NUR857 Coursework Assessment Task
Proposal Justification and Design due on Monday, 1st September 2025 at 12 noon.
ASSESSMENT BRIEF (100%)
You are to submit one piece of work which requires you to select a research, service evaluation or quality improvement initiative on a topic of your choosing, relevant to your area of practice. You will be required to justify the choice of your approach, to design a coherent question/ aim and place these within a critical understanding of relevant literature. You will also be required to discuss data collection and data management relevant to your design. Consideration of the relevant ethical issues and time management dimensions applicable to your approach will also be required.
Detailed assessment guidance will be provided via blackboard and during class sessions.
Assignment Guidelines
Assessment Guidelines
-The assignment may take the form of an individual written word-processed justification and proposal of not more than 6000 words, excluding title page, contents page, tables, reference list and appendices.
-The assignment will be in two parts; A and B. Part A (1,500 words) – Choose a relevant topic, then determine whether it is best explored through a service evaluation, a quality- improvement project or a piece of primary research. Critically appraise all three approaches, drawing on appropriate literature, and explain with evidence why the option you have selected offers the most suitable framework for your chosen topic.
-Part B (4,500 words) – Provide the contextual background to your topic and set out a clear thesis statement. You must then justify the proposed methodology and study design, demonstrating clear alignment between the research aim, objectives and questions. Please note: if you opt to adopt the research approach, you must employ a primary research design. Secondary research designs are not permitted for this module.
-Coursework must be submitted by the dates specified. Coursework submitted after the deadline without prior approval is not normally accepted. For further guidance on the late
submission of coursework, please see the course handbook.
-Completed assignments must be submitted as a Word document via Turnitin by 12 noon on 1st September 2025. This date and time are final.
-Please see the Assignment Presentation below for details of how the assignment should be presented.
Assignment Presentation
Assignments must be submitted through Turnitin in Blackboard Learn. The title page should include:
-Student Name:
-Student Number:
-Title of course: PGCert/PGDip/MSc Health Promotion and Public Health
-Module Title: Advanced Methods in Research and Development in Health and Social Care (NUR857) module.
-Module Code: NUR857
-Assignment Title: (add own title)
-Name of Lecturer: (add name of the lecturer)
-Submission Date: (add specific submission date)
-Word count: (add specific word count)
-The Student Declaration of Ownership below must be included at the start of your assignment
I declare that this is all my own work and that any other material I have referred to has been accurately and consistently represented. I have read the University’s policy on plagiarism and understand the definition of plagiarism. If it is shown that material has been plagiarised, or I have otherwise attempted to obtain an unfair advantage for myself or others, I understand that I may face sanctions in accordance with the policies and procedures of the University. A mark of zero may be awarded and the reason for that mark will be recorded on my file.
-Font: size 12 Times New Roman or size 11 Arial
-Allow margins of approximately 2.5cm at the top, bottom and sides of your page
-1.5-line spacing
-Number pages sequentially
-Ulster University Harvard Referencing Guidelines must be used. A copy is available on Blackboard
-Students must adhere to the word limit policy to avoid penalties as follows:
+10% – no penalty
+>10% – 20% – 5% penalty
+>20% – 30% – 10% penalty
+>30% – 40% – 15% penalty
+>40% – 50% – 20% penalty
+>50% – maximum mark of 50
-Students who have written significantly under the word count will have self-penalised as they will not have covered the content adequately. Word counts do not include Tables, Figures, Diagrams, Reference Lists or Appendices. Tables and Figures core to the assignment should be in the main body of the assignment and not in the Appendices.
-Marks will be deducted for failing to submit, without prior approval through the appropriate channels, by the stated time on the day of submission
Coursework – SUMMATIVE FEEDBACK
Detailed feedback and the provisional mark will be given in line with university guidelines via Blackboard Ultra.
Coursework – FORMATIVE FEEDBACK
Students can gain formative feedback on their assessment (not marked) on one occasion. This occurs during study week 8 and will assist students with the development of their research methodology and design proposal. By week 8, a one-page summary of the rationale for the study, your aim (hypothesis, if applicable), question, objectives and research design (font size not less than 10) should be submitted.
Additional Information:
– If you opt to adopt the research approach, you must employ a primary research design. Secondary research designs are not permitted for this module.
– Students are to select topics that do not depend on recruiting hospital patients, as ethical approval from the UK Health Research Authority cannot be guaranteed.
