2. Overview of Assessment Assessment 4 for MEDS2201, titled “Competency Standard 7 – Critical Thinki

2. Overview of Assessment Assessment 4 for MEDS2201, titled “Competency Standard 7 – Critical Thinking,” focuses exclusively on demonstrating your competency in applying critical thinking skills within a laboratory setting. This includes analysing complex problems, evaluating evidence, making informed decisions, and reflecting on the outcomes of those decisions. The assessment addresses key learning outcomes related to analysing the skills required of a medical laboratory scientist, reflecting on personal performance, and improving professional skills through effective critical thinking and problem-solving. You are required to provide evidence of your competence through practical examples and reflections on your experiences, showcasing your understanding and application of critical thinking in laboratory medicine. 3. Assessment Task Follow the steps below to get started on this assessment task: Read the Assessment Guidelines: Carefully review the guidelines, marking rubric, and template provided in the Competency Standards Assessment Overview. Understand the Learning Outcomes: Familiarise yourself with the learning outcomes focusing on critical thinking, problem-solving, and ethical considerations. Research and Gather Information: Identify key principles of critical thinking and problem-solving in a laboratory setting. Research best practices for analysing complex problems and making informed decisions. Understand the ethical considerations, including maintaining professionalism and confidentiality. Plan Your Assessment: Outline the key points you want to cover regarding critical thinking. Structure your assessment into an introduction, main body, and conclusion. Write the Introduction: Briefly introduce the importance of critical thinking in laboratory medicine. Outline the key areas you will cover in your assessment. Develop the Main Body (Below are some suggestions for content that could be included; use tables and figures where appropriate): Problem Analysis: Discuss the importance of analysing complex problems in a laboratory setting. Provide examples of how to approach and break down problems effectively. Evidence Evaluation: Explain the principles of evaluating evidence and making informed decisions. Provide examples of assessing the validity and reliability of data. Decision Making: Discuss the process of making informed decisions based on evidence and analysis. Provide examples of decision-making strategies in a laboratory context. Ethical Considerations: Discuss ethical responsibilities in critical thinking and decision-making. Highlight the importance of maintaining professionalism and confidentiality. Personal Reflection: Reflect on your own experiences in relation to critical thinking. Identify areas for improvement and strategies to enhance your critical thinking skills. Consider the Following Questions (It is best to use these as subheadings for the main body as written): How would you constructively investigate and solve a particular laboratory issue? Provide examples where you demonstrated effective problem-solving in the lab. Explain why time management is important and provide examples of applying this skill. Include Critical Appraisal section As described in workshops this should discuss some of the main issues related to the topic, strengths and weaknesses of practices in a critical balanced manner Include Personal Reflection section Write the Conclusion (this should be very brief and succinct): Summarise the key points discussed regarding critical thinking. Reinforce the importance of critical thinking in laboratory medicine. Include References: Include in-text references and a reference list using the Vancouver referencing style. Check formatting and consistency carefully. Review and Edit: Proofread your assessment for clarity, coherence, and correctness. Ensure your submission meets the length requirement (2 pages, ~400-700 words). Submit Your Assessment: Submit your completed assessment via CANVAS by the due date. Here is an important document to refer to for preparing your competency MEDS2201 Professional Skills in Laboratory Medicine Competencies .pdfDownload MEDS2201 Professional Skills in Laboratory Medicine Competencies .pdf MEDS2201 Competency Standard Assessment Template-1-2.docxDownload MEDS2201 Competency Standard Assessment Template-1-2.docx 4. Assessment submission and feedback Students will be expected to submit this assessment by the due date. Individual student feedback will be provided via Canvas. 5. Assessment Criteria 6. Academic Integrity For more information, please consult the course guide or contact your course coordinator. Rubric Assessment 4 – Competency Standards Criteria Ratings Pts This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeContent 30 to >27.0 PtsHigh Distinction (HD)Demonstrates exceptional understanding and application of competency standards in laboratory medicine, providing comprehensive and insightful analysis with extensive supporting evidence. 27 to >24.0 PtsDistinction (DI)Demonstrates strong understanding and application of competency standards in laboratory medicine, providing thorough analysis with relevant supporting evidence. 24 to >18.0 PtsCredit (CR)Demonstrates adequate understanding and application of competency standards in laboratory medicine, providing basic analysis with some supporting evidence. 18 to >15.0 PtsPass (PA)Demonstrates basic understanding and application of competency standards in laboratory medicine, providing limited analysis with minimal supporting evidence. 15 to >0 PtsFAIL (NN)Fails to demonstrate understanding or application of competency standards in laboratory medicine, lacking analysis and supporting evidence. 30 pts This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeReflection 20 to >16.0 PtsHigh Distinction (HD)Reflects critically on personal performance and development in relation to competency standards, demonstrating exceptional insight and self-awareness, with clear identification of strengths and areas for improvement. 16 to >14.0 PtsDistinction (DI)Reflects critically on personal performance and development in relation to competency standards, demonstrating strong insight and self-awareness, with identification of strengths and areas for improvement. 14 to >12.0 PtsCredit (CR)Reflects adequately on personal performance and development in relation to competency standards, demonstrating basic insight and self-awareness, with some identification of strengths and areas for improvement. 12 to >10.0 PtsPass (PA)Reflects minimally on personal performance and development in relation to competency standards, demonstrating limited insight and self-awareness, with minimal identification of strengths and areas for improvement. 10 to >0 PtsFAIL (NN)Fails to reflect on personal performance or development in relation to competency standards, lacking insight and self-awareness, and failing to identify strengths or areas for improvement. 20 pts This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeCritical Appraisal 20 to >16.0 PtsHigh Distinction (HD)Provides exceptional critical appraisal of competency standards in laboratory medicine, evaluating strengths and limitations with exceptional depth and clarity. 16 to >14.0 PtsDistinction (DI)Provides strong critical appraisal of competency standards in laboratory medicine, evaluating strengths and limitations with clarity and depth. 14 to >12.0 PtsCredit (CR)Provides adequate critical appraisal of competency standards in laboratory medicine, evaluating strengths and limitations with some clarity and depth. 12 to >10.0 PtsPass (PA)Provides basic critical appraisal of competency standards in laboratory medicine, evaluating strengths and limitations with limited clarity and depth. 10 to >0 PtsFAIL (NN)Fails to provide critical appraisal of competency standards in laboratory medicine, lacking evaluation of strengths and limitations. 20 pts This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeCommunication – Written 20 to >16.0 PtsHigh Distinction (HD)Communicates ideas and information with exceptional clarity, precision, and professionalism in written form, demonstrating outstanding grammar, structure, and coherence. 16 to >14.0 PtsDistinction (DI)Communicates ideas and information with clarity, precision, and professionalism in written form, demonstrating strong grammar, structure, and coherence. 14 to >12.0 PtsCredit (CR)Communicates ideas and information with adequate clarity, precision, and professionalism in written form, demonstrating basic grammar, structure, and coherence. 12 to >10.0 PtsPass (PA)Communicates ideas and information with basic clarity, precision, and professionalism in written form, demonstrating limited grammar, structure, and coherence. 10 to >0 PtsFAIL (NN)Fails to communicate ideas or information effectively in written form, lacking clarity, precision, and professionalism, and demonstrating poor grammar, structure, and coherence. 20 pts This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeCommunication – Referencing 10 to >8.0 PtsHigh Distinction (HD)References sources correctly and consistently using Vancouver style, demonstrating exceptional attention to detail and accuracy. All citations and references match perfectly, with each citation and reference corresponding to a real, verifiable source. Vancouver referencing style is used correctly. 8 to >7.0 PtsDistinction (DI)References sources correctly using Vancouver style, demonstrating strong attention to detail and accuracy. All citations and references match perfectly, with each citation and reference corresponding to a real, verifiable source. Vancouver referencing style is used correctly. 7 to >6.0 PtsCredit (CR)References sources adequately using Vancouver style, demonstrating basic attention to detail and accuracy. All citations and references match perfectly, with each citation and reference corresponding to a real, verifiable source. Vancouver referencing style is used correctly. 6 to >5.0 PtsPass (PA)References sources inconsistently using Vancouver style, demonstrating limited attention to detail and accuracy. All citations and references match perfectly, with each citation and reference corresponding to a real, verifiable source. Vancouver referencing style is used correctly. 5 to >0 PtsFAIL (NN)Fails to reference sources correctly or consistently using Vancouver style, lacking attention to detail and accuracy.Any citation/s and reference/s do not match. Any citation/s or reference/s that do not correspond to a real, verifiable source, the assessment will be put forward to the academic integrity unit. Vancouver referencing style is not used correctly. 10 pts Total points: 100 Need Help

******CLICK ORDER NOW BELOW AND OUR WRITERS WILL WRITE AN ANSWER TO THIS ASSIGNMENT OR ANY OTHER ASSIGNMENT, DISCUSSION, ESSAY, HOMEWORK OR QUESTION YOU MAY HAVE. OUR PAPERS ARE PLAGIARISM FREE*******."