Feedback

Please note, plagiarism is not checked at this stage but will be for final submission in January || || ** Feedback **  ||  ** Suggestions for improvement **  || Negatives
 * 7/11/2011
 * ** Group number **
 * **C** || Positives:
 * A wiki was created and most members joined it.
 * Most members took part to the meetings and those who didn’t, did try or weren’t told.
 * All members uploaded a draft of their individual topic.
 * No individual pages were created
 * The first set of minutes is poor and unclear. Nowhere in the minutes say who was assigned which topic. No date was set for next meeting. Some of the group members were not even told about the next meeting
 * The Case study MCQs was solved together when I had specifically requested for it to be done individually
 * Discussion tab has been used to upload material and not to communicate to each other as it should have been.
 * Material has been uploaded as word document.
 * The wiki totally lacks of structure and it is difficult to read. Specific information are almost impossible to find.

Overall there are evidence that this group has worked together but this work has not been coordinated and concentrated on writing up of individual topic. Part of the work required by this case study is to learn how to use the wiki and improve IT skills and professionally work as a group. Members have failed to achieve the latter. || Each Member should have created his/her own page on the wiki where to upload papers as well as drafts. Each member should work on the layout of his/her page as this will allow and show improvement in IT skills. Extra pages such as ‘meetings’, ‘conclusion’, etc..should also be created.

Part of the final mark for the case study will be on presentation, this will include how nicely laid out the wiki is, and how ‘reader-friendly’ it is. Make sure you work on the layout as this will also show improvement on your IT skills.

Individual topics:

P. There is no suggestion, the causative agent has been identified, please concentrate on the topic pathogenesis in this space. Well done for referring to the figure on the main text but you might want to reconsider the figure choice as that one does not show what you are mentioning. You need to use more scientific papers throughout and critically discuss the topic in more depth.

T and T. Concentrate on the topic, no need to mention the case study at this point. You need to add references to peer reviewed papers, discuss treatment in more depth. Also if you can it is always good to use figures and tables to support discussion.

E. Well written and well structured. But lacks references and needs to be shortened and a more critical approach is also needed. There is no figure 1. Please make sure this is not plagiarised, I don’t check at this point but you will be required to submit your work through turnitin for final submission. Use figures and tables where appropriate to support discussion

C.A. Good start, some relevant info are reported but lacks of critical discussion and needs references. There is no diagram ‘above’. Use figures and tables where appropriate to support discussion

I.A. The first paragraph is on the correct topic but most of the work does not focus on the infectious agent as such but on where the microorganism is found. Some good use of references but more is needed. A more in depth discussion and critical analysis is also needed. Make sure you check the spelling before final submission, Avoid repetition and use figures and tables whenever possible to support discussion. ||