School of Life Sciences Assessment Brief Academic Year 2022-23
| Section 1: Key information | |
| Module Code | 6042BMS |
| Module Name | Independent Project in Biomedical Science |
| Semester | 2 |
| Status | Normal |
| Module Leader | Lauren Acton ([email protected]) |
| Assessment Title | Thesis |
| Core /Applied Core | Applied Core |
| Credit weighting | 20 credits |
| Group/Individual assessment |
Individual |
| Task outline | Thesis, evidence of data collection and reflection |
| Submission deadline/attendance date |
The submission deadline for this assessment is 1800hrs GMT on 15th March 2023. The 24 hour grace period applies to this submission therefore submissions will be accepted until 1800hrs 16th March 2023. |
| Submission/attendance instructions |
The assessment should be submitted through the turnitin link on the 6042BMS aula page |
| Word or time limit | 5000 words (evidence of data collection and reflection are not included in this) You should state your word count at the end of your work. If you exceed the word limit by more than 10% i.e. if you exceed 5500 words, then you will be penalised by a deduction of 10% of your final mark. Work that is more than 30% above the allocated word limit (i.e. 6500 words or more) will only be read up to the allocated limit. |
| Special instructions | By submitting this assessment you are declaring yourself fit to do so. If you are not fit to submit at this time you may apply for extension to the deadline or deferral to the next assessment period (see Extension and Deferral request instructions). Please note that if an extension to the deadline is granted, the 24 hour grace period DOES NOT apply. You must collect a sufficient amount of data within the designated period to be able to submit this assessment. If you are unable to collect data during the designated period due to extenuating circumstances you must inform the module leader and your project supervisor. Extensions to the data collection period are not permitted. |
| By submitting this assessment you agree to the following statement: I confirm that this CW submission represents my own work, and I have not received any unauthorised assistance. I understand the rules around plagiarism, collusion and contract cheating and that it is my responsibility to act with honesty and integrity in the assessment process. I understand that there will be no tolerance towards academic dishonesty, and that cheating can and will lead to serious consequences. |
|
| Section 2- Detail of the Assessment task | |
| The thesis is based on the data collection carried out during the beginning of the semester. The structure of the thesis should be as follows: |
| Title page Template will be available on aula Abstract This is an overview of your project, and should include brief aspects of background, method, results, conclusion. Citations nor abbreviations should be included. Introduction Background and introduction to information relevant to the project, should be appropriately referenced throughout and text not copied and pasted from the proposal. Section should end with the aims of the project. Objectives and hypothesis do not need to be included, if they are however, they will be included as part of the word count for the introduction. You may include figures and tables if appropriate but these should be referenced as required and relevant to the content of the section Methods Details of the methods used presented in an appropriate scientific format and sufficient detail for project to be replicated by someone not familiar with the project. Where appropriate methods should be referenced and manufacturers included. Sub headings used where required and presented in a logical order. Results Descriptive text should be used to describe the results of the project, figures and tables must be labelled appropriately with titles and legends. Statistical analysis and descriptive statistics should be used to process data where appropriate. Raw data should not be presented in this section. Discussion Results should be interpreted, analysed and discussed throughout this section. Whilst results will be recapped in parts, this section should not be an extension of the results section, description should be limited. The discussion should consider the results collected during the project in relation to other published literature, as part of this you should References CU Harvard/APA used as appropriate. Evidence of data collection (this should include raw data, links to consent forms, reflection). Evidence of data collection should be documented and complete. There should be a clear indication of what was carried out throughout the entirety of the project. There should also be a reflective pi ece that demonstrates an evaluation of your own skills and relationship to employability. You may also choose to include Contents page Abbreviations index Acknowledgments |
| Detail of submission/ attendance instructions |
| A DRAFT Turnitin link is available in the Course Community Aula site to allow you 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 Turnitin link on the module Aula page 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 asap. |
|
| Word count details | |
| 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 Descriptive paragraphs as Figure or Table legends Narrative text included in Tables The following are excluded from your word allowance: The title Name and student ID Figure and Table headings Subheadings Words, sequences and numbers associated with figures and tables (however extensive narrative text presented in Tables will count) Reference list The word count details |
