Overview
Informed practice is fundamental to safe practice in midwifery care and ethical decision making. Informed practice requires you to review evidence for its relevance to best practice. In this unit, you will apply skills to search for evidence, critically review contemporary research and other evidence, and critique current policies relevant to midwifery practice.
Details
Pre-requisites or Co-requisites
Pre-Requisites: MDWF12002 Foundations of Midwifery 1, MDWF12003 Midwifery Practice 1, and MDWF12007 Professional Midwifery Practice: Legal and Ethical Frameworks
Important note: Students enrolled in a subsequent unit who failed their pre-requisite unit, should drop the subsequent unit before the census date or within 10 working days of Fail grade notification. Students who do not drop the unit in this timeframe cannot later drop the unit without academic and financial liability. See details in the Assessment Policy and Procedure (Higher Education Coursework).
Offerings For Term 2 - 2024
Attendance Requirements
All on-campus students are expected to attend scheduled classes – in some units, these classes are identified as a mandatory (pass/fail) component and attendance is compulsory. International students, on a student visa, must maintain a full time study load and meet both attendance and academic progress requirements in each study period (satisfactory attendance for International students is defined as maintaining at least an 80% attendance record).
Recommended Student Time Commitment
Each 6-credit Undergraduate unit at CQUniversity requires an overall time commitment of an average of 12.5 hours of study per week, making a total of 150 hours for the unit.
Class Timetable
Assessment Overview
Assessment Grading
This is a graded unit: your overall grade will be calculated from the marks or grades for each assessment task, based on the relative weightings shown in the table above. You must obtain an overall mark for the unit of at least 50%, or an overall grade of ‘pass’ in order to pass the unit. If any ‘pass/fail’ tasks are shown in the table above they must also be completed successfully (‘pass’ grade). You must also meet any minimum mark requirements specified for a particular assessment task, as detailed in the ‘assessment task’ section (note that in some instances, the minimum mark for a task may be greater than 50%). Consult the University’s Grades and Results Policy for more details of interim results and final grades.
All University policies are available on the CQUniversity Policy site.
You may wish to view these policies:
- Grades and Results Policy
- Assessment Policy and Procedure (Higher Education Coursework)
- Review of Grade Procedure
- Student Academic Integrity Policy and Procedure
- Monitoring Academic Progress (MAP) Policy and Procedure – Domestic Students
- Monitoring Academic Progress (MAP) Policy and Procedure – International Students
- Student Refund and Credit Balance Policy and Procedure
- Student Feedback – Compliments and Complaints Policy and Procedure
- Information and Communications Technology Acceptable Use Policy and Procedure
This list is not an exhaustive list of all University policies. The full list of University policies are available on the CQUniversity Policy site.
Feedback, Recommendations and Responses
Every unit is reviewed for enhancement each year. At the most recent review, the following staff and student feedback items were identified and recommendations were made.
Feedback from SUTE Feedback
I quite enjoyed this course. I just feel that the requirements of clinical placement and my work hours impeded on my ability to actually focus on preparing for the assignments.
Students will be encouraged to start preparing their assessment tasks earlier in the unit. The assessment Zoom sessions will be held earlier in the term to allow for this.
Feedback from SUTE Feedback
I found reaching 2'500 word limits very challenging and would suggest a reduction in word count.
Due to the 50% weighting of the two assessment tasks a word count of 2500 was deemed appropriate. For the next offering, additional complexity will be added to the case study options enabling further exploration.
Feedback from SUTE Teacher Evaluation for MDWF12004
Tanya is awesome. Very empathetic and caring nature that shines through and makes learning enjoyable. Thanks Tanya.
To continue to ensure that the students feel well supported during the unit.
- Identify the types of evidence that inform current safe, quality midwifery practice
- Critically analyse current evidence for translation into midwifery practice
- Evaluate the relevance of current research to inform ethical decision making in midwifery practice
- Analyse and critique current policy relevant to midwifery practice.
Standard 1 Safety of the public.
Standard 3 Program of study.
Standard 5 Student assessment.
The Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia (NMBA) Midwife Standards for Practice (2018).
Standard 1: Promotes evidence-based maternal health and wellbeing.
Standard 4: Undertakes comprehensive assessments.
Standard 5: Develops plans for midwifery practice.
Standard 6: Provides safe and quality midwifery practice.
Standard 7: Evaluates outcomes to improve midwifery practice.
NMBA Code of Conduct for Midwives (2018).
Principle 2: Woman-centred practice.
