# data[].attributes.body
30

# data[].attributes.body
55 or fail (will explain my reasoning!)

# data[].attributes.body
68

# data[].attributes.body
Fail

# data[].attributes.body
65

# data[].attributes.body
| The student did indicate some of the health and well-being issues associated with mental health nurses. However, the questions was very broad. Although student did highlight a survey questionnaire as their research method, they also mentioned that they had adopt a mixed  method approach which meant that they methodology was confused. Some key ethics were highlighted. The intention of scales to measure the mental health of participants was informal in part, and should have been indicated in the question, that is, in relation to the 'impact' being investigated. The reference list entries did not full correspond to sources cited. The work was expressed clearly in most part.

# data[].attributes.body
60

# data[].attributes.body
62

# data[].attributes.body
56

# data[].attributes.body
30

# data[].attributes.body
62

# data[].attributes.body
44

# data[].attributes.body
In the 20s or 30s

# data[].attributes.body
AOF (0) -The student proposed that they had conducted primary research.  However, I would discuss this with the second marker and moderator to confirm that.

# data[].attributes.body
55

# data[].attributes.body
I need to read this

# data[].attributes.body
55

# data[].attributes.body
25

# data[].attributes.body
58

# data[].attributes.body
I need to read this

# data[].attributes.body
42

# data[].attributes.body
50

# data[].attributes.body
The student background and rationale of topic was denoted, highlighting how the pandemic had affected primary school children's learning of the curriculum. However, this was not indicated in the question. Moreover, the extent to which parent's education impacted on their educational outcomes would have benefited background. It was unclear how semistructured interviews would measure education outcomes. Despite ethics been discussed, the informed consent of parents and safeguarding issues associated with conducting research on children in schools were not considered. Furthermore, the research was not appropriate on account of the researcher not have the expertise to measure education outcomes.  Not all the reference list entry sources were appropriate for research. The work was chiefly expressed clearly.

# data[].attributes.body
58

# data[].attributes.body
45

# data[].attributes.body
50

# data[].attributes.body
35

# data[].attributes.body
| The rationale of the research to examine the learning experiences of students during the pandemic needed to have been expressed better. For instance, the student noted that they would explore all teaching methods was unrealistic. It was also not in line with exploring student experiences, which was the premise of research question.  The research question should have included the University of Bedfordshire. Students selected semi-structured interviews. However, the recruitment of students needed to have been considered more carefully, as the selection of particpants appeared random. The interview questions  were not fully focused on the topic chosen.  Some ethics were highlighted. There were a few errors in referencing were evident in work, but wree appropriate in the main. There were some grammatical errors in the work.

# data[].attributes.body
Unsure - maybe 48 or 52?

# data[].attributes.body
25

# data[].attributes.body
0 -Viva. The question was on digital marketing, and not in line with a health and social care topic. The struture is also not related to the assignment in part.  I would thus flag this for a viva to check its authencity of this work.

# data[].attributes.body
52