|
| Section 3: Help and Support | |
| Support and guidance specifically for the project will be provided through meetings with projects supervisors. For more general guidance, a padlet will also be set up for students to post questions anonymously. Students can expect supervisors to make themselves available at least bi weekly after data collection until the submission deadline. If students defer or extend their thesis submission, students can still expect support from their supervisor but frequency of meetings will be reduced and shouldn’t exceed that provided to those who submitted on the original deadline. An Aula discussion forum will also be opened to allow students to ask questions about the assessment. Questions will be answered via this forum. If you have a special requirement such as a variation of assessment need please contact the disabilities team. |
|
| Section 4: Learning Outcomes and Marking Rubric | |
| Mapping to module Learning outcomes |
This assessment is designed to assess Learning Outcomes 1, 2 & 3 of the module: 1. Implement a project plan, manage time and resources effectively and record data accurately in accordance with ethical and health and safety requirements. 2. Analyse, interpret and present project data in appropriate formats and critically evaluate this data in the context of current literature. 3. Reflect on the skills and competencies developed during the project period and the impact on employability |
| Knowledge, Skills and Behaviours |
Knowledge Personal and Professional Development Models of critical reflection and self-reflection to enhance the quality of patient care you provide personally and as a team leader Health, Safety and Security |
| Legislation/policies/regulations relating to health and safety at work and your responsibilities Risk assessment methodologies, including strategies for dissemination of the findings, and approaches to implementing the changes required Technical Scientific Services The underpinning scientific principles of investigations offered by HCS services The principles and practice of equipment management, maintenance, repair and safety Critical evaluation of the evidence base that underpins your clinical technical practice Research & Innovation The opportunities for research/innovation/implementation of change How to contribute to research and grant proposal writing as appropriate Skills Person-centred care and Professional Practice Use appropriate language to share complex technical information with the public/patients/colleagues, including giving/receiving feedback Personal and Professional Development Critically reflect on your technical/non-technical practice, keeping knowledge and skills updated & responding to appraisal/feedback Work within your scope of practice as an autonomous practitioner Technical Scientific Services Independently analyse/interpret accurately clinical technical data Be responsible for the safety and functioning of equipment Research & Innovation Use research, reasoning and problem-solving skills to support quality care improvements/innovation in your area of work |
|
| Task type/scheduling rationale |
This assessment reflects the standard presentation of scientific data and demonstrates: understanding of the rationale for the project, reporting of the methods used, recording, interpretation and analysis of the data collected. The inclusion of raw data reflects the importance of recording results clearly and accurately. The date of submission is after the conclusion of the data collection period. |
Indicative marking criteria
| Criteria and weighting |
Abstract (5% | Introduction (10%) | Methods (10%) | Results (20%) | Discussion (35%) | referencing Presentation and (10%) | Evidence and reflection (10%) |
| Outstanding 82, 85, 88, 90, 95, 100 |
Abstract is succinct and comprehensive, providing a broad overview of the project and stands alone from the rest of the thesis. Appropriate weighting of different sections and defined structure to the section. |
Information is relevant, focused and demonstrates understanding of beyond would be expected. All key concepts are included in the relevant level of detail and in a concise manner. Aims are clearly stated and focused on the report. |
All relevant methods have been included and are an accurate reflection of those used during the data collection period. Sufficient and appropriate detail is included for all methods that can be easily followed by others. |
Data has been processed effectively and presented in an appropriate format in the report. Description of the results is succinct and identifies the key trends and results. Analysis of the results has extended what would be expected and is of publication quality |
Overall the section is of publication quality and suitable for submission to a peer reviewed journal. Discussion is focused on the results obtained with critical evaluation which is supported by evidence of relevant published literature. Discussion points expand beyond the subject knowledge expected yet are concise and relevant to the report. Conclusion is succinct and clearly relate to the aims of the experiment |
Very well written and presented. No spelling and/or grammatical errors and CU Harvard or APA used correctly throughout. Citations included where appropriate and all references included in the list, sources used are appropriate and broad range utilised |
