,PART 2
2.1 Reflection on formative assessment
Assignment 01 served as a valuable formative exercise, highlighting specific areas for development
in my academic writing. The primary challenges I identified were in applying the APA 7th edition
referencing style with consistency and mastering the skill of effective paraphrasing. Initially, I
struggled with the technical nuances of citing diverse sources, such as journal articles and online
materials, and my initial drafts contained overly direct quotations that lacked sufficient synthesis.
The feedback was instrumental in shaping my understanding of academic integrity. It clarified the
critical distinction between simply referencing sources and engaging with them to produce original
analysis. Furthermore, it revealed a need to strengthen the structural coherence of my literature
review and more explicitly connect the research problem to the established scholarly conversation.
In response, I undertook a targeted review of academic writing principles. I revisited the module
materials on academic integrity, consulted the official APA guidelines via the myUnisa platform,
and utilized the online library’s referencing tutorials. A focused re-study of Topic Lessons 2 and 3
provided a stronger theoretical foundation for paraphrasing and structuring a literature review.
Moving forward, I will adopt a more strategic approach. This includes implementing a detailed
writing plan that allocates time for a dedicated referencing check and utilizing the Turnitin
similarity report as a proactive editing tool, rather than just a final check. This process has been
transformative, fostering a more meticulous and ethically-grounded approach to independent
academic work.
Reflection on Learning in Assignment 02
Assignment 02 revealed specific gaps in my comprehension of key research methodology concepts,
particularly concerning research designs, variable types, and the selection of appropriate statistical
tests. I encountered difficulty in clearly differentiating between moderator, control, and extraneous
variables. Furthermore, I struggled to identify suitable research methods for studies with small
sample sizes, a challenge that was directly reflected in my results and indicated a need for more
thorough content review.
The feedback provided a clear diagnostic of my misunderstandings, which I addressed through a
targeted revision strategy. I systematically revisited the HMEMS80 study guide and re-watched the
online lessons dedicated to variables, sampling, and research ethics. To bridge the gap between
theory and application, I critically analyzed examples from the workbook to better understand the
rationale behind selecting specific research designs and statistical tests.
This process underscored that a conceptual understanding is more valuable than rote
memorization. As a result, I have learned that reviewing both foundational definitions and their
practical applications is crucial. Moving forward, I will create detailed notes on complex topics and
engage in active practice with questions from the study guide. My focus will shift from merely
memorizing terms to comprehending the underlying purpose and application of each research
method. This assignment has been instrumental in identifying my learning needs and providing a
clear pathway for improvement in subsequent tasks.
, 2.2 Weekly Self-Evaluations
This section presents my self-reflections for three selected weeks, followed by a retrospective
analysis of my initial responses.
Week 1
1A: [Insert a copy of your two qualitative self-reflection questions for the chosen week here]
1B: Retrospective Analysis:
Reviewing my initial confidence reveals a significant gap between my perceived and actual
understanding of research methodology. At the time, I believed I had a firm grasp on foundational
concepts; however, subsequent assignments exposed a superficial comprehension, particularly in
distinguishing variable types and understanding sampling frameworks. Engaging more deeply with
the study materials has been crucial for building a more robust knowledge base. I now possess a
clearer, more practical understanding of terms like "independent variable" and "construct validity,"
which I had previously used in a limited or incorrect manner. This experience has taught me to
approach complex topics with greater intellectual humility and a commitment to deeper inquiry.
Week 2
2A: [Insert a copy of your two qualitative self-reflection questions for the chosen week here]
2B: Retrospective Analysis:
My initial approach to challenging questions was often reactive, relying on guesswork when
uncertain. I now recognize this as an ineffective strategy. The key learning for me has been the
importance of a systematic and prepared approach. I have since developed the discipline of
reviewing relevant concepts and practical examples before attempting to answer questions.
Furthermore, I now actively deconstruct questions by identifying key terms and using the process
of elimination, which has markedly improved my accuracy. Implementing active learning
techniques, such as creating mind maps and thematic summaries from the module content, has
also transformed my study sessions, making them more structured, efficient, and effective.
Week 3
3A: [Insert a copy of your two qualitative self-reflection questions for the chosen week here]
3B: Retrospective Analysis:
My early view of research ethics was narrowly focused on procedural formality, such as obtaining
participant consent. My perspective has since evolved to appreciate ethics as a comprehensive
framework underpinning the entire research process. I now understand it encompasses a
fundamental duty to protect participant privacy, mitigate potential harms, and ensure the honest
reporting of data. This deeper appreciation has directly influenced my approach to academic
integrity; I now treat plagiarism and data falsification with the seriousness they warrant, especially
in an era complicated by AI tools. Consequently, I have instituted a more rigorous personal practice
of verifying the originality of my work and meticulously referencing all sources, thereby aligning my
actions with the core principles of ethical scholarship.
