PSY1064 Continuous Assessment 2
| Module Details | |||||||
| Short Title: | Advanced Social Cognitive Psychology | ||||||
| Full Title: | Advanced Social Cognitive Psychology | ||||||
| Module Code: | PSY1064 | NFQ
Level: |
9 | ECTS
Credits: |
5 | ||
| Module Co-ordinator: | Dr. Lorraine Boran | ||||||
Description:
The aims of this module are to provide an advanced overview of theoretical, conceptual, research and methodological advances, at, or informed by, the forefront of enquiry within social cognitive psychology. Particular focus will be on social cognitive components of individual and group construal. Critical consideration will be given to factors influencing social cognition, affect and motivation. A social neuroscientific approach will also be critically considered within the module in terms of theory of mind.
SOCIAL COGNITION ASSIGMENT ARTICLE.pdf
SOCIAL COGNITION – AN EXAMPLE 2 OF AN OPINON PIECE..pdf
SOCIAL COGNITION SLIDES.pdf
Learning Outcomes:
On successful completion of this module the learner will be able to
- Critically consider and evaluate key conceptual, theoretical, research and methodological advances, at, or informed by, the forefront of social cognitive psychology.
- Demonstrate a critical awareness of social cognitive components of individual and group construal.
- Critically identify and consider key factors influencing typical and atypical social cognitive function, including affective and motivational factors.
- Critically appraise the neuroscientific approach to social cognition.
- Critically consider implicit and explicit approaches to profiling attitudes.
Module Content and Assessment
Indicative Content and Learning Activities
- Conceptual, theoretical and methodological approaches to studying social cognition.
- Understanding social cognitive components of individual and group construal: social information encoding, representation.
- Affect and motivational factors in Social Cognition; regulation of social cognitive processes.
- Social Neuroscience: Theory of mind; mirror neuron system; social cognitive disorders.
- Controversies in Attitude research: implicit and explicit approaches to understanding and measuring attitudes.
| Assessment Type | Description | Learning Outcomes/Weighting |
| CA1 Op Ed. for Frontiers in Psychology |
Choose one thematic area – Attitudes and Beliefs; Individual and Group Construal. | 2,5 /30% |
| CA2 Research Proposal and Interactive Oral | Students are required to develop a hypothetical grant submission to the Futures Charity about a proposed intervention for a chosen patient group that can address a specified social competence/social cognition deficit, with a focus on either developmental/ adolescent/emerging adult or older adult issues. The proposal is weighted 15%.
The interactive oral conversation based on the proposal is weighted 55% and will be 10 minutes long, synchronous and face to face or by zoom (TBC). The module coordinator will be the Senior research manager at Futures Charity, acting as an assessor, and her team (at least one other) will comprise the assessment team. For assessment purposes, this conversation will be recorded (assessment grading and moderation), and then deleted. It will be a psycho-social-based interactive conversation where the student will submit a proposed intervention study to address a social-cognitive competence/deficit in a specific patient cohort. The key learning outcomes and prompts will support conversation on the following: 1. Critically consider and evaluate key conceptual, theoretical, research and methodological advances, at, or informed by, the forefront of social cognitive psychology. |
1, 3-4/70% |
| 2. Critically identify and consider key factors influencing typical and atypical social cognitive function, including affective and motivational factors.
3. Critically appraise the neuroscientific approach to social cognition. The focus is on Social Cognitive Theoretical Framework; Disorder and Intervention. Within this interview, some consideration must be given to affective and motivational factors related to social cognitive functioning; and also the neuroscientific approach to social cognition. |
PSY1064 Advanced Social Cognitive Psychology CA 2 Proposal And Interactive Oral
| MODULE: | PSY1064 Advanced Social Cognitive psychology |
| COURSE: | MPC Masters in Psychology (Conversion) |
| YEAR: | 1 |
| EXAMINERS: | Dr. Lorraine Boran (Internal) |
Prof. Gerry Molloy (External)
January Release Date v.1.
