- The document provides feedback on a student assignment for the module Applied Biochemistry. The student, Dylan Atkinson, received a grade of 68%. - The tutor, Caroline Dalton, praised Dylan's background section and critical analysis throughout the assignment. However, some areas could have been improved such as providing more detail on the importance of findings and proposed future experiments. - Suggestions for Dylan to strengthen future assignments include expanding on criticisms of studies and providing more methodological details for proposed future work.

1. Module name: Applied Biochemistry
Tutor name: Caroline Dalton
Student name: Dylan Atkinson
Grade awarded: 68%
Feedback:
Overall comments:
Background section is quite good, you explain the previous work to build a case for carrying
out the current study.
Good critical analysis throughout, with suggestions of alternative experiments.
Some plausible suggestions for future work.
Areas to improve:
Could have gone into more detail about the importance of some of the findings, and whether
they support the conclusions of the paper.
In some places you make reasonable criticisms but don’t expand on what you think they
should have done instead.
Future work sections needs more detail on the plans for the experiments and how to
determine the feasibility of the work proposed.
Indicator
1st
Expectional
1st 2:1 2:2 Pass Fail Fail
Knowledge and
Understanding
Exceptional
breadth depth of
knowledge and
understanding of
the area of
study;
Work may
achieve or be
close to
publishable or
commercial
standard.
Evidence of
extensive and
appropriate
critical analysis.
Excellent
knowledge and
understanding of
the area of study.
The case study
goes beyond what
has been taught.
Evidence of
extensive and
appropriate critical
evaluation
Very good
knowledge and
understanding of
the area of study
able to relate
facts/concepts
together.
The case study
relates
facts/concepts
together with
evidence of
approrate critical
analysis
Good knowledge
and understanding
of the area of study
balanced towards
the descriptive
rather than critical
or analytical
Knowledge and
understanding is
sufficient to deal
with the
terminology,
basic facts and
concepts
Insufficient
knowledge and
understanding of
the area of
study.
Partial answer
with major
omissions
Understanding is
typically at the word
level with facts
being reproduced
in a disjointed
manner.

2. Methods Used
and Applications
Exceptional
understanding
as to why the to
the main
methods are
used in the case
study.
Demonstrates
how the method
has been applied
and exceptional
critical
evaluation.
Excellent
understanding of
why the main
methods are used.
Demonstrates how
the method has
been applied and
extensive critical
evaluation.
Very good
understanding of
the main methods
used.
Demonstrates how
the methods have
been applied during
the case study with
critical evaluation.
Good
understanding of
the main methods
used.
Demonstrates a
reasonable
understanding of
how the method
has been applied to
the case study by
may lack critical
evaluation.
Basic
understanding of
the main
methods used.
Some indication
of how the
method has
been applied to
the case study
but lacks critical
evaluation.
Insufficient
understanding of
the main
methods used.
Little to no
demonstration
as to how the
methods have
been applied.
No understanding
of the main
methods used in
the case study, little
attempt to
demonstrate how
they have been
applied.
Future
Experimental
Work
(IMPORTANT)
Exceptional
attempt to
address future
research
questions.
Highly
approprete
methods applied
with a logical
and detailed
descriptions and
expected
outcomes.
Excellent attempt to
address future
research questions.
Approprete
methods applied
with a logical and
detailed
descriptions and
expected
outcomes.
Very good attempt
to address future
research questions
Approprete
methods discussed
with coherent
descriptions of
experiments.
Good attempt to
address future
research questions
Methods may not
be fully approprate
applied or
discriptions of
application contains
some errors.
Some attempt to
address future
research
questions.
Methods may
not be
appropratly
applied or
discriptions of
application is
incorrect.
Little attempt to
address future
research
questions
Methods are not
approprate for
the task and/or
discrition are
incorrect
Future work has
not been
addressed.
Structure &
Coherence
Exceptional
communication;
performance
deemed to be
beyond
expectation.
Excellent
communication
skills, structure and
planning. Clear and
coherent. Flows
well.
Very Good
communication
structure and
planning. Clear and
coherent..
Good evidence of
planning, but does
not flow smoothly.
Communication
shows clarity. The
structure may not
always be
coherent.
Communication
skills
/presentation is
generally
competent but
with many
weaknesses.
Insufficient
communication
skills showing
limited clarity,
and poor
presentation, the
structure may
not be coherent
Very poor
communication and
organisation with
no structure or
focus.
Referencing
References
operating with
advanced
concepts, at the
forefront of the
discipline.
References at the
forefront of the
discipline.
References are
appropriate and
may include to
include some at the
forefront of the
discipline.
References
generally reliant on
set sources to
advance
work/direct
arguments.
Some ability to
independently
select articles.
Strong reliance
on set sources.
Limited ability to
independently
select and
evaluate
articles..
No referencing
APA style referencing throughout no errors.
APA style
referencing
throughout may
have minor errors.
APA style
referencing
throughout may
have major
errors.
APA style
referencing
throughout may
have major
errors

