Get 15% off Today, Grab Now!

Assignment Brief |UG | AY25-26

Assignment submission Marks and feedback Assessment deadline Marks and feedback To be submitted Before 10 a.m. on: 20 working days after deadline (L3,4, 5,6 and 7) 15 working days after deadline (block delivery) 24/04/2026 26/05/2026 Please note, for Exams the date is arranged centrally aligned to the academic calendar. Read More

Check Our Pricing

Assignment submission Marks and feedback

Assessment deadline

Marks and feedback

To be submitted Before 10 a.m. on:

20 working days after deadline (L3,4, 5,6 and 7)

15 working days after deadline (block delivery)

24/04/2026

26/05/2026

Please note, for Exams the date is arranged centrally aligned to the academic calendar. Exams timetables will be released 6 weeks before the exam period.

Key assignment details

Unit title & code

Qualitative Methods of Research in Psychology, PSY024-2

Assignment number & title

1. Qualitative research portfolio

Assignment type (including exams)

Coursework – Portfolio

Weighting of assignment

100%

Size or length of assessment

3,000 words +/- 10%. The word length only includes the qualitative report. It does not include your writing in the appendices, references, interview transcript, learning agreement or your research participation

Use of generative AI

not permitted

Use of self-plagiarism

not permitted

Understanding the assignment brief

Click or tap to enter a date.

Completing your assignment

What am I required to do in this assignment?

This assignment is a written qualitative portfolio which includes three components: (a) a qualitative data exercise (3,000 words including extracts); (b) learning about the ethics of research by active participation; and (c) A Learning Agreement for your final year research project, which is a brief project proposal indicating the topic you wish to investigates, and suggestions for potential supervisors should also be included.

The report is designed to allow you to analyse textual data using a relevant qualitative approach you learned. The topic relates to real research. You will be guided through the work during your tutorials. Using an appropriate analysis method, you must produce an APA format written report with the following sections:

1. Abstract

2. Introduction

3. Methods

4. Results

5. Discussion

6. References

7. Three Appendices (i.e., memos, three to four pages of coded transcript, table/diagram of constituent codes)

What do I need to do to pass? How do I achieve a good grade?

The Unit Information Form states the Threshold Expectations that inform both you and markers what is the minimum needed to be demonstrated to pass the assessment. They should, therefore, answer the question “What do I need to do pass?”. During the assessment introductory session, you should be given the opportunity to check your understanding of the threshold statements and what you need to do to surpass them.

The assessment marking criteria listed below show how your work is assessed. The assessment criteria are informed by the unit’s learning outcomes and the assessment task. Carefully reading the assessment criteria should help you understand the aspects that will be used to judge your progress and achievement of the learning outcomes and offer guidance on “how do I achieve a good grade”.

In order to pass Assessment 1 you will need to:

· Critically evaluate studies based on their ethical implications and rigour, and self-reflect on your involvement in the research process (i.e., reflexivity).

· Reach a considered conclusion about the choice of research design and using a particular data analysis methods when evaluating how well a study addresses its research questions/aims and related ethical issues.

· Identify the criteria for using qualitative research methods and conduct data analysis with minimal guidance.

An excellent Introduction shows clarity of argument and critical analysis. Rationale is explained very well, and the link between previous and current study is very clearly presented. Research question is clearly stated and supported by the literature. Your Methods must be clear, accurate, and appropriate leaving no gaps about how the study was conducted. An excellent Results section covers all analyses well and succinctly. The discussion summarises findings very well. It should thoroughly interpret findings, drawing competently on current knowledge in the field and fully considering the alternative perspectives. References and written English must be excellent. More details below on each section.

How will my assignment be marked?

Your assignment will be marked according to the threshold expectations (see the Unit Information Form uploaded on BREO) and the specific marking criteria below (marking rubric). Please read carefully as they will help you prepare and evaluate your own work before you submit. They will also help you understand the grade and feedback received once marked.

