7029BMS Genomic and Regenerative Medicine
Assessment Brief 2020-21
Semester 2
| Assignment title (and number, if more than one) | Coursework 2 Laboratory notebook and report |
| Module Leader(s) and Module Team | |
| Module learning outcomes aligned to this assessment | Critically review current knowledge and understanding of the molecular and cellular basis of tissue regeneration, selected inherited diseases and cancers. 3. Conduct, analyse, report and critically reflect on a series of laboratory experiments in the field of stem cell biology. |
| Course learning outcomes assessed mapped to this assessment | CS1: Critically analyse, evaluate and interpret knowledge and practice with regard to Biomedical Science. CS2: Collect, analyse and present data using appropriate methods. CS3: Apply scientific methods to the critical analysis of literature, reflection, and information searching in areas of Biomedical Science TS7: Innovative and problem-solving capabilities: the ability to apply transferable skills to the execution of individual and group projects involving the definition, analysis and resolution of complex problems. PS1: Undertake laboratory skills: the ability to work safely in the laboratory, undergoing progressively more advanced laboratory-based investigations based on competence in techniques appropriate to Biomedical Science PS2: Undertake Laboratory skills: Carry out appropriate measurements / audits aligned to the translation of information from basic to clinical science. PS3: Work effectively in a team: the ability to operate, to lead and collaborate in a team in order to solve problems of a practical (experimental) nature and to provide appropriate solutions. |
| Task details and instructions | You must produce a 2000-word laboratory book which is a suitable record of your activities in the laboratory, data analysis, critical analysis and reflections made over two laboratory sessions. Due to the nature of the assessment, and the Learning Outcomes that are linked to this, it is a requirement that you attend on site laboratory classes in order to complete this assessment. The assessment requires you to plan, conduct, record and reflect on the results obtained from a series of laboratory practical sessions. If you have any problems in attending any of the sessions then you must contact the module leader Dr Steven Foster as soon as possible (and in advance of the session). Non-attendance at a lab session without a valid reason will result in a mark penalty (deduction of 10% of final mark for each session missed). Students should produce a laboratory book using the layout provided below (layout also provided in the template document). Students should also consult the lab schedule for further information and hints and tips. LAYOUT TO USE FOR LABORATORY BOOK (Sub-headings that should be included in final laboratory book in bold; hints and tips that should be removed from final laboratory book in italics) Overall aim Given what is known about the macrophage-derived exosomes and their potential effects on cancer cells, outline what you think the overall aim of the set of experiments was (i.e. can you suggest a hypothesis or scientific questions being tested). Session 1 Objective(s): summarise what the goal of each procedure was this session (i.e. what you did and why). Procedures: explain the principles behind each procedure/approach (i.e. explain how they work). Critically analyse the techniques/schedule/plan and discuss if there are any modifications you would make to the protocols or session if you were to repeat it. And/or, are there alternative or additional procedures/approaches that could have been used to achieve the objectives, and if so, compare them to those used. Reflection and planning for the next session: For example, you could discuss: which aspects of the session went well and why; if any aspects did not go well and what you would you do differently next time; if what happened this week altered your plans for the following week; etc. Do not simply repeat the procedures you did in the lab. Session 2 Objective(s): summarise what the goal of each procedure was this week (i.e. what you did and why). Procedures: explain the principles behind each procedure/approach (i.e. explain how they work). Critically analyse the techniques/schedule/plan and discuss if there are any modifications you would make to the protocols or session if you were to repeat it. And/or, are there alternative or additional procedures/approaches that could have been used to achieve the objectives, and if so, compare them to those used. Results: present your data in an appropriate format and provide accompanying text throughout introducing the figures and describing the data. Data analysis and discussion: discuss what your data indicates and whether your goals were achieved. Offer possible explanations for any deviation from predicted results. Note- you will not be assessed on whether your experiments worked or not, you will be assessed on your critical analysis of what was expected and what the data indicates. Reflection: For example, you could discuss: which aspects of the session went well and why; if any aspects did not go well and what you would you do differently next time. Do not simply repeat the procedures you did in the lab. Overall discussion Discuss if the findings have helped address the overall aim/hypothesis/scientific question. Elaborate on how the findings fit (or not) with previously published studies and whether they could advance knowledge of the molecular mechanisms of liver cancer progression. Also comment on future experiments that could be performed to further confirm findings or move the project forward (think about further work you might need to do if you wanted to publish a paper on this work). |