Principle 6: Research in health.
The International Confederation of Midwives (ICM) International Code of Ethics for Midwives (2014).
Practice of midwifery.
The professional responsibilities of Midwives.
Advancement of midwifery knowledge and practice.
National Safety and Quality Health Service Standards (2017).
Communicating for Safety.
Clinical Governance Standard.
Preventing and Controlling Healthcare-Associated Infection Standard.
Medication Safety Standard.
Comprehensive Care Standard.
Alignment of Assessment Tasks to Learning Outcomes
| Assessment Tasks | Learning Outcomes | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
| 1 - Case Study - 50% | ||||
| 2 - Report - 50% | ||||
Alignment of Graduate Attributes to Learning Outcomes
| Graduate Attributes | Learning Outcomes | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
| 1 - Communication | ||||
| 2 - Problem Solving | ||||
| 3 - Critical Thinking | ||||
| 4 - Information Literacy | ||||
| 5 - Team Work | ||||
| 6 - Information Technology Competence | ||||
| 7 - Cross Cultural Competence | ||||
| 8 - Ethical practice | ||||
| 9 - Social Innovation | ||||
| 10 - Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Cultures | ||||
Alignment of Assessment Tasks to Graduate Attributes
| Assessment Tasks | Graduate Attributes | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | |
| 1 - Case Study - 50% | ||||||||||
| 2 - Report - 50% | ||||||||||
Textbooks
Midwifery: Preparation for Practice
Edition: 5th ed. (2023)
Authors: Pairman, S., Tracy, S., Dahlen, H., Dixon, L.
Elsevier
Sydney Sydney , NSW , Australia
ISBN: 9780729597852
Binding: eBook
IT Resources
- CQUniversity Student Email
- Internet
- Unit Website (Moodle)
- Headphones/speaker/microphone
- ZOOM
All submissions for this unit must use the referencing style: American Psychological Association 7th Edition (APA 7th edition)
For further information, see the Assessment Tasks.
b.ferguson@cqu.edu.au
Module/Topic
Introduction to Research
Chapter
Chapter 7 of: Midwifery Preparation for Practice, 4th Edition.
Events and Submissions/Topic
Module/Topic
Application of the Evidence to Midwifery Practice
Chapter
Chapter 7 of: Midwifery Preparation for Practice, 4th Edition.
Events and Submissions/Topic
Module/Topic
PICO and Searching for Evidence
Chapter
Chapter 7 of: Midwifery Preparation for Practice, 4th Edition.
Events and Submissions/Topic
Module/Topic
Appraising the Evidence
Chapter
Chapter 7 of: Midwifery Preparation for Practice, 4th Edition.
Events and Submissions/Topic
Module/Topic
Qualitative Research
Chapter
Chapter 7 of: Midwifery Preparation for Practice, 4th Edition.
Events and Submissions/Topic
Module/Topic
Chapter
Events and Submissions/Topic
Module/Topic
Quantitative Research
Chapter
Chapter 7 of: Midwifery Preparation for Practice, 4th Edition.
Events and Submissions/Topic
Module/Topic
Mixed Methods Research
Chapter
Chapter 7 of: Midwifery Preparation for Practice, 4th Edition.
Events and Submissions/Topic
Module/Topic
Randomised Controlled Trials (RCT's)
Chapter
Chapter 7 of: Midwifery Preparation for Practice, 4th Edition.
Events and Submissions/Topic
Module/Topic
Systematic Reviews
Chapter
Chapter 7 of: Midwifery Preparation for Practice, 4th Edition.
Events and Submissions/Topic
Module/Topic
Ethical and Legal Issues in Research
Chapter
Chapter 7 of: Midwifery Preparation for Practice, 4th Edition.
Events and Submissions/Topic
Module/Topic
Policies and Clinical Practice Guidelines
Chapter
Chapter 7 of: Midwifery Preparation for Practice, 4th Edition.
Events and Submissions/Topic
Module/Topic
Applying Research Knowledge to Practice
Chapter
Chapter 7 of: Midwifery Preparation for Practice, 4th Edition.
Events and Submissions/Topic
Module/Topic
Chapter
Events and Submissions/Topic
Module/Topic
Chapter
Events and Submissions/Topic
Students must remain subscribed to the discussion forum throughout the term.
Assessments One and Two must be attempted and submitted for grading. Students must pass both assessments to pass this unit.
