Health Sciences and Social Care Biosciences Assessment Block Code BB2803. Module Co-ordinator Ansar Pathan

Guidelines to students This assessment will take place starting from week 1 and will be handed in on Week 12 in Term 1. The assessment is a 2000-word scientific paper writing using the set of data provided. This module has a weighting of 100 % that carries 20 credits.

This assessment block provides the opportunity for students to demonstrate their ability to evaluate experimental data (relevant to term 1 practical work) and report it in the format of a scientific journal publication.

Students will need to demonstrate the following:Knowledge and understanding, cognitive (thinking) skills and other skills and attributes in the following areas:

Knowledge Demonstrate how data is evaluated, interpreted and reported in writing to a scientific

audience

Apply knowledge and experience gained from study blocks to produce a coherent scientific paper

Cognitive Review data in context of the literature

Integrate information obtained from various sources

Skills Effective written communication skills

Cite and reference work appropriately

Demonstrate use of sequence databases and basic bioinformatics techniques

Assessment criteriaThe following assessment criteria will be used for marking coursework and providing student feedback

Student number:

Plagiarism is cheating. Plagiarism is the use of someone else's work without proper acknowledgement, presenting it as your own. Any plagiarism discovered in this work will result in a penalty, varying from deduction of marks to more serious disciplinary action, according to the severity of the offence. By signing below, you certify that this work contains no plagiarism as defined by the university policy:http://brunel.ac.uk/about/administration/rules/senateregs By attaching this form to your work, you are declaring that this work is free from plagiarism.

Coursework to be marked by:

(Office use only) Work should be returned by:

Introduction: relevant and well structured

Methods: ELISA, Real time PCR and BLAST search covered

Results: a) correct interpretation of the data b) correct correlation of lab

findings with the symptoms

disagree □ □ □ □ □ agree disagree □ □ □ □ □ agree disagree □ □ □ □ □ agree

Results: results have been described in a logical and coherent way

Discussion: logical explanations, review of the data in the context of

literature

Conclusion: well supported by the clinical symptoms and data sets

disagree □ □ □ □ □ agree disagree □ □ □ □ □ agree disagree □ □ □ □ □ agree

Referenced correctly using suitable, reliable sources

Overall, the write-up is well-structured, neat, consistent, written

in good clear English

disagree □ □ □ □ □ agree disagree □ □ □ □ □ agree

Comments and suggestions for improvement

Proposed mark Marker’s initials

Marking criteria

Comments and suggestions for improvement

Marking criteria are determined by the aims and learning outcomes of each module, the level of study and the purposes of the assessment (e.g. to evidence academic attainment, safe practice or practical skill). All assignments, guidelines and marking schedules are subject to approval by each programme’s external examiners prior to their publication and use. Assignment guidelines should specify what is expected of the student, the desired content and incorporates the criteria against which performance will be measured. These guidelines are normally made available at or soon after the commencement of each module.

Below are guidelines for marking all assessed work. Please note that student entitlement to know final marks only occurs when these have been confirmed by the Board of Examiners. Interim feedback will be expressed as a grade letter (A-F) and an indication on areas that could be improved.

BIOSCIENCES: GRADE DESCRIPTORS (FOR INDIVIDUAL ANSWERS)

Key to Categories of Marking CriteriaMark band Descriptor

Classification for Honours Degree

(i)

(ii)

(iii)

Information and knowledge

Reading of literature (beyond lectures)

Addressing the question

(iv)

(v)

(vi)

Understanding the topic

Originality & independent thinking

Clarity, conciseness, logic and structure

(i) Contains the information required with either no or very few errors.

70 – 100Excellent

‘A’ First Class

(ii) Shows evidence of having read relevant literature and is able to use this effectively in the answer.

(iii) Addresses the question correctly, understanding all its nuances. Little or no irrelevant material.

(iv) Demonstrates full understanding of topic within a wider context. Shows excellent critical and analytical abilities.

(v) Should contain evidence of sound independent thinking.

(vi) Ideas expressed clearly, and concisely. Essay written logically and with appropriate structure. Standard of English very high. Diagrams detailed and relevant where appropriate.

(i) Contains most of' the information required with a few minor errors.

60 – 69Very Good

‘B’Upper Second

(ii) Shows evidence of having read some of the relevant literature and is able to use this in the answer.

(iii) Addresses the question adequately. Little or no irrelevant material.

(iv) Demonstrates substantial understanding of topic within a wider context. Shows good critical and analytical abilities.

(v) Shows some independent thinking, some of which may be faulty.

(vi) Ideas generally expressed coherently. Essay written logically and with appropriate structure. Standard of English high. Diagrams detailed and relevant where appropriate.

(i) Contains the essential core of the information required with some minor errors and only a few major errors.

50 - 59Good

‘C’Lower Second

(ii) May show evidence of having read some relevant literature; fails to understand it or use it correctly in the answer.

(iii) Does not address all aspects of the question. May contain some irrelevant material.

(iv) Demonstrates some understanding of topic and its context. Shows limited critical and analytical abilities.

(v) Shows limited independent thinking.

(vi) Ideas not always expressed coherently. Some faults in logic and structure of essay. Standard of English acceptable. Diagrams present, but not always detailed or relevant where appropriate.

(i) Contains, as a minimum information required for satisfactory completion of the learning outcome being assessed

40 - 49Threshold and above

‘D’

Third Class

(ii) Limited evidence of having read relevant literature, fails to understand it or use it correctly in the answer.

(iii) Addresses only some aspects of the question. May include some irrelevant material.

(iv)Demonstrates limited or patchy understanding of the topic and its context. Little evidence of critical and analytical abilities.

(v) Shows little independent thinking.

(vi) Ideas rarely expressed coherently. Some faults in logic and structure of essay. English mediocre. Diagrams present, but lacking in detail and relevance.

(i) Falls short of the minimum amount of information required for satisfactory achievement of the learning outcome being assessed but suggests that fulfilment of the learning outcome is not beyond the grasp of the student 30 - 39 Below

threshold

‘E’

(ii) Little or no evidence of having read relevant literature.

(iii) Does not really address the question. May include a lot of irrelevant material.

(iv) Demonstrates little understanding of topic and its context. Very little evidence of critical and analytical abilities.

(v) Shows no independent thinking.

(vi) Ideas expressed incoherently. Many faults in logic and structure of essay. Standard of English weak. Diagrams lacking detail and relevance or no relevant diagrams.

(i) Contains little of the information required and/or substantial factual errors.

0 - 29Fail

‘F’

(ii) Little or no evidence of having read the relevant literature.

(iii) Fails to address the question either because material is largely irrelevant or because there is little or no information.

(iv) Demonstrates very little understanding of topic and its context. No evidence of critical and analytical abilities.

(v) Shows no independent thinking.

(vi) Ideas expressed incoherently. Many faults in logic and structure of essay. Standard of English poor, any diagrams lacking detail and relevance or no relevant diagrams.