School of Life Sciences Assessment Brief Academic Year 2022-23
| Sec$on 1: Key informa$on | |
| Module Code | 6040BMS |
| Module Name | Clinical Haematology & Transfusion Science |
| Semester | 2 |
| Status | Normal |
| Module Leader | Dr Neil Young ([email protected]) |
| Assessment Title | CW – PresentaNon |
| Core /Applied Core | Applied Core |
| Credit weighNng | 10 credits |
| Group/Individual assessment |
Individual |
| Task outline | Digital presentaNon of a case study selected from a list of cases referring to transfusion related problems |
| Submission deadline/ aWendance date |
The submission deadline date for the presentaNon is Thursday 13th April 2023 by 18:00hrs (BST). A 24-hour grace period applies to allow for technical issues – submissions will be accepted up to 18:00hrs (BST) on Friday 14th April 2023. |
| Submission/aWendance instrucNons |
The presentaNon must be submiWed in powerpoint format with the narraNon included within this. Please do not convert your submission to .pdf as we will be unable to listen to the narraNon in this format. If you experience any technical problems when trying to submit your work, please consult Aula help via the quesNon mark link. If these problems are experienced at the Nme of the submission deadline and cannot be quickly resolved, please capture screenshots as evidence and email these and your completed assessment to the module leaders asap. |
| Word or Nme limit | The word limit for this assessment is 750 words, you should state your word count at the end of your work. If you exceed the word limit by more than 10% i.e. if you exceed 825 words, then you will be penalised by deducNon of 10% of your final mark. Work that is more than 30% above the allocated word limit (i.e. 975 words or more) will only be read up to the allocated limit. The narraNon of the slide (s) should not exceed 5 minutes, if it exceeds 5 minutes 30 seconds you will be penalized by a deducNon of 10% of your final mark. If you exceed 6 minutes and thirty seconds then the narraNon will be stopped at the allocated Nme limit. |
| Special instrucNons | By aWending and submibng this assessment you are declaring yourself fit to do so. If you are not fit to submit at this Nme you may apply for deferral to the next assessment period (see Extension and Deferral request instrucNons). Work that is submiWed late, without an extension or deferral having been granted, will receive a mark of ZERO (students will normally be eligible for a resit aWempt). Work that is not submiWed or tests/exams etc not aWended, without an extension or deferral having been granted, will be recorded as Absent (ABS). In these cases it is at the discreNon of the Progression and Awards Board as to whether you will be permiWed a resit aWempt |
| By submibng this assessment, you agree to the following statement: I confirm that this CW submission represents my own work, and I have not received any unauthorised assistance. I understand the rules around plagiarism, collusion and contract chea$ng and that it is my responsibility to act with honesty and integrity in the assessment process. I understand that there will be no tolerance towards academic dishonesty, and that chea$ng can and will lead to serious consequences. |
|
| Sec$on 2- Detail of the Assessment task |
You are required to prepare and present a 5-minute digital presentaNon on your chosen topic. This should be wriWen in the style of an abstract
you would submit to an academic conference. Your narraNon should then support and supplement the content of the wriWen abstract.
For the assessment you will be presented with clinical symptoms and paNent data based on which you will be required to reach a conclusive
diagnosis and suggest an effecNve treatment and management plan. To lead to the correct diagnosis and present the content required, you will
need to consider a number of quesNons which will support you in the diagnosis. The abstract headings and quesNons to consider as part of this
are included below: (note – not all of the quesNons may be relevant for your case study)
Title / Structured Headings / Overall Presenta$on
Is the Ntle specific, adequate and concise? Does it accurately describe the clinical study, symptoms or pathology?
Introduc$on
Is the context made clear? Are the key clinical findings clearly presented? Are reasons for iniNal diagnosis clearly stated and supported with
evidence from literature?
Indicators
Are the key pathophysiological findings clearly described? Has all scienNfic terminology been clearly explained, with examples from literature?