SUBMISSION DATE: XXX
WEIGHTING: 70% OF MODULE CREDIT
Students are required to develop a hypothetical grant submission (PROPOSAL) to the Futures Charity about a proposed intervention for a chosen patient group that can address a specified social competence/social cognition deficit, with a focus on either developmental/ adolescent/emerging adult or older adult issues.
The student will receive feedback from the module coordinator about their pitch, and must demonstrate later in the interactive oral that they have considered it.
The Proposal will be a 800 word count limited proposal, worth 15%.
Ideate (What is the problem-intervention scenario? What is the extent of the problem at a population level?)
Rationale (What evidence will you use to support your scenario mapping?) Impact Prediction (What will be the direct and indirect impact of employing such an intervention to this social cognitive problem?)
Use of Open AI (outside word count): Detail what open AI tools were employed in Ideate, Rationale, Impact Prediction.
The interactive oral conversation weighted 55% will be 10 minutes long, synchronous and face to face by recorded zoom (TBC). The module coordinator will be the Senior research manager at Futures Charity, acting as an assessor. For assessment purposes, this conversation will be recorded (assessment grading and moderation), and then deleted. It will be an interactive conversation where the student will submit a proposed intervention study to address a social-cognitive competence/deficit in a specific patient cohort. A research grant call brief will be shared with the student as a companion ‘preparation for the assessment’ document, which will outline the key focus points of the call.
Key learning outcomes and prompts will support the interview conversation, based on the following:
- Critically consider and evaluate key conceptual, theoretical, research and methodological advances, at, or informed by, the forefront of social cognitive psychology.
- Critically identify and consider key factors influencing typical and atypical social cognitive function, including affective and motivational factors.
- Critically appraise the neuroscientific approach to social cognition.
The focus is on Social Cognitive Theoretical Framework; Disorder and Intervention. Within this interview, some consideration must be given to affective and motivational factors related to social cognitive functioning; and also the neuroscientific approach to social cognition.
Grading Rubric for the Pitch (15%)
| Performance Level | Poor (<39%) | Fair (40-49%) | Good (50-59%) | Very Good (60-69%) | Excellent/Outstandi ng (>70%) |
| Ideate (30%) | The problem scenario is unclear or poorly defined. There is little to no understanding of the social competence/social cognition deficit. | The problem scenario is somewhat
defined but lacks depth. The extent of the problem at a population level is minimally addressed. |
The problem scenario is clear, with a basic understanding of the social competence/social cognition deficit.
Some population-level context is provided. |
The problem scenario is well-defined, demonstrating a solid understanding of the social competence/social cognition deficit. The extent of the problem at a population level is adequately addressed. | The problem scenario is exceptionally clear and insightful, demonstrating a deep understanding of the social competence/social cognition deficit. The extent of the problem at a population level is thoroughly analyzed and contextualized. |
| Rationale (30%) | rationale is
weak or unsupported by evidence. There is little to no reference to relevant literature or data. |
rationale is
present but lacks sufficient evidence or references. Some relevant literature is mentioned, but it is not well-integrated. |
rationale is
mostly clear and supported by some evidence. Relevant literature is referenced, but the integration may be superficial. |
rationale is
well-articulated and supported by strong evidence. Relevant literature is effectively integrated to support the proposal. |
rationale is
exceptionally well-articulated, thoroughly supported by robust evidence, and integrates a wide range of relevant literature to convincingly support the proposal. |
| Impact
Prediction (30%) |
impact
prediction is vague or poorly articulated. There is little to no consideration of direct and indirect impacts of the intervention. |
impact
prediction is somewhat clear but lacks depth. Some direct and indirect impacts are mentioned, but they are not well-explained. |
impact