	70%+ (1st Class)	60-69% (2:1)	50-59% (2:2)	40-49% (3^rd Class) Threshold Standard	30-39% (Fail)	0-29% (Fail)
Abstract	An excellent Abstract – it covers all the important aspects clearly and succinctly.	You give a good summary of the study in the Abstract. You could work on making it more polished.	You give a reasonable summary of the study in the Abstract, but some parts could be better expressed.	The Abstract provides a vague or unclear summary. You need to say much more clearly what you did, why you did it, what you expected to find, what you found, what it means.	The Abstract provides a vague or unclear summary. You need to say much more clearly what you did, why you did it, what you expected to find, what you found, what it means.	The abstract is very vague, incomplete, or inaccurate, and fails to summarise the study in a meaningful way. Key components, the purpose of the study, the methodology, expected outcomes, findings, and their implications, are missing or unclear, meaning the reader cannot understand what was undertaken or why.
Introduction	An excellent Introduction showing clarity of argument and critical analysis. Rationale is explained very well, and the link between previous and current study is very clearly presented. Research question is clearly stated	The Introduction is generally accurate, well researched and relevant showing the topic has been understood. To improve you need more of a critique or look into some of the background in greater depth.	The Introduction is generally fine and there is evidence that the topic has been understood. Make sure there are no irrelevant parts and try to include greater critical analysis of the material. Include clear rationale and research.	Presents a basic overview of the background with no real critical analysis. You need to link past research and theory to the current study so the rationale and research question are clear.	A basic overview of the background is presented; however, this is largely descriptive and lacks critical analysis. Links between past research, theory, and the current study are limited or underdeveloped, resulting in an unclear or weakly justified rationale and research question.	The background is minimal, unclear, or inaccurate, with little or no critical analysis. Past research and theory are not effectively linked to the current study, meaning that the rationale and research question are absent, confused, or unsupported.
Methods	Excellent Method section. Information is clear, accurate, and appropriate leaving no gaps about how the study was conducted. Clear and succinct. Reflexivity used to an excellent level.	Generally good Method section: it is clear and with appropriate content to all the sections. More clarity and detail are needed on specific methodological aspects. Reflexivity used to a reasonably good level.	The Method covers the main areas adequately. More detail is needed in some parts to make it more understandable. Reflexivity contained errors.	Some information on the methods of the study is provided, but most questions about how the study was conducted remain unclear.	Some information about the study’s methods is provided; however, this is limited, unclear, or incomplete, and key aspects of how the study was conducted remain insufficiently explained. Important methodological details (e.g. design, participants, procedure, or data collection) are underdeveloped, making it difficult to fully understand or evaluate the study.	There is little or no meaningful description of the study’s methods, and how the research was conducted remains largely unclear. Essential methodological information is missing, inaccurate, or confused, demonstrating very limited understanding of research methods and preventing evaluation of the study.
Results	An excellent Results section covering all the main criteria well and succinctly.	A good Results section. Some parts may need some tidying to improve the grade.	The Results section covers the basic information with some glitches. See the comments for more details on how to improve.	Some data analysis strategy is outlined and findings presented but provided information and/or appropriateness of analytic strategy are limited.	A data analysis strategy is briefly outlined, and some findings are presented; however, the description is limited in detail and clarity, and the appropriateness of the analytic approach is insufficiently justified. Key stages of analysis are underdeveloped or unclear, making it difficult to understand how findings were generated from the data.	There is little or no clear data analysis strategy outlined, and findings are poorly presented, unclear, or absent. The analytic approach is inappropriate, incorrectly applied, or not explained, with minimal evidence of understanding of how data should be analysed. As a result, it is not possible to determine how the findings were derived from the data.
Discussion	Findings are very well summarised in Discussion and very thoroughly interpreted drawing competently on current knowledge in the field and fully considering the limitations.	Findings are well summarised and linked with previous literature. Study limitations well considered. However, some minor gaps appear in how current findings are linked with major concepts.	Discussion summarises main findings linking them with previous studies, but interpretation of findings is not very sophisticated and study limitations are not fully considered.	Some findings are mentioned, and a basic attempt is made to explain them and/or link them with the relevant literature.	Some findings are identified, and there is a limited attempt to explain them and relate them to relevant literature. However, these links are underdeveloped, superficial, or unclear, and the discussion lacks sufficient depth and critical engagement. Connections between the findings and existing research are inconsistent, reducing the overall coherence and analytical quality of this section.	Findings are largely unclear, poorly described, or missing, with little or no meaningful attempt to explain them or link them to relevant literature. Where literature is mentioned, it is inaccurate, irrelevant, or disconnected from the findings. The discussion lacks analytical content and does not demonstrate understanding of how findings should be interpreted in relation to existing research.
Citations, Referencing & English Expression	You have used a range of relevant evidence and your referencing and citations excellently reflect this. Your English expression is excellent.	Your referencing and citations are generally good with few errors, although only minor. You demonstrate a range of background reading. English expression is generally good with only a few glitches.	Your referencing and citations are generally fine but there are areas for improvement. Your English expression is satisfactory but there are some errors or clumsy expressions here and there. Could be improved by better proof-reading and editing.	Your APA referencing and/or citations need improving. You need to work on aspects of English expression. Make sure you check spellings, punctuation, grammar and argument structure (e.g. paragraphing). You could seek help from the Professional and Academic Development Team to help improve.	Your APA referencing and in-text citations require improvement, with some inconsistencies and errors evident. While the intended meaning is generally understandable, aspects of English expression need further development, particularly in relation to sentence structure, clarity, paragraph, spelling, punctuation, and grammar, which at times affect the flow of the work. With more careful proofreading these issues are addressable. You are encouraged to seek support from the Professional and Academic Development Team to help strengthen your academic writing and referencing skills.	APA referencing and citation practices are largely inaccurate or absent, and do not meet basic academic standards. There are significant weaknesses in English expression, including frequent errors in spelling, punctuation, grammar, and sentence construction, which substantially impede clarity and coherence. Paragraphing and argument structure are poor or unclear, making the work difficult to follow. Substantial improvement in academic writing and referencing is required. It is strongly recommended that you seek support from the Professional and Academic Development Team before attempting to resubmit this work.