| Task- type | This assessment task allows you to continue to further develop your laboratory and critical analysis skills following on from the 7027BMS skills module. The nature of the required critical analysis approach promotes independence and provides other skills often utilised in the research lab environment, adding further authenticity to the activities undertaken. |
| Deadline and Submission Instructions | The submission deadline date and time in semester 2 is Monday 2nd August 2021 by 18:00hrs. Each student should upload a copy of their lab book as a single PDF file to the relevant Turnitin link on the 7029BMS Aula site. Please convert your final submission to a PDF format as these suffer less from formatting changes. There will be two Turnitin links labelled DRAFT and FINAL available in the Assessments area of the Aula site for this module. The DRAFT link is provided for you to be able to check your similarity score prior to making your final submission. You may submit multiple times to this link, but do remember that obtaining a similarity report may take up to 24 hours. The FINAL link is for submission of your work for assessment. You may submit only ONCE to this link. Remember that submission make take some time to complete, so aim to submit several hours before the deadline. The TurnitinUK system will record the date and time of your submission and cannot be over-written. If you experience any technical problems when trying to submit your work, please consult Aula help via the question mark link. If these problems are experienced at the time of the submission deadline and cannot be quickly resolved, please capture screenshots as evidence and email these and your completed assessment to the module leader immediately. |
| Task scheduling | This assessment deadline will provide the maximum possible time after the final session to complete the write-up and attend coursework support sessions. |
| Support and guidance | The marking rubric and criteria is available later in this document. These will be used to help guide students, along with instructions and hints and tips provided within the template document and lab schedule (documents provided in the Assessment folder on Aula). Students will also have the opportunity to speak with the module leader during timetabled online sessions and weekly academic surgeries. If you have a special requirement such as a variation of assessment need please contact the disabilities team. |
| Guidance on size/word limit | The word limit for this assignment is 2000 words (+/-10%) The following are included in your word allowance: The text of your written work Reference citations and reference to Figures and Tables within the text Figure/Table legends The following are excluded from your word allowance: The title Figure/Table headings Your name Student ID number, course, module name/code etc. Reference list The word count details |
| Penalties for overlong submissions | If you exceed the word limit by more than 10% (i.e. if you exceed 2200 words), then you will be penalised by deduction of 10% of your final mark. You should state your word count at the end of your work. Work that is more than 30% above the allocated word limit (i.e. 2600 words or more) will only be read up to the allocated limit. |
| Referencing | University now uses the APA Referencing Style. If you started your course before 1st September 2020, you may continue to use the University Guide to Referencing in Harvard Style until you graduate. For support and advice on how to reference appropriately please see the online referencing guidance or contact your Academic Liaison Librarian. |
| Extensions / Deferrals | The University’s normal policy on extensions and deferrals is given below. Please note that if you are unable to submit coursework or attend an assessment e.g. test, examination, presentation or assessed laboratory session you may be eligible to apply for an extension or a deferral. Please refer to the Extenuating Circumstances guidance on the Student Portal. Deferral or Extension requests must be made before the due date of the assignment and must be accompanied by appropriate evidence. Please be aware that deferral of an assessment may affect your ability to progress into the next academic year of study, please seek advice if you are considering deferring an assessment. For THIS assessment: This normal policy applies. |
| Late or non-submissions | The University’s policy on late or non-submission of assessment is given below: Work that is submitted late, without an extension or deferral having been granted, will receive a mark of ZERO (students will normally be eligible for a resit attempt). For assessments that are submitted through Turnitin, the University allows a 24 hour grace period for receipt of submission. This should not be viewed as extra time to complete the assessment but is provided to allow for any unforeseen technical issues that may occur around the submission deadline, especially when Turnitin is handling large numbers of submissions. Work that is not submitted or tests etc not attended, without an extension or deferral having been granted, will be recorded as Absent (ABS) (in these cases it is at the discretion of the Assessment Board as to whether you will be permitted a resit attempt). For this assessment: Normal penalties for late or non-submission apply. |