Have all laboratory data been compared with standard values? Are the sources of informaNon and data clearly specified or explained?
Tests
Have all the tests menNoned in the case study, been clearly described in the presentaNon? Have these tests been evaluated with respect to
validity and reliability? Have limitaNons of the tests been adequately considered? Are the methods, analyNcal techniques and sojware tools
specified?
Final diagnosis
Are the reasons for the final diagnosis concise and clear? Do you agree with the most probable cause of the symptoms and clinical and/or
laboratory results? Is the line of reasoning behind this diagnosis supported by scienNfic evidence? Are there any confounding or contributory
factors which might complicate the diagnosis? What would be your second opinion as a biomedical pracNNoner, and why?
Treatment and control
Do you agree with the line of treatment and control? What potenNal side effects would you expect from the treatment suggested in the
presentaNon? What alternate treatment soluNons would you recommend and why?
Interest, appeal and impact
Is the process of solving the given case study interesNng? Does it have the potenNal to create impact (i.e., change clinical or public health pracNce
or policy, improve health, reduce inequaliNes in health, change the course of science)? Is it novel & exciNng?
| Detail of submission/ aNendance instruc$ons |
| A DRAFT Turni$n link is available in the Course Community Aula site to allow you to check your similarity score prior to making your final submission. You may submit mulNple Nmes to this link but do remember that obtaining a similarity report may take up to 24 hours. The FINAL Turni$n links on the 6040BMS Aula page is for submission of your work for assessment. Remember that submission make take some Nme to complete, so aim to submit several hours before the deadline. TurniNnUK will record the date and Nme of your submission and cannot be over-wriWen. If you experience any technical problems when trying to submit your work, please consult Aula help via the quesNon mark link. If these problems are experienced at the Nme of the submission deadline and cannot be quickly resolved, please capture screenshots as evidence and email these and your completed assessment to the module leader asap. |
| Word count details |
| The following are included in your word allowance: • The text of your wriWen work • Reference citaNons The following are excluded from your word allowance: • Title • Headings and subheadings • Figure/table Ntles and text associated with figures/tables which are required for the interpretaNon of the data • Reference list |
| Sec$on 3: Help and Support |
| The marking rubric and criteria is available later in this document. These will be used to help guide student, along with supporNng workshop acNviNes. Students will have the opportunity to speak with the module leader during an organised online drop-in session and weekly academic surgeries which will be announced on Aula. If you have a special requirement such as a variaNon of assessment need, please contact the disabiliNes team. |
| Link to addiNonal assessment informaNon |
6040BMS CW Presentation Abstract Marking criteria
| Sec$on 4: Learning Outcomes and Marking Rubric | |
| Mapping to module Learning outcomes |
This assessment is designed to assess Learning Outcomes 4 and 5 of the module: 4. Discuss the underlying principles of safe transfusion 5. CriNcally evaluate the likelihood of transfusion reacNons, considering potenNal hazards based on knowledge of transfusion pracNces, and the appropriate reporNng procedures |
| Mapping to course Learning Outcomes |
This assessment relates to the following Course Learning Outcomes: 1. Demonstrate an in depth understanding of the scienNfic basis of human health and disease, and be able to apply this knowledge to explain current diagnosis and management of common infecNous and non communicable diseases. 2. Demonstrate understanding of the clinical specialisms in biomedical science, namely cellular pathology, clinical biochemistry, immunology, medical microbiology, haematology and transfusion sciences, and the impact of advancing genomic knowledge on future advances in diagnosis and therapy in these areas. 4. Access,synthesise, criNcally analyse and present scienNfic informaNon in mulNple formats,suitable for diverse audiences. 6. Apply problem solving strategies in a variety of situaNons and be able to propose creaNve soluNons |
| Task type/scheduling raNonale |
This assessment task allows you to conNnue to develop your criNcal analysis of current literature and to incorporate your knowledge into an output, both of which are essenNal research skills/acNviNes. |
| Criteria | IntroducNon and explanaNon of key content and principles 40% |
