The assessment involves you writing a 2000 word critical review on one of two key papers that relate to either Developmental Psychology or Social Psychology: 

Gulseven, Z., Carlo, G., Streit, C., Kumru, A. & Selcuk, B. (2018). Longitudinal relations among parenting daily hassels, child rearing, and prosocial and aggressive behaviour in Turkish children. Social Development, 27, 45-57. doi:10.1111/sode.12247

Or

Lovell, B. (2015). ‘We are a tight community’: social groups and social identity in medical undergraduates. Medical Education, 49(10), 1016-1027. doi:10.1111/medu.12781

Submission Deadline Marks and Feedback

Before 10am on:

0

4

/1

2

/2020

20 working days after deadline (L4,

5

and 7)
15 working days after deadline (L6)
10 working days after deadline (block delivery)

Marks and feedback will be returned by

15/01/2021

Unit title & code PSY001-2

Assignment number and title Assessment 1 Critical Review

Assignment type CW-LR

Weighting of assignment 60%

Size or length of assessment 2000 words

Unit learning outcomes 1. Demonstrate the following knowledge and understanding of:

 Social and developmental psychology including key aspects of biological, cognitive and social
development across the lifespan

 Key historical, theoretical and experimental debates within these areas.

2. Demonstrate the following skills and abilities

 Critical evaluation of key empirical studies in social and developmental

What am I required to do in this assignment?

The assessment involves you writing a 2000 word critical review on one of two key papers that relate to either Developmental
Psychology or Social Psychology:

Gulseven, Z., Carlo, G., Streit, C., Kumru, A. & Selcuk, B. (2018). Longitudinal relations among parenting daily hassels, child
rearing, and prosocial and aggressive behaviour in Turkish children. Social Development, 27, 45-57. doi:10.1111/sode.12247

Or

Lovell, B. (2015). ‘We are a tight community’: social groups and social identity in medical undergraduates. Medical Education,
49(10), 1016-1027. doi:10.1111/medu.12781

What do I need to do to pass? (Threshold Expectations from UIF)

 Demonstrate broad knowledge, understanding and application of specific topics in social and developmental
psychology

 Demonstrate understanding and interpretation of key empirical studies in developmental and social psychology
through critical analysis and evaluation.

 Construct a clear summary of a paper and critically evaluate the rationale, methodology, results and conclusions.
Draw conclusions about the validity of results and the usefulness of its findings and suggest areas for improvement.

How do I produce high quality work that merits a good grade?

The summary (approximately 700 words) should contain a brief synopsis of the topic and focus of the paper and the
methodology and results of the paper. It should be accurate, concise, and clear. A reader who is unfamiliar with the area
should, upon reading the summary, understand the purpose and outcomes of the study, without recourse to other
materials. It should not just be a lengthier regurgitation of the original abstract.

The critical evaluation (approximately 1

3

00 words) is the student’s own evaluation of the paper. This can include, for
example, evaluating the theoretical development of the study, the methodology or the analyses and results. A good
critique of the paper should:

(a) Provide some indication that the student has clearly read and understood every section of the paper.

(c) Identify the strengths and weaknesses of the study and indicate how and why they are a strength or weakness through
reasoned arguments.

(d) Include recommendations for how the research study might be improved.

(e) Provide detailed justification of named strengths, weaknesses and recommendations with reference to empirical research
to support your claims.

(f) Demonstrate knowledge of related research (by citing additional published papers accurately).

NB. Please note that a good critical review should follow a logical and systematic structure, have appropriate use of
paragraphs and punctuation, and should cite references accurately and according to APA format.

Here is some additional guidance, outlining things you should consider or include:

1. Full APA Reference as title.
Note this should be the title of your critical review in full APA format

Non-evaluative summary (700 words)

2. What is the topic and focus of the paper?
 Provide some brief background to the study
 Identify the rationale
 Summarise the aims and hypotheses

2

3. What is the methodology used?

Please include details such as:

 Summarise the sample (size, demographic, recruitment strategy)
 Identify the design (was it quantitative, qualitative, longitudinal, cross-sectional, experimental?)
 What was the method & what measures were used? (e.g., questionnaires, interviews, observation, experimental

manipulation)
 What was the procedure (if applicable)?
 How was the data analysed (e.g the statistical tests used to test the hypotheses (quantitative) or theoretical

approach used to explore the research questions (qualitative).

