Blood sci

1. Faculty of Health and Wellbeing - Department of Biosciences
ASSESSED WORK FEEDBACK FORM
Student Name: Sebastian Gonzalez
Module Title: Blood Sciences
Title of coursework Case Study Coursework (Case 2)
Marker: Paula Simpkin
Overall Mark : 55%
Strengths of this piece of work:
Correct mechanism of anaemia and diagnosis identified.
Laboratory and clinical presentation are thoroughly considered (particularly clinical presentation).
Evidence of wider reading and research.
Suggestions for Improvement:
You give a detailed account of the specific mechanism of cold AIHA in Q1 (which is good) but it would have been
useful here for you to think a little more broadly about other potential mechanisms of anaemia that could be at play and
to explain your reasons for ruling them out in this case.
You use the clinical details effectively in Q2 but suggest some causes that are perhaps unlikely in this case based on
the clinical details and laboratory findings.
Key laboratory findings are noted but not always discussed in detail – a bit more explanation required in places.
Some treatment options are overlooked. Limited explanation here.
In Q1 there are large chunks of text taken directly from your sources – you must avoid this and check your Turnitin
carefully.
Student comments for Feed-forward (how will you use this feedback to improve your future work?):
SIGNATURE Paula Simpkin DATE: 20.12.22
*Unratified mark.

2. Blood Sciences : Haematology Case Study 2 Marking Grid 2022-23 (PS)
HIGH FIRST FIRST UPPER
SECOND
SECOND THIRD FAIL POOR FAIL
Question 1
30%
Mechanism of anaemia
identified, explained, reasoned
and described in detail.
Evidence of extensive research.
Exceptional knowledge and
understanding of mechanism
and the likely relevance to this
case.
Evidence of research and wider
reading.
Excellent, thorough, well
reasoned explanation
and understanding of
the mechanism of
anaemia identified and
described in detail and
in relevance to this
case.
Evidence of research
and wider reading.
A very good, well
structured
description of the
mechanism of
anaemia is identified
and explained Likely
cause identified.
Evidence of research
and wider reading.
A good description of
the mechanism and
most likely cause of
anaemia in this case
study.
Limited detail.
Some engagement
with wider reading.
Some basic understanding
of the mechanism and
likely cause of anaemia in
this case but lacking in
detail.
Limited engagement with
literature -may be mainly
text book sources.
Very basic answer.
Shows poor
understanding.
May be incorrect.
Little or no attempt
to address the
question. Brief or
wholly irrelevant
answer.
Question 2
50%
Exceptional and thorough
consideration of the clinical
details and laboratory results
provided. Excellent knowledge
and understanding of laboratory
data and how this relates to the
pathophysiology of this
condition. All relevant
information used effectively.
Evidence of extensive research
into a range of possible
explanations and discussion
regarding likely causes of
anaemia in this specific case.
Excellent and thorough
analysis of the case.
Clinical details and
laboratory results are
interpreted and used
effectively.
Very good
understanding of the
results and implications
in terms of the
pathophysiology of this
case.
Evidence of research
and wider reading.
A very good, well
structured analysis of
the case. The clinical
details and
laboratory results are
explained and used
effectively within the
context of this case.
Evidence of further
reading.
Satisfactory analysis
of the clinical and
laboratory data. The
information provided
is used effectively
but some aspects
may be missed. The
answer may be
lacking in depth. May
be minor errors.
Some evidence of
wider reading
Laboratory test results and
clinical details considered
but significance not clearly
explained or understood.
Limited understanding
demonstrated of the data
and it’s relevance within the
context of this case.
May be some errors.
Some analysis of the
clinical details and
laboratory findings but
with major omissions or
errors.
Shows poor
understanding of the
relevance of information
given.
Very basic answer.
Little or no attempt
to address the
question. Brief or
wholly irrelevant
answer.
Question 3
20%
Exceptional and thorough
evaluation of treatment options.
All treatment options discussed
and evaluated in detail and in
context of this case.
Advantages and limitations
discussed.
Evidence of extensive research.
Excellent and extensive
review of appropriate
treatment options.
Treatments evaluated
and considered in detail
and in context of this
particular case.
Evidence of wider
reading and research.
A very good review
of treatment options.
Main treatments
described and
evaluated.
Evidence of wider
reading.
Satisfactory range of
treatment options
described.
May not be
described in context
of this particular
case.
Some evidence of
wider reading.
Limited treatment options
described. Mainly
descriptive.
Very basic answer.
Limited treatment
options described.
May be inappropriate.
Little or no attempt
to address the
question. Brief or
wholly irrelevant
answer.
See next page for level 6 generic grade descriptor.

