affect development.
c. Consider the impact of potential interventions to minimize/prevent the effects associated
with teratogen exposure.
d. Use research findings and empirical data to support your points.

2. Critically evaluate Piaget’s theory of cognitive development by comparing it to Lev Vygotsky’s

theory. (750 words)

a. Provide a small description of the two theories.

b. Compare and contrast the two theories.
c. Use research to support your critical evaluation.

The completed assignment should consist of the following documents and should be in order:

1. Cover sheet/ Title page

2. Assignment brief/ Grading descriptors
3. Tasks in order
4. References
5. Appendixes

Report guidelines:

 Submission format Report (No Headings; No Bullet Points)

 Paper Size: A4
 Header and Footer: 1 Inch
 Basic Font Size: 12
 Line Spacing: 1.5
 Font Style: Times New Roman
 Referencing should be done strictly using APA 7th edition.

Word count (or equivalent): 1500 (+/- 10%)

This is a reflection of the effort required for the assessment. Word counts will normally include any text,

2
tables, calculations, figures, subtitles and citations. Reference lists and contents of appendices are
excluded from the word count. Contents of appendices are not usually considered when determining your
final assessment grade.

Academic or technical terms explained:

Define: Explain the meaning of something (this will usually require supporting evidence to justify the
explanation)

Critically evaluate: Present an objective, reasoned argument for the position you have taken by
evaluating/considering different perspectives.

Submission Details
Student Number: Please fill Date submitted: Please fill

Student Name: Please fill

Submission Estimated
Deadline: Feedback
Return Date

Submission
Time:

Moodle/Turnitin/ Any assessments submitted after the deadline will not be marked and will be
ICBT SIS: recorded as a non-attempt unless you have had an extension request agreed
or have approved mitigating circumstances.

File Format: The assessment must be submitted as a word document and submit through
the Turnitin submission point in Moodle as well as ICBT SIS portal.

Your assessment should be titled with your:

 ICBT student number, module code and assessment code

Assessment Criteria
Learning outcomes assessed

1. Clearly identify the development from conception through to old age and factors that
influence a health pregnancy
2. Know and evaluate the theories in developmental psychology

3
Marking/Assessment Criteria
L4 Marking Criteria

95%
Further to the description listed in the 75% and 85% criteria: Work extends beyond the standard or work
expected at L4 and has features consistent with L5.

85%
Students have demonstrated a full and detailed understanding of the set task and an ability to address the
assignment criteria at an excellent level.

75%
Assessment criteria is addressed at a very good level.
There is strong evidence of an ability to apply detailed knowledge of the topic area. The writing style is lucid;
arguments are well structured, critical and clearly articulated. Basic assumptions are challenged; the
complexity of academic debate is acknowledged.

68%
Assessment criteria is addressed at a good level.
A detailed knowledge of aspects of the topic area is shown; there is evidence of an ability to apply such
knowledge, and perhaps to extend and transform. The writing style is fluent and arguments are well
articulated and substantiated. An ability to evaluate evidence will be shown.

65%
Assessment criteria is addressed at a good level.
A detailed knowledge of aspects of the topic area is shown; there is evidence of an ability to apply, extend and
transform this knowledge. The writing style is fluent and arguments are generally well articulated and
substantiated. An ability to evaluate evidence will be shown.

62%
Assessment criteria is addressed at a good level.
A good knowledge of aspects of the topic area is shown; there is evidence of an ability to apply, extend and
transform this knowledge. The writing style is usually fluent and arguments are generally well articulated and
substantiated. An ability to evaluate evidence may be shown.

58%
Assessment criteria is addressed at a satisfactory level.
A sound knowledge of underlying aspects of the field has been demonstrated throughout. There may be
some minor errors in presentation, but this does not detract from the clarity of expression. The structure and
format of arguments is appropriate and usually substantiated.

55%
Assessment criteria is addressed at a satisfactory level.
A sound knowledge of underlying aspects of the field has been demonstrated. There may be some errors in
presentation, but this does not detract from the clarity of expression. The structure and format of arguments is
appropriate and usually substantiated.

52%
Assessment criteria is addressed at a satisfactory level.
A sound knowledge of underlying aspects of the field has mostly been demonstrated. There may be errors in
presentation, but this does not detract from the clarity of expression. The structure and format of arguments is
generally appropriate and usually substantiated.

48%
Assessment criteria is addressed at a threshold level.
A basic knowledge of the underlying aspects of the topic area is demonstrated throughout. Work is
appropriately structured though some key points may not be logically structured. Although there are minor
faults in the presentation of work the meaning is still clear. Arguments may be generally substantiated, but
may be under-developed in some places.