| Plagiarism and Cheating | Academic dishonesty hurts everyone in the community. It not only damages your personal reputation, but also the reputation of the entire university, and it will not be tolerated at University. It is in the best interest of all students for the University to maintain the good reputation of its awards. Your co-operation is expected in actively protecting the integrity of the assessment process. It is your duty to observe high personal standards of academic honesty in your studies and to report any instances of malpractice you become aware of, without fail. We expect students to act with academic integrity, which means that they will study and produce work in an open, honest and responsible manner. It is important, therefore, that you understand fully how to avoid academic misconduct and where to obtain support. Academic dishonesty covers any attempt by a student to gain unfair advantage (e.g. extra marks) for her/himself, or for another student, in ways that are not allowed. Examples of such dishonesty include: Collusion includes the knowing collaboration, without approval, between two or more students, or between a student(s) and another person, in the preparation and production of work which is then submitted as individual work. In cases where one (or more) student has copied from another, both (all) students involved may be penalised. Falsification includes the presentation of false or deliberately misleading data in, for example, laboratory work, surveys or projects. It also includes citing references that do not exist. Deceit includes the misrepresentation or non-disclosure of relevant information, including the failure to reveal when work being submitted for assessment has been or will be used for other academic purposes. Plagiarism is the act of using other people’s words, images etc. (whether published or unpublished) as if they were your own. In order to make clear to readers the difference between your words, images etc. and the work of others, you must reference your work correctly Self-Plagiarism is the reuse of significant, identical, or nearly identical portions of your own work without acknowledging that you are doing so or without citing the original work, and without the written authorisation of the module leader. Re-presentation is the submission of work presented previously or simultaneously for assessment at this or any other institution, unless authorised in writing by the module leader and referenced appropriately. Exam Misconduct is any attempt to gain an unfair advantage in an assessment (including exams) or assisting another student to do so. It includes: taking unauthorised materials into exams, copying from other candidates, collusion, impersonation, plagiarism, and unauthorised access to unseen exam papers. In the event of an allegation of exam misconduct you are advised to contact the Student Union Advice Centre immediately after the incident. For more details (including misconduct investigations and penalties) please consult the Faculty of Health and Life Sciences Student Handbook. For resit assessments in which you are asked to improve an original submission, taking into account feedback provided, the rules on self plagiarism do not apply. However, if you were alerted to plagiarism detection in your first submission you must ensure that this is NOT repeated in your resubmission. |
| Moderation and Marking | This assignment brief has been moderated by a member of academic staff outside the module team and the external examiner. Marking will be completed by the module team, which may include hourly paid staff. The marking will then be moderated by a member of the module team and reviewed by an academic staff member outside the team. The module feedback and marks will then be moderated by the external examiner. Your mark will be reported as a banded mark according to the School’s banded marking guidelines. This banded marking approach recognises that marking cannot be exact and avoids students being awarded marks that lie close to a grade boundary. The banded marks that may be awarded are shown in the rubric below. |
| Anonymous marking | All work will be marked anonymously – please do not include your name on the submitted work or in file name. |
| Feedback policy | All marks released are subject to final Assessment Board decisions and are therefore provisional until after the Assessment Board sits. Feedback and provisional marks will be released on 30th April 2021 via the Aula site in the Student Success App. For work submitted through Turnitin, feedback comments can be accessed by clicking on your submission and selecting the comments icon. The completed marks rubric can be accessed through the rubric icon. Following the Assessment Board, your marks will be confirmed and you will be able to view your final grades through SOLAR together with any resit or deferral arrangements. |
Indicative Marking Criteria
The criteria detailed below will be used to assess your coursework at MSc level. You should read through the whole document carefully to gain an appreciation of the level of performance that is required to achieve each grade. This document should also be used alongside the provided coursework support documents and support sessions. In addition, you should also independently research the background related to your coursework and find other sources of material in addition to those provided by this module.
