Case study for analysis
Dawson, G., Osterling, J., Meltzoff, A. N., & Kuhl, P. (2000). Case study of the development of an infant with autism from birth to two years of age. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 21(3), 299–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0193-3973(99)00042-8
Task description:
Based on analysis of the case study provided, design appropriate learning and teaching strategies for the child in an early childhood education setting. The needs of the child should be understood through Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory. The learning and teaching strategies should also be justified through ecological systems theory. Draw upon a range of literature to support your analysis and decision making.
Criteria:
Word count: 2000 words +/- 10%
NOTE: SCEI-HE requires its students to observe the highest ethical standards in every aspect of their academic work. SCEI-HE actively demonstrates its commitment to academic integrity by recognising scholarly work and penalising all forms of academic dishonesty. Please refer to the Institute’s HEPP01 Academic Integrity Policy and Procedure for further information or speak to your lecturer, Academic Support Coordinator or Librarian.
Formatting: 12-point serif font (eg. Times New Roman). 1.5 or double line spacing.
Referencing: APA7 (please refer to this guide for referencing guidelines) Due Date: Monday 13th May, 2024 11:59PM
Grading Scale:
Grade
Criteria | High Distinction | Distinction | Credit | Pass | Not Meeting Requirements | ||
C1. Explain your understanding of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory
(15 marks) | 1.1 Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory is explained in detail, with some critical reflection.
| 1.2 Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory is clearly explained.
| 1.3 Bronfen-brenner’s ecological systems theory is clearly described.
| 1.4 Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory is accurately outlined but may lack detail.
| 1.5 Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory is outlined, may contain minor misunderstandings.
| 1.6 Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory is discussed but contains key misunderstandings and/or inaccuracies.
| 1.7 Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory is absent, or barely mentioned.
|
C2. Apply the theory to analyse the focus child in the case study provided.
(10 marks) | 2.1 Child is clearly introduced, and ecological systems theory is applied to the case with detailed explanation and critical reflection.
| 2.2 Child is clearly introduced, and ecological systems theory is applied to the case with detailed explanation.
| 2.3 Child is clearly introduced, and ecological systems theory is clearly applied to the case, with relevant details included to support understanding.
| 2.4 Child is clearly introduced, and ecological systems theory is clearly applied to the case.
| 2.5 Child is clearly introduced, and a clear attempt has been made to analyse the case through ecological systems theory.
| 2.6 Discussion of the child is brief, with no reference to the theory.
| 2.7 Discussion of the child is either absent or mostly inaccurate.
|
C3. Develop a range of teaching and learning strategies to address the needs of the child | 3.1 Teaching and learning strategies are explained in detail in terms of ecological | 3.2 Teaching and learning strategies are clearly explained in terms of | 3.3 Teaching and learning strategies are clearly explained and connected to the analysis of the case. | 3.4 Teaching and learning strategies are clearly described and | 3.5 Teaching and learning strategies are stated but may not clearly address the | 3.6 Teaching and learning strategies are noted, but unclear or irrelevant. | 3.7 Teaching and learning strategies are absent or mostly inaccurate.
|
| (15 marks) | systems theory and connected to the analysis of the case. Critical reflection on the strategies included.
| ecological systems theory and connected to the analysis of the case.
|
| meet the needs of the child.
| needs of the child.
|
|
|
C.4 Relevant academic literature is drawn upon to support explanations and arguments presented.
(5 marks) | 4.1 A broad range of academic literature is drawn upon to justify argument
| 4.2 A broad range of academic literature is drawn upon to clarify argument
| 4.3 A range of academic literature is drawn upon to support argument.
| 4.4 A range of academic literature is drawn upon, but only superficially supports argument.
| 4.5 Minimal academic literature drawn upon.
| 4.6 Academic literature drawn upon, but irrelevant to target content.
| 4.7 No literature drawn upon or literature drawn upon is not from appropriate sources.
|
C5. Assignment is formatted according to requirements and written clearly and cohesively. APA 7 referencing is used. Word limit is adhered to.
| C4.1 The assignment is clear and free of typographical and structural features that hinder understanding. There is no confusion between author voice and that of sources. The assignment is formatted according to stated requirements. The assignment is formatted according to stated requirements. Accurate mechanics of in-text and end-of-text APA (7th Ed.) referencing style were used.
Word limit met.
| C4.2 The assignment is clear with minor typographical and structural features that may hinder understanding. There is minimal confusion between author voice and that of sources. The assignment is mostly formatted according to stated requirements. Accurate mechanics of in-text and end-oftext APA (7th Ed.) referencing style | C4.3 The assignment is clear with typographical and structural features that may hinder understanding. There is minor confusion between author voice and that of sources. The assignment is partly formatted according to stated | C4.4 The assignment has typographical and structural features that significantly hinder understanding. There is confusion between author voice and that of sources. The assignment is minimally formatted according to stated requirements. Mechanics of in- | C4.5 The assignment has typographical and structural features that prohibit understanding. There is confusion between author voice and that of sources, or author’s voice is absent. The assignment is not formatted according to stated requirements. Mechanics of in-text and end-of-text APA (7th Ed.) referencing style were not used appropriately.
Word limit not met.
| ||
(5 marks) |
| were used with minor inconsistencies (no more than 2 errors). Word limit met.
| requirements. Mechanics of intext and end-oftext APA (7th Ed.) referencing style were used with inconsistencies (no more than 4 errors).
Word limit met.
| text and end-oftext APA (7th Ed.) referencing contain several errors. Word limit met.
|
| ||
Get original papers written according to your instructions and save time for what matters most.