1 Case Study
MDWF12004 Critical Inquiry and Midwifery Practice
ASSESSMENT 1 – Case Study
Weighting: 50%
Word Count: 2500 words (+/- 10%)
Due Date: Friday 2nd August 2024 - Week 4 at 2355 (11:55 pm).
Unit Co-ordinator: Bridget Ferguson
Objectives: This assessment relates to learning outcomes 1 and 2.
Learning Outcomes Assessed:
1 Identify the types of evidence that inform current safe, quality midwifery practice
2 Critically analyse current evidence for translation into midwifery practice
Aim:
In this assessment, you will demonstrate your understanding of the concepts learned so far during this course. You are expected to use an academic approach to answer all components of this assessment. Using this approach, you must demonstrate that you have researched the relevant issues. You are required to read widely and analyse the information that you gather, ensuring that it is applicable, evidence-based, and up-to-date.
Task Instructions:
You are writing an academic paper based on a chosen clinical scenario.
You will use your literature-searching skills to identify and extract appropriate literature pertaining to the question asked by the woman in the case study.
You will outline the search process undertaken and present the results.
The literature included in the results of your search will then underpin your conversation with the woman, answering her question.
Assessment task:
Choose one of the case studies below:
1. Rebecca, a 32-year-old woman, is in her third trimester of pregnancy with her second child. She had a conventional hospital birth with her first child, but this time around, Rebecca is contemplating the idea of a water birth. Rebecca has heard about the potential benefits of water birth, such as pain relief and relaxation. Still, she also has concerns, and at her next antenatal appointment, she asks you, her midwife, questions about the safety and logistics of the process.
2. Lara, a 28-year-old woman, is currently pregnant with her first child. She and her partner, Alex, have been together for five years. While Lara has never been a smoker, Alex is a regular smoker who often indulges in cigarettes. Concerned about the potential health risks associated with second hand smoke exposure during pregnancy, Lara finds herself worried about the well-being of their unborn child. She asks about the risks and dangers of second-hand smoke exposure to her baby.
1. Write a brief background introducing the identified ‘problem’.
You must now undertake a review of the literature to identify evidence that you would use to inform your discussion with the woman in your chosen case study above.
2. Describe the search process you would undertake to locate the relevant literature to address the ‘problem’ and inform your discussion with the woman.
3. Identify and present the papers to be included in the review (this can be in the form of a table).
4. Synthesise and discuss the review findings with application to the case study, whilst identifying how you would explain the recommendations to the woman.
Additional Information
Review the marking criteria rubric carefully.
Consider that your grade will be derived from the criteria outlined in the rubric. Thus, clear explanations of the expectations for varying grades are provided for both your direction and the assessment of your paper.
Generative Artificial Intelligence (Gen-AI) tools, including AI-driven writing assistants and content generators, are not permitted in this assessment. The Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia [NMBA] (2018), Midwifery Standards of Practice requires students to demonstrate essential human capacities, skills, knowledge, and integration of theory into practice, crucial for midwifery practice (removed as repeated). Midwifery practice relies on human interaction, empathy, ethical decision-making, and effective communication—skills that cannot be adequately assessed through AI-generated content. To ensure the integrity and development of these capabilities, students must verify that any grammar or writing enhancement programs used do not incorporate AI components. Compliance with midwifery practice standards is vital for meeting AHPRA/NMBA graduate attributes and preparing for professional practice.
Your essay is to follow academic conventions of structure with a background, body, and conclusion.
· Double line spacing throughout (including reference list)
· Font size 12, easily readable style (e.g., Arial, Times Roman, Calibri)
· The word count must be within 10% plus or minus of the given word count.
· A cover sheet is required which includes your name, student number, the unit code, the assessment item number and word count.
Referencing
Use a separate page for reference list and ensure it is APA 7th style.
Use references that are from contemporary and valid sources such as peer reviewed journals; or evidence-based websites (e.g., government bodies, professional organisations).
Week 4 Friday (2 Aug 2024) 11:55 pm AEST
Submit via the Moodle page
Week 6 Friday (23 Aug 2024)
Please allow for two weeks past the due date for the return of marked assessments.