| High distinction (100 – 95 – 90 – 88 – 85 – 82) | Distinction (78 – 75 – 72) | Merit (68 – 65 – 62) | High Pass (58 – 55 – 52) | Low Pass (48 – 45 – 42) | Fail (35 – 30 – 20 – 10 – 0) | |
| Overall aim 5% | Overall aim or hypothesis of the set of experiments is excellently introduced and explained. Particularly easy to follow logic and arguments. Highly relevant literature used to support statements. | The overall aim or hypothesis of the set of experiments is excellently introduced and explained. Very easy to follow logic and arguments. Very relevant literature used to support statements. | The overall aim or hypothesis of the set of experiments is very well introduced and explained. Easy to follow logic and arguments. Mainly relevant literature used to support statements. | The overall aim or hypothesis of the set of experiments is introduced and explained, though some explanations may be lacking or there may be some poorly expressed ideas. Quite easy to follow logic and arguments, though there may be some minor flaws in logic or understanding. Some relevant literature used to support statements. | The overall aim or hypothesis of the set of experiments is reasonably well introduced and explained, though several explanations may be lacking or ideas may be poorly expressed. Difficult to follow logic and arguments in places, and there may be some flaws in logic or understanding. Literature used to support statements could be more directly relevant. | The overall aim or hypothesis of the set of experiments is not introduced and explained. Explanations lack clarity or are very confused. Ideas are very poorly expressed. Section poorly constructed with some major flaws in logic or understanding. May be lacking use of relevant literature. |
| Objectives and procedures 20% | Very focussed and concise introduction to concepts that underpin the work that week. Rationale for methodology discussed, with very clear links between method and theory highlighted. Include cross referencing to methods that have been followed (e.g. course material/research papers). Include a combination of sources, which are combined to construct academic level critical analysis. Full consideration of shortcomings and limitations of present design as well as excellent suggestions for improvements based on evidence. | Highly relevant and concise introduction to concepts that underpin the work that week. Rationale for methodology discussed, with very clear links between method and theory highlighted. Include cross referencing to methods that have been followed (e.g. course material/research papers). Include a combination of sources, which are combined to construct excellent critical analysis. Near-full consideration of shortcomings and limitations of present design as well as excellent suggestions for improvements based on evidence. | Very relevant and concise introduction to concepts that underpin the work that week, but contains minor omissions or misconceptions. Rationale for methodology discussed, with good links between method and theory highlighted. Include cross referencing to methods that have been followed (e.g. course material/research papers). Include a combination of sources which are combined to construct a very good critical analysis of aspects. Some consideration of shortcomings and limitations of present design as well as very good suggestions for improvements based on evidence. | Relevant introduction to concepts that underpin the work that week, but may contain some omissions or misconceptions. Rationale for methodology discussed, with some links between method and theory highlighted. Include some cross referencing to methods that have been followed (e.g. course material/research papers). Use different sources, which are combined to construct a good critical analysis of some aspects. Some consideration of shortcomings and limitations of present design, though there may be some omissions or flaws in understanding. Some suggestions for improvements largely based on evidence. | Poor introduction to concepts that underpin the work that week, with several omissions or misconceptions. Rationale for methodology poorly explained, with few links between method and theory highlighted. Poor cross referencing to methods that have been followed (e.g. course material/research papers). Critical analysis provided but lacks depth. There may be several errors. Consideration of shortcomings and limitations of present design may contain omissions or flaws in understanding. Suggestions for improvements may be brief or lack supporting evidence. | Very poor introduction to concepts that underpin the work that week, with several major omissions or misconceptions. Rationale for methodology very poorly explained, with no links between method and theory highlighted. Cross referencing to methods that have been followed (e.g. course material/research papers) may be lacking. No or minimal critical analysis. There may be numerous errors. Minimal or no consideration of shortcomings and limitations of present design or flaws in understanding. May be lacking consideration of possible improvements. |
