Briefly discuss the underlying principles of immunohistochemistry. How can a lymphoma panel help to diagnose a B cell lymphoma from T cell lymphoma?

BIOSCIENCE – ASSESSMENT CRITERIA AND FEEDBACK FOR COURSEWORK LITERATURE-BASED REPORTS (L = Level; W = % Weighting of each element)

Assessment Category

Presentation, structure and style

Logical development of the argument; fluency; logical structure; appropriate academic style; ‘ease of reading’; spelling; grammar; use of appropriate figures and tables.

Referencing

Use of recommended system; referencing within the text; accuracy of citations in the text and reference list.

Use of literature

Relevance of literature; appropriate depth/breadth and integration of literature.

Content/knowledge

Relevance; accuracy; addressed to the topic; appropriate depth/breadth; evidence of understanding

Synthesis, discussion and/or reflection

Critical analysis; integration of evidence; drawing of conclusions.

L

4             5             6

4             5             6

4             5             6

4             5             6

4             5             6

W %

10           10           10

5             5             5

10           10           10

50           40           30

25           35           45

First Outstanding

90-100%

Professional report/journal standard.  Outstanding communication skills demonstrating a logical and fluent style, above the level expected.  Polished grammar with no errors in presentation or spelling. Suitable as a student resource for the relevant level (4/5/6).

Recommended system used, fully conforms and accurately used.

Outstanding breadth and depth of literature used with exceptional integration of literature into work. Suitable as a student resource for the relevant level (4/5/6).

Professional journal standard.

Complete and precise coverage of the topic, well-articulated, engages the reader and communicates a full understanding.  No omissions or errors evident. Work that is commensurate with use as a student resource for the relevant level (4/5/6).

Professional report/journal standard. An outstanding level of critical discussion which is stimulating/intellectually challenging. Suitable as a student resource for the relevant level (4/5/6).

First

Excellent

80-89%

A logical, fluent, well-organised style which clearly leads the reader through the material facilitating a challenging argument; excellent grammar and no spelling errors: tables and figures used as integral parts of the argument. Suitable as a student resource for the relevant level (4/5/6).

Recommended system used, fully conforms and accurately used.

Excellent breadth and depth of literature used and very well integrated such that the product may be suitable as a student resource for the relevant level (4/5/6).

Excellent coverage of the topic. Provides a very clear argument, demonstrates a comprehensive understanding and engages the reader. Work that is commensurate with use as a student resource for the relevant level (4/5/6).

An excellent level of critical discussion and evaluation. Suitable as a student resource for the relevant level (4/5/6).

First

Very good

70-79%

A logical, fluent, well-organised style which clearly leads the reader through the material facilitating a well-developed argument; very good grammar and spelling; tables and figures used as integral parts of the argument.

Recommended system used and almost completely conforms.

Highly developed critical approach to literature resulting in a fully substantiated argument with very good integration of the literature into the work.

Very good coverage of the topic, focussing precisely on the set question; articulated such that the author’s understanding is transparent and contributes to the reader’s understanding.

Evidence of a very good evaluative approach throughout the report through which the reader is guided to conclusions and propositions.

Upper second

Good

60-69%

A logical, well-organised style; fluent and easy to read with reinforcement rather than repetition; good grammar and spelling; tables and figures clearly used to enhance communication; good academic style that requires little correction.

Recommended system used with very few accuracies and inconsistencies.

A range of literature skilfully used to enhance the argument; literature appropriate to the depth/breadth and level of the assignment and interpreted accordingly.

An argument which clearly addresses the question throughout the answer; shows good understanding of the material with coverage at the appropriate level; some aspects may not be covered but this would be compensated by the overall quality.

A strong theme of analysis and synthesis resulting in in-depth discussion and strong conclusions; not all conclusions fully substantiated and some aspects not fully developed.

Lower second

Clear Pass

50-59%

A basically logical structure which can be easily followed but some disjointed material or lack of focus; grammar and spelling generally good; tables and figures used to support the text; recognisable academic style.

Recommended system used with some inaccuracies and inconsistencies but generally conforms.

Clear evidence of the use of a range of sources at appropriate depth/breadth.

An answer which is directed at the question using mostly relevant material; there may be gaps or parts of the argument not developed at the appropriate level.

Some analysis of evidence resulting in synthesis and the drawing of substantiated conclusions.

Third

Marginal Pass

40-49%

An acceptable attempt at a logical structure but flawed in places; perhaps repetitive or poorly focussed; careless grammar and spelling; little use of tables or figures; difficult to follow in parts or a poor flow of ideas.

An attempt to use the recommended system but frequent inaccuracies and inconsistencies.

Descriptive use of relevant literature and presented with little or no comment; inappropriate breadth and/or depth of sources.

Basic coverage for the required level but shows an attempt to address the subject; significant gaps and errors but includes >40% of the expected factual content.

Predominantly descriptive but with an attempt to draw conclusions.

Marginal fail

30-39%

Limited or poorly conceived structure; frequent grammatical and spelling errors; little or no attempt to use tables or figures; an immature approach but an attempt to engage with an academic style.

An attempt to use the recommended system but error-strewn and inconsistently applied.

Limited use

of relevant literature and, at best, descriptive.

Limited coverage for the required level showing superficial understanding; answer may contain a large amount of irrelevant material and/or have significant gaps and errors but approaches 40% of the expected factual content.

Predominantly descriptive account with unsupported or weak conclusions

Clear Fail

20-29%

Chaotic structure; little logical development of the argument; many grammatical and spelling errors; poor fluency; difficult to understand; no use of figures and tables; little attempt to engage with an academic style.

Little attempt to use either the recommended system or an alternative.

Little evidence of the use of literature or irrelevant literature used.

Few key points addressed; much irrelevance; many errors; inappropriate level; little evidence of understanding.

Little evidence of synthesis, discussion or reflection; incorrect or no conclusions.

Little or Nothing of merit

0-19%

Chaotic structure, no development of the argument; many grammatical and spelling errors; no attempt to engage with an academic style.

No attempt to use either the recommended system or an alternative.

No evidence of the use of relevant literature.

Key points not addressed, many errors and no evidence of understanding.

No evidence of synthesis, discussion or reflection; no conclusions.