|
Structure (15%)
Approach & Argument 75% |
HD |
D |
C |
P |
F |
Low Fail |
|
Clear and succinct background that introduces the topic and outlines the direction of the paper. 5.00 - 4.23 (5%) |
Clear and appropriate background that introduces the topic and outlines the direction of the paper. 4.22 - 3.73 |
Appropriate background that introduces the topic and outlines the direction of the paper. 3.72 - 3.23 |
Background is apparent and the topic is introduced but there is not clear direction to the paper. 3.22 - 2.48 |
Barely recognisable background-the topic is not clearly introduced and/or there is no clear direction of the paper. 2.47 - 2.26 |
No recognisable background-the topic is not introduced and/or there is no direction of the paper. 2.25 - 0.00 |
|
|
Clear and succinct conclusion that outlines the main points and brings the discussion to a logical close. 5.00 - 4.23 (5%) |
Clear and appropriate conclusion that outlines the main points and brings the discussion to a close. 4.22 - 3.73 |
Conclusion outlines most of the main points and brings some sense of closure. 3.72 - 3.23 |
Conclusion apparent, outlines most of the main points and endeavours to bring the discussion to a close-there may be some incongruity. 3.22 - 2.48 |
Barely recognisable conclusion-little reference to the main points and no clear conclusion to the paper. 2.47 - 2.26
|
No recognisable conclusion-little reference to the main points and no clear conclusion to the paper. 2.25 - 0.00
|
|
|
Excellent presentation of assignment double spaced with 12-point font Consistently accurate with spelling, grammar, and paragraph structure. Content is the student's own original work without prior submission. No Gen AI use at any point during this assessment.
5.00 - 4.23 (5%) |
Well-presented assignment double spaced with 12-point font. 1 or 2 errors spelling, grammar and paragraph structure. Content is the student's own original work without prior submission. No Gen AI use at any point during this assessment.
4.22 -3.73 |
Well-presented assignment double spaced with 12-point font. 3 or 4 consistent errors with spelling, grammar, and paragraph structure. Content is the student’s own original work without prior submission. No Gen AI use at any point during this assessment.
3.72 - 3.23 |
Well-presented assignment double spaced with 12-point font. 3 or 4 inconsistent errors with spelling, grammar, and paragraph structure. Content is the student's own original work without prior submission. No Gen AI use at any point during this assessment.
3.22 - 2.48 |
Inconsistently presented assignment. Double spacing not used. 12-point font not used. 5-6 inaccuracies with spelling, grammar, and paragraph structure. Content is not the student's own work and has been previously submitted. No Gen AI use at any point during this assessment.
2.47 - 2.26 |
Poorly presented assignment. Double spacing not used. 12-point font not used. Many inaccuracies with spelling, grammar, and paragraph structure. (> 7 errors). Content is not the student's own work and has been previously submitted. Gen AI use detected in this assessment.
2.25 - 0.00 |
|
|
Content is clearly relevant to the topic; the approach comprehensively answers the question in relation to current midwifery practice and the discourse proceeds logically and is within the set word limit. 10.00 - 8.45 (10%) |
Content is relevant to the topic; the approach clearly answers the question in relation to current midwifery practice and the discourse proceeds logically. Word count is within the set word limit. 8.44 - 7.45 |
Content is appropriate and answers the question in relation to current midwifery practice and the discourse for the most part proceeds logically. Word count is within the set word limit. 7.44 - 6.45 |
Content answers the question in relation to current midwifery practice, but the discourse is at times repetitive or lacks cohesion. Word count is within the set word limit. 6.44 - 4.95 |
Content is frequently off topic and only partially answers the questions in relation to current midwifery practice. The discourse frequently lacks cohesion. The word limit has not been adhered to and is marginally over or under the 10% allowance. 4.94 - 4.50 |
Content is irrelevant and or does not answer the question in relation to current midwifery practice. The discourse lacks cohesion. The word limit has not been adhered to, the word limit is well over or under the 10% allowance. 4.49 - 0.00 |
|
|
An articulate and comprehensive description of the search process you would undertake to locate the relevant literature to address the ‘problem’ and inform your discussion. 10.00 - 8.45 (10%) |
A well-developed description of the search process you would undertake to locate the relevant literature to address the ‘problem’ and inform your discussion. 8.44 - 7.45 |
A logical description of the search process you would undertake to locate the relevant literature to address the ‘problem’ and inform your discussion. 7.44 - 6.45 |
A disjointed description of the search process you would undertake to locate the relevant literature to address the ‘problem’ and inform your discussion. 6.44 - 4.95 |
An inadequate description of the search process you would undertake to locate the relevant literature to address the ‘problem’ and inform your discussion. 4.94 - 4.50 |