Evidence of data collection is well documented and complete. Clear indication of what was carried out throughout the entirety of the assessment period. Reflection on the project demonstrates evaluation of own skills and relationship to employability. |
| Excellent 72, 75, 78 |
Abstract is well structured and summarises the thesis well, weighting or length may need minor revision. |
Introduction is relevant with key concepts of the project included and well explained in the required level of detail. Aims are clear and focused. |
Methods clearly presented and reflect those used during data collection. Appropriate detail included and is presented in a format which can |
Data has been processed appropriately and presented well. Description accompanies all figures and tables with a succinct explanation which |
Discussion is well written and focused on the key results from the experiment. Clear understanding of the experiment is demonstrated and relevant links between published |
Sparse errors in spelling and/or grammar. Presentation is clear, CU Harvard or APA used throughout with some minor errors in places, a broad range of |
Evidence of data collection and documentation of what was carried out throughout data collection is largely complete. Reflection on the project indicates evaluation of skills. |
| be followed by others. |
demonstrates an understanding of the results expected. |
literature and results have been made. Conclusion is clear and relates to aims of the experiment. |
appropriate sources used. |
||||
| Very good 62, 65, 68 |
Abstract summarises thesis well but some minor revisions needed. |
Introduction is relevant with good level of detail. Some areas where additional detail could have been included. Aims are clear and relevant |
Most of the detail relating to methods has been included, some minor omissions/errors or inclusion of irrelevant information |
Data has been processed adequately and is clearly presented, some minor errors or omissions in the data. Description of the results are clear and most key trends/results included as expected |
Key results have been discussed in adequate detail, strong links to published literature with supporting evidence. Further detail or discussion points could have been included; conclusion relates to aims but requires more focus. |
Some errors in spelling and/or grammar, presentation clear. CU Harvard or APA generally used with some minor errors. References generally appropriate, range of sources used may be limited |
Evidence of data collection and documentation of what was carried out throughout data collection is completed to a high standard. Reflection on the project included but may have a lack of focus of skills and own contribution. |
| Good 52, 55, 58 |
Abstract provides an overview of the thesis, may need to be more focused or include further detail. |
Relevant information included in the introduction but lacks detail in some areas and/or some key points missing. Aims are included but needed to be more specific/relevant to the experiment. |
Omissions and/or errors in the methods, could mostly be followed by someone else. May not always accurately reflect the experiments carried out in the lab. |
Not all data presented as expected, may be mistakes or omissions. Descriptive text included but detail lacking or the information included not focused on the results. |
Some discussion of results included with some understanding of the results, relationship to published literature evident but limited. Multiple areas where discussion could be expanded upon or more detail included. Conclusion included and relates to the aims of experiment. |
Multiple errors in spelling and/or grammar, generally well presented. Referencing adequate with CU Harvard or APA generally used but either with errors missing references and/or citations. Sources of references not always appropriate and/or |
Evidence of data collection and documentation of what was carried out throughout data collection has been included but lacks data and/or lack of cohesion. Reflection on the project included but generic and doesn’t focus on own skills. |
| a limited range used. |
|||||||
| Acceptable 42, 45 ,48 |
Abstract gives a general indication of the content of the work but not focused and/or lacks detail. |
Introduction needs to be more focused on the content of the project, some relevant information but a large number of omissions/inaccuracies or irrelevant information. Aims aren’t clear and don’t adequately reflect those of the experiment. |
Data has not been processed adequately and/or missing data. Lack of descriptive text therefore difficult to follow the results presented. Major omissions/errors in the methods or not presented in an appropriate format |
Discussion of the results is limited with little understanding of the results demonstrated. Little relation of results to published literature, few references throughout the section. Conclusion is limited and doesn’t relate to the aims of the experiment. |
Frequent errors in spelling and/or grammar, which makes interpretation difficult. Referencing acceptable however few in text citations and reference list inaccurate, sources used not appropriate or few sources used. |
Evidence of data collection and documentation of what was carried out throughout data collection has been included but data isn’t complete and not well structured. Evidence of data is not reflected in the thesis. Reflection on the project not included or not reflective of own skills and development. |
