6041BMS Investigative Approaches to Haemato-oncology Assignment Brief | CU

Outstanding

82,85,88,90,95,100

The malignancy described accurately reflects the condition based on the initial data provided. The description of the condition is clear as well as how it develops from a cellular, molecular, and genetic perspective. All elements of the description of the condition are well linked and provided in appropriate context with an appropriate level of relevant detail. Transition between different aspects is excellent in regard to the flow of text and the structure of the content. The language used is appropriate for the audience selected with descriptions/explanations included as required. A broad range of relevant sources have been consulted and referenced appropriately according to APA throughout the resource.

A comprehensive and succinct evaluation of the diagnostic, therapeutic and monitoring aspects of the condition. Emphasis has been placed on providing a well-rounded evaluation rather than descriptions which lack context and a range of relevant sources have been used. Clear links have made between treatment and diagnostics and how the malignancy develops, and this has been explained in the appropriate context for the audience. 

Data presented relates very clearly to the content and tone of the rest of the resource with the outcome being clearly evaluated. The data is presented in a format appropriate for the audience intended. The description of the results is unambiguous and relates to the content on treatment and diagnostics.  Critical evaluation of the data presented is non-biased and is supported by information from additional sources.

Resource is visually engaging; a professional format has been used with a clear and logical structure. Consideration has been given to fonts and colours used to ensure accessibility as well as the overall layout. Clear emphasis has been The weighting of the different sections is appropriate and figures/tables are clear and labelled/presented as would be expected.

No spelling or grammatical errors, references listed as required with no errors.

Excellent

72, 75, 78

The malignancy described accurately reflects the condition based on the data provided. The cellular, molecular, and genetic aspects are well described and referenced as would be expected from suitable resources however a broader variety could have been used. There is a clear flow and structure to the content with some good examples of transition in places. The language used is appropriate and can be understood by the target audience however would have benefitted from a little more explanation/description in parts. 

The diagnostic, therapeutic and monitoring options relate well to the described malignancy and give a broad overview of what is available, but this may be slightly descriptive in parts. There is clear evaluation of the options available, and these are well supported by references however a broader range may have been used. The language and format used is appropriate and understandable but clarity and/or the language used could have been improved to make it unambiguous.

The data presented is relevant and relates well to the rest of the content that has been presented. The data presented is suitable for the given audience however there may have been ways to present this with a bit more clarity, is well described with evaluation

Resource is engaging and easy to follow, format is clear and presented in a logical manner. Language is professional and appropriate although there may be some minor parts where this could have been improved. Some very minor spelling or grammatical errors, and/or minor errors in referencing

Very good

62, 65, 68%

The malignancy reflects the condition but there may be some gaps in the description relating to the mechanisms. Language can be understood and is generally appropriate but there may be several areas where this could have been clarified. A number of sources have been used and provides broad overview to the subject area, other sources could have been utilised to make this broader and more detailed.

Good links have been made between the description of the condition and the diagnostic, therapeutic and monitoring aspects with some evaluation but areas of description which then disrupt the flow and structure of the content. Evidence of a number of sources used to support the evaluation of content but limited and/or not always appropriate. Language may not always be appropriate for the audience used.

Data is relevant but there may be elements in the figure/data and/or description that lack clarity or aren’t appropriate for the target audience, some information may also be out of context and may not fit well with the rest of the resource so parts don’t transition as well as they could.

Resource is generally engaging and is overall, very well presented. There may be some aspects such as sizing/type of fonts, colour schemes and figures used that stop the resource being as appealing as it could however the content can still be followed and interpreted.

Good

52, 55, 58%

The malignancy is accurately reflected but there may be some omissions, inaccuracies, or slight misinterpretations in areas. Descriptions are sufficient and referenced but the language used may not be appropriate for the audience selected with several inconsistencies in the styles used. There may be limited sources used to provide the information provided or they may not always be appropriate.

Some evaluation of treatment, diagnosis and monitoring but limited in areas and lending more towards description. Links have been made to the description of the condition, but this is limited or not very effective. Content can be understood but not always well presented and therefore flow/transition between points could be improved. Language can be understood but inconsistent in style in a number of areas.

Data is relevant but there is a lack of evaluation and there is more emphasis on the description. Audience may not always be able to gain the relevant information from the resource. There are links to the diagnosis, treatment, and monitoring content but this is quite limited and whilst the content is sufficient the presentation of how all of the information comes together needs improvement.

 Resource presents the required information but more could have been done to make this engaging and/or accessible. Content can be followed but is impeded in some areas due to the presentation of the resource.

Adequate /

Acceptable

42, 45, 48%

Malignancy is accurately reflected but there is irrelevant or inaccurate information throughout or, the condition relates to the clinical data presented and is a reasonable conclusion but not accurate. Content lacks flow and not in an appropriate style. Lack of referencing or sources used are not appropriate for the content being presented.

Minimal evaluation, mainly descriptive and a lack of cohesion of the content both within this area but also the resources overall. May be difficult to follow with a lack of focus and language not easily understandable by the targeted audience.

Data is included but minimal evaluation. Text is mainly description focused which may not always be relevant, it isn’t clear what the focus of the resource is. Few links between this and the other areas and a lack of cohesion between the data and other content of the poster.

Information has been presented but not clearly and lacks audience appeal. Content is not presented logically and visually the resource is difficult to follow.

Fail

0, 10, 20, 30, 35%

Malignancy presented is not related to the clinical data presented.

Style is not suitable for the intended audience, referencing not used as required and sources used are not appropriate.

No evaluation, only description. Content doesn’t relate well to the other areas and difficult to follow.

No data included or not relevant/appropriate in relation to the rest of the resource.  No evaluation of the data presented and purely descriptive, out of context with the rest of the resource and difficult to follow/understand. Not suitable for the targeted audience.

Resource is either overly complex or too basic and not visually engaging. Figures/tables may not be relevant or overly detailed and not clearly presented. Weighting is poor with over emphasis on some points and a lack on others.