70%+

(1st Class)

60-69%

(2:1)

50-59%

(2:2)

40-49%

(3^rd Class)

Threshold Standard

30-39%

(Fail)

0-29%

(Fail)

Abstract

An excellent Abstract – it covers all the important aspects clearly and succinctly.

You give a good summary of the study in the Abstract. You could work on making it more polished.

You give a reasonable summary of the study in the Abstract, but some parts could be better expressed.

The Abstract provides a vague or unclear summary. You need to say much more clearly what you did, why you did it, what you expected to find, what you found, what it means.

The abstract is very vague, incomplete, or inaccurate, and fails to summarise the study in a meaningful way. Key components, the purpose of the study, the methodology, expected outcomes, findings, and their implications, are missing or unclear, meaning the reader cannot understand what was undertaken or why.

Introduction

An excellent Introduction showing clarity of argument and critical analysis. Rationale is explained very well, and the link between previous and current study is very clearly presented. Research question is clearly stated

The Introduction is generally accurate, well researched and relevant showing the topic has been understood. To improve you need more of a critique or look into some of the background in greater depth.

The Introduction is generally fine and there is evidence that the topic has been understood. Make sure there are no irrelevant parts and try to include greater critical analysis of the material. Include clear rationale and research.

Presents a basic overview of the background with no real critical analysis. You need to link past research and theory to the current study so the rationale and research question are clear.

A basic overview of the background is presented; however, this is largely descriptive and lacks critical analysis. Links between past research, theory, and the current study are limited or underdeveloped, resulting in an unclear or weakly justified rationale and research question.

The background is minimal, unclear, or inaccurate, with little or no critical analysis. Past research and theory are not effectively linked to the current study, meaning that the rationale and research question are absent, confused, or unsupported.

Methods

Excellent Method section. Information is clear, accurate, and appropriate leaving no gaps about how the study was conducted. Clear and succinct. Reflexivity used to an excellent level.

Generally good Method section: it is clear and with appropriate content to all the sections. More clarity and detail are needed on specific methodological aspects. Reflexivity used to a reasonably good level.

The Method covers the main areas adequately. More detail is needed in some parts to make it more understandable. Reflexivity contained errors.

Some information on the methods of the study is provided, but most questions about how the study was conducted remain unclear.

Some information about the study’s methods is provided; however, this is limited, unclear, or incomplete, and key aspects of how the study was conducted remain insufficiently explained. Important methodological details (e.g. design, participants, procedure, or data collection) are underdeveloped, making it difficult to fully understand or evaluate the study.

