Levels of Achievement Criteria	Proficient	Developing	Minimum Performance	Unsatisfactory
Content & FocusWeight 30.00%	100% Clearly understands content, focused upon most relevant information. And uses best sources of evidence	85% Familiar with content, may not be appropriately focused or does not use best sources of evidence	70% Has some familiarity with content, but lacks focus on most important elements. Sources are tangentially relevant, but not on target.	0% Unfamiliar with content required for participation.
Logic and FlowWeight 30.00%	100% Able to present an argument or topic in a logical and organized fashion.	85% Presents an argument or topic in a thorough way, but needs better logic or organization	70% Presents some aspects of topic well, but lacks logic or organization in other aspects	0% Disorganized presentation, not supporting point of view
AnalysisWeight 30.00%	100% Identifies relationships and components to clearly support opinions or ideas	85% Identifies relationships and components, but lacks clarity in supporting opinions or ideas	70% Identifies some relationships and components, but lacks some important connections.	0% Does not identify components or relationships
Communication/CollaborationWeight 10.00%	100% Demonstrates good listening and reflecting skills and contributes appropriately. Able to present clearly and effectively	85% Listening or reflecting skills are good and contributes appropriately. Presents clearly, but could improve speaking style	70 % Listening or reflecting skills are minimal and contributes only minimally. Presents information that is correct, but needs to work on clarity and speaking style	0% Does not contribute appropriately or lacks listening and

I gave myself a score of 100% for content and focus, considering that I possess a well thought-out understanding and familiarity with the presented material. I felt like my strengths in this area steadily improved as the semester progressed.

For logic and flow I gave myself an 85% because although I can work my way through a topic or argument, my organizational skills need to be worked on more to present a clearer picture of what’s going on with the case at hand.

For analysis weight I gave myself a 100% because once the relationships have been established for a case, I can clearly identify what needs to be done and how it can get done in a clear and concise way.

I rated myself at 100% for communication/collaboration. I believe I have collaborated with my group substantially and contributed ideas and information as clearly and as effectively as I could have. I felt like my group did a fantastic job of coming together and working as a team to get the most thorough differential diagnosis, elicit the right information, and ultimately come to the correct diagnosis.

Ultimately, I thoroughly enjoyed both Clinical Correlations classes. The class put you into the driver’s seat and you needed to try to figure out what was going on with your patient, as it would happen in the hospital or in a clinic. It made you think about what you would do and what questions were needed to move the case forward. I also felt it was great learning experience because you got to look at a multitude of pathologies in a different context and light. Learning about diseases on your computer, PowerPoints and textbooks is one thing. Hearing about a patient’s chief complaint and moving on from there is completely something else, and I really appreciated every minute of it. Professors Maida, Lopez and Beckerman really brought that class to life, and I can’t thank them enough.