No description of the search process you would undertake to locate the relevant literature to address the ‘problem’ and inform your discussion. 4.49 - 0.00 |
|
|
Clear and comprehensive identification and presentation of the papers to be included in the review. 15.00 – 12.68 (15%) |
Clear identification and presentation of the papers to be included in the review. 12.67 – 11.18 |
Logical and appropriate identification and presentation of the papers to be included in the review. 11.17 – 9.68
|
Disjointed and limited identification and presentation of the papers to be included in the review. 9.67 – 7.43
|
Inadequate identification and presentation of the papers to be included in the review. 7.42 – 6.75 |
No identification and presentation of the papers to be included in the review. 6.74 – 0.00 |
|
|
Clear and comprehensive synthesis and discussion around the review findings with application to the case study, whilst identifying how you would explain the recommendations to the woman. 40.00 – 33.80 (40%) |
A clear and articulate synthesis and discussion around the review findings with application to the case study, whilst identifying how you would explain the recommendations to the woman. 33.79 – 29.80 |
A broad synthesis and discussion around the review findings with application to the case study, whilst identifying how you would explain the recommendations to the woman. 29.79 – 25.80 |
A disjointed synthesis and discussion around the review findings with application to the case study, whilst identifying how you would explain the recommendations to the woman. 25.79 – 19.80 |
Limited synthesis and discussion around the review findings with application to the case study, whilst identifying how you would explain the recommendations to the woman. 19.79 – 18.00
|
No synthesis and discussion around the review findings with application to the case study, whilst identifying how you would explain the recommendations to the woman. 17.99 – 0.00
|
|
|
Referencing (10%) |
Consistently integrates up-to-date references to support and reflect all ideas, factual information and quotations. 5.00 - 4.23 (5%) |
Generally, integrates up-to-date references to support and reflect ideas, factual information and quotations, with 1 or 2 exceptions. 4.22 -3.73 |
Frequently integrates up-to-date references to support and reflect ideas, factual information and quotations, with 3 or 4 exceptions. 3.72 - 3.23 |
Occasionally integrates up-to-date references to support and reflect ideas, factual information and quotations, with 5 or 6 exceptions. 3.22 - 2.48 |
Infrequent attempts (>7 errors) to integrate up-to-date references to support and reflect ideas, factual information and quotations. 2.47 - 2.26 |
Failure to integrate up-to-date references to support and reflect ideas, factual information and quotations. Warrants academic misconduct referral. 2.25 - 0.00 |
|
|
Consistently accurate referencing. A minimum of 10 references used including 7 journal articles and relevant websites. 5.00 - 4.23 (5%) |
1 or 2 consistent referencing errors identified. A minimum of 10 references used including 6 journal articles and relevant websites. 4.22 -3.73 |
3 or 4 consistent referencing errors identified. A minimum of 10 references used including 5 journal articles and relevant websites. 3.72 - 3.23 |
3 or 4 inconsistent referencing errors identified. A minimum of 10 references used including 4 journal articles and relevant websites. 3.22 - 2.48 |
Many inaccuracies with referencing (5-6). A minimum of 10 references used. Less than 3 journal articles not sourced. Relevant websites included. 2.47 - 2.26 |
Many inaccuracies with referencing (>6). Less than 10 references used. Less than 2 journal articles not sourced. Relevant websites not included. 2.25 - 0.00 |
|
|
Total: 100% 100.00 -84.50 |
84.49 – 74.50 |
74.49 – 64.50 |
64.49 – 49.50 |
49.49 – 45.1 |
45.00 – 00.00 |
- Identify the types of evidence that inform current safe, quality midwifery practice
- Critically analyse current evidence for translation into midwifery practice
- Communication
- Problem Solving
- Critical Thinking
- Information Literacy
- Team Work
- Information Technology Competence
- Cross Cultural Competence
- Ethical practice
- Social Innovation
2 Report
MDWF12004 Assessment 2 – Report
Weighting: 50%
Word Count: 2500 words (+/- 10%)
Due Date: Friday 20th September 2024 - week 10 at 2355 (11:55 pm).
Unit Co-Ordinator: Bridget Ferguson
Objectives: This assessment relates to learning outcomes 1, 2, 3 and 4.
Learning Outcomes:
1. Identify the types of evidence that inform current safe, quality midwifery practice.
2. Critically analyse current evidence for translation into midwifery practice
3. Evaluate the relevance of current research to inform ethical decision making in midwifery practice.
4. Analyse and critique current policy relevant to midwifery practice.
The Task:
Aim:
This assessment will enable you to demonstrate your understanding of the concepts learnt so far during this course. You are expected to use an academic approach to answer all components of this assessment. Using this approach, you a will need to demonstrate that you have researched the relevant issues. You are required to read widely and analyse the information that you gather, ensuring that it is applicable, evidence-based, and up to date.