4. What were the main findings and conclusions?
 Concise summary of key findings that relate specifically to the aims and hypotheses.
 Authors conclusion (think about overall ‘take home’ message within the paper and any potential implications of

the findings)

Critical Evaluation

5. What are the strengths and limitations of the paper?

Please critically evaluate the study by identifying the key strengths and weaknesses of it. Please ensure that your ideas are
fully justified and backed up by reasoned arguments and with reference to empirical evidence. Aspects you could consider
include:

 Was there a strong rationale underpinning the study?
 Were the methods used appropriate? Pro’s/con’s?
 Was an appropriate sample used?
 Were the findings clear?
 Did they use the appropriate analysis strategy? (e.g statistical tests or theoretical approach)
 Are there any confounding variables they have not considered?
 Were conclusions valid or is there another way to interpret findings?
 Was the study reliable and valid?
 What are the implications? Are they weak/strong?

6. How could the study be improved? And why?

For each weakness identified, please make a suggestion for how the study could be improved. These need to be reasonable
and valid suggestions for improvements, backed up by empirical evidence. Try to be as specific as possible, providing detail
as to how/why this would improve the study.

How does this assignment relate to what we are doing in scheduled sessions?

The topics in the chosen papers relate to topic areas covered within the lectures. The tutorials provide an opportunity to gain
assignment support. In these small group tutorials we have multiple sessions dedicating to helping you develop the skills for
your assessment and understand how to undertake this piece of work.

You may also wish to make use of the Study Hub services to assist you with any specific skills you wish to develop further
(including academic writing, referencing, finding information, or managing your learning). Information on these services can be
found here: http://lrweb.beds.ac.uk/studyhub

3

http://lrweb.beds.ac.uk/studyhub

How will my assignment be marked?

Your assignment will be marked according to the threshold expectations and the criteria on the following page.

You can use them to evaluate your own work and consider your grade before you submit.

3rd Class – 40-49% Lower 2nd – 50-59% Upper 2nd – 60-69% 1st Class – 70%+

1
TOPIC & FOCUS
Identified the background
and rationale of the study.
Summarised the aims and
hypotheses.

The topic and focus have been
broadly defined. There may be
some irrelevant or inaccurate
information presented. Aims and
hypotheses are identified but
lack clarity.

The background, rationale, aims
and hypotheses are generally
accurately defined but lack clarity
and conciseness. Key elements may
be missing and some lack of
understanding and inaccuracy may
be evident.

The background, rationale, aims
and hypotheses are accurately
defined but there is some lack in
clarity and conciseness.

The background, rationale,
aims and hypotheses of the
paper were clearly, accurately
and concisely defined. It is
clear that the topic has been
understood.

2
METHOD & FINDINGS

Accurately described the
methodology and main
findings.

Evidence that some aspects of
the methodology and results
have not been clearly understood
or parts are irrelevant and/or
missing.

Summary lacks clarity and
conciseness.

The methodology described is
mostly relevant and accurate.
There is evidence that the method
and results have largely been
understood. Key results are
identified but may lack clarity.
There may still be features that are
missing or unclear.

The method and results have
generally been clearly and
accurately described; including
most of the relevant points.

All relevant points of the
methodology and results have
described accurately, clearly
and concisely.

3
STRENGTHS &
LIMITATIONS
Identified the main
strengths and limitations
of the paper. Backed up
by reasoned arguments
and empirical evidence.

Few strengths and weaknesses
identified. There is little or no
development of reasoned
argument and/or use of empirical
evidence.

Need to strengthen argument
and include or expand on
evidence.

Some strengths and weaknesses
have been identified.

Need to show greater development
and clarity in your arguments and
expand on the evidence presented.

The key strengths & limitations of
the paper were identified. Most
of these have been clearly
explained with reference to
empirical evidence.

Argument may lack clarity at
times. Evidence not always
integrated well with critical
evaluation.

The key strengths & limitations
of the paper were identified,
clearly explained and backed
up by reasoned arguments and
empirical evidence from
primary sources.

Excellent clarity of argument &
expression; illustrated well
with examples/evidence.

Excellent integration of a range
of evidence with critical
evaluation.

4

SUGGESTIONS FOR
IMPROVEMENT

Provided reasonable and
valid suggestions for
improvements to the
study, backed up by
empirical evidence and
examples where relevant.

Some suggestions were made but
these lack clarity and
justification. There is little
reference to relevant empirical
evidence.

Some valid suggestions were made.
Justification and reference to
empirical evidence to support
claims requires further
development.

A range of valid suggestions were
made and predominantly
justified. Some relevant empirical
evidence was cited to support
ideas.

A range of valid suggestions
were made and justified
throughout with reference to
relevant empirical evidence or
examples.

4

5
CITATIONS AND
REFERENCES.
You should include
citations for all
information in correct
APA format. Each citation
should have a
corresponding reference
in the reference section.

There are some errors evident
within your in-text citations and
reference list. APA format may
be incorrect.

Your referencing is generally fine
but there are some errors.

Your referencing is generally
good with few errors although
there are some minor ones.

Correct APA format references
both in text and in your
reference list

5