Practical Poster Presentation

120 views 7:41 am 0 Comments March 14, 2023
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.

 

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.

 

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:

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%+

 

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		 Data analysis
is mostly
correct with
few errors or
omissions.
Sufficient
clarity and
quality of
presentation.
Some attempt		 Data analysis
is correct.
Presentation
is generally
clear and
appropriate. A
reasonable
attempt to
explain what		 Data analysis
is correct and
complete.
Presentation
is clear and
appropriate.
Well
structured		 Data analysis
is accurate,
thorough and
complete.
Presentation is
exemplary
reflecting

 

(35%) is given to
explain what
is being
presented.
Formatting
and visuals
detract from
presentation		 is being
presented.
Formatting
and visuals
occasionally
detract from
presentation.		 explanations
of what is
presented.
Formatting
and visuals
suitable for
arguments.		 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.
Some
distractions
during the		 Well
rehearsed
presentation		 Delivery
mostly fluent 		Delivery fluent

 

Audience
engagement
and timing
(10%)		 presentation.
Lack of eye
contact with
audience.
Duration of
presentation
significantly
over or under
allocated
length.		 with limited
eye contact
with
audience.
Duration of
presentation
noticeably
over or under
allocated
length.		 with
occasional
eye contact
with audience.
Duration of
presentation
generally of
appropriate
length.		 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.