6040BMS Clinical Haematology and Transfusion Science CW1 Assignment Brief | CU

Analysis and interpretation of data 

40%

Evidence (critical evaluation using appropriate sources) 

45%

Presentation, structure, and scientific style 

10%

Referencing 

5%

Outstanding 

80-100

An outstanding interpretation of the case study. Interpretation and analysis are correct and clearly aligned to the case study and data provided. Background is focused on the condition including inherited and acquired causes. Background is very clearly linked to diagnosis, monitoring, and therapy for the condition which are well supported with relevant literature.

Excellent critical evaluation of the information based on a wide range of relevant, reliable, and current (where applicable) sources. Evidence is well integrated into the report with evaluation evidencing a clear understanding and application of the sources and the relevance to the content being presented.

Excellent organisation and structure throughout Demonstrates a coherent flow that allows the reader to travel to a sensible conclusion. Points are considered in a logical order and well-structured into sections/paragraphs. Appropriate scientific language and nomenclature used throughout, no errors in spelling or grammar.

All statements have been supported by the literature where required and account is fully in own words Citations are all correctly formatted to APA. Reference list is complete and in correct format

Excellent 

72, 75, 78

An excellent interpretation of the case study. Interpretation is correct with clear links to the case study and data provided. The background to the disease is largely relevant and links well to the diagnosis and therapy. Content is well supported and covers the required aspects such as causes. Content may lack focus, but overall understanding and application is clearly communicated.

Information is taken from a wide range of relevant and reliable sources to present a clear evaluation of literature which has considered the evidence provided. Evidence and evaluation may not be as focused as it could be but still demonstrates a clear understanding and in-depth application of the evidence to the content of the report.

Well organised in sections/paragraphs and overall presented in a logical manner Ideas are linked providing cohesion and transition between different points and allowing the reader to travel to a sensible conclusion. Very few spelling and/or grammatical errors. Appropriate scientific language used throughout.

Most references have been supported by citations as required and fully in own words Reference list is largely correct and both list and citations formatted to APA style. There may be some minor errors/omissions in the format and/or listing.

Very Good 

62,65, 68

A good attempt to interpret the case study, largely correct and focused but may have some minor errors or omissions. Background and links to diagnosis and therapy are accurate but may lack some application and support of evidence.

Information is taken from numerous sources which are largely reliable and relevant. Content has been evaluated but there may be some minor inaccuracies in interpretation or omission of some evaluative aspects. Evidence has been applied well to the content to link aspects together to produce a well formulated account. 

Generally, a clear and organised text with appropriate paragraph structure and well written text. A few errors of spelling and/or grammar may be present, but this still provides the reader with an easily readable text. Structure could have been improved; scientific language/style could have been improved in parts.

The need for evidence is clearly recognised, and most claims are supported by citations, but this may have been missed on some occasions. Citations and reference list are correctly formatted to APA but some minor errors.

Good 

52, 55, 58

A reasonable attempt has been made to interpret the case study and relate the haematological findings to the disease, however it lacks detail and accuracy in a number of areas. Links have been made between the case study/data and some demonstrable application between the background, diagnosis, and therapy however there is a considerable level of description and support is lacking/not relevant.

Information is taken from several sources, but this could have been improved either through consideration of the source used (not reliable /relevant) or the number of sources could be limited which has then limited the level of evaluation of the content. Argument/evaluation is supported but limited in a number of areas and therefore a well-rounded argument is not presented. There may also be several errors/inconsistencies which mean the evaluation is not as comprehensive as it could be. Overall, a lack of coherent analysis or synthesis.

Reasonably organised presentation with some links from one section to another. Cohesion and transition are acceptable but could be improved and in areas this impedes the reading/communication of the content. Multiple errors in grammar and spelling might be present, scientific language/nomenclature not always used

There are several lost opportunities to validate statements and/or poor attempt to fully paraphrase Errors in the citations/reference list or not fully in APA style.

Adequate 

42, 45, 48

There is some attempt to interpret the date and relate the haematological findings to the disease, however little relevant information is presented and/or lacks depth and accuracy. Content is largely descriptive with little to link the case study and data with the content in the report.

Information is taken from sources with little interpretation/evaluation and a lack of critical analysis resulting in a disjointed argument which is inconsistent and lacks cohesion. Some evaluations are present but very limited, largely descriptive and may also have frequent errors/omissions.

Difficult to follow as ideas appear sporadically rather than in a structured and organised manner. Content does not flow well between different points and prevents a clear and logical conclusion from being drawn. There may be frequent errors in grammar and spelling which may impede the reading of the content. Numerous examples where scientific style/format has not been used. 

Account is not referenced as expected with many statements not supported. Incorrect style used throughout or multiple errors and inconsistencies. Reference list not correct and does not match citations included.

Fail

30, 35

Limited information provided does not link to the case study/data. Content is mostly inaccurate/relevant or insufficient.

Limited critical evaluation or interpretation of sources(s). The work is mostly descriptive and/or inaccurate. Fails to meet the learning outcome as there is limited evidence of evaluation or critical analysis

Argument or discussion 

becomes difficult to follow due to lack of structure/spelling/grammar 

Spelling and grammar errors present; no real structure or 

organisation of material.

Limited attempt to support statements with evidence, citations largely missing. Reference list incomplete or missing

Fail 

0,10,20

Information provided does not link to the case study/data. Content is largely inaccurate/relevant or insufficient.

No critical evaluation or interpretation of sources(s). Work is purely descriptive and/or inaccurate. Fails to meet the learning outcome as there is no evidence of evaluation or critical analysis

Argument or discussion 

becomes difficult to follow due to lack of structure/spelling/grammar 

Spelling and grammar errors present; no real structure or 

organisation of material.

Little attempt to support statements with evidence, citations largely missing. Reference list incomplete or missing