| What am I required to do in this assignment? |
| The first assessment will be the combination of practical laboratory sessions and a presentation of a lab data obtained in the practicals. You will be required to demonstrate understanding of the principles and applications of clinical pharmacology and therapeutics. – You will carry out practical on “MTT assay to evaluate the cytotoxic potential of chemotherapeutic drugs in a cancer cell line’ – In this assessment you are required to submit a MS Powerpoint poster based on the practical sessions. The poster will subsequently be presented to markers during the presentation session scheduled in week 11. – The presentation should last no more than 10 minutes. You should be prepared to answer a few questions from markers after your presentation. Your marks are dependent on the presentation and demonstration of understanding of the principles behind the work carried out during question and answering. Guidance on the content of this report is given below and will be further discussed in a tutorial session |
| What do I need to do to pass? (Threshold Expectations from UIF) |
| Demonstrate the skills necessary to generate and analyse laboratory data obtained from a practical study in the area of clinical pharmacology and therapeutics. |
| Submission Deadline | Marks and Feedback |
| Before 10am on: 10/03/2023 |
20 working days after deadline (L4, 5 and 7) 15 working days after deadline (L6) 10 working days after deadline (block delivery) 02/05/2023 |
| Unit title & code | BHS007-6 |
| Assignment number and title | Assignment 1: “MTT assay to evaluate the cytotoxic potential of chemotherapeutic drugs in a cancer cell line’ |
| Assignment type | Practical Poster Presentation |
| Weighting of assignment | 40% contribution to final unit mark |
| Size or length of assessment | 10 minute oral presentation followed by 5 minutes questions by markers |
| Unit learning outcomes | 1. Demonstrate a critical understanding of clinical pharmacology, the clinical use of therapeutics for the treatment of a variety of human diseases, and the use of clinical pharmacology as a research tool. 2. Critically analyse and evaluate experimental data and scientific literature to understand current research advances in the area of clinical pharmacology and therapeutics; present and debate information clearly and effectively in the written form. |
2
| Produce and present a scientific poster according to expectations described in the assessment brief. |
| How do I produce high quality work that merits a good grade? |
| In order to be awarded a good grade you should follow the following advice regarding report content. Structure and design The poster should grab the attention of the reader and appear visually appealing. The poster should communicate the relevant information to the reader. Therefore, it should be logically ordered and easy to understand. Text should be succinct and kept to a minimum (bullet points are suitable). Illustrations, where used, should be accompanied by a figure legend. The poster should be constructed using MS PowerPoint using the template of your choice or the one put on Breo. As long as the key requirements are met, the font, design, layout and background colour are all open to choice. The poster should be of size A1 (841×594mm). Not more than 5 relevant references should be included in the poster. Poster sections: •Title and author: Include a concise poster title, your name, student ID number, unit code, assessment number and affiliation. •Introduction: Introduce the topic with an outline including background information and relevance. • Aim: State the overall aim of the experimental work. • Methods: Summarise in brief the various experimental steps, in the form of a methods section in a journal article, perhaps with the aid of a flow diagram. • Results/Data Analysis: Data should be displayed in figures or tables that are easy to read and clearly labelled. Results should be described in the accompanying text and the relevant figures/tables should be referred (in-text citation) to where appropriate. All figures and tables should be separately numbered and should have a figure legend explaining the contents of the figure. •Discussion and conclusion: Explain the data and summarise the main outcomes with respect to achieving the stated aim. • Reference list (Not more than 5): This (and the in-text citations) must be formatted according to the UoB Harvard style, available here: https://citethemrightonline.com/ A cell viability figure from the published literature (provide reference). You will need to pick a figure from published literature where the researchers have showed measurement of cell viability after the drug treatment in a cell line/primary cells. The completed poster should include your student number, unit code and assessment number, and should be submitted via BREO by the deadline mentioned above. The poster should subsequently be presented to staff at the presentation session as scheduled on the unit timetable. Failure to submit your poster to BREO by the deadline and/or non-attendance at the presentation session without approval from the mitigation team will result in a FAIL grade. Cite all sources of information at appropriate points within the text. In-text citations and the reference list should be formatted according to the UoB Harvard format which is described in detail here: https://lrweb.beds.ac.uk/a-guide-to-referencing/) Important: Your marks are dependent on the presentation and demonstration of understanding of the principles behind the work carried out during question and answering. You MUST NOT copy any text from any sources, even if you cite the source – you must write about what you have read in your own words. – this is very important. Students are reminded of their responsibilities concerning academic integrity and that plagiarism (the use of others’ words, published or unpublished, and failing to acknowledge the influence of another’s work or attribute quotes to the author) is a serious academic offence. This is an individual assessment, so collusion is also an academic offence including the help from any external source. Support: |
