BSc Biomedical Sciences with Health, Exercise and Nutrition (HEN6004) and BSc Biomedical Science (APS6022)
Instructions for use
- All forms must be completed electronically and uploaded to the student submission point in turnitin. Please note the literature review assessment will be completed in January whereas the assessment of the paper/poster and project design and laboratory management will be completed in May/June.
- The academic paper and poster are to be double marked N.B. the primary assessor in all cases must NOT be the main project supervisor (The secondary assessor will normally be the main supervisor). Ideally the same primary and secondary assessors should mark all 3 elements
- The project design and laboratory management assessment will be assessed by the primary supervisor only and will not be double marked. If the project has been carried out in the laboratory with technical support the supervisor can complete the form but should consult with the technical team before completing the assessment.
- Please fill in the final summary of marks table at the end. The final mark taking into account the weighting will be calculated by the module leader.
- ACADEMIC PAPER ASSESSMENT: Vaishya Linganathan
| Section | Comments (Please add comments and circle appropriate classification) | Primary marker (not main supervisor) | 2nd marker |
| Abstract Does the abstract summarise all aspects of the project work? (background, aims, methods, results and conclusions). Clarity and effectiveness of abstract. | Unsatisfactory (0-3) Satisfactory (4) Good (5-6) Very good (7-8) Excellent (9-10) | 0/10 | 0/10 |
| Introduction Depth of knowledge and clear understanding of background to project. Logical progression with clearly stated hypothesis and aims. | Unsatisfactory (0-3) Satisfactory (4) Good (5-6) Very good (7-8) Excellent (9-10) | 3/10 | 3/10 |
| Methodology Is the description of methods and experimental design clear and appropriate? Are the methods well laid out, easy to follow, and allow the reader the possibility of repeating the work outlined? | Unsatisfactory (0-5) Satisfactory (6-7) Good (8-10) Very good (11-13) Excellent (14-15) | 5/15 | 6/15 |
| Presentation of results Logical and structured presentation of data? Clear presentation of results? Inclusion of appropriate use of text and tables/figures? Correct use of units? Appropriate statistical analyses chosen, explained and carried out? | Unsatisfactory (0-5) Satisfactory (6-7) Good (8-10) Very good (11-13) Excellent (14-15) | 4/15 | 4/15 |
| Discussion and Conclusion Clear ability to analyse, interpret and critically discuss results. Draw reasoned conclusions from results.Evidence of ability to integrate project findings with published work.Provide an insight on future directions and/or impact on current thinking and practice. | Unsatisfactory (0-13) Satisfactory (14-118) Good (19-24) Very good (25-30) Excellent (31-35) | 10/35 | 12/35 |
| References Use of quality, up-to-date references which support introduction, project work, and discussion. | Unsatisfactory (0-1) Satisfactory (2) Good (3) Very good (4) Excellent (5) | 2/5 | 2/5 |
| General presentation Well structured presentation, logically structured using good written expression. Good clear scientific writing style. Adheres to scientific journal format guidelines? | Unsatisfactory (0-3) Satisfactory (4) Good (5-6) Very good (7-8) Excellent (9-10) | 3/10 | 3/10 |
| General Comments (strengths and weaknesses) No abstract and no conclusion, the write-up wasn’t in a scientific paper format. A lot of grammatical errors. Lack understanding on the research study reflected throughout. | 28 /100 | 30/100 |
Marker 1 – Sarah Maddocks
Marker 2 – Paul Livingstone
Agreed Mark – 29%
- PROJECT PORTFOLIO AND MANAGEMENT ASSESSEMENT (To be completed by the project supervisor only)
| Assessment Criteria | Marks and Comments (Please add comments and circle appropriate classification) | Mark |
| Project design and management. Engagement and the development of the project. Administration of the project ethics, COSHH, informed consent, etc. Management of the project from initial idea to final submission. | Unsatisfactory (0-15) Satisfactory (16-21) Good (22-28) Very good (29-34) Excellent (35-40) | 16/40 |
| Project Portfolio. Evidence of project planning, design and reflective thinking. Methodological considerations. Organised presentation of data with critical evaluation. Documentation of meetings with technical staff and supervisor. Inclusion of conclusion section (if appropriate). Reflective practice with the inclusion of two reflections on research seminars. | Unsatisfactory (0-15) Satisfactory (16-21) Good (22-28) Very good (29-34) Excellent (35-40) | 16/40 |
| Team work and reliability | Unsatisfactory (0-3) Satisfactory (4) Good (5-6) Very good (7-8) Excellent (9-10) | 4/10 |
| Ability to work independently | Unsatisfactory (0-3) Satisfactory (4) Good (5-6) Very good (7-8) Excellent (9-10) | 6/10 |
| General Comments (strengths and weaknesses) The student can work independently. The lab portfolio has the methodology of the research work carried out. Some areas show lack of understanding eg. Gene vs genome sequencing. Ethics approval details not uploaded. No supervisory meetings notes and seminar reflections. | Total 42/100 |
- SUMMARY OF ASSESSMENTS
Students name – Vaishya Linganathan
| Project Element | Agreed Marks (%) | Weighting |
| Literature Review | 20% | |
| Scientific Paper | 50% | |
| Project Portfolio and Management | 20% | |
| Poster | 10% | |
| Overall mark (/100) |
Get expert help for Research project assessment proforma and many more. 24X7 help, plag free solution. Order online now!