2.1 Reflection on formative assessment
Assignment 01 served as a valuable formative exercise, highlighting specific areas for development
in my academic writing. The primary challenges I identified were in applying the APA 7th edition
referencing style with consistency and mastering the skill of effective paraphrasing. Initially, I
struggled with the technical nuances of citing diverse sources, such as journal articles and online
materials, and my initial drafts contained overly direct quotations that lacked sufficient synthesis.
The feedback was instrumental in shaping my understanding of academic integrity. It clarified the
critical distinction between simply referencing sources and engaging with them to produce original
analysis. Furthermore, it revealed a need to strengthen the structural coherence of my literature
review and more explicitly connect the research problem to the established scholarly conversation.
In response, I undertook a targeted review of academic writing principles. I revisited the module
materials on academic integrity, consulted the official APA guidelines via the myUnisa platform,
and utilized the online library’s referencing tutorials. A focused re-study of Topic Lessons 2 and 3
provided a stronger theoretical foundation for paraphrasing and structuring a literature review.
Moving forward, I will adopt a more strategic approach. This includes implementing a detailed
writing plan that allocates time for a dedicated referencing check and utilizing the Turnitin
similarity report as a proactive editing tool, rather than just a final check. This process has been
transformative, fostering a more meticulous and ethically-grounded approach to independent
academic work.
Reflection on Learning in Assignment 02
Assignment 02 revealed specific gaps in my comprehension of key research methodology concepts,
particularly concerning research designs, variable types, and the selection of appropriate statistical
tests. I encountered difficulty in clearly differentiating between moderator, control, and extraneous
variables. Furthermore, I struggled to identify suitable research methods for studies with small
sample sizes, a challenge that was directly reflected in my results and indicated a need for more
thorough content review.
The feedback provided a clear diagnostic of my misunderstandings, which I addressed through a
targeted revision strategy. I systematically revisited the HMEMS80 study guide and re-watched the
online lessons dedicated to variables, sampling, and research ethics. To bridge the gap between
theory and application, I critically analyzed examples from the workbook to better understand the
rationale behind selecting specific research designs and statistical tests.
This process underscored that a conceptual understanding is more valuable than rote
memorization. As a result, I have learned that reviewing both foundational definitions and their
practical applications is crucial. Moving forward, I will create detailed notes on complex topics and
engage in active practice with questions from the study guide. My focus will shift from merely
memorizing terms to comprehending the underlying purpose and application of each research
method. This assignment has been instrumental in identifying my learning needs and providing a
clear pathway for improvement in subsequent tasks.
, 2.2 Weekly Self-Evaluations
This section presents my self-reflections for three selected weeks, followed by a retrospective
analysis of my initial responses.
Week 1
1A: [Insert a copy of your two qualitative self-reflection questions for the chosen week here]
1B: Retrospective Analysis:
Reviewing my initial confidence reveals a significant gap between my perceived and actual
understanding of research methodology. At the time, I believed I had a firm grasp on foundational
concepts; however, subsequent assignments exposed a superficial comprehension, particularly in
distinguishing variable types and understanding sampling frameworks. Engaging more deeply with
the study materials has been crucial for building a more robust knowledge base. I now possess a
clearer, more practical understanding of terms like "independent variable" and "construct validity,"
which I had previously used in a limited or incorrect manner. This experience has taught me to
approach complex topics with greater intellectual humility and a commitment to deeper inquiry.
Week 2
2A: [Insert a copy of your two qualitative self-reflection questions for the chosen week here]
2B: Retrospective Analysis:
My initial approach to challenging questions was often reactive, relying on guesswork when
uncertain. I now recognize this as an ineffective strategy. The key learning for me has been the
importance of a systematic and prepared approach. I have since developed the discipline of
reviewing relevant concepts and practical examples before attempting to answer questions.
Furthermore, I now actively deconstruct questions by identifying key terms and using the process
of elimination, which has markedly improved my accuracy. Implementing active learning
techniques, such as creating mind maps and thematic summaries from the module content, has
also transformed my study sessions, making them more structured, efficient, and effective.
Week 3
3A: [Insert a copy of your two qualitative self-reflection questions for the chosen week here]
3B: Retrospective Analysis:
My early view of research ethics was narrowly focused on procedural formality, such as obtaining
participant consent. My perspective has since evolved to appreciate ethics as a comprehensive
framework underpinning the entire research process. I now understand it encompasses a
fundamental duty to protect participant privacy, mitigate potential harms, and ensure the honest
reporting of data. This deeper appreciation has directly influenced my approach to academic
integrity; I now treat plagiarism and data falsification with the seriousness they warrant, especially
in an era complicated by AI tools. Consequently, I have instituted a more rigorous personal practice
of verifying the originality of my work and meticulously referencing all sources, thereby aligning my
actions with the core principles of ethical scholarship.