prediction is clear, with a basic understanding of the direct and indirect impacts of the intervention. Some relevant examples are provided. |
impact
prediction is well-defined, demonstrating a solid understanding of both direct and indirect impacts of the intervention. Relevant examples are effectively used to illustrate points. |
impact
prediction is exceptionally clear and insightful, thoroughly analyzing both direct and indirect impacts of the intervention. The proposal includes compelling examples and predictions that are well-supported by evidence. |
| Use or non-use of Open AI
(10%) |
use or
non-use of Open AI tools is not mentioned or poorly detailed. There is no clear connection to how these tools contributed to the proposal. |
use or
non-use of Open AI tools is mentioned but lacks detail. The connection to the proposal is minimal or unclear. |
use or
non-use of Open AI tools is adequately detailed, with some connection to how they contributed to the proposal. |
use or non-use
of Open AI tools is well-detailed, clearly explaining how they contributed to the ideation, rationale, and impact prediction sections of the proposal. |
use or non-use
of Open AI tools is exceptionally well-detailed, providing comprehensive insights into how they were employed in each section of the proposal, demonstrating a high level of integration and innovation. |
| Overall
Presentation (10%) |
The proposal is poorly organized, with numerous grammatical errors and unclear language. | The proposal is somewhat organized but contains several grammatical errors and lacks clarity in some areas. | The proposal is mostly well-organized, with minor grammatical errors. The language is generally clear. | The proposal is well-organized, with few grammatical errors. The language is clear and professional. | The proposal is exceptionally well-organized, with no grammatical errors. The language is clear, professional, and engaging. |
Expectations for Each Performance Level
- Poor (<39%): The proposal lacks clarity and depth in all sections. There is minimal understanding of the problem, rationale, and impact. The use or non-use of Open AI tools is either absent or poorly articulated. The overall presentation is disorganized and contains numerous errors.
- Fair (40-49%): The proposal shows some understanding of the problem but lacks depth and detail. The rationale is present but not well-supported. Impact predictions are vague. The use or non-use of Open AI tools is mentioned but lacks clarity. The overall presentation has several errors.
- Good (50-59%): The proposal is clear and demonstrates a basic understanding of the problem and rationale. Impact predictions are present but may lack depth. The use or non-use of Open AI tools is adequately detailed. The overall presentation is mostly organized with minor errors.
- Very Good (60-69%): The proposal is well-defined and demonstrates a solid understanding of the problem, rationale, and impact. The use or non-use of Open AI tools is well-articulated. The overall presentation is clear and professional with few errors.
- Excellent/Outstanding (>70%): The proposal is exceptionally clear, insightful, and well-structured. It demonstrates a deep understanding of the problem, rationale, and impact. The use or non-use of Open AI tools is thoroughly integrated and innovative. The overall presentation is flawless and engaging.
Assessment Rubric (55% INTERACTIVE ORAL)
| Excellent | Very Good | Good | Fair | Poor | |
| Criterion 1 (20%):
(Interactive Oral) Logical coherence and responsivene ss to prompts within the IO, and also, based on Original Pitch |
Consistently clarifies, restates and responds to prompts; summarises when needed and actively encourages interaction with the marker within a scenario; flows seamlessly from Original Pitch, with excellent consideration of pitch feedback. | Generally responds well to marker comments, prompts and needs; provides opportunities for interaction with the marker within a scenario; flows very well from Original Pitch with very good consideration of pitch feedback.
|
Somewhat responsive to marker comments, prompts and needs; misses some opportunities for interaction within a scenario; flows well from Original Pitch, with good consideration of pitch feedback.
|
Responds inconsistently to marker comments, prompts and needs; reluctantly interacts with the marker within a scenario; flows somewhat from Original Pitch, with some consideration of pitch feedback.
|
Responds to prompts inadequately and/or fails to interact with the marker within a scenario;Very little link made to the Original Pitch, with little to no consideration of pitch feedback.