– One of the core purposes of this module is to enable each student to demonstrate an ability to design an appropriate study and justify the chosen methodologies and data-collection methods.
– Although, students may change topics when they undertake the HEP 818 project module in Semester 3, however, continuity is recommended to avoid unnecessary delay, so students are strongly advised to retain their initial topics where possible.
– Also, students’ research need not be confined to the United Kingdom; students may investigate international settings. If you do so, ensure that you can obtain the necessary ethical clearance from the relevant authority in that country without undue difficulty.
Coursework Assessment Rubric / Marking Proforma
RUBRIC: NUR857 ADVANCED METHODS IN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT IN HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE
Research Design justification & Proposal [2024-2025] 100%
|
Criteria/ Mark |
Distinction: 70-100% |
Commendation: 60-69% |
Pass 50-59% |
Fail 45-49% |
Significant fail 0-44% |
|
Part A: Research design & justification |
|||||
|
Mark |
25-30 |
19-24 |
13-18 |
7-12 |
0-6 |
|
Justify choice of approach (research, service evaluation or quality improvement) [30%] |
An extensive overview, with clear application, critique and justification outlined for three approaches. All elements are mutually supportive. Selection of chosen approach is strongly supported from all literature relating to research, subject and theoretical literature. |
A very good overview of the application, critique and justification outlined for three approached. Key elements are mutually supportive. Selection of chosen approach is supported from most literature. |
An acceptable overview of application, critique and justification. Some elements are mutually supportive. Selection of chosen approach is supported by some literature. |
A poor overview of application, critique and justification. Limited evidence of mutual support. Selection of chosen approach is not supported. |
A very poor overview of application, critique and justification. Poor evidence of mutual support. Selection of approach is unclear and not supported. |
|
Part B: Research proposal |
|||||
|
Mark |
8-10 |
6-7 |
5-4 |
3-2 |
0-1 |
|
Background / Introduction [10%] |
Provided a highly insightful explanation of the selected topic and strong logical argument as justification. The following were considered: -The key contextual evidence underpinning selection of proposed study. -Provided examples and evidence from a range of various primary sources that supported the appropriateness and feasibility of the proposed study and approach. |
Provided an insightful explanation of the selected topic and logical argument as justification. Most of the following were considered: -The contextual evidence underpinning selection of proposed study. -Provided evidence from primary sources that supported the appropriateness and feasibility of the proposed study and approach. -The rationale for the overall proposed study’s focus and approach. |
Provided an explanation of the selected topic and argument as justification. Some of the following were considered: -Some contextual evidence underpinning selection of proposed study. -Provided examples and evidence mainly based on secondary sources that supported the appropriateness and feasibility of the proposed study and approach. |
Limited explanation of the selected topic and argument as justification. Limited evidence and understanding of contextual issues considered: -Limited contextual evidence underpinning selection of proposed study. -Limited source evidence (not up to date) that supported the appropriateness and feasibility of the proposed study and approach. -Explanation of the rationale for the overall |
Selection of topic is mentioned but no argument as justification presented. Evidence and understanding of contextual issues are lacking which underpin the study, support the appropriateness and feasibility of the proposed study and approach. |
|
|
-The rationale for the overall proposed study’s focus and approach. |
|
-The rationale for the overall proposed study’s focus and approach. |
proposed study’s focus and approach was limited. |
|
|
Mark |
8-10 |
6-7 |
5-4 |
3-2 |
0-1 |
|
Question, aim & objectives [10%] |
Clear, concise and well- articulated, question, reflective of aim and interlinked with the objectives. Highly relevant to the topic |
Detailed and specific question aim and objectives; clearly articulated. Relevant to topic |
Adequately formulated question, aim and objectives appropriate to the topic. |
Poorly formulated question, aim, and objectives relevance to the topic unclear. |
Missing or not relevant to the topic or inadequately formulated. |
|
Mark |
17-20 |
13-17 |
9-12 |
5-8 |
0-4 |
|
Methodology [20%] |
Exceptional section, identified and provided high level of specific, relevant and focused methodological detail, demonstrating excellent knowledge and understanding. The following were considered: – The key contextual evidence underpinning selection of proposed design, paradigm, method, recruitment, robustness and analysis of the study. – Provided specific evidence regarding how, when and where the data will be collected, tools used and measurement of robustness. – The rationale underpinning the decisions made relating to methodology are reported. |
