Study Guide

Objective

Students are able to implement and report on a research, development or evaluation project.

Content

According to the thesis plan

Materials

Opettajien osoittama ajankohtainen lähdemateriaali, tieteelliset artikkelit. Erillinen lista moodlessa.
Suositeltavaa kirjallisuutta:
Burns, N., & Grove, S. (2009). The practice of nursing research. Appraisal, synthesis and generation of evidence. 6th ed. Missouri: Saunders Elsevier.
Cresswell, J. (2003). Research design. Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. Second edition. Thousand Oaks. Sage Publications.
Hirsjärvi, S., & Hurme, H. (2004 tai uud.). Tutkimushaastattelu, teemahaastattelun teoria ja käytäntö. Yliopistopaino, Helsinki.
Johansson, K., Axelin, A., Stolt, M., & Ääri, R-L. (2007). Systemaattinen kirjallisuuskatsaus ja sen tekeminen. Turun yliopisto, Hoitotieteen laitoksen julkaisuja A51/2007, Turku.
Kankkunen, P, & Vehviläinen-Julkunen, K. (2009). Tutkimus hoitotieteessä. WSOYpro.
Keränen, T., & Pasternack, A. (2015). Kliinisen tutkimuksen etiikka. Kustannus Oy Duodecim, Tallinna.
Kniivilä, S. (2017). Tiede ja teksti, tehoa ja taitoa tutkielman kirjoittamiseen. Gaudeamus Oy, Tallinna.
Kostamo, P., Airaksinen, T., & Vilkka, H. (2022). Kirjoita itsesi asiantuntijaksi. Opas toiminnalliseen opinnäytetyöhön. Art House, Tallinna.
Malmivaara, A. (2022). Vaikuttavuus sosiaali- ja terveydenhuollossa. Kustannus Oy Duodecim, Tallinna.
Metsämuuronen, J. (2000). Tilastollisen kuvauksen perusteet. Methelp.
Metsämuuronen, J. (2006). Laadullisen tutkimuksen käsikirja. Methelp.
Metsämuuronen, J. (2005). Tilastollisen päättelyn perusteet. Methelp.
Mäkinen, O. (2005). Tieteellisen kirjoittamisen ABC. Kustannusosakeyhtiö Tammi, Karisto Oy, Hämeenlinna.
Polit, D.F., & Beck, C.T. (2012). Nursing research: Generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice (8th ed.) Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Puusa, A., & Juuti, P. (2020). Laadullisen tutkimuksen näkökulmat ja menetelmät. Gaudeamus Oy, Tallinna.
Stolt, M., Axelin, A., & Suhonen, R. (2016). Kirjallisuuskatsaus hoitotieteessä. Turun yliopisto, Hoitotieteen laitoksen julkaisuja. Tutkimuksia ja raportteja A73/2016, Turun yliopisto.
Toikko, T, & Rantanen, T. (2009). Tutkimuksellinen kehittämistoiminta. Näkökulmia kehittämisprosessiin, osallistamiseen ja tiedontuotantoon. Tampere University Press ja tekijät. 3. korjattu painos. Tampereen Yliopistopaino Oy – Juvenes Print, Tampere.
Vilkka, H., & Airaksinen, T. (2004a). Toiminnallinen opinnäytetyö. Kustannusosakeyhtiö Tammi. Gummerus Kirjapaino Oy, Jyväskylä.
Vilkka, H., & Airaksinen, T. (2004b). Toiminnallisen opinnäytetyön ohjaajan käsikirja. Kustannusosakeyhtiö Tammi. Tammer-Paino Oy, Tampere.
Vilkka, H. (2020). Akateemisen lukemisen ja kirjoittamisen opas. PS-kustannus, Otavan Kirjapaino Oy, Keuruu.
Vilkka, H. (2021). Näin onnistut opinnäytetyössä. Ratkaisut tutkimuksen umpikujiin. PS-kustannus. Otavan Kirjapaino Oy, Keuruu.

Teaching methods

Master Thesis, seminars
Individual and group counseling

Student workload

405 h

Evaluation scale

1-5

Assessment criteria, satisfactory (1)

The final version of the thesis will be assessed using the thesis assessment criteria of Seinäjoki UAS.

Assessment criteria, good (3)

The final version of the thesis will be assessed using the thesis assessment criteria of Seinäjoki UAS.

Assessment criteria, excellent (5)

The final version of the thesis will be assessed using the thesis assessment criteria of Seinäjoki UAS.

Assessment criteria, satisfactory (1)

The structure of the report is vague and diffuse. The layout of the report is
unfinished. Errors in language complicate decisively the comprehension of the text.
The text does not observe the principles of academic writing.
The oral presentation of the thesis is poor, the student is not able to answer questions, and visualization is lacking. The student has not attended the seminars as instructed. The agreed peer assessment has not been made.

Assessment criteria, good (3)

The report is not clear and consistent. The layout of the report is unfinished to some extent.
Errors in language complicate the comprehension of the text, and the text includes many stylistic and grammatical errors. The text observes the principles of academic writing variably and occasionally. The thesis is presented superficially and without visualization, and answering questions is uncertain. The student has attended the seminars to a variable extent. The student has prepared superficially for the agreed peer assessment and attended it passively.

Assessment criteria, excellent (5)

The structure of the report is mainly consistent and clear. The layout of the report mainly
conforms to the instructions. The language of the text is fluent but includes some stylistic and grammatical errors.The text mainly observes the principles of academic writing. The thesis is presented with visualization, and the student is able to answer questions.
The student has attended the seminars as instructed. The student has prepared for the
agreed peer assessment, and diverse questions are asked about the topic.

Assessment criteria, approved/failed

The results of the thesis are of significant use. The results of the thesis are discussed consistently and critically. The conclusions and/or discussion are based on the results and/or production and they are presented clearly and linked with the entire thesis. The structure of the report is consistent and clear.The layout of the report is finished and conforms to the instructions. The language of the text is fluent and virtually free from stylistic and grammatical errors. The text fully observes the principles of academic writing. The presentation of the thesis is fluent, visual and expert, and the student answers questions clearly. The student has attended the seminars actively and as instructed.
The agreed peer assessment is diverse, critical, and presents new points of view.

Objective

Students are able to implement and report on a research, development or evaluation project.

Content

According to the thesis plan

Evaluation scale

1-5

Assessment criteria, satisfactory (1)

The final version of the thesis will be assessed using the thesis assessment criteria of Seinäjoki UAS.

Assessment criteria, good (3)

The final version of the thesis will be assessed using the thesis assessment criteria of Seinäjoki UAS.

Assessment criteria, excellent (5)

The final version of the thesis will be assessed using the thesis assessment criteria of Seinäjoki UAS.