Ability to select appropriate research / evidence / data

Marking Criteria and Feedback Form – Level 7 Written Coursework

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on

Just from $13/Page

Order Essay

Student Name or SRN Number (for anonymous marking):…CO…………………………… Module Title: Enhancing Health and Social Care through Interprfessional Working

Module Code:

Learning Outcomes – Knowledge and understanding:

1. Analyse and judge the appropriateness of inter-professional and collaborative working strategies that may be used to overcome boundaries between professions recognising alternative approaches.

2. Critically evaluate complex issues of service delivery in relation to their professional role.

3. Critically evaluate and creatively apply the extent to which their specialist knowledge contributes to patient/service-user experience.

Learning Outcomes – Skills and attributes:

4. Demonstrate the skills of autonomy and be able to interact effectively in inter-professional discussion.

Markers: Select criteria appropriate to the assignment and omit irrelevant ones. Use yellow highlight to indicate which feedback statements are relevant to this student.

Strengths

You showed a clear understanding of the importance of the topic I your introduction

You gave a good account of the nature of complacency in healthcare with some of its implcations and integrated some case examples

You gave a good explanation of the importance of assertiveness and used relevant case histories and literature to support your work

Areas for development

Throughout your work there were areas where you could have shown a greater depth of analysis and criticality and explored more of the implications of human factors

Your conclusion explained general actions for healthcare but you needed to explore this in the context of your own future practice

Your references were not presented correctly refer to the guidance

Any additional comments

Unfortunately your work was submitted late and therefore receives a 0

Academic Skills Advice

Please remember there are lots of useful resources to support your academic skills development on the site.

Learning outcomes achieved: Yes / No

Within word count limit: Yes / No

Provisional weighted/overall mark (before application of penalties):

First Submission: For each day for up to five days after the published deadline, coursework submitted late will have the numeric grade reduced by 10 grade points until the numeric grade reaches the pass grade, i.e. 40 (UG) or 50 (PG); this includes deferred coursework.

Second Submission (referral): The resubmitted element, if successful, will be capped at a bare pass, i.e. 40 (UG) or 50 (PG). The full mark of any previously passed elements will be retained. Coursework submitted late, i.e. at any point after the published deadline date and time, will be awarded a zero.

Re-enrolment: Grades awarded for modules on re-enrolment will not be capped for classification purposes.

Provisional Marks: All marks are provisional until ratified by the relevant Board of Examiners.

Marking and Moderation: All marking and moderation procedures are governed and guided by the current University’s

Reflection on Learning

Please consider the learning you have achieved while working on this assignment and how you have applied the feedback you have been given. For example:

What previous feedback have you been given and how have you used it to inform and improve this assessment?
What have you learned in this assessment that you intend to apply to your practice and how will you demonstrate this?

Keep your feedback and reflection in a file/portfolio as evidence of your professional development.

