Resubmission: 18 Aug 08
Well presented work, but the abstract should contain some key findings – it is more than an introduction. Some grammatical and syntax errors. The word count I make 2977 – this is short of the minimum of 3600 and represents missed opportunity. It is at odds with the stated word count, but the candidate seems to have counted the entire paper.
The introduction sets the scene quite well and ends with key factors in successful implementation. It may have been worth using these to form the structure of the assignment.
The following 3 sections on CDSS seems surplus to the requirements of this assignment. They seem to focus on the elements of a successful EHR rather than factors in its successful implementation. I accept that there may be some overlap, but implementation must be made explicit.
The ‘Managing Change’ and ‘Discussion’ sections are better targeted. The writing style is lacking in an academic approach, and seems to suggest approaches rather than explore them. The referencing is adequate to limited, but tends to rely on relatively few authors – Sanchez seems to feature very heavily.
Overall – the remit of the assignment has slid a little and those sections which are pertinent are lacking in rigour. 44%
Showing posts with label Health inforamtics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Health inforamtics. Show all posts
3.3.08
4.2.08
Back to study
終於又上課了，今天的心情還是很忐忑，但是討論的狀況更進步囉，哈哈，剛開始有點卡卡的，後來今天分組的同學都很愛說笑話，整個很輕鬆的進行，所以也貢獻了些自己的想法跟建議，好有成就感。聽起來似乎微不足道，但是在我曾經收傷的心靈上卻是良藥一帖呢。如果英文成績夠好的話，讀這一科其實是輕而易舉，課程安排很有系統，雖然一整天都在上課連續上一週，但是一個月只有一次，而且星期五通常都簡略討論報告方向就結束了，報告的方向清楚難易各半，繳交方式也是電子檔上傳即可，完全沒有考試，但是上課間的討論很多，不過同學之間都會體諒我們這些留學生的困難不致於陷入窘境啦。
我在聽力跟寫作上面需要做很多的功課，以致於上課練聽力，回家練寫作，成了另一項挑戰，在課餘之外的挑戰，不過看看電視劇聽聽廣播新聞什麼的也算不上什麼困難的挑戰倒是。加上三天捕魚五天曬網的做法進步就有限了，所以住在英國人的家庭或是打工會是個增強英文的最佳方法，不間斷的生活在英語的環境，連作夢都會說英文。
我在聽力跟寫作上面需要做很多的功課，以致於上課練聽力，回家練寫作，成了另一項挑戰，在課餘之外的挑戰，不過看看電視劇聽聽廣播新聞什麼的也算不上什麼困難的挑戰倒是。加上三天捕魚五天曬網的做法進步就有限了，所以住在英國人的家庭或是打工會是個增強英文的最佳方法，不間斷的生活在英語的環境，連作夢都會說英文。
29.1.08
I passed the 2nd assignment
SUMMATIVE ASSESSMENT
MARKING FORM
Student record number: 384003
Date submitted: 21-Dec-07
Course: MSc Health Informatics
Module code: SHIM14
Name of first marker: Tony Paget
Name of second marker: Judy Jenkins
Name of external examiner: Rod Ward
First marker grade: 56%
Second marker grade: 57%
Agreed mark if moderated: 57%
External examiner mark: %
Final mark: %
Rationale for grade awarded (see level marking grid and assessment/question guide).
Please indicate strengths and weaknesses and how the work may be improved.
JISC Turnitin report
Overall similarity index = 13%, representing small bodies of poorly-edited text pasted in from other authors' work.
You need to be more careful when cutting and pasting material from elsewhere. Always ensure that you convert this into your own words. Please contact Tony Paget if you want to see the Turnitin report.
First Marker:
Quite neatly presented work, but there is a need for a more careful proof-read. Grammar and syntax needs attention. The listed contents do not all seem totally congruous with the assignment topic. The stated word count is accurate but slightly below the minimum required (4000 +/- 10% = 3,600 to 4,400). No penalty has been applied, but this needs to be recognised for future work
The introduction is very brief and would benefit from a little more background and an initial idea of what the key issues are.