45%

4
Assessment criteria is addressed at a threshold level.
A basic knowledge of the underlying aspects of the topic area is demonstrated. Work is appropriately
structured though key points may not be logically structured. Although there are faults in the presentation of
work the meaning is still clear. Arguments may be generally substantiated, but may be under-developed.

42%
Assessment criteria is addressed at a threshold level.
A basic knowledge of the underlying aspects of the topic area is demonstrated at times. Work is appropriately
structured though key points are not logically structured. Although there are major faults in the presentation of
work the meaning is mostly clear. Arguments may be substantiated at times and may be under-developed.

38%
The standard of work is unsatisfactory and might best be described as a narrow fail.
Work demonstrates limited knowledge of the topic and may also be irrelevant and inaccurate at times.
Expression of ideas may be confused and poorly expressed. However, understanding of the set task has
been demonstrated.

35%
The standard of work is unsatisfactory and might best be described as a narrow fail.
Work demonstrates limited knowledge of the topic and may also be irrelevant and inaccurate. Expression of
ideas may be confused and clumsily expressed. However, understanding of some elements of the set task
have been demonstrated.

32%
Work is unsatisfactory and represents a fail. Work demonstrates limited knowledge of the topic and may also
be irrelevant and inaccurate. Expression of ideas may be confused and clumsily expressed.

25%
Work is of a poor quality and represents a clear fail. Work presented for assessment will demonstrate minimal
understanding of the set task. Work demonstrates little knowledge of the topic and little ability to
communicate effectively.

15%
Work is very poor. Work presented for assessment demonstrates a misunderstanding of the set task, be
largely irrelevant and/or short.

5%
Work presented for assessment may be short, incomplete and/or irrelevant and demonstrates a serious lack
of comprehension and/or engagement with the set task.

0%
Zero will be awarded where no answer has been attempted. A zero may also be warranted following an
upheld allegation of unfair academic practice.

5
Marking/Assessment Criteria

1st (70% and above) 2:1 (60-69%) 2:2 (50-59%) 3rd (40-49%) Narrow Fail (30-39%) Clear Fail (0-29%)
Excellent knowledge and Very good knowledge Sound knowledge and Satisfactory attempt. Basic and limited Little knowledge and
understanding of the and understanding of the understanding of the Limited knowledge and knowledge and understanding
Understanding
Knowledge &

topic. Strong evidence of topic. Very good topic. Good evidence of understanding of the understanding of the demonstrated.
ability to apply such evidence of an ability to an ability to apply topic. Some evidence of topic demonstrated. Inaccuracies, errors,
knowledge. Independent apply knowledge. knowledge although some an ability to apply Inaccuracies, errors, and misconceptions are
thinking and awareness Evidence of independent flaws are evident. knowledge. Some key and misconceptions are evident in key areas.
of different perspectives thinking points are missing and present. Arguments Arguments are often
clearly demonstrated. flaws and evident. may, at times, be irrelevant.
irrelevant.
Level of critique and Very good evidence of Good lines of argument Some evaluation and Little knowledge and Lack of understanding
Argument & Critique

evaluation is high with evaluation of arguments
strong arguments and theory. Sound lines
presented throughout. of argument developed.
Accurate application of Accurate application of
research and theory research and theory
(though there may be
minor errors).
Presentation is excellent Presentation is very
Presentation &
and evaluation are critique is present but understanding of the of the set task
present in places. very basic. Arguments basic issues and is demonstrated.
However, at times are very descriptive and confused and limited. Evaluation is largely
arguments are limited in scope. Evaluation is absent. Any arguments
descriptive, lack Application of relevant minimal/absent. presented may be
development, and are theory is basic and Arguments presented superficial, irrelevant,
limited in scope as they limited. may be superficial, inaccurate. and
may lack application of irrelevant, and unsubstantiated.
research and theory. unsubstantiated.
Presentation is Presentation is poor. Presentation is poor. Presentation is very

and formatted well. good and well formatted. satisfactory. Some Arguments are unclear, Arguments are very poor and often illogical.
Arguments are logical, Arguments are usually attempt at structure has inadequately structured, unclear, poorly No attempt to make
Structure

well-defined, and well logical, well-structured,
structured. and informed. Writing
Writing style is lucid. style is fluent with clarity
of expression
throughout.
Excellent use of a broad Very good use of
Research
been made. and lack coherence at structured and lack coherent arguments.
Some errors in times. Numerous errors coherence. The essay is Many errors present
presentation and writing present. badly organised with which have a significant
style may lack clarity at many errors present. impact upon clarity.
times.
Good use of relevant Use of some basic, Little evidence of Minimal/no evidence of

range of appropriate relevant, up-to-date sources. Some sources relevant sources reading and use of reading
Use