Indicative classification	Distinction	Distinction	Distinction	Commendation	Pass	N/A	N/A	N/A
Descriptor	Outstanding 90-100	Excellent 80–89	Very Good 70-79	Good 60-69	Clear Pass 50-59	Marginal Fail 40-49	Clear Fail 20-39	Little or nothing of merit 0-19
Structure and clarity 5%	Demonstrates outstanding structure with, logical progression of argument/ discussion.	Demonstrates excellent structure with, logical progression of argument/ discussion.	Demonstrates very good structure with, logical progression of argument/ discussion	Demonstrates good structure with, mostly logical progression of argument/ discussion.	Demonstrates structure with, some progression of argument/ discussion.	Demonstrates limited structure and argument/ discussion is not sufficiently progressed.	Inconsistent or illogical structure with very limited progression.	There is little or nothing of merit to award marks for.
Writing clarity, fluency and accuracy 5%	Highly articulate and fluent writing style with no grammar, punctuation or spelling errors. Of publishable quality.	Highly articulate and fluent writing style with very few (minor) grammar, punctuation or spelling errors. Of publishable quality.	Articulate and fluent writing style. A few minor grammar, punctuation and/or spelling errors.	Ideas are mostly expressed clearly. Grammar, punctuation and/or spelling errors impair meaning in a few places.	Ideas generally expressed clearly. Grammar, punctuation and/or spelling errors impair meaning in some places.	Ideas not always clear. Various grammar, punctuation and/or spelling errors make it unclear / difficult to understand in places.	Ideas poorly expressed. Numerous inaccuracies in grammar, punctuation and spelling make it unclear / difficult to understand in many places.	There is little or nothing of merit.
Demonstration of knowledge, understanding and application 30%	Outstanding and in-depth understanding of specialised/applied knowledge. All relevant points and issues covered plus some original aspects which add to the overall quality of the work.	Excellent understanding of specialised/applied knowledge demonstrated. All relevant points and issues covered comprehensively.	Very good level of understanding of specialised/applied knowledge demonstrated. Covers most relevant points and issues.	Good understanding of specialised/applied knowledge demonstrated. A few minor errors and/or omissions noted.	A satisfactory level of knowledge and understanding demonstrated but several minor errors and/or omissions noted.	Insufficient knowledge and understanding demonstrated. Some content irrelevant, inaccurate or absent.	Inadequate knowledge and understanding demonstrated. Key content inaccurate or absent.	Little or nothing of merit.
Ability to select appropriate research / evidence / data 10%	Is consistently perceptive and insightful when appraising the appropriateness and quality of the research / evidence and/or data used.	Consistently and accurately appraises the appropriateness and quality of the research / evidence and/or data used.	Shows consistently sound judgement when appraising the appropriateness and quality of the research / evidence and/or data used.	Shows sound judgement when appraising the appropriateness and quality of the research / evidence and/or data used most of the time.	Demonstrates satisfactory ability to judge the appropriateness and quality of the research / evidence and/or data used but is not consistent throughout.	Research / evidence and/or data is not drawn from a sufficiently wide or appropriate range of sources. Quality is sometimes poor.	Insufficient, poor quality and/or irrelevant research / evidence and/or data used.	Little or nothing of merit.
Ability to think critically and analytically 20% Critical analysis	Highly accomplished piece of work with significant evidence of ability to think critically and analytically.	Accomplished work with substantial evidence of ability to think critically and analytically.	Very good evidence of ability to consistently apply critical and analytical approaches to work.	Critical and analytical thinking evident throughout majority of the work. A few points could be expanded on more thoroughly.	Clear evidence of ability to think critically and analytically although some missed opportunities to develop and/or expand on ideas more thoroughly.	Some critical and/or analytical thinking evident but inconsistent and under-developed in many places.	Limited or no evidence of critical thinking. Mainly descriptive.	Little or nothing of merit.
Ability to think evaluatively. 10% Evaluation	Highly accomplished piece of work with significant evidence of ability to apply evaluative thinking skills.	Accomplished work with substantial evidence of ability to apply evaluative thinking skills.	Very good evidence of ability to consistently apply evaluative thinking skills to work.	Evaluative approaches to thinking evident throughout majority of the work.	Clear evidence of ability to apply evaluative thinking skills.	Some evaluative approaches to thinking evident but inconsistent and under-developed in many places.	Limited or no evidence of evaluative thinking. Mainly descriptive.	Little or nothing of merit.
Ability to integrate and synthesise information 10% Synthesis	Consistently demonstrates a high level of skill in integrating and synthesising information from multiple sources to bring about new ideas. New ideas are connected across paragraphs and/or sections.	Consistently demonstrates a high level of skill in integrating and synthesising information from multiple sources to bring about new ideas. Often connects new ideas across paragraphs and/or sections.	Consistently demonstrates ability to integrate and synthesise information from multiple sources to bring about new ideas.	Ability to integrate and synthesise information from multiple sources to bring about new ideas is evident in many places.	Ability to integrate and synthesise information from multiple sources to bring about new ideas is evident in several places.	Limited evidence of ability to integrate or synthesise information from multiple sources.	No evidence of integration or synthesis.	Little or nothing of merit.
Ability to reflect 5% Reflection	Extremely accomplished and insightful critical reflection showing highly developed understanding of own learning journey.	Excellent critical reflection showing very well-developed insight and understanding of own learning journey.	Very good critical reflection showing well-developed and thoughtful understanding of own learning journey.	Good critical reflection showing a considered and thoughtful understanding of own learning journey.	Clearly thought through critical reflection showing a satisfactory understanding of own learning journey.	Reflection shows some insight but lacks criticality and needs further development to show sufficient understanding of own learning journey.	Limited evidence of reflective thinking skills and of understanding own learning journey.	Little or nothing of merit.
Use of referencing system 5% Referencing	Recommended referencing system used with no inaccuracies or inconsistencies of presentation noted.	Recommended referencing system used with very few (minor) inaccuracies and/or inconsistencies.	Recommended referencing system used with few inaccuracies and/or inconsistencies.	Recommended referencing system used with several inaccuracies and/or inconsistencies.	Recommended referencing system used with some inaccuracies and/or inconsistencies.	Recommended referencing system used but multiple inaccuracies and/or inconsistencies noted.	Little or no attempt to use recommended referencing system. Numerous errors noted.	No recognised reference system attempted.

Ability to select appropriate research / evidence / data

How to place an order?

Feel secure when using our service