OFFERS!
Get Expert-crafted assignments
Get Expert-crafted assignments
Save 51%
Get Expert-crafted assignments
| Category | Assignment | Subject | Education |
|---|---|---|---|
| University | Arden University (AU) | Module Title | PSY5008 Personality and Intelligence |
| Word Count | 4000 words |
|---|
As part of the formal assessment for the programme you are required to submit a personality and intelligence assignment. Please refer to your Student Handbook for full details of the programme assessment scheme and general information on preparing and submitting assignments.
After completing the module, you should be able to:
All learning outcomes must be met to pass the module
Your assignment should include: a title page containing your student number, the module name, the submission deadline and the exact word count of your submitted document; the appendices if relevant; and a reference list (see referencing section for more information). You should address all the elements of the assignment task listed below. Please note that tutors will use the assessment criteria set out below in assessing your work.
You must not include your name in your submission because Arden University operates anonymous marking, which means that markers should not be aware of the identity of the student. However, please do not forget to include your STU number.
Maximum word count: 4000 words
Choose from one of the two questions below to write a critical essay.
'Critically evaluate the evidence to determine if an idiographic approach to personality and intelligence is more informative than a nomothetic approach'
'Psychometric testing in the context of personality and intelligence for recruitment purposes has ethical limitations - discuss'
Your critical account should evaluate historical and contemporary theories and research findings which are directly relevant to the constructs you are discussing, building a focused and balanced debate. Your evaluation should also address the strengths and limitations of the measures used in the included research and any pertinent ethical considerations.
(4000 words)
(100 marks) (LOs: 1, 2, 3 & 4)
Before you begin writing, you should conduct a review of the relevant literature according to the question you have chosen to answer. Read through the research papers, pulling out key points to use in your evaluation. Remember that you should only draw on robust academic sources.
The introduction should introduce and define the key concepts you are going to focus on. Highlight the focus of the essay through identifying the main areas you are going to discuss. Remember to provide signposting emphasising the core argument of the essay.
Evaluate the relevant theories to the psychological phenomena under discussion, including historical and contemporary developments. Incorporate research findings and provide a balanced and critical discussion. Consider the strengths and limitations of the debates, the measures used in the discussed research and any relevant ethical considerations. Your points should all be supported by evidence from robust academic sources.
Do not introduce any new information here but draw together and summarise your key points and debates. Provide a strong take-home message for the reader by weighing up the evidence you have presented in the essay.
You have the opportunity to submit a 1000-word plan to receive formative feedback. The outline of the plan should detail what will be included in the essay. You should also include 2-3 of your key references in the full citation of either AU Harvard or APA formatting at the end of your plan.
The feedback is designed to help you develop areas of your work and it helps you develop your skills as an independent learner.
If you are a distance learning student, you should submit your work via Tumitin. Please check your iLeam module pages/forum for the formative feedback deadline and submission link.
If you are a blended learning student, your tutor will give you a deadline for formative feedback and further details. If you have a confirmed extension to your summative (final submission) deadline, please contact your lecturer for information on extensions to the formative feedback deadline.
Formative feedback will not be given to work submitted after the published date or the date specified by your tutor (if a blended learning student).
| Grade | Mark Bands | Generic Assessment Criteria |
|---|---|---|
| First (1) | 80%+ | An outstanding information base exploring and analysing the discipline, its theory and any associated ethical considerations. There is sophisticated use and management of learning resources, and a high degree of autonomy is demonstrated. Writing is outstandingly well structured and accurately referenced throughout. Where appropriate, outstanding professional skills are demonstrated. The work is original and with some additional effort could be considered for internal publication. |
| First (1) | 70–79% | An excellent knowledge base within which the discipline is explored and analysed. There is a degree of originality in the approach. The work demonstrates confidence and autonomy and extends to consider ethical issues. Learning resources have been managed confidently. Writing is exceptionally well structured and accurately referenced throughout. Where appropriate, an excellent level of professional skills is demonstrated, and the work demonstrates a high level of intellectual and academic skills. |
| Upper second (2:1) | 60–69% | A very good knowledge base which explores and analyses the discipline, its theory, and any associated ethical issues. There is evidence of some originality and independence of thought. A very good range of learning resources is used, and there is evidence of growing confidence and self-direction. The work demonstrates the ability to analyse the subject and apply theory with good academic and intellectual skills. Academic writing skills are very good, expression is accurate overall, and the work is consistently referenced throughout. |
| Lower second (2:2) | 50–59% | A good understanding of the discipline which begins to analyse the subject and apply some underpinning theory. There may be reference to some of the ethical considerations. The work shows a sound level of competence in managing basic sources and materials. Academic writing skills are good and accurate overall, and the work is planned and structured with some thought. Professional skills are good (where appropriate). The work lacks original thought, but academic and intellectual skills are moving into the critical domain. The work is referenced throughout. |
| Third (3) | 40–49% | A satisfactory level of performance in which there are some omissions in unde |
| Marginal Fail | 30–39% | A limited piece of work in which there are clear gaps in understanding the subject, its underpinning theory, and ethical considerations. The work shows a limited use of sources and materials. Academic and professional skills are weak and there are errors in expression, and the work may lack structure overall. There are difficulties in developing professional skills (where appropriate). The work lacks original thought and is largely imitative. |
| Clear Fail | 29% and Below | A poor performance in which there are substantial gaps in knowledge and understanding, underpinning theory, and ethical considerations. The work shows little evidence in the use of appropriate sources and materials. Academic writing skills are very weak and there are numerous errors in expression. The work lacks structure overall. Professional skills (where appropriate) are not developed. The work is imitative. |
Hire Experts To Solve This PSY5008 Assignment Before Deadline
Buy Non Plagiarized AssignmentLooking for expert help with your PSY5008 Personality and Intelligence assignment? Our Best Assignment Help provides you with top-quality, plagiarism-free content tailored to meet your academic needs. We also offer a Free List of Assignment Samples to guide you in crafting your own assignments. Get the best support and achieve your desired results with our professional services.
Let's Book Your Work with Our Expert and Get High-Quality Content
