1. Faculty of Health and Wellbeing - Department of Biosciences
ASSESSED WORK FEEDBACK FORM
Student Name: Sebastian Gonzalez
Student ID number:
Module Title: Professional and Scientific practice 2
Title of coursework Project Report 2021
Marker: Laura Cole
MARK*:
74%
Strengths:
Professional format, overall presentation and effort clearly gone into this piece of work
Result section contained some good clear figures, well annotated and good presentation of the standard data and
enzyme optimization – however there are some parts of the results section without a separate description to the figure
legend
Promising bibliography
Ethics form filled out correctly
Suggestions for Improvement:
Introduction would benefit from an image(s) to help put the project in a real life context and engage the reader
Your conclusion needs some key specific findings - quotes actual numerical values (sensitivity/specificity etc…), this
validates your claims
Student comments for Feed-forward (how will you use this feedback to improve your future work?):
Laura M Cole DATE: 19/04/2021
3. Indicator
First
(High)
First Upper Second
Lower Second Third Fail Fail
Introduction
(weighting x2
)
Content is relevant and is fully
evaluated. Full introduction to
background to lab Broad and
deep knowledge of theory and
concepts, with creative and
imaginative application.
Draws on a wide range of
sources which are themselves
evaluated.
Relevance of content to subject
of coursework is fully evaluated.
Full introduction to background
to lab. Broad and deep
knowledge of theory and
concepts, with relevant
application. Draws on a wide
range of sources.
Relevance of the content to
topic is very well reasoned.
introduction to background to lab
and some simple theory may be
included. .A broad knowledge of
theory and concepts, with
aspects well explained and
applied. Draws on a wide range
of sources.
Relevance of the content to
topic is reasoned. Introduction
little basic in places A general
knowledge of theory and
concepts, with reasonable
attempt to explain to
demonstrate understanding.
Draws on a range of sources
Relevance of the content to the
topic is generally described
although may be weak in places or
lacking depth. may include
unnecessary theory of techniques
Knowledge of theory and concepts
is linked to the scope of the study.
Relies on main recognized
sources e.g. directed texts.
Choice of content weakly
justified, only descriptive use
of knowledge. Little indication
of relevance of theory and
concepts, confused
application of the knowledge
to topic limited sources of
information
Inaccurate and irrelevant
content, knowledge or
theory and concepts.
Confused application
knowledge to problem.
Very limited sources of
information or
inappropriate.
Materials and
Methods
(weighting
x1)
Clear methods, in past
impersonal tense and in
paragraphs. Updates from
modifications from the lab
script given. Generally in
correct format and details of
statistical analysis clear
nothing omitted or in error
Clear methods, in past
impersonal tense and in
paragraphs. Updates from
modifications from the lab script
given. Generally in correct
format and details of statistical
analysis clear
Methods provided in past
impersonal tense and in
paragraphs. Changes made in
lab included and details of
stages, may be jumbled and
some simplistic methods
included
Methods provided in past
impersonal tense and in
paragraphs but changes may
not have been incorporated and
some errors in style
Lab script re worded but may lack
full consistency to style of past
tense/ paragraphs
Some attempt to reword lab
script but not in past tense or
in paragraphs
Bullets from lab script
Results
(weighting x3
)
Data presentation excellent,
clear well labeled graphs,
images and annotations clear
legends and correct statistics
provided. Clear descriptions
of data given. No errors in
description and no mixing of
discussion points in results
Data presentation excellent,
clear graphs, images and
annotations clear legends and
correct statistics provided.
Data presented clearly and
appropriately in images and
graphs where needed. Figure
legends included and
descriptive, and data described
clearly and statistical analysis
performed where appropriate.
Data presented in images and
graphs where needed. Figure
legends included and
descriptive, and data described.
Some attempts made to present
data in sensible fashion but may
be reparative and inclusion of raw
data, some descriptions given
Some data presented but not
accurately given in graphs
and limited descriptions of
data.
