Positive Psychology

Outstanding 80+ Excellent 70 - 79 Very Good 60 - 69 Good 50 - 59 Satisfactory 40 - 49 Marginal Fail 30 - 39 Fail < 29

(LO: 1) Abstract (5%) Short description of your report. It should cover: the aims, primary theories, methods including scales used, main results, and main discussion points.

Outstanding abstract, concise and comprehensive summary of the study including aims, method, predictions, results, and implications written to a near-publishable standard.

Excellent, concise, and comprehensive summary of the study including aims, method, predictions, results, and implications.

Very good, concise summary of the study including aims, method, predictions, results, and implications.

A good summary, covering all key points. The abstract may need some improvement either in conciseness, clarity, comprehensiveness, or tone of writing.

Fair summary, covering most important points. Structure may be loose and/or may include some irrelevant material.

Some key points covered, but some important omissions/ inaccuracies.

Abstract is missing or largely irrelevant.

(LO: 1, 2, 3) Introduction and rationale (30%) A short overview of positive psychology, primarily focused on the theoretical underpinnings relevant for the intervention. The introduction must support the intervention’s rationale and purpose via critical analysis and evaluation. The research question

Research question is clearly articulated, and the rationale is fully and skilfully developed. Shows an outstanding logical structure, moving from the general to the specific. Literature reviewed is all relevant, and its relevance is made perfectly clear in each instance. The literature is perfectly chosen for the context of the report and studies are described in just

Research question is clearly articulated, and the rationale is fully and skilfully developed. Shows an excellent logical structure, moving from the general to the specific. Literature reviewed is all relevant, and its relevance is made clear. The choice of literature is excellent and studies are described in just the right amount of detail for the reader

Research question is clearly articulated, and the rationale is well developed. Shows a logical structure, moving from the general to the specific. Literature reviewed is all relevant, and its relevance is made clear. The selection and description of studies is good and widely appropriate for the topic of the report. Literature is thoroughly and well

Research question is well communicated. The rationale is appropriate, though it could be developed further or more clearly. Material is mostly presented in a logical sequence. Literature reviewed is mostly relevant, and its relevance is generally made clear. The literature is evaluated, with a good attempt to make implications clear, although it

Research question could be more clearly communicated. The rationale needs developing further. Structure is loose and does not follow a logical sequence consistently. Some of the literature reviewed is relevant, but its relevance is not always made clear. Some irrelevant material included. Literature is described rather

There is an attempt to convey the research question, but it is poorly communicated. The rationale is not made clear. Sequence is loose or confusing. Some literature is reviewed but much is not relevant, or its relevance is not made clear. Significant important material is omitted. Limited description of literature, and no attempt at evaluation.

Introduction is extremely short or extremely long, or almost completely irrelevant to the topic of the report.

Outstanding 80+ Excellent 70 - 79 Very Good 60 - 69 Good 50 - 59 Satisfactory 40 - 49 Marginal Fail 30 - 39 Fail < 29

and hypotheses should be clear. The literature review should go beyond description and provide critical analysis and evaluation of relevant studies.

the right amount of detail for the reader to appreciate their relevance to the research question. Literature is insightfully evaluated, and implications for the research question are made completely clear. All relevant hypotheses are clearly, comprehensively, and precisely articulated. The amount of detail is perfectly judged. It is of near-publishable standard.

to appreciate their relevance to the research question. Literature is skilfully and insightfully evaluated, and implications for the research question are made clear. All relevant hypotheses are clearly, comprehensively and precisely articulated. The amount of detail is perfectly judged.

evaluated, and implications for the research question are made clear. All relevant hypotheses are clearly articulated, with consequences for the research question made clear. The amount of detail is well judged.

could be improved in places. Key hypotheses are clearly stated, though some aspects could be clearer. Generally the right amount of detail with some inconsistencies at times.

than evaluated, making it unclear what the implications for the research question are. One or more hypotheses are expressed, but some are missing or imprecise. Overall could be clearer, more succinct, or more detailed.