Analysis and evaluaNon of outcomes/treatment 40% |
PresentaNon and referencing 10% |
NarraNon 10% |
| Outstanding 82,85,88,90,95,100 |
The condiNon/problem and underlying principles are vey clearly described and well supported to provide a comprehensive and scienNfic background for the elements required. TransiNon between different aspects is excellent in regards to the structure and flow of text. All detail included is relevant and focused and aligns well to what was presented in the case study. All content required to communicate |
Outputs have clearly been considered and compared to relevant and appropriate values. EvaluaNon is evident throughout the account providing an unbiased and jusNfied account which is well supported with appropriate literature. LimitaNons and reasoning are clear throughout and well supported. Emphasis has been placed on providing a well rounded evaluaNon rather than descripNons which lack context and a range of relevant sources have been used. |
PresentaNon is visually engaging, a professional format has been used with a clear and logical structure. ConsideraNon has been given to fonts and colours used to ensure accessibility as well as the overall layout. Clear emphasis has been The weighNng of the different secNons is appropriate and figures/tables are c l e a r a n d l a b e l l e d / presented as would be expected. No spelling or grammaNcal errors, references listed as required with no errors. A broad range of relevant sources have been consulted and referenced throughout the resource |
A p r o fe s s i o n a l a n d c o n fi d e n t d e l i v e r y, d e m o n s t r a N n g appropriate interacNon with the poster. The n a r r a N o n i s h i g h l y e n g a g i n g , w i t h t h e speaker using a very clear voice, not reading out from the slide at any point. Exemplary Nming and pacing through content is evident. |
| Excellent 78, 75, 72 |
The condiNon/problem and underlying principles are accurately described and provide a clear and scienNfic background however there could have been addiNonal consideraNons made to p r o v i d e a m o r e comprehensive background. There is a clear flow and structure to the content with some good examples of transiNon in places. Most of the detail is relevant and aligns well but may lack some focus/detail. |
Outputs have been well considered and compared to relevant a n d a p p r o p r i a t e values. EvaluaNon is evident through most required parts and is well supported with a p p r o p r i a t e literature. LimitaNons and reasoning are clear but could have b e n e fi W e d f r o m further consideraNon f r o m d i ff e r e n t perspecNves. |
PresentaNon is engaging and easy to follow, format is clear and presented in a logical manner. Language i s p r o f e s s i o n a l a n d appropriate although there may be some minor parts where this could have been improved. Some very minor spelling or grammaNcal errors, and/or minor errors in referencing |
A confident delivery, d e m o n s t r a N n g appropriate interacNon with the poster. The narraNon is engaging, with the speaker using a very clear voice, not reading out from the s l i d e a t a ny p o i n t . Excellent Nming and pacing through content is evident. |
| Very good 68, 65, 62 |
The condiNon/problem and underlying principles are accurately described but there are some minor omissions and/or errors, with addiNonal detail needed in some areas. Well linked to scienNfic literature with a good flow of informaNon but inconsistent at Nmes and a lack of focus in places. |
EvaluaNon is evident through most required parts and supported with appropriate literature but there may be some omissions. Outputs have been compared to other sources but there may be some minor oversights. LimitaNons and reasoning have been included but may be brief or imbalanced. |
PresentaNon 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 sNll be followed and interpreted. |
A confident delivery, demonstraNng some very good interacNon with the poster. The speaker used a clear voice, not relying on the slide. Very good N m i n g a n d p a c i n g t h r o u g h c o n t e n t i s evident. |
| Good 58, 55, 52 |
The condiNon/problem and underlying principles are largely accurate but there are several errors/omissions. Linked to scienNfic literature but opportuniNes to support/ link this have been missed. A lack of detail and/or focus as well as more support needed. Flow of informaNon is logical but transiNons could be beWer and greater focus on the required content. |
Outputs have been compared to appropriate values but there may be errors. EvaluaNon is evident but limited and may be more descripNve in nature, there may be a lack of support with this. LimitaNons and/or reasoning included but may lack clarity and/or be imbalanced. |
