SOCIAL MEDIA IMPACTS ON MENTAL HEALTH AMONG STUDENTS IN THE UK
SOCIAL MEDIA IMPACTS ON MENTAL HEALTH AMONG STUDENTS IN THE UK
Assessment 1 – Guidance What is Assessment 1? A literature review Module weighting 70% Learning outcomes LO1: Conduct a small scale literature review and identify key studies and contemporary issues in your specific discipline (EY, HSC, CDYS) LO2: Critically evaluate a range of relevant research journals and draw valid conclusions LO3: Synthesise complex theories and practices in a complex way Different ways to write a literature review • • • • • Chronologically – you need to write critically, not just descriptively or present information in a list Thematically – this is useful if there are several strands within your topic that can logically be considered separately before being brought together By sector – political background, practice background, methodological background, geographical background, literary background By idea – this could be useful if there are identifiable stages of idea development that can be looked at in turn A combination of the above or by any other relevant structure. (University of Leicester, 2019) Elements of a literature review – A guide • • • • • • Introduction – provide a roadmap for the reader about the focus of the review and what is covered in the literature review. Background – provide context, background information or statistics that will help the reader understand what follows. For example, if the research is focused on leadership development, provide statistics on the estimated total amount spent on leadership efforts in a year, the number of schools, consulting firms, who specialises in this area Definitions – define the terms being used in the research question Main Body of the Literature Review – a review of relevant literature, organised in a way that tells a coherent story related to the research question. Gaps in the Literature – identify gaps in the literature that are related to the topic. Conclusion – summarise key points of the literature review that the reader needs to keep in mind. This will help provide the rationale for your research. (Kaminstein, 2017) What to do and what to not do • Do ➢ Critically evaluate the articles and books read ➢ Write the literature review as an integrated whole – synthesise ideas • What to not do ➢ Just describe a series of studies ➢ Do not include irrelevant or adjacent research in the literature review – keep your information focused and relevant to your topic (Kaminstein, 2017) References Kaminstein, Dana Ph.D., “Writing A Literature Review For An Applied Master’s Degree” (2017). University of Pennsylvania. Organizational Dynamics Working Papers. 23. http://repository.upenn.edu/od_working_papers/23 (Accessed 10th October 2019). University of Leicester (2019) Doing a literature review. Available at: https://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/ld/resources/writing/writing-resources/literature-review (Accessed 10th October 2019).
| Excellent | Good | Fair | Poor | ||
| Main Postinga | 45 (45%) – 50 (50%)
Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.
Supported by at least three current, credible sources.
Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
40 (40%) – 44 (44%)
Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.
Supported by at least three credible sources.
Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
35 (35%) – 39 (39%)
Responds to some of the discussion question(s).
One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed.
Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.
Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
Post is cited with two credible sources.
Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Contains some APA formatting errors. |
0 (0%) – 34 (34%)
Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately.
Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria.
Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.
Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
Contains only one or no credible sources.
Not written clearly or concisely.
Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
|
| Main Post: Timeliness | 10 (10%) – 10 (10%)
Posts main post by day 3. |
0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not post by day 3. |
|
| First Response | 17 (17%) – 18 (18%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.
Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.
Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
15 (15%) – 16 (16%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
13 (13%) – 14 (14%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.
Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. |
0 (0%) – 12 (12%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited. |
|
| Second Response | 16 (16%) – 17 (17%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.
Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.
Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
14 (14%) – 15 (15%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
12 (12%) – 13 (13%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.
Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. |
0 (0%) – 11 (11%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited. |
|
| Participation | 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days. |
0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days. |
|
| Total Points: 100 | |||||