Reflective Practice and Critique Exercise

Background To complete the unit, a brief practice reflection and critique exercise task must be completed. Students will reflect upon PUBH620 content in terms of: (1) how it relates to and extends their existing knowledge and skills; and (2) how they believe it will inform their future practice and support them in meeting relevant competency standards. The final part of this assessment is to choose one paper from a prescribed list and assess it from a statistical standpoint.

Instructions

Part A: Reflective practice (15%) Your practice reflection is an opportunity to reflect on PUBH620 as a whole and consider how it relates to practice. “Relates to practice” should be thought of in two parts: (1) relates to your past practice and existing knowledge/skills [marking criterion 1]; and (2) relates to your future career and practice, and the public health competency standards that underpin that.

For the purposes of this unit, you should consider the Foundation Competencies for Master of Public Health Graduates in Australia, with a focus on one or more of the five areas of practice (see Table of Contents).

This brief guide to reflective writing from Griffith University will assist in organising your submission.

The word count for Part A is 600 words ?+/- 10%

Part B: Critique exercise (25%) The critique exercise is an opportunity to take what you have learnt throughout the semester and put it in to practice. Under the “Assessment” tab on LEO, you will see a folder containing several papers based on theme. You only need to choose ONE of these papers to critique. Your submission should be a newly created Word document written as an essay addressing each section of the IMRAD (Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion/Conclusion) acronym. Some questions and points to consider are outlined below:

The word count for Part B is 1200 words ? 10%

Introduction

What background research have the researchers done to identify gaps in knowledge?

Is the background research done comprehensive and sufficient?

What is the research question or aim of the study?

Methods

How have the researchers collected the data? Is there a large enough sample size? Was there a method that was used to determine sample size?

What statistical methods have been used?

Why have they been chosen?

Evaluate each statistical method that has been chosen and determine why these have been chosen in the context of the paper.

Is there mention of checking statistical test assumptions?

What statistical software was used?

Results

Have the results been reported well statistically? What format has been used? Are tables/graphs well presented? Has all statistical data outlined in the Methods section been presented?

What have they said about statistical significance?

Discussion/Conclusion

What comparisons are drawn between this research and other research?

What limitations are there to the study?

What conclusions are drawn from the study?

Is there any mention of future work to be done?

Please ensure that both Parts A and B are submitted in just one Word document.

Referencing

APA6 is the required referencing style for this assessment task. Please ensure that you are familiar with the formatting and usage requirements for this style. Aside from the ACU Library materials provided, you may wish to use the Academic Referencing Tool from the La Trobe University Library.

Turnitin:

Turnitin is a tool used to assist in the detection of referencing problems and/or plagiarism. Turnitin generates a similarity index for a document: that is, what percentage of the document contains material that is matched to accessible sources. Presence of similarity does not necessarily indicate plagiarism: there are many reasons why similar text is discovered in student documents. Turnitin often classifies reference lists themselves as “similar”—this is similarity, but not plagiarism.