academic sources. sources may be outdated. appropriate academic

sources

Referencing and citations Referencing style Attempt to conform to Referencing is poor and Referencing is very No referencing/largely
References
& Citations

conforms to APA generally conforms to referencing standards but is non-standard/not in the poor. absent.
standard and is used standards. many errors present. specified format.
accurately throughout.
Further Information
Who can answer questions about my
assessment?
Questions about the assessment should be
directed to the staff member who has set the
task/assessment brief. This will usually be the
Module Leader. They will be happy to answer any
queries you have.
Staff members can often provide feedback on an
assignment plan but cannot review any drafts of
your work prior to submission. The only exception
to this rule is for Dissertation Supervisors to
provide feedback on a draft of your dissertation.
Referencing and independent learning
Please ensure you reference a range of credible
sources, with due attention to the academic
literature in the area. The time spent on research
and reading from good quality sources will be
reflected in the quality of your submitted work.
Remember that what you get out of university
depends on what you put in. Your teaching
sessions typically represent between 10% and
30% of the time you are expected to study for
your degree. A 20-credit module represents 200
hours of study time. The rest of your time should
be taken up by self-directed study.
Unless stated otherwise you must use the APA
referencing system. Further guidance on
referencing can be found in the Study Smart area
on Moodle and at www.citethemrightonline.com
(use your university login details to access the
site). Correct referencing is an easy way to
improve your marks and essential in achieving
higher grades on most assessments.
Technical submission problems
It is strongly advised that you submit your work at
least 24 hours before the deadline to allow time to
resolve any last minute problems you might have.
If you are having issues with IT or Turnitin you
should contact the IT Helpdesk on (+44) 2920
417000. You may require evidence of the
Helpdesk call if you are trying to demonstrate that
a fault with Moodle or Turnitin was the cause of a
late submission.
Extensions and mitigating circumstances
Short extensions on assessment deadlines can
be requested in specific circumstances. If you are
encountering particular hardship which has been
affecting your studies, then you may be able to
apply for mitigating circumstances. This can give
the teachers on your programme more scope to
adapt the assessment requirements to support
your needs. Extensions and mitigating
circumstances policies and procedures are
regularly updated. You should refer to your
degree programme or school Moodle pages for
information on extensions and mitigating
circumstances.
Unfair academic practice
Cardiff Met takes issues of unfair practice
extremely seriously. The University has
procedures and penalties for dealing with unfair
academic practice. These are explained in full in
the University's Unfair Practice regulations and
procedures under Volume 1, Section 8 of the
Academic Handbook. The Module Leader
reserves the right to interview students regarding
any aspect of their work submitted for
assessment.
Types of Unfair Practice, include:
Plagiarism, which can be defined as using
without acknowledgement another person’s
words or ideas and submitting them for
assessment as though it were one’s own work, for
instance by copying, translating from one
language to another or unacknowledged
paraphrasing. Further examples include:
 Use of any quotation(s) from the published or
unpublished work of other persons, whether
published in textbooks, articles, the Web, or
 in any other format, where quotations have
not been clearly identified as such by being
placed in quotation marks and
acknowledged.
 Use of another person’s words or ideas that
have been slightly changed or paraphrased
to make it look different from the original.
 Summarising another person’s ideas,
judgments, diagrams, figures, or computer
programmes without reference to that person
in the text and the source in a
bibliography/reference list.
 Use of assessment writing services, essay
banks and/or any other similar agencies (NB.
Students are commonly being blackmailed
after using essay mills).
 Use of unacknowledged material downloaded
from the Internet.
 Re-use of one’s own material except as
authorised by your degree programme.
Collusion, which can be defined as when work
that that has been undertaken with others is
submitted and passed off as solely the work of
one person. Modules will clearly identify where
joint preparation and joint submission are
permitted, in all other cases they are not.
8
Fabrication of data, making false claims to have
carried out experiments, observations, interviews
or other forms of data collection and analysis, or
acting dishonestly in any other way.
How is my work graded?
Assessment grading is subject to thorough quality
control processes. You can view a summary of
these processes on the Assessment Explained
Infographic.
Grading of work at each level of Cardiff Met
degree courses is benchmarked against a set of
general requirements set out in Volume 1,
Section 4 of our Academic Handbook. A simplified
version of these Grade Band Descriptors (GBDs)
with short videos explaining some of the
academic terminology used can be accessed for
Foundation, 1st year, 2nd year and 3rd year
undergraduate and MSc programmes.
We would strongly recommend looking at the
Study Smart area of Moodle to find out more
about assessments and key academic skills
which can have a significant impact on your
grades. Always check your work thoroughly
before submission.
Assessment Feedback
For assessor use only

Strong features of your work:

Areas for improvement: