OBSESSIVE COMPULSIVE DISORDER

Topic-Obsessive compulsive disorder
Start with-
-Introduction
-Definition
-Causes/diagnosis
-Signs and symptoms
-Effect on individual
-Prevalence
All the above should be short-with critical analysis-comparing and contrasting. PLEASE EVERY FULL STOP SHOULD HAVE A REFERENCE.
 
A 1200 words essay addressing learning outcomes 2 and 3 and contributes 25% to the overall mark.
 
More literature should be used in this area-with critical analysis, comparing and contrasting and it should be more detailed
 

  1. Critically examine and evaluate complex interventions in mental health care, with a focus on individualised care and recovery.

 

  1. Compare and contrast the effectiveness of the specialist services .

 
These learning outcomes can be understood in the following ways:
-Learning Outcome 2: Examine complex interventions e.g. therapy, communication and medicine, ensuring they are critically analysed and evaluated and ensuring the focus is on individualised care and recovery.
-Learning Outcome 3: Explore how effective specialist services are, ensuring the literature is compared and contrasted, making sure the evidence base is included.
The rationale for the essay is to develop your critical thinking skills and writing at level 7, and to enable you to study two mental health specialism in depth.
2.You need to make sure when exploring different publishers discovering what style and format is best to use.(optional)
3.You need to make sure you have addressed learning outcomes 2 and 3 and aim higher by examining the marking criteria on page
 
 
-You will need to make sure you address the learning outcomes and meet the marking criteria for this level.
-This is not a case study nor reflection therefore it should be in the passive voice, you need to make sure you are writing at level 7, the formative assessment will help you with this.
-You will need to make sure that you present an in depth discussion on your chosen areas, comparing and contrasting and developing critical analysis, presented a comprehensive academic discussion.
-You need to think carefully about presentation and make sure it follows a logical sequential approach. The essay should have a clear introduction which should tell the reader what will be in the main body, and the conclusion should follow the main body and should clearly summarise it and it should not include any new knowledge.
-You need to show the depth of your knowledge on the these subject areas to achieve this wide deep reading will be needed and we advise you take critical notes as you read.
-We also advise that these assessments are prepared well in advance of the hand in dates. Please note you should upload a draft in good time to check originality and discuss with your tutor.
 
How your assessment is graded:
Your assessment is graded according to the level 7 marking criteria, against the learning outcomes for the module.
 
Marking criteria
LEVEL 7
 
Level 7 is characterised by an expectation of students’ expertise in their specialism. Students are semi-autonomous, demonstrating independence in the negotiation of assessment tasks (including the major project) and the ability to evaluate, challenge, modify and develop theory and practice. Students are expected to demonstrate an ability to isolate and focus on the significant features of problems and to offer synthetic and coherent solutions, with some students producing original or innovative work in their specialism that is worthy of publication or public performance or display.
 
Mark Bands
 
Outcome
 
Generic Learning Outcomes (GLOs) (Academic Regulations, Section 2)
 
Knowledge & Understanding
 
Intellectual (thinking), Practical, Affective and Transferable Skills
 
Characteristics of Student Achievement by Marking Band
 
90-100%
 
Achieves module outcome(s) related to GLO at this level
 
Exceptional analysis of key issues/concepts/ethics with very clear originality and autonomy.  Exceptional development of conceptual structures and argument making an exceptional use of scholarly conventions.  Demonstrates independence of thought and a very high level of intellectual rigour and consistency. Work pushes the boundaries of the discipline and may be considered for external publication
 
Exceptional analysis of key issues/concepts/ethics.   Exceptional development of conceptual structures and argument, making consistent use of scholarly conventions.Exceptional research skills, independence of thought, an extremely high level of intellectual rigour and consistency, exceptional expressive/professional skills, and substantial creativity and originality. Exceptional academic/intellectual skills. Work pushes the boundaries of the discipline and may be considered for external publication
 
80-89%
 
Outstanding analysis of key issues/concepts/ethics with clear originality and autonomy.  Outstanding development of conceptual structures and argument making an exemplary use of scholarly conventions.  Demonstrates independence of thought and a very high level of intellectual rigour and consistency
 
Outstanding analysis of key issues/concepts/ethics.   Very high level development of conceptual structures and argument, making consistent use of scholarly conventions. Outstanding research skills, independence of thought, a high level of intellectual rigour and consistency, outstanding expressive/professional skills, and considerable creativity and originality. Exemplary academic/intellectual skills
 
70-79%
 
Excellent analysis of key issues/concepts/ethics.   Excellent development of conceptual structures and argument making excellent use of scholarly conventions.  Demonstrates independence of thought and a high level of intellectual rigour and consistency
 
Excellent analysis of key issues/concepts/ethics.   High level development of conceptual structures and argument, making consistent use of scholarly conventions. Excellent research skills, independence of thought, a high level of intellectual rigour and consistency, excellent expressive/ professional skills, and considerable creativity and originality. Excellent academic/intellectual skills, and considerable creativity and originality
 
60-69%
 
Good analysis of key issues/concepts/ethics.   Development of conceptual structures and argument making consistent use of scholarly conventions
 
Good analysis of key issues/concepts/ethics.   Development of conceptual structures and argument, making consistent use of scholarly conventions
 
50-59%
 
Satisfactory knowledge of key issues/ concepts/ethics in discipline. Descriptive in parts but some ability to synthesise scholarship and argument.  Minor lapses in use of scholarly conventions
 
Satisfactory knowledge of key issues/ concepts/ethics in discipline. Descriptive in parts but some ability to synthesise scholarship and argument.  Minor lapses in use of scholarly conventions
 
40-49%
 
A marginal pass in module outcome(s) related to GLO at this level
 
Basic knowledge of key issues/concepts/ethics in discipline. Generally descriptive, with restricted synthesis of existing scholarship and little argument.  Use of scholarly conventions inconsistent
 
Basic knowledge of key issues/concepts/ethics in discipline. Generally descriptive, with restricted synthesis of existing scholarship and little argument.  Use of scholarly conventions inconsistent.
 
30-39%
 
A marginal fail in module outcome(s) related to GLO at this level. Satisfies qualifying mark
 
Limited knowledge of key issues/concepts/ethics in discipline. Largely descriptive, with restricted synthesis of existing scholarship and limited argument.  Limited use of scholarly conventions.
 
Limited research skills impede use of learning resources and problem solving. Significant problems with structure/accuracy in expression. Team/Practical/ Professional skills not yet secure. Weak academic/ intellectual skills. Limited use of scholarly conventions
 
20-29%
 
Fails to achieve module outcome(s) related to this GLO. Qualifying mark not satisfied.
 
Little evidence of knowledge of key issues/concepts/ethics in discipline. Largely descriptive, with little synthesis of existing scholarship and little evidence of argument.  Little evidence of use of scholarly conventions.
 
Little evidence of research skills, use of learning resources and problem solving. Major problems with structure/ accuracy in expression. Team/Practical/Professional skills virtually absent. Very weak academic/intellectual skills. Little evidence of use of scholarly conventions
 
10-19%
 
Inadequate knowledge of key issues/concepts/ethics in discipline. Wholly descriptive, with inadequate synthesis of existing scholarship and inadequate argument.  Inadequate use of scholarly conventions.
 
Inadequate use of research skills, learning resources and problem solving. Major problems with structure/accuracy in expression. Team/Practical/Professional skills absent. Extremely weak academic/intellectual skills. Inadequate use of scholarly conventions
 
1-9%
 
No evidence of knowledge of key issues/concepts/ethics in discipline. Incoherent and completely but poorly descriptive, with no evidence of synthesis of existing scholarship and no argument whatsoever.  No evidence of use of scholarly conventions.
 
No evidence of use of research skills, learning resources and problem solving. Incoherent structure/accuracy in expression. Team/Practical/Professional skills non-existent. No evidence of academic/intellectual skills. No evidence of use of scholarly conventions
 
0%
 
Awarded for: (i) non-submission; (ii) dangerous practice and; (iii) in situations where the student fails to address the assignment brief (eg: answers the wrong question) and/or related learning outcomes
 
 
 
 

Leave a Reply