Principles of assessment
Assessment methods are designed to be consistent with the learning outcomes and reflect the overall philosophy of this course.
- Assessment is balanced to ensure it is fair, equitable and transparent. Assessment is proportionate to the level of knowledge and skill required within the field of eating, drinking and swallowing difficulties
- Assessment will be summative
- Assessment will assist the student and the tutor in identifying learning needs and in monitoring progress
- The course is designed to impart applicable knowledge, skills and competencies so therefore some aspects of assessment will require students to demonstrate workplace performance
Assessment process
Written course work must comply with the course and Sheffield Hallam University requirements as detailed below.
- A copy of the assessment regulations will be available for all students. Written work will be marked and returned in accordance with Sheffield Hallam University regulations
- Students will be given details of the assessment e.g. the specification, weighting, and assessment criteria. Dates of submission will be specified for all the course assessments
Summative assignments
Students will complete the following tasks. Upon completion students are required to email their completed documents and questionnaire to the course coordinator by the deadline. The supervisor is also required to complete their questionnaire by the deadline.
| Task no |
Task description |
Task weighting |
Word count |
| 1 |
Case study task x2 |
Pass/fail |
2000 words each +/- 10% |
| |
Critical review x2 |
Above 50% |
750 for each case study +/- 10% |
| 2 |
Experiential period |
Pass/fail |
n/a |
| 3 |
Written assignment |
100% |
2,500 |
Task 1
Tasks 1: Students will be required to submit and pass two case studies from a range of disorders (word count 2750 words. This includes 2000 words for the case study and 750 for the critical review (+/- 10% for each case study). The range of disorders should include where possible, a progressive disorder and an acute disorder. The two studies will be completed concurrently. In each case study students will be required to submit details of a clinical case study reflecting on the current evidence base and including a critical review of the literature for the management plan applied in each case study.
Assessment criteria for task 1
The case studies will be marked on a pass/fail basis. To achieve a pass the student must show evidence of:
- An adequate level of factual knowledge and understanding of concepts of normal and abnormal eating and swallowing.
- Critical analysis of the swallowing patterns using methods of assessment applicable to the disorder: Demonstrate ability to critically analyse swallowing patterns using appropriate assessment techniques specific to the case study patient and draw relevant conclusions. Show evidence of how current thinking around concepts of normal and abnormal eating and swallowing may inform and influence clinical practice. Apply and integrate information in an adequate way.
- An evaluation of the efficacy of the management strategies and principles applied to each disorder. Demonstrate ability to make appropriate clinical decisions based on evaluation of effectiveness of treatment strategies in case study patients.
Task 2
Task 2: Students will be required to successfully complete the experiential period and be deemed to be competent, by their supervisor, evidenced through their supervisors report, learning hours log and supervision questionnaire
Assessment criteria for task 2
The experiential period will be marked on a pass/fail basis. To achieve a pass the Supervisor must report that in their opinion the student demonstrates safe clinical practise and competent clinical judgement and has proficient skills on the RCSLT dysphagia competency framework (Level C) to practice independently in the field of eating, drinking and swallowing disorders.
The learning hours log must demonstrate a broad range of aetiologies and meet the minimum requirements.
Task 3
.jpg)
Task 3: This is not mandatory but if students wish to obtain the 30M Level credits they will be required to write an academic and reflective piece showing investigation and critical review of the ethical dilemmas which may occur in dysphagia management. (word count 2500)
Assessment criteria for task 3
This reflective piece will be marked in accordance with the marking criteria below. A pass mark of 50% is required to successfully complete this task, and the piece must show:
The ability to investigate and critically review the ethical dilemmas involved in dysphagia assessment and management.
The ability to work as an independent reflective practitioner.
Whilst this is not mandatory it will be a good exercise in your dysphagia learning and some trusts will expect this to be completed. If you submit and are successful you will receive 30 M level credits. If you do NOT wish to complete this, you must actively withdraw from this aspect of the course. A withdrawal form can be obtained from the course administrator.
Marking criteria for critique and ethics essay
- Distinction- 70% and above
- Merit- 60-69%
- Pass 50-59%
- Refer/ Unsatisfactory 49% and below
Distinction- 70% and above
An excellent piece of work which shows evidence of original thinking and a wide range of reading around the topic. Demonstrates a sound grasp of the relevant factual knowledge and shows a logical and well-constructed argument which deals with the key issues involved. Shows ability to integrate information, recognise and understand main issues and discuss these in detail using relevant, comprehensive and up to date literature. Evidence of ability to critically appraise literature. Shows clearly how current thinking and knowledge may inform and influence own clinical practice and is able to illustrate issues discussed in the literature with own clinical examples. Demonstrates safe clinical practice and competent clinical judgement. Presentation of a high standard, with clear concise writing style and information well organised. Citations accurate and properly made. Insignificant inaccuracies or typographical errors.
Merit- 60-69%
A piece of work which shows some reading around the topic. Demonstrates the relevant factual knowledge and to a limited extent shows a logical and well-constructed argument which deals with the key areas involved. Shows some ability to integrate information, recognise and understand main issues and discuss these using relevant literature. Some attempt to critically appraise the literature is evident. Makes a reasonable attempt to show how current thinking and knowledge may inform and influence own clinical practice and to illustrate issues discussed in the literature with own clinical examples. Demonstrates safe clinical practice and competent clinical judgement. Presentation of a reasonable standard with information organised.
Pass 50-59%
Shows some evidence of reading around the topic. Demonstrates some relevant factual knowledge but limited overall understanding of the topic. Shows limited evidence of a logical or a well-constructed argument deal with key issues. Shows an attempt to discuss information. Poor use of relevant literature. A poor attempt to critically appraise the literature. Shows to a limited extent how current thinking and knowledge may inform and influence own clinical practice and may illustrate issues discussed in the literature with own clinical examples. Demonstrates safe clinical practice and competent clinical judgement. Presentation may be of a low standard, with poor writing style, poor organisation of material and many typographical errors. Citation may have inaccuracies.
Refer/unsatisfactory 49% and below
Shows little evidence of reading around the topic. Demonstrates little factual knowledge and makes a poor attempt to bring the information together. Awareness of the issues is very limited and/or confused with significant errors. Shows much weakness in ability to link clinical practice with current thinking or knowledge. Demonstrates unsafe or questionable clinical practice and poor clinical judgement. Many areas of omission.
External assessment and moderation
An external examiner will be appointed through the usual Sheffield Hallam University procedures and the role will be undertaken in line with Sheffield Hallam University regulations. Results will be submitted for consideration to the Awards Assessment Board of the Faculty of Health and Wellbeing.
External Examining is one of the principal means of maintaining academic standards across the UK. Suitably qualified and experienced External Examiners are appointed to provide informative comment and recommendations upon whether or not:
- The University is maintaining the threshold academic standards
- The assessment process measures student achievement rigorously and fairly against the intended outcomes of the programme(s) and is conducted in line with the University's policies and regulations
- The academic standards and the achievements of students of the University are comparable with those in other UK higher education institutions
External assessor
Sheffield Hallam University welcomes and values the involvement of students in quality management processes. To support this, please note that the External Examiner for this module is Professor Suer Pownall. External Examiners are asked to comment on assessment tasks, moderate a sample of student work, endorse Assessment Board decisions, and provide the University with an annual report. Students should not make direct contact with external examiners, in particular regarding individual performance in assessments. External Examiners have been advised to refer any direct contact from students to the University.