3
| Support for this assessment is given through the briefing before the start of the practical, which will outline what will be done during the practical. A background / briefing document as well as additional supporting information, for further research, will be available through BREO. A tutorial session will provide specific guidance on data analysis and poster preparation. During the lab sessions, further individual support will be available from the academic and technical support staff. General writing support is available centrally through StudyHub as well as the communication skills classes. The text book Knisely (2017) “A student handbook for writing in biology” Fifth edition (ISBN: 9781319121815; http://library.beds.ac.uk/record=b1606656~S20), and the associated companion web site (https://knisely5e.sinauer.com/), are also highly recommended resources to help guide students in preparing practical report. |
| How does this assignment relate to what we are doing in scheduled sessions? |
| The assessment report will document the findings of practical sessions and communicate their significance. The assessment will provide you with the opportunity to demonstrate a sound understanding and knowledge of principles of action of chemotherapeutic drugs on the cell viability of cancer cell lines. |
| How will my assignment be marked? |
| Your assignment will be marked according to the threshold expectations and the criteria on the following page. You can use them to evaluate your own work and consider your grade before you submit. |
| Pass – 40-49% | Pass – 50-59% | Commendation – 60-69% | Distinction– 70%+ |
4
| Quality of understanding and analysis of scientific principles and knowledge base (25%) |
Satisfactory levels of understanding of the scientific principles and knowledge base with some inaccuracies. Adequate review of relevant literature, though some omissions or tangents. Superficial attempt to relate work to broader context and explain aim and approach. |
Good understanding of the scientific principles and knowledge base. Sufficient review of relevant literature. A reasonable attempt to relate work to broader context and explain aim and approach. |
Commendable level of understanding of the scientific principles and knowledge base. Appropriate review of relevant literature. Highly competent attempt to relate work to the most relevant features of the broader context and define the experimental aim. |
A comprehensive understanding of the scientific principles and knowledge base. Detailed and focused review of previously published literature. Broader context of work clearly described. Experimental aim and approach accurately defined. |
| Data handling and presentation (35%) |
Data analysis is mostly correct with few errors or omissions. Sufficient clarity and quality of presentation. Some attempt is given to explain what is being presented. Formatting and visuals detract from presentation |
Data analysis is correct. Presentation is generally clear and appropriate. A reasonable attempt to explain what is being presented. Formatting and visuals occasionally detract from presentation. |
Data analysis is correct and complete. Presentation is clear and appropriate. Well structured explanations of what is presented. Formatting and visuals suitable for arguments. |
Data analysis is accurate, thorough and complete. Presentation is exemplary reflecting professional norms. Clear explanation of what is presented is given. |
| Critical evaluation and discussion (25%) |
Acceptable evidence of reflection or evaluation of scientific approach though at times a little shallow. The work is largely descriptive with some but limited interpretation and critical evaluation of data. Demonstrates some ability to discuss links between the current scientific thought and the work in hand, but it is rather superficial. |
Evidence of reflection and evaluation of scientific problem and approach. Sound interpretation and critical evaluation of the data. Reasonable connections discussed between subject matter and current scientific thought. |
Evidence of high quality reflection and evaluation of scientific problem and approach. Appropriate interpretation and critical evaluation of the data. Plentiful connections discussed between subject matter and current scientific thought. |
Demonstrates a well developed ability to evaluate scientific problems and to discuss clear evaluative links between the current scientific thought and the work in hand. Shows deep interpretation and critical evaluation of the data. |
| Audience engagement and timing (10%) |
Some distractions during the presentation. Lack of eye contact with audience. Duration of presentation significantly over or under allocated length. |
Well-rehearsed presentation with limited eye contact with audience. Duration of presentation noticeably over or under allocated length. |
Delivery mostly fluent with occasional eye contact with audience. Duration of presentation generally of appropriate length. |
Delivery fluent and expressive. Frequent eye contact with audience. Duration of presentation of precise length. |
| Use of literature and referencing (5%) |
Limited range of relevant reference sources, or limited range of literature cited. Use of UoB Harvard referencing format with a few errors. Omissions in citations within text of report. |
A reasonable range of literature accessed. In text citations are used appropriately and UoB Harvard format is generally used correctly. |
A significant range of primary sources is accessed including important primary sources. Correct UoB Harvard formatting citations. |
A wide range of primary sources is accessed. Correct UoB Harvard formatting of citations and reference list used throughout. |