There is little or no meaningful description of the study’s methods, and how the research was conducted remains largely unclear. Essential methodological information is missing, inaccurate, or confused, demonstrating very limited understanding of research methods and preventing evaluation of the study.

Results

An excellent Results section covering all the main criteria well and succinctly.

A good Results section. Some parts may need some tidying to improve the grade.

The Results section covers the basic information with some glitches. See the comments for more details on how to improve.

Some data analysis strategy is outlined and findings presented but provided information and/or appropriateness of analytic strategy are limited.

A data analysis strategy is briefly outlined, and some findings are presented; however, the description is limited in detail and clarity, and the appropriateness of the analytic approach is insufficiently justified. Key stages of analysis are underdeveloped or unclear, making it difficult to understand how findings were generated from the data.

There is little or no clear data analysis strategy outlined, and findings are poorly presented, unclear, or absent. The analytic approach is inappropriate, incorrectly applied, or not explained, with minimal evidence of understanding of how data should be analysed. As a result, it is not possible to determine how the findings were derived from the data.

Discussion

Findings are very well summarised in Discussion and very thoroughly interpreted drawing competently on current knowledge in the field and fully considering the limitations.

Findings are well summarised and linked with previous literature. Study limitations well considered. However, some minor gaps appear in how current findings are linked with major concepts.

Discussion summarises main findings linking them with previous studies, but interpretation of findings is not very sophisticated and study limitations are not fully considered.

Some findings are mentioned, and a basic attempt is made to explain them and/or link them with the relevant literature.

Some findings are identified, and there is a limited attempt to explain them and relate them to relevant literature. However, these links are underdeveloped, superficial, or unclear, and the discussion lacks sufficient depth and critical engagement. Connections between the findings and existing research are inconsistent, reducing the overall coherence and analytical quality of this section.

Findings are largely unclear, poorly described, or missing, with little or no meaningful attempt to explain them or link them to relevant literature. Where literature is mentioned, it is inaccurate, irrelevant, or disconnected from the findings. The discussion lacks analytical content and does not demonstrate understanding of how findings should be interpreted in relation to existing research.

Citations, Referencing & English Expression

You have used a range of relevant evidence and your referencing and citations excellently reflect this. Your English expression is excellent.

Your referencing and citations are generally good with few errors, although only minor. You demonstrate a range of background reading. English expression is generally good with only a few glitches.

Your referencing and citations are generally fine but there are areas for improvement. Your English expression is satisfactory but there are some errors or clumsy expressions here and there. Could be improved by better proof-reading and editing.

Your APA referencing and/or citations need improving. You need to work on aspects of English expression. Make sure you check spellings, punctuation, grammar and argument structure (e.g. paragraphing). You could seek help from the Professional and Academic Development Team to help improve.

Your APA referencing and in-text citations require improvement, with some inconsistencies and errors evident. While the intended meaning is generally understandable, aspects of English expression need further development, particularly in relation to sentence structure, clarity, paragraph, spelling, punctuation, and grammar, which at times affect the flow of the work. With more careful proofreading these issues are addressable. You are encouraged to seek support from the Professional and Academic Development Team to help strengthen your academic writing and referencing skills.

APA referencing and citation practices are largely inaccurate or absent, and do not meet basic academic standards. There are significant weaknesses in English expression, including frequent errors in spelling, punctuation, grammar, and sentence construction, which substantially impede clarity and coherence. Paragraphing and argument structure are poor or unclear, making the work difficult to follow. Substantial improvement in academic writing and referencing is required. It is strongly recommended that you seek support from the Professional and Academic Development Team before attempting to resubmit this work.

Additional information

How does this assignment relate to ‘my learning in this unit and help me develop knowledge and skills that I will need for my future?

Within the University of Bedfordshire, graduate competencies refer to the skills, knowledge, attributes, and abilities that individuals are expected to possess upon completing their education at the graduate level. Our graduate competencies are the fundamental building blocks in preparing you for the future world of work. They form the foundation for learning outcomes within and beyond your course. They are relevant for every subject, and you can work towards them in different ways, so that you can attain and benefit from them even if you have lots going on outside university. These competencies will be integrated across your course and units.

The table below indicates graduate competencies gained relevant to this assessment.

Graduate competencies; Tick (✔) ones relevant to this assessment (further guidance for staff Graduate competencies \| University of Bedfordshire (beds.ac.uk)
Digital Literacy	✔
Collaboration and Communication	✔
Problem solving and critical thinking	✔
Creativity and Entrepreneurship
Adaptability and Resilience	✔
Global Citizenship
Course specific competencies. You have been taught report writing and various qualitative analyses given a specific situation. Further you have been shown how to use each approach and report findings.	✔

What should I be aware of when preparing my work? How and where should I submit my work? (May need WISEflow info for exams)

To submit assignments at the University of Bedfordshire, you will typically use the BREO (Bedfordshire Resources for Education Online) platform. Within BREO, locate the specific assessment you need to submit, and then follow the instructions provided to upload your work.

The University has produced a guide that is designed to help you understand the processes we use to deliver and manage assessment-related processes, what support is available to you and how we agree and approve your results. It also provides you with an explanation of the codes we use when we issue results and transcripts.

When submitting work for assessment, you must ensure that it is all your own work. Failure to do this could result in sanctions, including removal from your course. The Academic Integrity Resource (AIR) has been designed to introduce you to academic integrity and how to demonstrate this during your studies. Remember to use the self-help resources to support your skills in academic writing. You could also Improve your assignment grades by accessing free university support to develop a wide range of relevant and valuable academic skills.

For exams, you should familiarise yourself with the guidance information available here: https://www.beds.ac.uk/exams/

Practice exams can be taken for all exam types before exams week. Please see section Prepare for your exam.

Your final submission must be in your own words – do not copy or paraphrase from generative AI authoring systems. Some examples of what NOT to do include: using AI to generate content and/or make the arguments or points in your assignment read better, or take a more academic tone, to correct facts figures or data within your assessment, or to change the words you have written in your assignment. Please follow this link to a student site on BREO for more detailed information on AI.

Any student submitting an assignment containing content generated by AI which is presented as the student’s own work constitutes academic misconduct. Should such use of AI be detected, students will be invited to a viva with two tutors to discuss the content of their work. Should the use of AI be substantiated at viva, students will be referred to the Academic Conduct Panel.

It is important to disclose when you have used assistive software such as Grammarly and/or any other assistive technology that the university permits you to use that may be included in a Learning and Teaching Support Agreement. If you have used any assistive technology in writing this work, please include a brief statement on the first page of your assessment detailing what was used and how

Calculate the price of your order

Type of paper needed:

Pages:

You will get a personal manager and a discount.

Academic level:

We'll send you the first draft for approval by at

Total price:

$0.00

Assignment Brief |UG | AY25-26

Get Paper Done In 3 Simple Steps

Place an order

Make payments

Receive your paper

Assignment Brief |UG | AY25-26

Assignment submission Marks and feedback

Assessment deadline

Marks and feedback

Key assignment details

Understanding the assignment brief

Completing your assignment

What am I required to do in this assignment?

What do I need to do to pass? How do I achieve a good grade?

How will my assignment be marked?

Additional information

How does this assignment relate to ‘my learning in this unit and help me develop knowledge and skills that I will need for my future?

Calculate the price of your order

Assessment deadline	Marks and feedback
To be submitted Before 10 a.m. on:	20 working days after deadline (L3,4, 5,6 and 7)
	15 working days after deadline (block delivery)

24/04/2026	26/05/2026
Please note, for Exams the date is arranged centrally aligned to the academic calendar. Exams timetables will be released 6 weeks before the exam period.

Key assignment details
Unit title & code	Qualitative Methods of Research in Psychology, PSY024-2
Assignment number & title	1. Qualitative research portfolio
Assignment type (including exams)	Coursework – Portfolio
Weighting of assignment	100%
Size or length of assessment	3,000 words +/- 10%. The word length only includes the qualitative report. It does not include your writing in the appendices, references, interview transcript, learning agreement or your research participation
Use of generative AI	not permitted
Use of self-plagiarism	not permitted

Understanding the assignment brief
	Click or tap to enter a date.