3. Level 6 - Generic grade descriptor:relationshipof degree classificationtopercentagemark ranges and categorical grades (CG)
Class Mark range CG% General Characteristics
FIRST
(Excellent)
93 - 100 96 Exceptionalbreadthand depthof knowledge andunderstandingof the areaof study;evidence of extensive andappropriate
selectionand critical evaluation/synthesis/analysisandof reading/researchbeyondthe prescribedrange,inbothbreadthand
depth,toadvance work/directarguments;exceptionaldemonstrationof relevantskills;excellentcommunication;performance
deemedtobe beyond
expectation. Workmay achieve or be close to publishable or commercial standard.
85 - 92 89
78 - 84 81
Excellentknowledge andunderstandingof the areaof study as the student is typicallyable to go beyondwhat has beentaught
(particularly for a mid/high 1st
); evidence of extensive andappropriate selectionandcritical evaluation/ synthesis/analysisof
reading/research beyondthe prescribedrange,to advance work/directarguments;excellentdemonstrationof relevantskills;
excellentcommunication;performance deemedbeyondexpectationof the level.
70 - 77 74
UPPER
SECOND
(Verygood)
67 - 69 68 Verygoodknowledge andunderstandingof the areaof studyas the student istypicallyable to relate facts/concepts together
with some abilityto apply to known/taught contexts; evidence of appropriate selectionandcritical evaluationof
reading/research,some beyondthe prescribedrange,mayrelyonset sourcestoadvance work/directarguments;demonstrates
autonomyin approachto learning; verygood
demonstrationof relevantskills; strongcommunication skills.
64 -66 65
60 - 63 62
LOWER
SECOND
(Good)
57 - 59 58 Goodknowledge andunderstandingof the areaof study balanced towards the descriptive ratherthan critical or analytical;
evidence of appropriate selectionandevaluationof reading/research,some maybe beyondthe prescribedrange,butgenerally
reliant on setsourcesto advance work/directarguments;gooddemonstrationof relevantskills,thoughmay be limited in range;
communicationshowsclarity but
structure may notalways be coherent.
54 - 56 55
50 - 53 52
THIRD
(Sufficient)
47 - 49 48 Knowledge and understandingissufficientto deal with terminology,basicfacts and concepts but fails to make meaningful
synthesis;some ability to selectand evaluate reading/researchhoweverworkmaybe more generallydescriptive;generalreliance
on setsourcesto advance work;argumentsmaybe weakor poorlyconstructed;adequate demonstrationof relevantskillsovera
limited range;
communication/presentationisgenerallycompetentbutwithsome weaknesses.
44 - 46 45
40 - 43 42
FAIL
(Insufficient)
30 - 39 35
Insufficientknowledge andunderstandingof the areaof study;some ability to selectand evaluate reading/researchhoweverworkis
more
generallydescriptive;fails to addresssome aspectsof the brief;usessetsourcesto advance work;argumentsmaybe weak/pooror
weakly/poorlyconstructed;demonstrationof relevantskillsovera reducedrange;communicationshowslimitedclarity, poor
presentation,structure maynotbe coherent.
20 - 29 25
10 - 19 15 Highly insufficientor no evidence of knowledge orunderstandingof the subjector taught concepts;facts reproducedina