Hypotheses are missing, vague, unclear, or irrelevant.

(LO: 1) Methods (15%) Specify and describe the study design, all the steps (procedure), and tools (materials -

Methods section is divided into logical subsections and the information provided throughout has no errors. Structure and quality of writing is outstanding. Perfect identification

Methods section is divided into logical subsections and the information provided throughout is in the correct subsection, with no errors. Structure of Method section is excellent.

Methods section is usually divided into logical subsections and the information provided throughout is in the correct subsection, with only minor errors. Overall structure of Method

Methods section may be divided into subsections to help convey a logical structure and material is mostly in the correct subsection. Overall structure is generally

Methods section is divided into subsections and some material is in the correct subsection, but some may be misplaced. Many details are missing or

Confusing presentation of the topics in the Methods section, e.g., sections confused or absent. Little or no apparent structure. Minimal, very basic,

Most or all the key elements of the methods section are missing, are largely unintelligible or

Outstanding 80+ Excellent 70 - 79 Very Good 60 - 69 Good 50 - 59 Satisfactory 40 - 49 Marginal Fail 30 - 39 Fail < 29

the questionnaire must be included).

of independent and dependent variables and study design characteristics. Clearly and accurately describes materials and procedures followed. The section is outstanding and allows replication by other researchers. No redundant material. All the information included is relevant. It is of near-publishable standard.

The identification of independent and dependent variables and study design characteristics is excellent. Clearly and accurately describes the materials used, and procedures followed. The methods section is excellent and allows replication by other researchers. No redundant material. All the information included is relevant.

section is very good. Very good, accurate, concise identification of independent and dependent variables and study design characteristics. Clearly and accurately describes the materials used, and procedures followed. The methods section is very good and allows replication by other researchers. No redundant material.

good, concise, with only occasional redundant parts. Mostly clear and accurate description of relevant details, with only minor errors or omissions. Mostly correctly identifies independent and dependent variables (including if there are multiple), and offers a mostly clear, concise, accurate and relevant description of materials and procedure, including the most important details.

inaccurate, and much is unclear regarding the design, materials, and procedure. There may be some relevant description but there are important omissions and/or inaccuracies, or the description is unclear.

and/or largely inaccurate information regarding the design, procedure, and materials.

unindentifiab le.

(LO: 1, 2) Results (10%) Analyse and report the results from any questionnaires.. The goal is to understand and report the results in

Written clearly, concisely, and accurately reported. All data relating to the hypotheses are presented in a clear and skilful manner, with no unnecessary material.

Section has an excellent structure and is concisely and accurately reported. All data relating to the hypotheses are presented, and there is no unnecessary material. Statistics are

Section has a very good structure and is concisely and accurately reported.. All data relating to the hypotheses are presented, and there is no unnecessary material. Statistics are

The results section is mostly well structured, clear, and accurate, with only minor errors. All data relating to the hypotheses are presented. Statistics are mostly accurately reported,

Section is generally satisfactory, but structure should be clearer, or some data are missing. The analysis is basically appropriate, but some important details are omitted or inaccurate, e.g.,

Section is poorly structured or incomplete. Section often unclear, with unhelpful labels for conditions, and/or missing or unhelpful labels on tables or figures, and/or

Little or no useful information. The section is confusing, unclear, and largely irrelevant.

Outstanding 80+ Excellent 70 - 79 Very Good 60 - 69 Good 50 - 59 Satisfactory 40 - 49 Marginal Fail 30 - 39 Fail < 29

relation to the aim of your report.

Statistics are accurately reported. Clarity of reporting is outstanding, with no margin for uncertainty, with all of the following achieved to the highest standard: conditions are given helpful labels, stats are described in terms appropriate to the research question, tables and figures are clearly labelled, and discussed in text. The section is of near- publishable standard.

accurately reported. Analysis is appropriate, and only analyses relevant to the hypotheses are reported. Clarity of reporting is excellent, with all of the following achieved to a high standard: conditions are given helpful labels, stats are described in terms appropriate to the research question, tables and figures are clearly labelled, and discussed in text.

accurately reported, with no more than one or two minor errors (e.g., rounding errors). Clarity of reporting is very good, with most of the following achieved to a high standard: conditions are given helpful labels, stats are described in terms appropriate to the research question, tables and figures are clearly labelled, and discussed in text.

with only minor errors. Generally good, but one or two aspects could be clearer, e.g., more appropriate labels for conditions, or tables and figures could be better labelled or use a more helpful scale.

some numbers are incorrect or missing. Some good points, but some of the following may apply: results could be expressed more clearly with regard to the research question; there is redundancy in reporting of data; tables or figures could be more clearly labelled.

duplicated or missing data. There is some appropriate material, but results are largely inaccurate.

(LO: 2, 3, 4) Discussion (30%) Critical reflection regarding the results in relation to the positive psychology theories and research presented in the introduction, and

Outstanding discussion that begins with a clear and concise restatement of the aims of the study and a clear, comprehensive, and unambiguous summary of the results and how

Has an excellent structure. Begins with a clear and concise restatement of the aims of the study and a clear, comprehensive, and unambiguous summary of the results and how these relate to the

Has a very good structure. Begins with a clear restatement of the aims of the study and a clear, comprehensive, and unambiguous summary of the results. Arguments are developed in a

Has a generally good structure. Begins with a restatement of the aims of the study and a clear summary of the results and ends with a logical transition to the conclusion. Discussion and interpretation of

Includes some good material, but overall structure may be loose, and important aspects are missing or unclear. Evaluation and interpretation of the results are present but somewhat superficial. Some

Structure is confusing. Some appropriate material is included, but discussion does not follow logically from hypotheses and results. There are serious omissions and inaccuracies. Discussion is largely

Poor structure and very little or no material when it comes to: interpreting the results, providing alternative explanations,

Outstanding 80+ Excellent 70 - 79 Very Good 60 - 69 Good 50 - 59 Satisfactory 40 - 49 Marginal Fail 30 - 39 Fail < 29

how it explains the effect of the positive psychology intervention on the outcomes. Consider strengths and weaknesses of each key methodological element, such as the main advantages or limitations of your materials or design. Include theory to help explain your results. Suggestions for future research should be included based on your results. This section must include a personal reflection of the use of the intervention you implemented - this section should be written in the first person separately from the discussion text.

these relate to the hypotheses. Arguments are developed in a logical, well- signposted sequence. Ends with a concise, well expressed transition to the conclusion that follows logically from the points discussed. Study is explored with reference to previous research. Results are discussed and interpreted with regard to the hypotheses, to an outstanding standard and there are no improvements to make. Alternative explanations are deeply considered and relevant. Relevant limitations of the study are discussed, where applicable, in a constructive manner,

hypotheses. Arguments are developed in a logical, well- signposted sequence. Ends with a concise, well expressed transition to the conclusion that follows logically from the points discussed. Study is explored with reference to previous research. Results are discussed and interpreted with regard to the hypotheses, to an excellent standard. Alternative explanations are seriously considered. Relevant limitations of the study are discussed, where applicable, in a constructive manner, and are insightfully and skilfully backed up by evidence to show why they are,

logical sequence. Ends with a well- expressed transition to the conclusion that follows logically from the points discussed. Study is explored with reference to previous research. Results are discussed and interpreted with regard to the hypotheses, to a very high standard. Alternative explanations are seriously considered. Relevant limitations of the study are discussed, where applicable, in a constructive manner, backed up by evidence. Implications of the study for theory or practice are well explored and discussed. Suggestions for future research are