Instructions:
You are writing a research report based on a chosen aspect of midwifery practice. You will explore and discuss the current practice related to your chosen topic. This may be based on local policy or practices you have observed whilst on clinical placement. You will then undertake a review of the literature on the chosen topic and based on the most up-to-date evidence, determine whether the current policy or practice should change. Finally, you will explain your reason for your recommendation, using the literature to support your argument.
This assignment task requires you to write a research report on one aspect of clinical practice relating to pregnancy, labour, birth, or the postnatal period.
Please choose one topic from the options below:
- Screening for Group B streptococcus during pregnancy.
- Pre-Natal Genetic Testing for Chromosomal Conditions
- Induction of Labour for reduced fetal movements at term gestation
- Water Immersion in Labour and Water Birth with high maternal BMI
- Neonatal Resuscitation with an Intact Umbilical Cord
- Neonatal Hep B vaccination at birth
1. You should discuss the current practice (using the evidence to support your discussion).
2. After reviewing the literature, you should make a recommendation on whether a change to current practice should occur based upon the evidence you have read.
3. Provide a rationale for the recommendation in the context of an evidence-based approach (integrating the available evidence, woman-centred midwifery philosophy and other available resources).
Additional Information
Review the marking criteria rubric. Consider that your grade will be derived from the criteria outlined in the rubric. Thus, clear explanations of the expectations for varying grades are provided for both your direction and the assessment of your paper.
Generative Artificial Intelligence (Gen-AI) tools, including AI-driven writing assistants and content generators, are not permitted in this assessment. The Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia [NMBA] (2018), Midwifery Standards of Practice requires students to demonstrate essential human capacities, skills, knowledge, and integration of theory into practice, crucial for midwifery practice (removed as repeated). Midwifery practice relies on human interaction, empathy, ethical decision-making, and effective communication—skills that cannot be adequately assessed through AI-generated content. To ensure the integrity and development of these capabilities, students must verify that any grammar or writing enhancement programs used do not incorporate AI components. Compliance with midwifery practice standards is vital for meeting AHPRA/NMBA graduate attributes and preparing for professional practice.
Presentation Requirements:
Your essay is to follow academic conventions of structure with an introduction, body, and conclusion.
Double Line spacing throughout 2.0 (including reference list)
Font size 12, easily readable style (e.g., Arial, Times Roman, Calibri)
Word count must be within 10% plus or minus of the given word count.
Provide a cover sheet with your name, student number, the unit code, the assessment item number and word count.
Referencing
APA 7th Style - Use a separate page for reference list.
Use references that are from contemporary and valid sources such as peer reviewed journals; or evidence-based websites (e.g., government bodies, professional organisations).
Week 10 Friday (20 Sept 2024) 11:45 pm AEST
Submit via the unit Moodle page
Week 12 Friday (4 Oct 2024)
Please allow for two weeks past the due date for the return of marked assessments.
|
Structure (15%) |
HD |
D |
C |
P |
F |
Low Fail |
|
Clear and succinct introduction that introduces the topic and outlines the direction of the paper. 5.00 - 4.23 (5%) |
Clear and appropriate introduction that introduces the topic and outlines the direction of the paper. 4.22 - 3.73 |
Appropriate introduction that introduces the topic and outlines the direction of the paper. 3.72 - 3.23 |
Introduction is apparent and the topic is introduced but there is no clear direction to the paper. 3.22 - 2.48 |
Barely recognisable background-the topic is not clearly introduced and/or there is no clear direction of the paper. 2.47 - 2.26 |
No recognisable introduction-the topic is not introduced and/or there is no direction of the paper. 2.25 - 0.00 |
|
|
Clear and succinct conclusion that outlines the main points and brings the argument to a logical close. 5.00 - 4.23 (5%) |
Clear and appropriate conclusion that outlines the main points and brings the argument to a close. 4.22 - 3.73 |
Conclusion outlines most of the main points and brings some sense of closure. 3.72 - 3.23
|
Conclusion apparent, outlines most of the main points and endeavours to bring the argument to a close-there may be some incongruity. 3.22 - 2.48 |
Barely recognisable conclusion-little reference to the main points an unclear conclusion to the paper. 2.47 - 2.26 |
No recognisable conclusion-little reference to the main points and no clear conclusion to the paper. 2.25 - 0.00 |
|
|
