Case Study Assignment Overview
This semester you will progressively develop a set of case studies describing the developmental history and conditions of a hypothetical child. The case studies will be developed in phases, with a new step due at the end of each unit.
The goal is for you to integrate and apply research on different domains of development into a “whole child” and to analyse how the case illustrates various themes or principles in developmental science.
Each Case Study Assignment is worth 125 points. This is a short essay format. Create a document with your name and your team number on it, your case/vignette, and your responses to each prompt.
Submit via Blackboard, where it will be scanned for plagiarism using Safe Assign, and then graded. You are welcome to discuss the assignment with your peers, but each of you much turn in a unique resolution and explanations.
The Case Study Assignment for each unit has two parts:
Your four Cases should be progressive and cumulative, focusing on the same child each time, but each time bringing in new issues and content from the most recent unit of the course (see instructions specific to each unit for more details). The cases should accurately reflect the research in the selected areas.
General considerations for Writing your Cases/Vignettes:
What information should the Vignette include? Your Case/Vignette should illustrate how development plays out in a particular individual with that person’s unique combination of characteristics and circumstances. Your Vignette should include the following sorts of information:
What makes for a good vignette or case? Here are some elements of a good case to keep in mind:
Unit 1 Assessment: Case Study Assignment 1
Goals
I created this assignment so that students will have opportunities to:
General Instructions
This is your major assignment for the “synthesis week” (Week 5: 2/18 and 2/20) of Unit 1. During class that week, you will also complete, in your teams, an ELA (22 points) in which you will be asked to synthesise material from Unit 1.
This ELA is designed, in part, to help you think through some of the issues you will want to address in your individual case study. See last page of this doc for a rubric that summarises our expectations on this assignment.
Steps for completing the assignment are as follows:
Assignment Prompts
Your case should accurately reflect the research in Unit 1 and should be 1-2 pages single-spaced. Be sure that your case illustrates the following themes, because you will be asked about them later:
Not sure where to start? Here are some ideas… You could write about an infant who: was just adopted by a single father; is an identical twin; was born into poverty and suffering from malnutrition; sustains a brain injury early in life;
whose mother is deciding whether to breastfeed or bottle-feed, or deciding whether/when to go back to work; whose family just migrated to the US; whose family recently moved from a farm to an urban area.
Feel free to make something up entirely on your own. You could even draw ideas from your own life or that of someone you know. You could take your story in many different directions, as long as you can justify that with the course material.
The remaining prompts can each be addressed in about a paragraph:
According to the material on Environment–>Genotype effects (epigenetics), how would you expect your child’s early care-giving to be related to his or her genes, brain, and behaviour (e.g., responses to stress)?
According to the material on physical development, what would you expect for your child’s growth? Support your arguments with empirical evidence.
Considering what is known about brain plasticity, what is the most likely thing that will happen to the area of the child’s cerebral cortex that would normally process sensory information from the hands? Why? What evidence supports your thinking about this?
What do they tell us about the impact of the child on the environment? How do these findings relate to the story in your case study? An Intervention for Low-Birth-Weight Babies
Zeskind & Ramey (1979) conducted a study of infants and mothers from very low-income backgrounds. The study was an experiment and a longitudinal study. Half of the babies were born with very low birth weight (LBW babies), and the other half were full-term typical birth-weight.
Half of the babies in each group were assigned to an Intervention (a day-care program) designed to enhance infant cognitive development that they started at 3 months of age. The other half were assigned to the control group and received no day-care intervention.
The researchers measured infant development (with a cognitive test that yielded a “developmental quotient” or DQ) and maternal responsiveness when the babies were 3 months, 24 months and 36 months (note that they did not directly train mothers- the intervention focused on the babies). Here are the results:
Cognitive Development: In the control group, the LBW babies had lower DQs than the typical babies. By 24 months both LBW and typical babies in the intervention program had higher DQs, and there were no differences between LBW and typical babies.
Maternal Responsiveness: At first, mothers were equally responsive to all babies. But at 24 and 26 months, mothers of LBW babies in the Control group were less responsive than they were at 3 months, and less responsive than mothers of typical babies. In the Intervention group, maternal responsiveness stayed high, and there were no differences between mothers of LBW babies and typical babies.
General Criteria/Expectations
Dimension | Section | Proficient- Meets or exceeds expectations | Approaching Proficiency- Partially Meets Expectations | Novice/Limited– Below expectations (Absent =0) |
Prompt 1-Vignette
20% |
Content | 20
Vignette is compelling. Accurately reflects the course material. Clearly illustrates the selected themes. Arouses interest. |
14
Vignette is competent but could be clearer, more thorough, or better connected to the course material. |
10
Vignette is present but some components are inconsistent with course material, or does not clearly address themes. |
Writing Mechanics | 5
Vignette is well-written. Grammatical errors and errors in sentence structure are minimal |
3
A few grammatical errors or errors in sentence structure, or repetitious sentence structures |
1
Frequent grammatical or sentence structure errors |
|
Prompt 2-Analysis
30% (10% per theme) |
For each theme | 12.5
Clear and thorough discussion of factors that have created risk or resilience in child; well connected to course material. |
9
Discussion of risk and resilience is present but could be clearer or better connected to course material. |
6
Discussion is vague or does not clearly explain risk/resilience factors, or missing key points |
Prompts 3 through 6- Predicting or Explaining w Research
10% each |
Prediction or Explanation | 8.5
Clear, thorough, and accurate prediction or explanation |
6
Predictions could be clearer, more thorough or better connected to course material |
4
Predictions not well connected to the research; minimal explanation |
Research Support | 4
Clearly and accurately supports prediction or explanation with research |
2
Some reference to research but support for claims could be clearer, more compelling or relevant |
0
Does not refer to appropriate research or empirical support. |
|
Prompt 7-Interpret/ Apply Study
10% |
12.5
Reasonable and thorough interpretation of study findings; thoughtful, well-justified application to case |
9
Reasonable interpretation but not all points are addressed, or minor inaccuracies/limitations in application to case |
6 or fewer
Interpretation and/or application of study are not well justified or are minimal. |
60657075808590951003 Months 24 months 36 months LBW- Control LBW- Intervention Typical- Control Typical- Intervention Effect of Intervention Program on DQ/IQ in Typical and LBW Babies Infant DQ or IQ
Effect of Intervention Program on DQ/IQ in Typical and LBW Babies
Infant DQ or IQ