The student received a categorical mark of 2:1 for their literature review task. The assessor provided strengths and suggestions for improvement. Key strengths included an introduction that set the background well, a range of primary research was summarized cohesively, and an academic writing style was demonstrated. Suggestions for improvement included adding more of the student's own opinions on the studies' claims, considering other diagnostic techniques, including further subheadings, and minor formatting issues. The student commented they will focus on critical analysis and improving presentation in future work.

1. PSP3 66-605499
Task 1: Literature Review
Student Name: Dylan Atkinson
Categorical Mark: 2:1st
Strengths:
• The report is largely written with a introduction that sets the background to the topic well and a summative conclusion.
• A range of literature is covered, all of which is predominantly primary research articles and the data is summarised cohesively.
• Reviewed research is compared and contrasted.
• Specific data from reviewed studies is discussed
• Illustration is used well to outline processes discussed
• Academic writing style and presentation are of a good quality
Suggestions for Improvement:
• There is room to have more of an input on your own opinions of the studies claims- are they valid and backed up by the data or are there
different view points from other studies that need to be taken into consideration? What else needs to be determined before these claims
are fully valid?
• Theres scope to consider other types of diagnostic techniques and their potential benefits/ limitations compared to RT-PCR
• You need to include further subheadings throughout the discussion to group concepts discussed and improve report structure
• Include a contents page
• Minor formatting errors in bibliography
• Minor formatting issues throughout (indicated on script)

2. Student comments for Feed-forward (how will you use this feedback to improve your future work?):
In the future I will focus on my critical analysis, being able to compare different papers and add my own opinions to my work, this will make it more
interesting for the reader as well.
Additionally, I will look to improve the overall presentation of my work, adding content pages will can make the paper much easier to understand and
read. Adding subheading will also help with this.
Assessor: SF
Date: 28.09.22

3. Criteria FAIL Borderline FAIL THIRD Lower 2nd Upper 2nd First Exceptional First
Research
sources
and
reading
Little or no evidence of
use of research sources
limited evidence of use of
research sources, heavy
reliance on non-academic
sources, with little
acknowledgement of the
academic contribution to
the topic
Poor selection of research
resources, may be reliant
on secondary sources such
as text books or web sites
Some academic sources used
but essay also cites a range of
non-academic sources, some
of which may be poor sources
of evidence for academic
review writing
A good attempt to engage
with a range of relevant
academic literature,
much of which is up to
date. judicious use of web
sites or other non-
academic sources
engage with a breadth of
relevant academic
literature, good attempt to
engage with primary
sources, judicious use of
non-academic sources is
justified
wide range of relevant
academic literature
sources used including a
serious attempt to engage
with primary literature
sources, at the forefront
of the field
Scientific
content Little or no scientific
content
Content lacks scientific
focus, Partial answer, with
major omissions. Choice of
content may be limited, or
there may be major errors
Superficial or inconsistent
grasp of material. Evidence
of some understanding of
subject area. Content may
lack scientific focus
Essay displays understanding
of the main concepts
underpinning the issue,
attempts to identify and
describe complexities,
Relevant scientific content
has been included.
Good understanding of
the area gleaned. Range
of relevant content
included, with strong
scientific focus, explains
complexities in topic
An excellent choice of
scientific content, pertinent
examples, chosen,
displaying excellent
understanding of the
concepts, clearly addresses
a range of complexities.
An excellent -outstanding
answer displaying
excellent understanding
of the concepts, clearly
identifies and objectively
addresses a range of
complexities in the
chosen topic
Argument
and
Analysis
(Very
important)
No analysis Little or no analysis
Descriptive account of topic,
little analysis, may attempt
to develop argument or
express judgments made
but may lack support
Attempts to develop an
academic argument although
with a largely descriptive
focus. Some judgments made,
limited evidence of critical
analysis.
Strands of academic
arguments are made,
judgments well
supported by sound
analysis
Evidence of some
independent thinking and
critical analysis.
Good standard of
intelligent, critical thought
and argument. Clear
evidence of informed,
independent thinking.
Creative analysis of
situation
Outstanding critical
analysis and effective
integration of own ideas
and independent thought.
Essay
Structure Very poor organization,
essay lacks structure or
focus.
Essay may lack focus and
clarity throughout. May
lack effective use of
subsections and structure
Weak structure and
organization, lacks
coherence and clarity in
many areas, May lack
effective use of subsections
and structure
Satisfactory level of
coherence. although in places
ideas may be poorly
organized within paragraphs
or paragraphs poorly grafted
Good structure and
planning. Clear and
coherent. Good
introduction and
conclusion. Good use of
subsections and
paragraphing
Excellent structure. Clear
and coherent. Good
introduction and
conclusion. Flows well.
Good use of sections
paragraphing to enhance
clarity of argument
Outstanding structure
and organisation Strong
introduction and
conclusion. Excellent and
effective use of sections
and paragraphing to
clarify argument
Academic
writing style
Very poor style,
leading to substantial
problems in
expression of ideas
and description of
subject material
English may be confused
and inappropriate
Style of written English,
lacks academic rigour or
adherence to scientific
convention
Attempts engagement with an
academic style of written
scientific English and
adoption of scientific
conventions
Demonstrates good
engagement with
academic style of written
English and adherence to
scientific conventions.
Demonstrates excellent
engagement with academic
style of scientific English
and consistent adherence
to scientific conventions.
Accomplished
professional use of
academic English
Presentation
and
Grammar
Major errors and
inaccuracies
Poor presentation,
grammar and spelling.
Various errors and
inaccuracies
Presentation, grammar and
spelling need closer
attention. Frequent errors.
Satisfactory presentation.
standard may be inconsistent
or contain a range of
typographical and grammatical
errors in text
Good standard of
presentation Grammar
satisfactory. May be some
minor errors.
Excellent standard of
presentation, with few
typographical or
grammatical errors
Produced to a professional
standard with no errors
Outstanding grammar
Citation and
Referencing
format
Little or no
engagement with the
academic convention
of citing sources and
providing a list of
reference sources
Few or no citations in text,
citation style is poor, few
references listed,
formatting style of
references does not adhere
to required format
There may be a lack of
citation or referencing, lack
of adherence to required
format or inconsistent
formatting
Citation and referencing may
lack adherence to required
format. More citation needed
to support arguments
Good citation, referencing
and citation adhere to
required format. Good
attention to detail
References cited frequently
and appropriately in text,
referencing and citation
consistently adhere to
required format
Sophisticated citation.
Referencing and citation
adhere to required
format in all areas