| Results 15% | Data presented in a highly appropriate format. Concise accompanying text provided throughout that very clearly introduces figures and describes the data. Has an particularly clear narrative that is very easy to follow and understand. | Data presented in a very appropriate format. Concise accompanying text provided throughout that very clearly introduces figures and describes the data. Has a very clear narrative that is easy to follow and understand. | Data presented in an appropriate format. Largely concise accompanying text provided that clearly introduces figures and describes the data. May be some minor omissions or errors. Has a clear narrative that can be followed and understood. | Most data presented in a largely appropriate format. Provide accompanying text to introduce figures and describe the data, but may contain some errors or omissions. Has a narrative, but is difficult to follow flow of information in places. | Most data presented, though there may be issues with presentation and formatting. Some accompanying text provided to introduce figures and describe the data, but may contain major errors or omissions. Largely difficult to follow flow of information. | Most data missing or very poorly presented, making it very difficult or impossible to understand the data collected. There may be major issues with presentation and formatting. Minimal or no accompanying text to introduce figures and describe the data. May contain several major errors or omissions. Very difficult to follow flow of information. |
| Data analysis and discussions 30% | Demonstrates an outstanding level of thought and analysis, which is supported with independently derived, original and highly relevant discussions. An extremely thorough critical analysis of the data to highlight main findings. An academic level critical evaluation of how the initial research question(s) and resulting data fit into the wider scientific literature and whether the literature supports or opposes the data and/or initial research question. Arguments are excellently constructed. Full consideration of the impact i.e. practical implications of experimental findings which includes directions for future work and potential clinical relevance. Very relevant conclusions with highly original analysis in relation to literature. | Demonstrates an excellent level of thought and analysis, which is supported with independently derived, original and highly relevant discussions. A thorough critical analysis of the data to highlight the main findings. A high-level critical evaluation of how the initial research question(s) and resulting data fit in to the wider scientific literature and whether the literature supports or opposes the data and/or initial research question. Near-full consideration of the impact i.e. practical implications of experimental findings which includes directions for future work and potential clinical relevance. Arguments are very well constructed. Very relevant conclusions with original analysis in relation to literature. | Demonstrates a high level of thought and analysis which is supported with independently derived, original and relevant discussions. A very good critical analysis of the data to highlight the main findings. A good critical evaluation of how the initial research question(s) and resulting data fit in to the wider scientific literature and whether the literature supports or opposes the data and/or initial research question. Some consideration of the impact i.e. practical implications of experimental findings which includes directions for future work and potential clinical relevance. Arguments are well constructed. Some relevant conclusions with original analysis in relation to literature. | Demonstrates a good level of thought and analysis which is supported with some relevant discussions. Some critical analysis of the data to highlight the main findings. Provide some critical evaluation of how the initial research question(s) and resulting data fit in to the wider scientific literature and whether the literature supports or opposes the data and/or initial research question. Some consideration of the impact i.e. practical implications of experimental findings which includes directions for future work and potential clinical relevance. Arguments are reasonably constructed. Some relevant conclusions with original analysis in relation to literature. May be some omissions or poorly expressed ideas. | Demonstrates some level of thought and analysis, but largely poor critical analysis of the data. Poor critical evaluation of how the initial research question(s) and resulting data fit in to the wider scientific literature and whether the literature supports or opposes the data and/or initial research question. Minimal consideration of the impact i.e. practical implications of experimental findings which includes directions for future work and potential clinical relevance. Arguments are poorly constructed. Conclusions lack coherence. Several omissions and poorly expressed ideas. | Lack of sufficient thought and analysis. Lacking critical evaluation of how the initial research question(s) and resulting data fit in to the wider scientific literature and whether the literature supports or opposes the data and/or initial research question. Minimal or no consideration of the impact i.e. practical implications of experimental findings which includes directions for future work and potential clinical relevance. Conclusions lack coherence or are missing. Several omissions or evidence of lack of understanding of main aspects. Ideas are very poorly expressed. |