The main body manages to stick to the remit of addressing the application from users’ perspective. The work is well-referenced and draws on a good range of sources. The structure needs to be a little tighter, in that the focus seems to shift within the sub-sections. It could be that an alternative set of sub-headings may have better captured the key issues and therefore have been more appropriate. There is some critical analysis evident, but this tends to occur in pockets.
Overall – a good paper which is marred a little by presentational problems and a sub-optimal structure.
Second Marker:
This paper has suffered from being a little ‘information lite’ with a word count under the requirement – a more robust Introduction would have gone some way in solving this problem. There are also some sweeping statements for example “that some websites could even be a better place to meet nearly all of the people with multiple sclerosis” – this assumes that nearly all MS sufferers have access to, and use the ‘net, which would be quite a wrong assumption to make without references to confirm this.
There are several typographical errors, and future papers need more careful proofreading before submission to avoid these impacting on final marks.
老師這次開放給大家自己輸入學號就可以查詢結果，有的同學利用這個機會查詢其他同學的結果，竟然得到相當意外的結果，有一半的人沒有通過，我也很驚訝，相當驚訝，想問那各同學對這有何看法，他說他也不知道怎會有人沒有過，我當時還回不了神，現在想想我這次也可能在邊緣了吧，因為沒有用心準備。文法上面的錯誤是一個大詬病，看來還要在用點心想其他辦法來解決文法上的缺失。
MARKING FORM
Student record number: 384003
Date submitted: 21-Dec-07
Course: MSc Health Informatics
Module code: SHIM14
Name of first marker: Tony Paget
Name of second marker: Judy Jenkins
Name of external examiner: Rod Ward
First marker grade: 56%
Second marker grade: 57%
Agreed mark if moderated: 57%
External examiner mark: %
Final mark: %
Rationale for grade awarded (see level marking grid and assessment/question guide).
Please indicate strengths and weaknesses and how the work may be improved.
JISC Turnitin report
Overall similarity index = 13%, representing small bodies of poorly-edited text pasted in from other authors' work.
You need to be more careful when cutting and pasting material from elsewhere. Always ensure that you convert this into your own words. Please contact Tony Paget if you want to see the Turnitin report.
First Marker:
Quite neatly presented work, but there is a need for a more careful proof-read. Grammar and syntax needs attention. The listed contents do not all seem totally congruous with the assignment topic. The stated word count is accurate but slightly below the minimum required (4000 +/- 10% = 3,600 to 4,400). No penalty has been applied, but this needs to be recognised for future work
The introduction is very brief and would benefit from a little more background and an initial idea of what the key issues are.
The main body manages to stick to the remit of addressing the application from users’ perspective. The work is well-referenced and draws on a good range of sources. The structure needs to be a little tighter, in that the focus seems to shift within the sub-sections. It could be that an alternative set of sub-headings may have better captured the key issues and therefore have been more appropriate. There is some critical analysis evident, but this tends to occur in pockets.
Overall – a good paper which is marred a little by presentational problems and a sub-optimal structure.
Second Marker:
This paper has suffered from being a little ‘information lite’ with a word count under the requirement – a more robust Introduction would have gone some way in solving this problem. There are also some sweeping statements for example “that some websites could even be a better place to meet nearly all of the people with multiple sclerosis” – this assumes that nearly all MS sufferers have access to, and use the ‘net, which would be quite a wrong assumption to make without references to confirm this.
There are several typographical errors, and future papers need more careful proofreading before submission to avoid these impacting on final marks.
老師這次開放給大家自己輸入學號就可以查詢結果，有的同學利用這個機會查詢其他同學的結果，竟然得到相當意外的結果，有一半的人沒有通過，我也很驚訝，相當驚訝，想問那各同學對這有何看法，他說他也不知道怎會有人沒有過，我當時還回不了神，現在想想我這次也可能在邊緣了吧，因為沒有用心準備。文法上面的錯誤是一個大詬病，看來還要在用點心想其他辦法來解決文法上的缺失。
20.1.08
一開始填寫特殊要求就要寫 NO Nigerian flatmate
突然想到這個在一開始申請住宿時的時候，就可以免除後患，在最後面都會有一個特殊要求欄位，有求必應。亞洲人大多較安靜較有禮貌，歐洲人大多比較開放所以聲音會大一些也很有禮貌，黑人普遍都較吵聲音大; 髒不髒純粹是個人習慣，就只能碰運氣ㄌ。
7.1.08
21.12.07
provisional result
I got the provisional result. lalala... I'm happy to this result. I have more confidence in the second assignment.