Excellent presentation of assignment double spaced with 12-point font. Consistently accurate with spelling, grammar, and paragraph structure. Content is the student's own original work without prior submission. No Gen AI use at any point during this assessment. 5.00 - 4.23 (5%) |
Well-presented assignment double spaced with 12-point font. 1 or 2 errors spelling, grammar and paragraph structure. Content is the student's own original work without prior submission. No Gen AI use at any point during this assessment. 4.22 -3.73 |
Well-presented assignment double spaced with 12-point font. 3 or 4 consistent errors with spelling, grammar, and paragraph structure. Content is the student's own original work without prior submission. No Gen AI use at any point during this assessment. 3.72 - 3.23
|
Well-presented assignment double spaced with 12-point font. 3 or 4 inconsistent errors with spelling, grammar, and paragraph structure. Content is the student's own original work without prior submission. No Gen AI use at any point during this assessment. 3.22 - 2.48 |
Inconsistently presented assignment. Double spacing not used. 12-point font not used. 5-6 inaccuracies with spelling, grammar, and paragraph structure. Content is not the student's own work and has been previously submitted. No Gen AI use at any point during this assessment. 2.47 - 2.26 |
Poorly presented assignment. Double spacing not used. 12-point font not used. Many inaccuracies with spelling, grammar, and paragraph structure. (> 7 errors). Content is not the student's own work and has been previously submitted. Gen AI use was detected in this assessment. 2.25 - 0.00 |
|
|
Approach & Argument (75%) |
|
|||||
|
Content is clearly relevant to the topic; the approach comprehensively answers the questions, and the argument proceeds logically and is within the set word limit. 10.00 - 8.45 (10%) |
Content is relevant to the topic; the approach clearly answers the questions, and the argument proceeds logically and is within the set word limit. 8.44 - 7.45
|
Content is appropriate and answers the questions and the argument for the most part proceeds logically and is within the set word limit. 7.44 - 6.45
|
Content answers the questions the argument is at times repetitive or lacks cohesion and is within the set word limit with a 10% allowance (under or over the set limit). 6.44 - 4.95 |
Content is frequently off topic and only partially answers the questions in relation to current midwifery practice. The discourse frequently lacks cohesion. The word limit has not been adhered to and is marginally over or under the 10% allowance. 4.94 - 4.50 |
Content is irrelevant and or does not answer the questions and the argument lacks cohesion. The word limit has not been adhered to, the word limit is well over or under the 10% allowance. 4.49 - 0.00 |
|
|
An articulate and comprehensive discussion which outlines and evaluates the research evidence that relates to the chosen aspect of clinical practice. 35.00 – 29.58 (35%) |
Insightful and well-developed discussion that outlines and evaluates the research evidence that relates to the chosen aspect of clinical practice. 29.57 – 26.08 |
A logical discussion that demonstrates a competent outline and evaluation of the research evidence that relates to the chosen aspect of clinical practice. 26.07 – 22.58 |
A disjointed discussion that demonstrates a generalised or limited outline and evaluation of the research evidence that relates to the chosen aspect of clinical practice. 17.33 – 22.57 |
An inadequate discussion of the chosen aspect of clinical practice. Evaluation of the research evidence is limited. 17.32 – 15.76 |
No discussion of the chosen aspect of clinical practice. Evaluation of the research evidence is missing. 15.75 – 0.00 |
|
|
Comprehensive discussion that supports the recommendation of whether a change to current practice should occur, based upon this evidence. 15.00 – 12.68 (15%) |
Well-developed analysis and discussion that supports the recommendation of whether a change to current practice should occur, based upon this evidence. 12.67 – 11.18 |
Broad discussion that supports the recommendation of whether a change to current practice should occur, based upon this evidence. 11.17 – 9.68
|
Minimal analysis and disjointed discussion that supports the recommendation of whether a change to current practice should occur, based upon this evidence. 9.67 – 7.43
|
Inadequate analysis and discussion (which at times is repetitive) that does not support the recommendation of whether a change to current practice should occur, based upon this evidence. 7.42 – 6.75 |
No analysis or discussion supporting the recommendation of whether a change to current practice should occur, based upon this evidence. 6.74 – 0.00 |
|
|
Clear, coherent discussion that critically outlines an evidenced based recommendation on whether a change to current practice should occur. 15.00 – 12.68 (15%) |
A clear and relevant discussion that outlines an evidenced based recommendation on whether a change to current practice should occur. 12.67 – 11.18 |
A logical discussion which broadly outlines an evidenced based recommendation on whether a change to current practice should occur. 11.17 – 9.68
|
