Faculty of Health and Wellbeing - Department of Biosciences &
Chemistry
ASSESSED WORK FEEDBACK FORM
Student Name: Ben Walker
Student ID number:
Module Title: Pathological Basis of Disease
Title of coursework Coursework
Marker: Laura Cole
MARK*:
65
Strengths:
Lots of effort clearly gone into this diagram.
Not that easy to follow, but figure encompasses the depth required for a level 5 piece of course work.
Information included in the table is very informative, and fitting with the disease research area to complement
the original paper (some areas need a bit more detail)
Suggestions for Improvement:
See comments within
List of abbreviations would be helpful - figure legend has lots of good relevant information just needs to be
more intuitive to the reader (could be more punchy/ concise to keep the reader engaged)
Student comments for Feed-forward (how will you use this feedback to improve your future work?):
I needed to make sure that my diagram is more understandable by using different colour or shape to help
people know the differences.
I need to make sure to include abbreviations so that people can understand what they are.
DATE: 23/02/2021

SIGNATURE
*Unratified mark.

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
65

Class CG% General Characteristics Level 5
FIRST
(Excellent}
96 Exceptional breadthanddepthofknowledge andunderstanding oftheareaof study;evidence of extensiveandappropriate selectionand critical
evaluation/synthesis/analysis and of reading/research beyond the prescribed range, in both breadth and depth, to advance work/direct
arguments; exceptional demonstration ofrelevant skills; excellent communication;performance deemed to bebeyond expectation.
89
81 Outstanding/excellent knowledge andunderstanding ofthearea of study asthestudentistypicallyabletogobeyondwhathasbeen taught
(particularly for a mid/high 1st
); evidence of extensive and appropriate selection and critical evaluation/synthesis/ analysis of reading/research
beyond theprescribed 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 Verygoodknowledgeandunderstandingoftheareaofstudyasthestudentistypicallyabletorelatefacts/conceptstogetherwith some abilityto
applytoknown/taught contexts; evidence of appropriate selection andevaluation ofreading/research,some beyond theprescribed range,may
relyonsetsourcesto advance work/direct arguments; demonstrates autonomy inapproach to learning; very good demonstration of
relevant skills; strong communication skills.
65
62
LOWER SECOND
(Good)
58
Goodknowledge andunderstanding ofthearea of study balancedtowardsthedescriptive ratherthananalytical;evidence of appropriate selectionand
evaluation of reading/researchbutgenerally reliant onset sources to advance work/direct arguments; gooddemonstration 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 reproducedina
disjointed or decontextualisedmanner;failsto addresstheoutcomes addressed bythebrief;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.