PBod feedback

1. Faculty of Health and Wellbeing - Department of Biosciences &
Chemistry
ASSESSED WORK FEEDBACK FORM
Student Name: Alex Maynard
Student ID number:
Module Title: Pathological Basis of Disease
Title of coursework Coursework
Marker: Laura Cole
MARK*:
74
Strengths:
Lots of effort clearly gone into this diagram well thought out!
Encompasses the depth required for a level 5 piece of course work.
Information included in the table is very informative, selective, and fitting with the disease research area
Suggestions for Improvement:
See comments within
figure legend needs a citation of Pekny et al; 2018 paper
to take your marks up to the next level you can edit the information in some of the boxes of the table to make
room for linking statements where you comment on how the research field and/or findings have moved on,
stayed the same, in agreement with the other references or pose more contrasting views.
Student comments for Feed-forward (how will you use this feedback to improve your future work?):
I have struggled with getting the reference/citation format correct which has affected my grades. However now with this
feedback, only one small error with the figure legend citation I now know fully how to cite and reference properly so will
not enquire mark % loss due to referencing.

2. SIGNATURE
DATE: 05/03/2021
*Unratified mark.

3. Indicator First Upper Second Lower Second Third
Fail
Zero
Figure
(weighting x4)
A clearly articulated figure which
portrays the information
requested from the paper in a
clear and concise manner. Text
and formatting utilized to
enhance the understanding of
the figure e.g. inclusion of
appropriate images. Includes
clear directionality and easy to
follow.
A clearly articulated figure
which portrays the information
requested from the paper in a
clear manner. Text and
formatting utilized to enhance
the understanding of the figure
e.g. inclusion of appropriate
images. Includes clear
directionality and easy to
follow.
A clear figure which portrays
the information requested
from the paper. Text and
formatting utilized to
enhance the understanding
of the figure e.g. inclusion of
appropriate images. Easy to
follow.
A figure which portrays the
information requested from
the paper provided. However
formatting is not utilized to
enhance the understanding
of the figure. May be difficult
to follow but does contain
the detail.
Figure provided but contains
limited detail from the
provided paper or
instructions. Very difficult to
follow or poorly formatted
figure.
Little attempt to summarize the
information provided in the paper or fails
to address the topic provided.
Figure Legend
(weighting x2)
Figure legend allows clear
interpretation of the figure,
enables the reader to
understand the figure without
reference to the text, yet is
concise. All Abbreviations
explained
Figure legend allows clear
interpretation of the figure,
enables the reader to
understand the figure without
reference to the text, may not
be as concise as could be. All
Abbreviations explained
Figure legend mostly allows
interpretation of the figure,
enables the reader to
understand the figure
without reference to the text,
may not be as concise as
could be. All Abbreviations
explained
Figure legend attempts to
describe the figure without
need to refer to the text, may
not be as concise as could
be. All Abbreviations
explained
Figure legend does little to
describe the figure,
incomplete abbreviations list
provided. Or irrelevant
information included.
Figure legend do not describe the figure
and fails to explain abbreviations.
Table of
literature
(weighting x3)
Clear succinct sentences
provided which are relevant to
the figure and all from the
sources requested in
instructions. A range of aspects
covered which are needed to
understand topic of figure and
paper assigned.
Clear sentences provided
which are relevant to the figure
and all from the sources
requested in instructions A
range of aspects covered
which are needed to
understand topic of figure.
Clear sentences provided
which are relevant to the
figure and all from the
sources requested in
instructions.
Clear sentences provided
which are relevant to the
figure includes some of the
correct sources.
Choice of content weakly
justified, only descriptive use
of knowledge. Little
indication of relevance of
theory and concepts,
confused application of the
knowledge to topic limited
sources of information
Inaccurate and irrelevant content,
knowledge or theory and concepts.
Confused application knowledge to
problem. Very limited sources of
information or inappropriate.
Formatting and
Referencing
(weighting x 1)
Recent reviews and landmark
primary papers cited.
Appropriate academic and
professional standard, with
creativity in the use of language.
Well-presented.
Refs correct and thorough.
Bibliography complete, and
properly laid out. Very minor
errors.
Appropriate academic and
professional standard, with
well presented.
References accurate.
Bibliography complete and
properly laid out. Minor
errors. Generally of an
appropriate academic and
professional standard..
May use older reviews and
may not use landmark
papers. Generally correct
but needs some attention.
English is clear and
appropriate.
Citation and referencing is
accurate and related to
references in the text.
Little or no proper
referencing. Bibliography
inadequate. English may be
confused and inappropriate.
Citation and referencing is
inaccurate and unrelated to
references in the text.
English is generally confused and
inappropriate.
Citation and referencing is inaccurate
and unrelated to references in the text.
Overall Grade Based
Assessment Mark
74

4. Class CG% General Characteristics Level 5
FIRST
(Excellent}
96 Exceptional breadth and depth of knowledge and understanding of the area of study; evidence of extensive and appropriate selection and critical
evaluation/synthesis/analysis and of reading/research beyond the prescribed range, in both breadth and depth, to advance work/direct arguments;
exceptional demonstration of relevant skills; excellent communication; performance deemed to be beyond expectation.
89
81 Outstanding/excellent knowledge and understanding of the area of study as the student is typically able to go beyond what has been taught
(particularly for a mid/high 1st
); evidence of extensive and appropriate selection and critical evaluation/synthesis/ analysis of reading/research
beyond the prescribed range, to advance work/direct arguments; excellent demonstration of relevant skills; excellent communication;
performance deemed beyond expectation of the level.
74
UPPER SECOND
(Very good)
68 Very good knowledge and understanding of the area of study as the student is typically able to relate facts/concepts together with some ability
to apply to known/taught contexts; evidence of appropriate selection and evaluation of reading/research, some beyond the prescribed range,
may rely on set sources to advance work/direct arguments; demonstrates autonomy in approach to learning; very good demonstration of
relevant skills; strong communication skills.
65
62
LOWER SECOND
(Good)
58 Good knowledge and understanding of the area of study balanced towards the descriptive rather than analytical; evidence of appropriate selection
and evaluation of reading/research but generally reliant on set sources to advance work/direct arguments; good demonstration of relevant skills,
though may be limited in range; communication shows clarity but structure may not always be coherent.
55
52
THIRD
(Sufficient)
48
Knowledge and understanding is sufficient to deal with terminology, basic facts and concepts but fails to make meaningful synthesis; some ability to
select and evaluate reading/research however work may be more generally descriptive; strong reliance on available support set sources to advance
work; arguments may be weak or poorly constructed; adequate demonstration of relevant skills over a limited range; communication/presentation is
generally competent but with some weaknesses.
45
42
FAIL
(Insufficient)
35
Insufficient knowledge and understanding of the area of study; some ability to select and evaluate reading/research however work is more generally
descriptive; fails to address some aspects of the brief; a limited use of sources to advance work; arguments may be weak/poor or weakly/poorly
constructed; demonstration of relevant skills over a reduced range; communication shows limited clarity, poor presentation, structure may not be
coherent.
25
15
Highly insufficient knowledge or understanding of the area of study; understanding is typically at the word level with facts being reproduced in a
disjointed or decontextualised manner; fails to address the outcomes addressed by the brief; typically ignores important sources in development of
work and data/evidence inappropriately used; weak technical and practical competence hampers ability to demonstrate/communicate achievement of
outcomes.
5
Zero 0 Work of no merit OR absent, work not submitted, penalty in some misconduct cases.