|
| Criterion 2 (30%):
(Interactive Oral) synthesis/ad aptation of relevant interdisciplina ry material to matters related to the proposed |
The problem-soluti on is highly insightful. It presents a highly convincing perspective and justified position backed with robust and insightful reasoning. | The problem-solution provides good insight. It presents a convincing perspective and justified position backed with some quality reasoning. | The problem-solution provides a
glimpse of insight. It presents a somewhat convincing perspective but the position could have been supported by more concrete reasoning. |
The problem-solution lacks much insight. It presents a perspective and a position but is not convincing due to a general absence of logical reasoning. | The problem-solution fails to convincingly and/or persuasively present a particular perspective. Significant disconnect in logic is evident. |
| deficit and intervention (problem-sol ution mapping) | |||||
| Criterion 3 (10%):
(Interactive Oral) Evaluation of empirical studies of the neuroscience of social cognition (Empirical Evidence base) |
The response is highly insightful. It presents a highly convincing perspective and justified position backed with robust and insightful psychological and neuroscience reasoning. | The response provides good insight. It presents a convincing perspective and justified position backed with some quality psychological psychological and neuroscience reasoning. | The response provides a glimpse
of insight. It presents a somewhat convincing perspective but the position could have been supported by more concrete psychological and neuroscience reasoning. |
The response lacks much insight. It presents a perspective and a position but is not convincing due to a general absence of logical psychological and neuroscience reasoning. | The response fails to convincingly and/or persuasively present a particular perspective. Significant disconnect in logic is evident, and poor application of psychological and neuroscience reasoning. |
| Criterion 4 (20%):
(Interactive Oral) Identification of direct and indirect effects of intervention (Impact Analysis) |
The impact analysis is highly convincing and justified backed with robust and insightful psychological and neuroscience reasoning. | The impact analysis shows insight. It presents a convincing perspective and justified position backed with some quality psychological and neuroscience reasoning. | The impact analysis provides a
glimpse of insight. It presents a somewhat convincing perspective but the position could have been supported by more concrete psychological and neuroscience reasoning. |
The impact analysis lacks much
insight. It presents a perspective and a pos ition but is not convincing due to a general absence of logical psychological and neuroscience reasoning. |
The impact analysis fails to convincingly and/or persuasively present a particular perspective. Significant disconnect in logic is evident, and poor application of psychological and neuroscience reasoning. |
| Criterion 5 (10%):
(Interactive Oral) Ability to |
The response is highly adaptive to changing | The response is adaptive to changing contingencies and questioning throughout the interview, without prompts. | The responses shows some level of flexibility to changing contingencies and questioning throughout the interview, | The response is routine, with little flexibility to changing contingencies and questioning throughout the interview, some | The response is inflexible and routine, showing little flexibility to changing contingencies and questioning throughout the |
| flexibly apply adaptive expertise when questioned | contingencies and questioning throughout the interview, without prompts. | without prompts. | prompts needed. | interview, prompt needed throughout. |
Likely Interactive oral questions
Can you tell me about your research proposal? What is the social cognitive problem that you want to tackle?
How do you plan on doing that?
What is the evidence that it is a problem and that your intervention can work?
What is the neuroscience behind this intervention?
What improvements are we likely to see?
If your intervention cannot be applied, how best can we address this problem?
Need Expert Help
Many DCU students find the PSY1064 CA2 research proposal difficult because it demands advanced theory integration, strong empirical justification, and precise impact prediction within a tight word limit.
Designing a social-cognitive intervention while aligning with neuroscience, affect, and motivation can feel overwhelming. There’s no need to worry—Ireland Assignment Helper provides expert university writing support aligned with DCU grading rubrics. You can also explore our PSY1064 continuous assessment 1 help . Order today to receive a custom, plagiarism-free, human-written PSY1064 CA2 proposal, written exclusively for you.
The post PSY1064 Advanced Social Cognitive Psychology Continuous Assessment 2 | Dublin City University appeared first on Ireland Assignment Helper.