3. Class CG% General Characteristics Level 4
FIRST
(Excellent}
96 Exceptional breadth and depth of knowledge and understanding of the area of study; evidence of extensive and appropriate selection and critical
evaluation/synthesis/analysis and of reading/research beyond the prescribed range, in both breadth and depth, to advance work/direct arguments;
exceptional demonstration of relevant skills; excellent communication; performance deemed to be beyond expectat ion . Work may achieve or be
close to publishable or commercial standard..
89
81 Excellent knowledge and understanding of the area of study as the student is typically able to go beyond what has been taught (particularly for a
mid/high 1st
; evidence of extensive and appropriate selection and critical evaluation/ synthesis/analysis of reading/research beyond the prescribed
range, to advance work/direct arguments; excellent demonstration of relevant skills; excellent communication; performance deemed beyond
expectation of the level.
74
UPPER SECOND
(Very good)
68 Very good knowledge and understanding of the area of study as the student is typically able to relate facts/concepts together with some ability to
apply to known/taught contexts; evidence of appropriate selection and critical evaluation of reading/research, some beyond the prescribed range,
may rely on set sources to advance work/direct arguments; demonstrates autonomy in approach to learning; very good demonstration of relevant
skills; strong communication skills..
65
62
LOWER SECOND
(Good)
58 Good knowledge and understanding of the area of study balanced towards the descriptive rather than critical or analytical; evidence of appropriate
selection and evaluation of reading/research, some may be beyond the prescribed range, but generally reliant on set sources to advance work/direct
arguments; good demonstration of relevant skills, though may be limited in range; communication shows clarity but structure may not always be
coherent .
55
52
THIRD
(Sufficient)
48 Knowledge and understanding is sufficient to deal with terminology, basic facts and concepts but fails to make meaningful synthesis; some ability to
select and evaluate reading/research however work may be more generally descriptive; general reliance on set sources to advance work; arguments
may be weak or poorly constructed; adequate demonstration of relevant skills over a limited range;communication/presentation is generally
competent but with some weaknesses.
45
42
FAIL
(Insufficient)
35 Insufficient knowledge and understanding of the subject and its underlying concepts; some ability to evaluate given reading/research however work is
more generally descriptive; naively follows or may ignore set material in development of work; given brief may be only tangentially addressed or may
ignore key aspects of the brief; demonstration of relevant skills over a reduced range; communication shows limited clarity, poor presentation,
structure may not be coherent.
25
15 Highly insufficient knowledge or understanding of the area of study; understanding is typically at the word level with facts being reproduced in a
disjointed or decontextualised manner; fails to address the outcomes addressed by the brief; typically ignores important sources in development of
work and data/evidence inappropriately used; weak technical and practical competence hampers ability to
demonstrate/communicate achievement of outcomes.
5
Zero
0 Work of no merit OR absent, work not submitted, penalty in some misconduct cases.