代做EDST5100 Term 3 Foundation 2 – Field of Educational Practice代写留学生Matlab语言程序
- 首页 >> Algorithm 算法Assessment 2 Brief
Summary of Information
Course and Term: EDST5100 Term 3
Title: Foundation 2 – Field of Educational Practice
Weighting: 60%
Assessment type: Position Paper and Poster
Group work: No
Assessment Description:
Scenario – You are working in a new university as a researcher in Education. You have been asked by your supervisor to research and develop a poster that explains the importance of an educational specialisation to Education. This work will be part of showcase or expo of big ideas and issues in Education that is designed to attract students to enrol in a new post graduate program focussed on understanding the nature of Education in the contemporary context.
How to complete the assessment:
Choose 1 specialisation from the topics listed in weeks 3-9 in the Course Outline. Research this topic using at least 10 peer reviewed journal articles, along with professional literature and policy documents.
1. In your position paper, briefly introduce the specialisation and the basic tenets. (500 words)
2. Argue a case for the significance of the nominated specialisation to Education. Consider how the specialisation is: a) represented in policy, institutional structures and educational settings including schools, adult learning programs, tertiary programs, and b) functions in a local and/or state, and/or national and/or global education contexts. (1500 words)
3. Design a poster that summarises your research findings using no more than 1000 words, images, diagrams, and graphics to illustrate and explain your findings. (200-1000 words)
Acceptable use of Generative AI:
Simple editing assistance
For this assessment task, you may use standard editing and referencing software, but not generative AI. You are permitted to use the full capabilities of the standard software to answer the question (e.g. you may wish to specify particular software such as Microsoft Office suite, Grammarly, etc.). If the use of generative AI such as ChatGPT is detected, it will be regarded as serious academic misconduct and subject to the standard penalties, which may include 00FL, suspension and exclusion.
Submission requirements:
Electronic Submission:
What to submit:
· Position Paper (2000 words)
· Poster (200-1000 words)
Where to submit:
· Turnitin
Due date:
· Friday 15 November 5pm
Please note:
· A Short Extension is available for 3 days. All students are eligible to apply in writing before the assessment submission due date to j.hoenig@unsw.edu.au. No late applications are permitted.
· UNSW has a standard late submission penalty of:
• 5% per day, for all assessments where a penalty applies;
• capped at five days (120 hours) from the assessment deadline, after which a student cannot submit an assessment, and
• no permitted variation.
Assessment Criteria:
|
Criteria & Weighting |
Fail (<50) |
Pass (50-64) |
Credit (65-74) |
Distinction (75-84) |
High Distinction (85-100) |
|
Understanding of the question or issue and the key concepts involved Clarity and significance of the definition of topic and key concepts within it. |
Limited understanding of the issue and its relevance to areas of theory, research, and practice. Misrepresents issues and draws on personal opinion or fails to distinguish fact from opinion. Lack of informed insight into the issue. |
Passable understanding of the issue and its relevance to areas of theory, research, and practice. Separates fact from opinion, but limited evidence of a clear, logical, and coherent voice and insight into the issue. |
Satisfactory sufficient understanding of the issue and its relevance to areas of theory, research, and practice. Recognises confirming and disconfirming perspectives on the issue but lacks depth or a clear voice or sense of authority on the topic. |
Well-developed and informed understanding of the issue and its relevance to areas of theory, research, and practice. Recognises, understands, and incorporates confirming and disconfirming perspectives on the issue, providing a clear stance or authoritative voice. |
Excellent and comprehensive articulation in demonstrating a deep understanding of the issue and its relevance to areas of theory, research, and practice. Sophisticated understanding of confirming and disconfirming perspectives on the issue, that sustains an authoritative voice on the topic. |
|
Depth of analysis and critique in response to the task Effectively summarises the investigation being undertaken Effectively identifies different points of view concerning the topic presented in the peer reviewed articles informing this evaluation Explains and justifies trends in the topic area based on evidence from peer reviewed journal articles |
a. Provides little to no information summarising the specialisation. b. Sources and viewpoints are not addressed with insufficient information to support their argument. c. The significance of the specialisation is unacknowledged or maybe considered self-evident in both presentation and written response. |
a. Provides a partially developed summarisation of the specialisation. b. Sources and viewpoints may be addressed in a limited manner to support an uneven or incomplete argument. c. The significance of the specialisation is acknowledged in a rudimentary or uninformed manner, in both presentation and written response. |
a. Provides coherent summary of the specialisation. b. Sources and viewpoints may be addressed in a superficial or generalist manner, with some attempts made to articulate an argument. c. The significance of the specialisation is acknowledged through some coherent explanation and justification. The written response demonstrates some consolidation of ideas addressed in the presentation.