| Reflections and planning 15% | Clear evidence of reflective practise. Reflections explained extremely well, and used very effectively to direct subsequent work. elaborate on highly relevant possible future work. | Clear evidence of reflective practise. Reflections explained very well, and used effectively to direct subsequent work. | Good evidence of reflective practise. Reflections explained well, and used quite effectively to direct subsequent work. | Some evidence of reflective practise. Reflections explained quite well, but may lack depth and analysis. Some indications reflections used to direct subsequent work. | Minimal evidence of reflective practise. Some reflections provided, but these lack sufficient depth. Reflections not sufficiently used to direct subsequent work. | Insufficient or no evidence of reflective practise. Reflections not suitable used to direct subsequent work. |
| Overall discussion 10% | Excellent linking of the project findings to published work and the initial overall hypothesis/aims. Clearly demonstrate an outstanding knowledge of how the findings link with published work and the wider field. Demonstrate a full understanding of the topic and project. Excellently discuss and elaborate on relevant possible future work | Excellent linking of the project findings to published work and the initial overall hypothesis/aims. Clearly demonstrate an excellent knowledge of how the findings link with published work and the wider field. Demonstrate an excellent understanding of the topic and project. Very clearly discuss and elaborate on relevant possible future work. | Very good linking of the project findings to published work and the initial overall hypothesis/aims. Clearly demonstrate an very good knowledge of how the findings link with published work and the wider field. Demonstrate a very good understanding of the topic and project. Discuss and elaborate on relevant possible future work. | Some good linking of the project findings to published work and the initial overall hypothesis/aims. Demonstrate a good knowledge in places of how the findings link with published work and the wider field. Demonstrate a good understanding of the topic and project. Discuss and elaborate on relevant possible future work, though these discussions may be quite brief or lack depth. | Some linking of the project findings to published work and the initial overall hypothesis/aims. Demonstrate a little knowledge of how the findings link with published work and the wider field, though there may be flaws in understanding. Demonstrate a little understanding of aspects of the topic and project. Considerations on possible future work are very brief or lack sufficient depth. | No linking of the project findings to published work and the initial overall hypothesis/aims. Demonstrate minimal knowledge of how the findings link with published work and the wider field with clear flaws in understanding. Demonstrate a lack of understanding of the topic and project. Considerations on possible future work are minimal or missing. |
| Presentation and referencing 5% | Outstanding presentation throughout. Report is particularly well written and contains concise and clear explanations. Flow of information is very logical and clear. There are no spelling or grammatical errors. All references are correctly cited, highly suitable and of a very high quality (e.g. peer-reviewed, relevant). | Excellent presentation throughout. Report is very well written and contains concise and clear explanations. Flow of information is very logical and clear. There are no spelling or grammatical errors. All references are correctly cited, highly suitable and of a high quality (e.g. peer-reviewed, relevant). | Very good presentation. Report is well written and contains concise and clear explanations. Flow of information is logical and clear. May contain a few spelling or grammatical errors. Most references are correctly cited, suitable and of a high quality (e.g. peer-reviewed, relevant). | Reasonable presentation. Report is quite well written and contains some clear explanations. May be difficult to follow in places. Flow of information is reasonably logical and clear. There are some spelling or grammatical errors. Most references are correctly cited and suitable, but there may be some missing citations or inappropriate references used. | Poor presentation. Report is poorly written and contains some very unclear explanations and is difficult to follow. Flow of information is difficult to follow. There are several spelling or grammatical errors. Many references are incorrectly cited or not suitable. There may be several missing citations. | Extremely poor presentation. Report is very poorly written and contains many unclear explanations and is very difficult to follow. There is no clear flow of information. There are numerous spelling or grammatical errors. Most references are incorrectly cited or not suitable. There may be numerous missing citations. |
Get professional help for the 7029BMS Genomic and Regenerative Medicine Assignment. Best assignment in Australia. Order Online Now!
No Fields Found.