NSB236 Assessment Task 1 R Learning outcomes

NSB236 Assessment Task 1 R Learning outcomes assessed: 1,2,& 3

W eighting: 50%

2 – 1 Critical thinking and know

ledge Weighting: 25%

Assignm ent content:

critical explanation reflects a com

prehensive interpretation and critical explanation of the assessm

ent data; Com

prehensive understanding of the central issues of the case – all key pathophysiological concepts and physical assessm

ent issues addressed to determ

ine priorities of care; Dem

onstrated a com

prehensive depth of reasoning and logical and analytical thinking.

Assignm ent content:

critical explanation reflects good interpretation and critical explanation of the assessm

ent data; Good understanding of the central issues of the case – alm

ost all key pathophysiological concepts and assessm

ent issues addressed to determ

ine priorities of care; M

ostly dem onstrated a

depth of reasoning and logical and analytical thinking.

Assignm ent content:

critical explanation reflects sound interpretation and som

e critical explanation of the assessm

ent data; Sound understanding of the central issues of the case – m

ost key pathophysiological concepts and assessm

ent issues addressed to determ

ine priorities of care; Soundly dem

onstrated a depth of reasoning and logical and analytical thinking.

Assignm ent content:

critical explanation reflects basic interpretation and som

e or no critical explanation of the assessm

ent data – content not overly discerning; Fair understanding of the central issues of the case – som

e key pathophysiological concepts and assessm

ent issues addressed to determ

ine priorities of care; Adequately dem

onstrated depth of reasoning and logical and analytical thinking .

Assignm ent content:

lim ited critical

explanation reflects poor interpretation and no critical explanation of the assessm

ent data – content not discerning; Poor understanding of the central issues of the case – not all key pathophysiological concepts and assessm

ent issues addressed to determ

ine priorities of care; You have not adequately dem

onstrated depth of reasoning and logical and analytical thinking.

Assignm ent content:

no critical explanation reflects poor interpretation and no critical explanation of the assessm

ent data – content not discerning; N

o understanding of the central issues of the case – lim

ited dem

onstrated understanding of pathophysiological concepts and assessm

ent issues to determ

ine priorities of care; You have not dem

onstrated depth of reasoning and logical and analytical thinking.

<Insert unit code and title>

<U nit C

ode> – Assessm ent #

P age 13 of 15

Applied know ledge of

pathophysiology to inform

clinical reasoning, clinical priority, assessm

ent and outcom

e m easures

W eighting: 25%

Com prehensive

application of pathophysiological and physiological concepts w

hich dem

onstrated an understanding of links betw

een the patient condition, and assessm

ents to form

ulate plans of care and interventions. O

utcom e m

easures discussed are com

prehensively supported by contem

porary evidence and m

akes association w

ith physiological concepts.

Good application of pathophysiological and physiological concepts w

hich dem onstrated

an understanding of links betw

een the patient condition, assessm

ents and outcom

e m easures

discussed to form ulate

a plan care of care and interventions.

The approaches are supported to a high level by contem

porary evidence and m

akes association w

ith physiological concepts.

Sound application of pathophysiological and physiological concepts w

hich dem onstrated an

understanding of links betw

een the patient condition, assessm

ents and outcom

e m easures

discussed to form ulate a

plan of care and interventions.

The approaches are supported to a good level by contem

porary evidence and m

akes association w

ith physiological concepts.

Fair application of pathophysiological and physiological concepts w

hich dem onstrated a fair

understanding of links betw

een the patient condition, assessm

ents and outcom

e m easures

discussed to form ulate a

plan care and interventions.

The approaches are supported to a satisfactory level by contem

porary evidence and m

akes association w

ith physiological concepts.

Poor application of pathophysiological and physiological concepts w

hich dem

onstrated little understanding of links betw

een the patient condition, assessm

ents and outcom

e m easures

discussed to plan care and appropriate interventions.

The approaches are supported by citation of research w

hich m

ay/m ay not be

contem porary, but

lacks insight and understanding of the association w

ith physiological concepts.

N o application of

pathophysiological and physiological concepts w

hich dem onstrated

no understanding of links betw

een the patient condition, assessm

ents and outcom

e m easures

discussed to plan care.

The approaches om

itted physiological assessm

ents for outcom

es, m ay not

adequately consider the correlation of physiological assessm

ent and outcom

es in relation to critical physiological concepts.

Application of evidence W

eighting: 25%

Dem onstrates skilful

and insightful use of high quality, credible and relevant sources to develop ideas, rationalise approaches and decision m

aking that are appropriate to the clinical scenario.

There is an excellent dem

onstration of conceptual understanding of

Dem onstrates skilful

use of high quality, credible and relevant sources to develop ideas, rationalise approaches and decision m

aking that are appropriate to the clinical scenario.

There is a good dem

onstration of conceptual understanding of

Dem onstrates consistent

use of credible, relevant sources to support ideas and decision m

aking that are situated w

ithin the thought question.

There is a w ell-grounded

dem onstration of

conceptual understanding of content.

Dem onstrates an attem

pt to use credible and/or relevant sources to support ideas and decision m

aking that are appropriate for the thought question.

There is a satisfactory dem

onstration of conceptual understanding of content.

Dem onstrates an

attem pt to use

sources to support ideas and decision m

aking in the w riting.

M ay have a num

ber of 3-4 direct quotes that could have been paraphrased to dem

onstrate synthesis and understanding of content.

Lim ited evidence used

to support ideas, poorly cited and or paraphrased.

Dem onstrates lim

ited critical application and understanding of content being applied. Frequent use of direct quotes.

The discussion does not dem

onstrate a strong grasp of

<Insert unit code and title>

<U nit C

ode> – Assessm ent #

P age 14 of 15

content. content.

The conceptual understanding of the content requires further developm

ent.

conceptual understanding to support decision m

aking.

Academ ic w

riting W

eighting: 25%

Com prehensive,

Clear and logical presentation; good developm

ent of an argum

ent.

U sed correct

term inology and

professional language consistently w

ith the case study.

U ses language that

skillfully com

m unicates

m eaning to readers

w ith clarity and

fluency. Clear, readable, prose. Good use of transitions; no problem

s w ith

spelling, punctuation, or gram

m ar.

Infrequent and m inor

m echanical

problem s. Errors do

not im pair

readability.

Did not use direct quotes

All relevant aspects

Clear and logical presentation; good developm

ent of an argum

ent. U

sed correct term

inology and professional language for m

ost of the handover the case study.

U ses language that

effectively com

m unicates

m eaning to readers

w ith clarity and

fluency. Clear, readable, prose. Som

e issues w

ith transitions; no to m

inim al (2-4)

problem s w

ith spelling, punctuation, or gram

m ar. Infrequent

and m inor m

echanical problem

s. Errors do not im

pair readability.

Rarely used direct quotes; Adhered to prescribed w

ord lim it.

Presentation is organized but does not present a clear argum

ent for a given position.

U sed correct term

inology and professional language for som

e of the handover the case study.

U ses straightforw

ard language that generally conveys m

eaning to readers. O

ccasional errors and m

inor problem

s w ith m

echanics of language. O

ccasional aw

kw ard sentences and