Marking rubric

In line with section 5.1 of ACU’s Assessment Policy, all assessment marking and grading must be criterion-referenced and use standards-based grading. Assessment criteria and standards are related to unit learning outcomes. Student performance on a task is evaluated against each criterion, and according to the set standards of achievement for that criterion. Assessment criteria and standards for this task are provided in the following rubric. Each criterion is marked according to a five-point standard, from “poor” to “excellent”, with a descriptor for each standard. Within each standard there is a small marking range that further differentiates Your final mark for the task reflects evaluation against all criteria. PUBH620: Biostatistics Assessment Task 3: Reflective Practice and Critique Exercise Page 4 of 5 APPENDIX II: ASSESSMENT TASK 3 – REFLECTIVE PRACTICE MARKING CRITERIA Marking criteria and relevant unit learning outcome(s) Standard achieved Excellent Very good Good Fair Poor 1. Consideration of unit content relative to existing knowledge and skills Reflection on the extent to which unit content relates to existing knowledge/skills Submission demonstrates very high level of reflection on how unit content related to existing knowledge/skills Submission demonstrates substantial level of reflection on how unit content related to existing knowledge/skills Submission demonstrates satisfactory level of reflection on how unit content related to existing knowledge/skills Submission demonstrates limited reflection on how unit content related to existing knowledge/skills Submission demonstrates very little (or no) reflection on how unit content related to existing knowledge/skills LO1: apply knowledge to practice in integrated and appropriate manner (4½–5 marks) (3½–4 marks) (2½–3 marks) (1½–2 marks) (0–1 marks) 2. Application to future practice and relationship to competency standards Speculation on how unit content will support future work as a public health practitioner, especially in terms of meeting competency standards Potential links between unit content and future practice very clearly articulated, with tangible example(s) of how content relates to competency standards Potential links between unit content and future practice clearly articulated, with wellfounded example(s) of how it relates to competency standards Potential links between unit content and future practice satisfactorily discussed, with appropriate example(s) of how it relates to competency standards Potential links between unit content and future practice only partly discussed, with limited example(s) of how it relates to competency standards Potential links between unit content and future practice barely discussed, with weak example(s) of how it relates to competency standards LO1: demonstrate advanced knowledge/inform practice (4½–5 marks) (3½–4 marks) (2½–3 marks) (1½–2 marks) (0–1 marks) 3. Writing and Comprehension Ability to communicate reflective practice effectively and succinctly. LO1: able to communicate advanced knowledge/inform practice Reflective practice has been communicated well through excellent skills in writing (4½–5 marks) Reflective practice has been communicated well through very good skills in writing (3½–4 marks) Reflective practice has been communicated well through good skills in writing (2½–3 marks) Reflective practice has been communicated well through satisfactory skills in writing (1½–2 marks) Reflective practice has not been communicated well through written content (0–1 marks) Total marks: 15 (LO1 = 15 marks) Unit weighting: 15% PUBH620: Biostatistics Assessment Task 3: Reflective Practice and Critique Exercise Page 5 of 5 APPENDIX III: ASSESSMENT TASK 3 – CRITIQUE PAPER MARKING CRITERIA Marking criteria and relevant unit learning outcome(s) Standard achieved Excellent Very good Good Fair Poor 1. Critique of the purpose of research and introduction Is the purpose of the research well identified and has there been an extensive background of literature done? Critique demonstrates very high level of understanding of literature and an excellent evaluation has been done Submission demonstrates substantial level of reflection on how unit content related to existing knowledge/skills Submission demonstrates satisfactory level of reflection on how unit content related to existing knowledge/skills Submission demonstrates limited reflection on how unit content related to existing knowledge/skills Submission demonstrates very little (or no) reflection on how unit content related to existing knowledge/skills LO5: apply knowledge to practice in integrated and appropriate manner (4½–5 marks) (3½–4 marks) (4½–3 marks) (3½–2 marks) (0–1 marks) 2. Critique of the methods (including statistical), results and discussion/conclusion How have the authors described the research design including appropriate statistical tests? Is there a good enough sample size? Have they interpreted the results correctly and have they outlined the main points in the discussion/conclusion of the paper? Critique of each section is very clearly articulated, and an excellent evaluation has been done Critique of each section is clearly articulated, and a very good evaluation has been done Critique of each section is well discussed, and a good evaluation has been done Critique of each section is partly discussed, and a satisfactory evaluation has been done Critique of each section is not well discussed, and a satisfactory evaluation has not been done LO5: apply knowledge to practice in integrated and appropriate manner (12½–15 marks) (11½–12 marks) (9½–11 marks) (7½–9 marks) (0–7 marks) 3. Writing and Comprehension Ability to communicate critique effectively and convincingly LO1: able to communicate advanced knowledge/inform practice Critique has been communicated through excellent skills in writing (4½–5 marks) Critique has been communicated through very good skills in writing (3½–4 marks) Critique has been communicated through good skills in writing (2½–3 marks) Critique has been communicated through satisfactory skills in writing (1½–2 marks) Critique has not been communicated well through written content (0