results, and implications for hypotheses, are basically good, but these aspects could be explored in more depth. Good attempt to consider alternative explanations, and only relevant limitations are discussed. The arguments presented could be developed further. Implications of the study for theory or practice, and suggestions for future research, are raised but could be discussed more fully, or their relevance to the current study made clearer. The reflective part of the discussion is good, but it may need more depth or a better connection

attempt to explore alternative explanations and/or limitations of the study, but some arguments may be illogical or irrelevant (e.g., saying “the results are not generalisable” with regard to a reflective intervention applied to one individual). Some attempt to discuss implications for theory or practical application, and/or suggestions for future research, but these may lack relevance or arguments may be weak. The reflective part of the discussion may be superficial, too short, or too long - affecting clarity, conciseness, and relevance.

superficial and/or irrelevant to this study, or their relevance is not made clear. Some key aspects are included, but there are important omissions and/or inaccuracies. The reflective piece may not be present, or not evidence realistic and relevant reflective practice.

reflecting on limitations of the study, and implications for theory and/or practice and future research, and personal reflection.

Outstanding 80+ Excellent 70 - 79 Very Good 60 - 69 Good 50 - 59 Satisfactory 40 - 49 Marginal Fail 30 - 39 Fail < 29

and are insightfully and skilfully backed up by evidence to show why they are, or are not, likely to have had an effect on results. Implications of the study for theory and practice are thoroughly and insightfully explored and discussed. Suggestions for future research are made which arise logically from the current study, and their practicality is thoughtfully discussed, where applicable. The reflection is outstanding and shows genuine consideration and self-reflection. The work is of near- publishable standard.

or are not, likely to have had an effect on results. Implications of the study for theory or practice are thoroughly and insightfully explored and discussed. Suggestions for future research are made which arise logically from the current study, and their practicality is thoughtfully discussed, where applicable. The reflection is excellent, in-depth, and highly indicative of genuine consideration and self-reflection.

made which arise logically from the current study. The reflection is very well done, with good depth and demonstrating genuine consideration for the intervention and its outcomes.

to the remaining report.

Outstanding 80+ Excellent 70 - 79 Very Good 60 - 69 Good 50 - 59 Satisfactory 40 - 49 Marginal Fail 30 - 39 Fail < 29

Referencing, structure, and formatting (10%) Use of academic writing style, use of references from the broad literature within the positive psychology field, and of empirical evidence. You must include a reference list. References and in-text citations must be correctly formatted. Follows clear and coherent structure that is easy to follow and is formatted in accordance to APA or Harvard style guidelines (please check your course's requirements).

Outstanding structure, referencing, and formatting with no errors and no room for improvement. There is clear careful referencing throughout, with the all the sources cited being current and good quality (i.e., academic peer reviewed publications versus web pages). The writing follows a logical structure that is easy to follow and uses signposting effectively. The writing is of near- publishable standard.

Excellent structure, referencing and formatting with no errors. There is clear careful referencing throughout, with the all the sources cited being current and good quality (i.e., academic peer reviewed publications versus web pages). The writing follows a logical structure that is easy to follow and uses signposting effectively.

Very good structure, referencing and formatting with minor errors only. There is clear careful referencing throughout, with the vast majority of the sources cited being current and good quality (i.e., academic peer reviewed publications versus web pages). The writing follows a logical structure that is easy to follow and uses signposting effectively.

Good structure, referencing and formatting. There may be some errors, omissions, or inconsistencies. E.g., not all the in-text citations are in the reference list or vice- versa, the statistics may not be reported in the right format, or the structure may need improvement to aid with clarity and flow.

The structure, references and formatting are satisfactory but there are several errors. For example, the sections may not be in a logical order, there may be many missing (or incorrect) references, or there may be very unusual or unexpected formatting within the report. APA or Harvard guidelines were not fully adhered to.

The structure or reference or formatting is poor but at least one of these aspects reveals some intentional action.

Little to no noticeable structure; no references throughout the report, and no attempt at formatting the report. The expected formal sections are not present (e.g., cover page, or reference list).