|
a. Provides a well-developed, coherent, and informative summary of specialisation. b. Sources and viewpoints may be addressed in an explicit and consistent manner within the development of a reasonably articulate argument. c. The significance of proposed solutions or options is explicitly addressed, well explained, and justified. The written response demonstrates a competent and well-developed progression of the ideas addressed in the presentation. |
a. Provides a robust and concise summary of specialisation. b. Sources and viewpoints are addressed in an explicit and authoritative manner to sustain an articulate and robust argument. c. The significance of the specialisation is explicitly and convincingly addressed, deeply and comprehensively explained, and justified. The written response demonstrates a high level of reflexivity in extending and developing the ideas addressed in the presentation. |
|
Familiarity with and relevance of professional and/or research literature used to support response Effectively provides identifies relevant research articles from peer reviewed journals, professional and policy literature to inform. explanations of the topic area |
Information sources are not identified. The response is unfocused and unclear in its use of literature. The response demonstrates an inability to critique and select an appropriate range of literature to support argument, neglecting important sources. |
Uses a limited range of relevant sources, discussion is restricted to a descriptive account of the topic. Little to no awareness of how to critique contrasting perspectives on the issue.
|
Uses a sufficient range of sources to provide a generally accurate investigation and representation of the topic. Focuses primarily on sources that support the writer’s perspective, or with some uneven recognition of contrasting perspectives. |
Accurate and informative range of sources are identified to reflect a solid understanding of contrasting perspectives on the topic. Well-developed and competent skills in critiquing and selecting an appropriate range of literature are demonstrated. |
Extensive information and range of sources are identified to reflect contrasting perspectives on the topic in a clear, logical and original manner. Strong skills in critiquing and selecting an appropriate range of literature are demonstrated. |
|
Structure and organisation of response Logical and coherent structure Clear presentation of ideas |
No apparent structure is evident in this response. Attention needs to be given to developing a logical sequence of ideas to sustain an argument. |
The structure of the response reflects some clarity and logic in the sequencing of an argument.
|
The structure of the response is presented in a fairly clear and logical sequence that sustains a reasonably clear and coherent argument.
|
The structure of the response is presented in a reasonably clear, effective, and logical sequence that generally sustains a coherent and well-reasoned argument.
|
The structure of the response is presented in a clear, effective, and logical sequence that sustains a lively, insightful, and coherent and well-reasoned argument.
|
|
Presentation of response according to appropriate academic and linguistic conventions Clarity, consistency and appropriateness of conventions for quoting, paraphrasing, attributing sources of information, and use of images, diagrams and graphics to illustrate content Clarity and consistency in referencing research literature Clarity and appropriateness of expressions and statements, sentence structure, vocabulary use, spelling, punctuation and word length |
Not evident |
Limited |
Satisfactory |
Reasonably Complete |
Excellent |
Course Learning Outcomes addressed in this task:
· CLO 1: Critically review theory and research in education to enhance understandings of fields of practice in education
· CLO 2: Examine how policies and institutions shape educational practice in local, state, national and global contexts
· CLO 3: Evaluate how the role of teachers, students, content and context are understood in different fields of practice in education