Cancer Biology

113 views 11:51 am 0 Comments March 29, 2023

6School of Life Sciences Assessment Brief Academic Year 2022-23

Section 1: Key information
Module Code 6039BMS
Module Name Cancer Biology
Semester 2
Status Normal
Module Leader Dr Anne Reiman ([email protected])
Assessment Title Coursework 1
Core /Applied Core Applied Core
Credit weighting 5
Group/Individual assessment Individual
Task outline

You are required to produce a summary of analysis and interpretation of genomic data and links to diagnosis and therapy.
Submission deadline/attendance date The submission deadline is 29th March 2023 at 6pm (BST).

The 24h grace period will apply to normal time submissions therefore submissions will be accepted up to 6pm (BST) on the 30th March 2023
Submission/attendance instructions The report should be submitted via the appropriate Turnitin link in Aula
Word or time limit The word limit is 1000 words

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 1100 words, then you will be penalised by deduction of 10% of your final mark.  Work that is more than 30% above the allocated word limit (ie 1300 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 an 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.
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

You are required to produce a summary of the analysis and interpretation of genomic data and links to diagnosis and therapy. You will receive an individual topic in the form of a case study in workshop 1. If you miss workshop 1, you should contact the module leader to receive the case study

You will be provided a patient case study and a list of genetic variants that has been created after the secondary genomic analysis using next generation sequencing.

Based on this genomic data, you will need to identify pathogenic mutation/s in the driver gene/s likely to be associated with the type of cancer specified in the case study.

You are required to use a publicly available databases such as My Cancer Genome https://www.mycancergenome.org/ and Catalogue of Somatic Mutations in Cancer https://cancer.sanger.ac.uk/cosmic, for data interpretation.

The report should include a background to the topic area, followed by a critical discussion on how next generation sequencing data would inform patient diagnosis and therapeutic decision making or screening of at-risk family members. There will be questions included to guide students in report writing

You will need to research your topic in journal review articles and original scientific research papers.

Your report should conclude with a summary to evaluate the information that you have presented.
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 as soon as possible.
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

Text that is incorporated into a table format or into a text box format e.g. “Key points” summaries etc

The following are excluded from your word allowance:

The title

Your name, course etc

Figure and Table headings

Words associated with Figures and Tables if these are data based

Reference list

The word count details

Contents page (if used)
Section 3: Help and Support

The coursework will be discussed in workshop 1. Topics will also be assigned at that time. A recording of the workshop will be also be provided for those who miss workshop 1.

There will be a workshop designated to this coursework

A drop -in surgery session will be advertised for subsequent general academic advice

If you have a special requirement such as a variation of assessment need please contact the disabilities team.  
Links to additional assessment information
The link to the narrated ppt explaining the assessment: to be added
Section 4: Learning Outcomes and Marking Rubric
Mapping to module Learning outcomes The coursework will assess outcome 3:

Apply an analytical approach to big data in cancer biology and evaluate the value of such information in future medical approaches to cancer.
Knowledge, Skills and Behaviours Knowledge

Technical Scientific Services

The underpinning scientific principles of investigations offered by HCS services

Person centred Care and Professional Practice

Use appropriate language to share complex technical information with the public/patients/colleagues, including giving/receiving feedback

Skills

Technical Scientific Services

Independently analyse/interpret accurately clinical technical data
Task type/scheduling rationale This is a self-directed piece of coursework. This coursework format will assess your ability to analyse and interpret big data and retrieve relevant information from scientific research papers, to analyse the data presented and to relay the information in a concise manner.

 

Indicative marking criteria:

1st (Outstanding)

80-100

1st

(72, 75, 78)

2:1

(62, 65, 68)

2:2

(52, 55, 58)

3

(42, 45, 48)

Fail

(0,10,20, 30, 35)

Analysis and interpretation of genomic data

35%

An outstanding interpretation of the case study and explanation of the genetic basis of disease.

An excellent interpretation of the case study or understanding of genetic basis of disease

A good attempt to interpret the case study, a good

explanation of the genetic background of the disease has been provided, but some detail may be missing.  

A reasonable attempt has been made to interpret the case study and relate the genetic findings to the disease however lacks detail and accuracy in various aspects

There is some attempt to interpret the date and relate the genomic findings to the disease, however little relevant information presented or lacks depth and accuracy.

Little information of any

relevance to the question or

topic

Evidence (critical evaluation using appropriate sources)

35%

Excellent critical evaluation of the information based on a wide array of sources.

At the higher end, the analysis and evidence would be of a publishable quality

Information is taken from a wide array of source(s) with evaluation to develop a comprehensive analysis. Student uses peer reviewed primary literature and has formulated an argument.

Information is taken from source(s) with evaluation to develop a coherent analysis or synthesis. Student uses peer reviewed primary literature and has formulated an argument based on the information

Information is taken from source(s) with some interpretation/ critical evaluation, but not enough to develop a coherent analysis or synthesis.

Information is taken from source(s) without any interpretation/evaluation .Viewpoints of authors are taken as fact, without question. Errors in interpreting evidence presented by authors and little critical analysis.

There is no critical evaluation or interpretation of source(s). Viewpoints of authors are taken as fact, without question. At the lower end, the work is entirely descriptive with no good argument analysis

Presentation, structure and scientific style

20%

Excellent organisation. Demonstrates a coherent flow that allows the reader to travel to a sensible conclusion. Very few spelling, grammatical errors.

Well organised in sections/paragraphs. Ideas are linked providing some flow and allowing the reader to travel to a sensible conclusion. Few spelling, grammatical errors.

Generally a clear and organised text with appropriate paragraph structure and well written text. A few errors of spelling and/or grammar may be present but still providing the reader with an easily readable text.

Reasonably written and readable. Reasonably organised presentation with some linking from one section to another. Errors in grammar and spelling might be present.

Difficult to follow as ideas appear sporadically rather than in a structured and organised manner. Errors in grammar and spelling.

.

Argument or discussion

becomes difficult to follow.

Spelling and grammar errors

present; no real structure or

organisation of material.

Referencing

10%

Extensive reference to contemporary peer-reviewed sources is evident throughout the report. All statements have been synthesised and supported by the literature.

Selected references are of an excellent standard and well-integrated a good attempt has been made to validate all statements

.

The need for evidence is clearly recognised, and most claims are supported by relevant reference to peer-reviewed sources

Provision of supporting evidence is inconsistent. There are several lost opportunities to validate statements.

Limited use of evidence or reliance on an insufficient number of sources to support discussion. Selected sources may not be appropriate (i.e. not contemporary or peer-reviewed).

Little evidence provided

that published material has

been consulted during the

production of this work.

Citations and references are entirely formatted to CU Harvard/APA

Citations and references are mostly formatted to CU Harvard/APA

Citations and references are generally formatted to CU Harvard /APA with a few minor errors.

Citations and references are generally formatted to CU Harvard/APA with some errors.

Citations and references may be partly or inconsistently formatted to CU Harvard/APA and some citations or references may be missing

Citations and references are

missing and /or need

formatting to

CU Harvard /APA
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 the 14th April 2023 via the Aula site in the Student Success App.

Feedback comments can be accessed by 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 lecturer who has marked your work or 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:

Outstanding  82, 85, 88, 90, 95, 100

Excellent 72, 75, 78

Very Good: 62, 65, 68

Good           52,55,58

Acceptable 42,45,48

Fail (does not meet LOs)  0,10,20,30, 35
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 (Alan Greenwood @coventry.ac.uk).

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