Satisfactory exploration that shows a limited discussion that can be repetitive at times regarding an evidenced based recommendation on whether a change to current practice should occur. 9.67 – 7.43 |
Poor understanding of the topic. Content does not outline the evidenced based recommendation on whether a change to current practice should occur. 7.42 – 6.75 |
No understanding of the topic. Content does not outline the evidenced based recommendation on whether a change to current practice should occur. 6.74 – 0.00 |
|
|
Referencing (10%) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consistently integrates up-to-date references to support and reflect all ideas, factual information and quotations. 5.00 - 4.23 (5%) |
Generally, integrates up-to-date references to support and reflect ideas, factual information and quotations, with 1 or 2 exceptions. 4.22 -3.73 |
Frequently integrates up-to-date references to support and reflect ideas, factual information and quotations, with 3 or 4 exceptions. 3.72 - 3.23 |
Occasionally integrates up-to-date references to support and reflect ideas, factual information and quotations, with 5 or 6 exceptions. 3.22 - 2.48 |
Infrequent attempts (>7 errors) to integrate up-to-date references to support and reflect ideas, factual information and quotations. 2.47 - 2.26 |
Failure to integrate up-to-date references to support and reflect ideas, factual information and quotations. Warrants academic misconduct referral. 2.25 - 0.00 |
|
|
Consistently accurate with referencing. A minimum of 10 references used including 7 journal articles and relevant websites. 5.00 - 4.23 (5%) |
1 or 2 consistent referencing errors identified. A minimum of 10 references used including 6 journal articles and relevant websites. 4.22 -3.73 |
3 or 4 consistent referencing errors identified. A minimum of 10 references used including 5 journal articles and relevant websites. 3.72 - 3.23 |
3 or 4 inconsistent referencing errors identified. A minimum of 10 references used including 4 journal articles and relevant websites. 3.22 - 2.48 |
Many inaccuracies with referencing (5-6). A minimum of 10 references used. Less than 3 journal articles not sourced. Relevant websites included. 2.47- 2.26 |
Many inaccuracies with referencing (>6). Less than 10 references used. Less than 2 journal articles not sourced. Relevant websites not included. 2.25 - 0.00 |
|
|
|
Total: 100% 100.00 -84.50 |
84.49 – 74.50 |
74.49 – 64.50 |
64.49 – 49.50 |
49.49 – 45.1 |
45.00 – 00.00 |
- Identify the types of evidence that inform current safe, quality midwifery practice
- Critically analyse current evidence for translation into midwifery practice
- Evaluate the relevance of current research to inform ethical decision making in midwifery practice
- Analyse and critique current policy relevant to midwifery practice.
- Problem Solving
- Critical Thinking
- Information Literacy
- Team Work
- Information Technology Competence
- Cross Cultural Competence
- Ethical practice
- Social Innovation
As a CQUniversity student you are expected to act honestly in all aspects of your academic work.
Any assessable work undertaken or submitted for review or assessment must be your own work. Assessable work is any type of work you do to meet the assessment requirements in the unit, including draft work submitted for review and feedback and final work to be assessed.
When you use the ideas, words or data of others in your assessment, you must thoroughly and clearly acknowledge the source of this information by using the correct referencing style for your unit. Using others’ work without proper acknowledgement may be considered a form of intellectual dishonesty.
Participating honestly, respectfully, responsibly, and fairly in your university study ensures the CQUniversity qualification you earn will be valued as a true indication of your individual academic achievement and will continue to receive the respect and recognition it deserves.
As a student, you are responsible for reading and following CQUniversity’s policies, including the Student Academic Integrity Policy and Procedure. This policy sets out CQUniversity’s expectations of you to act with integrity, examples of academic integrity breaches to avoid, the processes used to address alleged breaches of academic integrity, and potential penalties.
What is a breach of academic integrity?
A breach of academic integrity includes but is not limited to plagiarism, self-plagiarism, collusion, cheating, contract cheating, and academic misconduct. The Student Academic Integrity Policy and Procedure defines what these terms mean and gives examples.
Why is academic integrity important?
A breach of academic integrity may result in one or more penalties, including suspension or even expulsion from the University. It can also have negative implications for student visas and future enrolment at CQUniversity or elsewhere. Students who engage in contract cheating also risk being blackmailed by contract cheating services.
Where can I get assistance?
For academic advice and guidance, the Academic Learning Centre (ALC) can support you in becoming confident in completing assessments with integrity and of high standard.
What can you do to act with integrity?