PresentaNon includes the required informaNon but more could have been d o n e t o m a k e t h i s e n g a g i n g a n d / o r accessible. Content can be followed but is impeded in some areas due to the p r e s e n t a N o n o f t h e resource. |
A s l i g h t l y h e s i t a n t d e l i v e r y b u t demonstraNng some good interacNon with the poster. The speaker used a generally clear voice, not relying on the slide too heavily. The Nming or pacing through content caused the narraNon to either slightly under or over run. |
| Acceptable 48, 45, 42 |
The condiNon/problem and underlying principles are generally accurate but there may be errors/omissions or a lack of scienNfic detail throughout, there may be a lack of focus on the required content. Some links to scienNfic content but overall lacking. Flow of informaNon could have been improved but sNll possible to interpret. |
Minimal evaluaNon, t e x t i s m a i n l y descripNon focused which may not always b e r e l e v a n t . Comparisons made but lack accuracy and/or relevance. L i m i t a N o n s a n d reasoning lacking, d e s c r i p N v e a n d imbalanced. |
InformaNon has been presented but not clearly a n d l a c k s a u d i e n c e appeal. Content is not presented logically and visually the resource is difficult to follow. |
The delivery lacked c o h e s i o n a n d d e m o n s t r a t e d l i W l e interacNon with the poster. The speaker used a hesitant or monotone voice and read out from the slide. The Nming and pacing through content caused the narraNon to either slightly under or over run. |
| Fail (does not meet learning outcomes) 35, 30, 20, 10, 0 |
Content is wholly inaccurate or large areas of detail are missing. |
Outputs have not been considered appropriately making evaluaNons incomplete or in valid. Lack of reasoning and/or limitaNons or those presented are wholly imbalanced. No evaluaNon is |
PresentaNon is either overly complex or too basic and not visually engaging. Content may not be relevant or overly detailed and not clearly presented. |
T h e d e l i v e r y w a s u n e n g a g i n g a n d d e m o n s t r a t e d n o coherence or interacNon with the poster. The speaker used a very h e s i t a n t a n d / o r monotone and/or quiet voice and read out from the slide. The Nming and pacing through content caused the narraNon to e i t h e r c o n s i d e ra b l y under or over run. |
| Section 5: Marks return and feedback | |
| Marking and moderation Information |
This assignment brief has been moderated by a member of academic staff outside the module team. All submissions will be marked anonymously. Marking will be completed by academic staff, which may include hourly paid staff. The marking will then be moderated by a member of the module team and reviewed by an academic staff member outside the team. The module feedback and marks will then be moderated by the external examiner. Your mark will be reported as a banded mark according to the School’s banded marking guidelines. |
| Feedback and return of marks All banded marks released are subject to final Progression and Awards Board decisions and are therefore provisional until after the Board sits. Provisional marks will be released on 27th April 2023 via the Aula site in the Student Success App. Feedback comments can be accessed by clicking on your submission in Turnitin and selecting the comments icon. The completed marks rubric can be accessed through the rubric icon. If you have any questions about your feedback, contact the module leader. Following the Progression and Awards Board, your marks will be confirmed, and you will be able to view your final grades through SOLAR together with information on any resit or deferral arrangements. If you require further clarification, contact your Course Director or Faculty Registry. |
| Section 6: General Information |
| Penalties for late/non submissions Work that is submitted late, without an extension or deferral having been granted, will receive a mark of ZERO (students will normally be eligible for a resit attempt). Work that is not submitted or tests/exams etc not attended, without an extension or deferral having been granted, will be recorded as Absent (ABS). In these cases it is at the discretion of the Progression and Awards Board as to whether you will be permitted a resit attempt. |
| Extension and Deferral requests If you are unable to submit coursework or attend an assessment e.g., test, examination, presentation or assessed laboratory session you may be eligible to apply for an extension or a deferral. Please refer to the Extenuating Circumstances guidance on the Student Portal. Deferral or Extension requests must be made before the due date of the assignment and must be accompanied by appropriate evidence. Please be aware that deferral of an assessment may affect your ability to progress into the next academic year of study, therefore you are advised to seek advice from your tutor or course director if you are considering deferring an assessment. |