Evidence of data collection and documentation of what was carried out throughout data collection has been included but data isn’t complete and not well structured. Evidence of data is not reflected in the thesis. Reflection on the project not included or not reflective of own skills and development. |
| Fail (does not meet the LOs 0, 10, 20, 30, 35 |
Abstract missing or not relevant to the thesis. |
No or little relevant information included in the introduction to support the experiment carried out. Inaccurate or unclear aims where there is no understanding of the experiment demonstrated. |
Methods not adequately described, lack detail and cannot be followed. |
Large portions of data not processed or missing. No/little descriptive text or text doesn’t relate to the results presented. |
No discussion of the results obtained from the experiment either because omitted or because it doesn’t form a discussion. Text included doesn’t relate to the data presented/experiment carried out. No clear conclusion or doesn’t relate to the aim included in the introduction. |
Spelling and grammar needed attention throughout, referencing inadequate with minimal or no in text citations, the reference list has not been included or no clear format followed. Inappropriate sources used. |
Evidence of data collection and documentation of what was carried out throughout data collection either missing, largely incomplete/inappropriately structured. Evidence does not reflect what is presented in the thesis. Reflection on the project not included/appropriate |
| Section 5: Marks return and feedback | |
| Marking and moderation Information |
This assignment brief has been moderated by a member of academic staff outside the module team. Marking will be completed by academic staff, 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. |
| Feedback and return of marks |
All banded marks released are subject to final Progression and Awards Board decisions and are therefore provisional until after the Board sits. Provisional marks will be released on 29th March 2023 via the Aula site in the Student Success App. Feedback comments can be accessed by (add in the relevant info eg clicking on your submission in Turnitin and selecting the comments icon. The completed marks rubric can be accessed through the rubric icon). If you have any questions about your feedback, contact the module leader. Following the Progression and Awards Board, your marks will be confirmed, and you will be able to view your final grades through SOLAR together with information on any resit or deferral arrangements. If you require further clarification, contact your Course Director or Faculty Registry. |
| Section 6: General Information | |
| Penalties for late/non submissions |
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). Work that is not submitted or tests/exams 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 Progression and Awards Board as to whether you will be permitted a resit attempt. |
| Extension and Deferral requests |
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, therefore you are advised to seek advice from your tutor or course director if you are considering deferring an assessment. In the event you apply for an extension (ECR) you should aim to submit to the original submission link whilst you wait for a decision. In the event your ECR application is unsuccessful this submission would then be marked. Please be aware that this is likely to be returned after the original marking feedback deadline has passed however. If you have applied for an extension (ECR) and have already submitted to the original submission link and your application is successful then you MUST submit to the extension submission link. You MUST also email the module leader providing your Name, module code, Turnitin receipt, and submission paper identification number. This will help ensure the correct piece of work can be marked. |
|||||||||||||
| Reference formatting | Coventry University now uses the APA Referencing Style. However, if you started your course before 1st September 2020, you may continue to use the Coventry 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. |
||||||||||||
| SLS banded marking scheme |
The SLS 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 as follows:
|
||||||||||||
| Academic Integrity | 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 Coventry 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/tests) 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. For online tests or exams where a time window applies, this also includes sharing or accessing shared questions and/or answers. 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 Also consult the Academic Integrity links on the Student Portal. |
|
| Appeals and complaints Procedures |
If you have any concerns about your assessment results then please contact your module leader or course director in the first instance. If they are unable to resolve your concerns then please contact the Associate Head Student Experience (Natalie Walker [email protected]) or Associate Head Quality and |
| Accreditation (Steven Foster [email protected]/Alan Greenwood [email protected]). Details of the processes and criteria for formal appeals and complaints can be accessed from the Registry Appeals and Complaints page |
IMPORTANT NOTE: This assessment brief is the property of Coventry University and must
not be passed to third parties or posted on any website. Any infringements of this rule by
any current or former students constitutes academic misconduct and will be reported to
IntegrityThreats