4. Class Category Grade % General Characteristics
1st
(Exceptional)
Exceptional 1st 16 82
Exceptional breadth and depth of knowledge and understanding of the area of study, significantly beyond what has been taught in all areas; 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; excellent communication; performance deemed to be beyond expectation. Work at publishable or commercial standard. The ability to make decisions and
systematically carry out tasks/processes with autonomy in unpredictable situations; exercise of initiative in the completion of practical tasks; exceptional leadership skills and
evidence of personal responsibility in group contexts; creative flair; extremely well-developed problem-solving skills; the ability to carry out sustained critical reflection on
practical work within the wider context of industry/workplace. Exceeds expectations set by the industry/employment context.
1st
(Excellent)
High 1st 15 78 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
communication; performance deemed beyond expectation of the level. The ability to make decisions and carry out tasks/processes with a high level of autonomy; creative flair
and the ability to (re)interpret predefined rules/conventions to select and justify individual working practice; excellent problem-solving skills; accuracy and fluency; excellent
command of skills appropriate to the task; the ability to reflect critically on practical work within the wider context of industry/workplace. Meets expectations set by the
industry/employment context.
Mid 1st 14 75
Low 1st 13 72
2.1
(Very good)
High 2.1 12 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 critical 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; strong communication skills. Broadly autonomous completion of practical tasks/processes; ability to adapt in
response to change or unexpected experiences; technical/artistic decision making is very highly developed; a clear command of the skills relevant to the task/process; ability to
reflect on practical work and set future goals within the wider context of industry/workplace. Adherence to standards set by the industry/employment context.
Mid 2.1 11 65
Low 2.1 10 62
2.2
(Good)
High 2.2 9 58 Good knowledge and understanding of the area of study balanced towards the descriptive rather than critical or analytical; evidence of appropriate selection and evaluation
of reading/research, some may be beyond the prescribed range, but generally reliant on set sources to advance work/direct arguments; communication shows clarity, but
structure may not always be coherent. A confident approach to practical tasks; a solid grasp of the related processes, tools, technology; creativity in the completion of the task;
proficiency is demonstrated by an accurate and well-coordinated performance; tasks are completed with a good level of independent thought and autonomy; an ability to
reflect on practical work and set future goals. General adherence to standards set by the industry/employment context.
Mid 2.2 8 55
Low 2.2 7 52
3rd
(Sufficient)
High 3rd 6 48 Knowledge and understanding 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; general reliance on set sources to advance work; arguments may be weak or poorly constructed;
communication/presentation is generally competent but with some weaknesses. Competence in technical/artistic skills; tasks/processes are completed with a degree of
proficiency and confidence; tasks are completed with a sufficient level of independent thought; effective judgements have been made; evaluation and analysis of performance in
practical tasks is evident. Errors in workflow or completion of the task; general adherence to appropriate rules/conventions set by the industry/employment context.
Mid 3rd 5 45
Low 3rd 4 42
FAIL
(Insufficient)
Borderline Fail 3 38 Insufficient knowledge and understanding of the subject and its underlying concepts; some ability to evaluate given reading/research however work is more generally
descriptive; naively follows or may ignore set material in development of work; given brief may be only tangentially addressed or may ignore key aspects of the brief;
communication shows limited clarity, poor presentation, structure may not be coherent. Practical tasks are attempted; skill displayed in some areas; there are a significant
number of errors; a lack of proficiency in most areas; guidance may be needed to reproduce aspects of the task and/or apply learned skills. Tasks may be incomplete; failure to
adhere to some of the rules/conventions set by the industry/employment context.
Mid Fail 2 35
Low Fail 1 32
FAIL
(Incompetent)
Very Low Fail 0 28
No evidence of knowledge or understanding of the subject; no understanding of taught concepts, with facts being reproduced in a disjointed or decontextualised manner;
ignores set material in development of work; fails to address the requirements of the brief; lacks basic communication skills. A general level of incompetency in practical tasks;
an evident lack of practice; set tasks are not completed; few or no skills relating to tasks are evident. No adherence to rules/conventions set by the industry/employment
context.
ZERO Zero 0 0 Work not submitted, work of no merit, penalty in some misconduct cases.