| Reference formatting Coventry University now uses the APA Referencing Style. For support and advice on how to reference appropriately please see the online referencing guidance or contact your Academic Liaison Librarian. |
| SLS banded marking scheme |
The SLS banded marking approach recognises that marking cannot be exact and avoids students being awarded marks that lie close to a grade boundary. The banded marks that may be awarded are as follows: Outstanding 82 85 88 90 95 100 Excellent 72 75 78 Very good 62 65 68 Good 52 55 58 Acceptable 42 45 48 Fail 0 10 20 30 35 |
| Academic Integrity | Academic dishonesty hurts everyone in the community. It not only damages your personal reputation, but also the reputation of the entire University, and it will not be tolerated at Coventry University. It is in the best interest of all students for the University to maintain the good reputation of its awards. Your co operation is expected in actively protecting the integrity of the assessment process. It is your duty to observe high personal standards of academic honesty in your studies and to report any instances of malpractice you become aware of, without fail. We expect students to act with academic integrity, which means that they will study and produce work in an open, honest and responsible manner. It is important, therefore, that you understand fully how to avoid academic misconduct and where to obtain support. Academic dishonesty covers any attempt by a student to gain unfair advantage (e.g., extra marks) for her/himself, or for another student, in ways that are not allowed. Examples of such dishonesty include: • Collusion includes the knowing collaboration, without approval, between two or more students, or between a student(s) and another person, in the preparation and production of work which is then submitted as individual work. In cases where one (or more) student has copied from another, both (all) students involved may be penalised. • Falsification includes the presentation of false or deliberately misleading data in, for example, laboratory work, surveys or projects. It also includes citing references that do not exist. • Deceit includes the misrepresentation or non-disclosure of relevant information, including the failure to reveal when work being submitted for assessment has been or will be used for other academic purposes. • Plagiarism is the act of using other people’s words, images etc. (whether published or unpublished) as if they were your own. In order to make clear to readers the difference between your words, images etc. and the work of others, you must reference your work correctly • Self-Plagiarism is the reuse of significant, identical, or nearly identical portions of your own work without acknowledging that you are doing so or without citing the original work, and without the written authorisation of the module leader. • Re-presentation is the submission of work presented previously or simultaneously for assessment at this or any other institution, unless authorised in writing by the module leader and referenced appropriately. • Exam Misconduct is any attempt to gain an unfair advantage in an assessment (including exams/ tests) or assisting another student to do so. It includes: taking unauthorised materials into exams, copying from other candidates, collusion, impersonation, plagiarism, and unauthorised access to unseen exam papers. For online tests or exams where a time window applies, this also includes sharing or accessing shared questions and/or answers. In the event of an allegation of exam |
misconduct you are advised to contact the Student Union Advice Centre immediately after the
IMPORTANT NOTE: This assessment brief is the property of Coventry University and must not be passed to third parNes or posted on any website. Any
infringements of this rule by any current or former students consNtutes academic misconduct and will be reported to IntegrityThreats
| Appeals and complaints Procedures |
If you have any concerns about your assessment results then please contact your module leader or course director in the first instance. If they are unable to resolve your concerns then please contact the Associate Head Student Experience (Natalie Walker [email protected]) or Associate Head Quality and Accreditation (Steven Foster [email protected] or Alan Greenwood [email protected]). Details of the processes and criteria for formal appeals and complaints can be accessed from the Registry Appeals and Complaints page |