Excellent design section, identified a high level of specific, relevant and focused detail, demonstrating good knowledge and understanding. The following were considered: – The contextual evidence underpinning selection of proposed design, paradigm, method, recruitment, robustness and analysis of the study. – Provided evidence regarding how, when and where the data will be collected, tools used and measurement of robustness. – The rationale underpinning most of the decisions made relating to methodology are reported. |
Design section, identified a level of specific, relevant and focused detail, demonstrating some knowledge and understanding. The following were considered: – Some contextual evidence underpinning selection of proposed design, paradigm, method, recruitment, robustness and analysis of the study. – Provided some evidence regarding how, when and where the data will be collected, tools used and measurement of robustness. – Provided some rationale underpinning some decisions made relating to methodology are reported. |
Design section lacked specific, relevant and focused detail. Limited evidence of understanding. Evidence underpinning selection of proposed design, paradigm, method, recruitment, robustness and analysis of the study is lacking. Limited evidence of how when and where data will be collected and measures of robustness. Limited rationale underpinning decisions relating to methodology. |
Specific, relevant and detail is lacking. Evidence underpinning selection of proposed design, paradigm, method, recruitment, robustness and analysis is not reported. Evidence of how when and where data will be collected, and measures of robustness were not considered. Rationale underpinning decisions relating to methodology were not reported. |
|
Mark |
4.5-5 |
3.5-4 |
2.5-3 |
1.5-2 |
0-1 |
|
Data analysis & Robustness [5%] |
Demonstrated an understanding and provided a detailed justification of the appropriate analysis and robustness measures linked to the proposed study. |
Demonstrated a substantial understanding and provided a justification of the appropriate analysis and robustness measures linked to the proposed study. |
Demonstrated a reasonable understanding and provided some justification of the appropriate analysis and robustness measures linked to the proposed study. |
Demonstrated little understanding and provided little justification of the appropriate analysis and robustness measures linked to the proposed study. |
Failed to demonstrate understanding and provide justification of the appropriate analysis and robustness measures linked to the proposed study. |
|
Mark |
8-10 |
6-7 |
5-4 |
3-2 |
0-1 |
|
Ethics & Data Management [10%] |
Identified and provided an in- depth understanding and application multiple ethical and data management factors, all clearly linked to the proposed study. |
Identified and provided and understanding and application of most of the ethical and data management factors with most clearly linked to the proposed study. |
Identified and provided and understanding and application of some of the ethical and data management factors with some linked to the proposed study. |
Identified some of the ethical and data management factors with some linked to the proposed study. |
Ethical and data management factors with were not clearly identified or applied nor linked to the proposed study. |
|
Mark |
4.5-5 |
3.5-4 |
2.5-3 |
1.5-2 |
0-1 |
|
Dissemination, User involvement and anticipated research impact [5%] |
Provided a highly insightful explanation of dissemination strategy and impact across research, education, policy and practice link to the proposed study. |
Provided an insightful explanation of dissemination strategy with most impact reported across research, education, policy and practice linked to the proposed study. |
Provided some explanation of a dissemination strategy with some impact reported across research, education, policy and practice, linked to the proposed study. |
Attempt to provide a dissemination strategy and some examples of impact however not linked to the proposed study. |
Little or no attempt to provide a dissemination strategy and impact linked to the proposed study. |
|
Mark |
4.5-5 |
3.5-4 |
2.5-3 |
1.5-2 |
0-1 |
|
Timeframe [5%] |
Demonstrated understanding of the timeframe and components required to undertake the proposed study, linked to the research process. |
Demonstrated a substantial understanding of the timeframe and components required to undertake the proposed study, linked to the research process. |
Demonstrated a reasonable understanding of the timeframe and components required to undertake the proposed study, linked to the research process. |
Demonstrated little understanding of the timeframe and the components required, linked to the research process. |
Failed to demonstrate understanding of the timeframe, its components or linkage to the research process. |
|
Mark |
4.5-5 |
3.5-4 |
2.5-3 |
1.5-2 |
0-1 |
|
Participant information sheet & consent form (if applicable) (5%] |
Provided examples of appendices which are informed by evidence and reflective of the proposed study. |
Provided examples of appendices which are informed by most evidence and mainly reflective of the proposed study. |
Provided examples of appendices with some informed by evidence parts reflective of the proposed study. |
Although attempted to provide some examples of appendices they were not informed by the evidence and not reflective of the proposed study. |