Tai-Lien Huang (384003)
Essay – 54%
1st Marker
The paper is well presented and adheres to most of the required protocol. The stated word count is in excess of the maximum at 2391 (it should be within 10% of 2,000). However my estimate places the word count at only 1475 which is significantly below the minimum required. The candidate has clearly misunderstood the requirement and has unwittingly attracted a 10% penalty whilst failing to make full use of the word level available. Some of the references listed are incomplete.The introduction is suitably concise yet sets the scene quite well. The content is mainly well-written and adopts a suitably academic style. Referencing is good and seems to be based on wide reading. There is some slight wandering from the specific area of HI professionalism and, along with the brevity of the paper, this has seriously hampered the development of discussion in this topic.Overall - this is a potentially good assignment, where problems with the word count have had a negative effect. There are no other particular problems with writing style or referencing.
2nd Marker
This assignment is only in fact 1475 words (not including the Abstract) as opposed to the stated 2,391, which is a little on the short side of the specified 2,000 words. Unfortunately, this will mean that some marks will have to be deducted in accordance with University marking regulations.
Aside from this, a serious attempt has been made to address the issues surrounding the development of Health Informatics as a profession, in a studied manner. At times, the language slips, and there are some grammatical errors, but not so severe that the meaning is totally lost. Caution must be taken when ascribing references to Anonymous – try to avoid this if possible, especially when the author in this case is known. Careful reading through of the work is also necessary before submission for future work however.
Leaflet – 56%
1st Marker
A good leaflet. Visually attractive and with a reasonable level of detail, although I'd like to have a read a little more on HOW you'd keep information secure (where it is kept, who has access etc)
2nd Marker
This patient information leaflet is very attractive and contains enough information to make it relevant for the intended audience. I would however, re-read certain sections again carefully, as the English falters just a little to make some things not quite understandable. I like the inclusion of the images, giving this leaflet the right look and feel for the audience. The type font is a little large, and some of the sections need to be properly justified, but overall this is a reasonable example of its kind.
Total – 55%
Tai-Lien Huang (384003)
Essay – 54%
1st Marker
The paper is well presented and adheres to most of the required protocol. The stated word count is in excess of the maximum at 2391 (it should be within 10% of 2,000). However my estimate places the word count at only 1475 which is significantly below the minimum required. The candidate has clearly misunderstood the requirement and has unwittingly attracted a 10% penalty whilst failing to make full use of the word level available. Some of the references listed are incomplete.The introduction is suitably concise yet sets the scene quite well. The content is mainly well-written and adopts a suitably academic style. Referencing is good and seems to be based on wide reading. There is some slight wandering from the specific area of HI professionalism and, along with the brevity of the paper, this has seriously hampered the development of discussion in this topic.Overall - this is a potentially good assignment, where problems with the word count have had a negative effect. There are no other particular problems with writing style or referencing.
2nd Marker
This assignment is only in fact 1475 words (not including the Abstract) as opposed to the stated 2,391, which is a little on the short side of the specified 2,000 words. Unfortunately, this will mean that some marks will have to be deducted in accordance with University marking regulations.
Aside from this, a serious attempt has been made to address the issues surrounding the development of Health Informatics as a profession, in a studied manner. At times, the language slips, and there are some grammatical errors, but not so severe that the meaning is totally lost. Caution must be taken when ascribing references to Anonymous – try to avoid this if possible, especially when the author in this case is known. Careful reading through of the work is also necessary before submission for future work however.
Leaflet – 56%
1st Marker
A good leaflet. Visually attractive and with a reasonable level of detail, although I'd like to have a read a little more on HOW you'd keep information secure (where it is kept, who has access etc)
2nd Marker
This patient information leaflet is very attractive and contains enough information to make it relevant for the intended audience. I would however, re-read certain sections again carefully, as the English falters just a little to make some things not quite understandable. I like the inclusion of the images, giving this leaflet the right look and feel for the audience. The type font is a little large, and some of the sections need to be properly justified, but overall this is a reasonable example of its kind.
Total – 55%
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Viviene