Limited results, some
graphs or raw data given
Discussion
(weighting
x2)
Content is relevant and is fully
evaluated. Broad and deep
knowledge of theory and
concepts, with creative and
imaginative application.
Draws on a wide range of
sources which are themselves
evaluated. Links results
gained clearly to published
literature
Links results gained clearly to
published literature
Relevance of content to subject
of coursework is fully evaluated.
Broad and deep knowledge of
theory and concepts, with
relevant application. Draws on a
wide range of sources.
Aims of lab clearly given and
key results provided, linked to
some references. Relevance of
the content to topic is very well
reasoned. A broad knowledge of
theory and concepts, with
aspects well explained and
applied. Draws on a wide range
of sources.
Summary of results given and
links to literature made.
Relevance of the content to
topic is reasoned. A general
knowledge of theory and
concepts, with reasonable
attempt to explain to
demonstrate understanding.
Draws on a range of sources
Summary of results given and
some links to literature made.
Relevance of the content to the
topic is generally described
although may be weak in places or
lacking depth. Knowledge of
theory and concepts is linked to
the scope of the study. Relies on
main recognized sources e.g.
directed texts.
Summary of results may be
given. Choice of content
weakly justified, only
descriptive use of knowledge.
Little indication of relevance of
theory and concepts,
confused application of the
knowledge to topic limited
sources of information
Limited, summary of
results may be given.
Inaccurate and irrelevant
content, knowledge or
theory and concepts.
Confused application
knowledge to problem.
Very limited sources of
information or
inappropriate.
Formatting
and
Referencing
(weighting x
1)
Recent reviews and landmark
primary papers cited.
Appropriate academic and
professional standard, with
creativity in the use of
language. Well-presented
data
Refs correct and thorough.
Bibliography complete, and
properly laid out. Very minor
errors.
Appropriate academic and
professional standard, with well
presented data.
References accurate.
Bibliography complete and
properly laid out. Minor errors.
Generally of an appropriate
academic and professional
standard. Data are clearly
presented.
May use older reviews and may
not use landmark papers.
Generally correct but needs
some attention. English is clear
and appropriate. Data are
clearly presented.
Citation and referencing is
accurate and related to
references in the text.
Some incorrect referencing and
incomplete or not properly laid out
bibliography. English is
understandable. Data are clearly
presented.
Citation and referencing is
generally accurate and related to
references in the text.
Little or no proper referencing.
Bibliography inadequate.
English may be confused and
inappropriate. Main data are
poorly presented.
Citation and referencing is
inaccurate and unrelated to
references in the text.
English is generally
confused and
inappropriate. Most data
are poorly presented.
Citation and referencing
is inaccurate and
unrelated to references in
the text.
Research
Ethics
(weighting
x1)
An excellent concise account
of the experiment, including
details of rationale, aims and
specialist facilities required, A
complete consideration of all
aspects of ethical implications
of the project
An excellent account of the
experiments, including details of
rationale, aims and specialist
facilities required, A
consideration of most aspects of
ethical implications of the project
(May miss a few aspects)
An account of the experiments
that will be performed. An
incomplete but thought out
consideration of ethical
implications of the project
An account of the experiments
that will be performed (may be
unclear). An incomplete
consideration of ethical
implications.
An incomplete account of the
experiments that will be
performed. An incomplete
consideration of ethical
implications
Minimal attempt made at
account of experiments in
SHUREC form. A limited
consideration of ethical
implications
SHUREC Form not
completed
4. Class CG% General Characteristics L5
FIRST
96
Exceptional knowledge and understanding of the subject and its underlying concepts; critical evaluation/synthesis/analysis and of
reading/research; evidence of breadth anddepth of reading/researchto inform development of work;exceptional demonstration of
relevant skills; excellent communication;performance in some, if not all,areas deemed beyond expectation of the level.
89
81 Excellentknowledgeofthesubject asthestudentistypicallyabletogobeyondwhathasbeentaught(particularlyforahigh1st
); evidence of
breadth of reading/researchto inform development of work;excellent demonstration of relevant skills; demonstrates strong
communication skills.
74
UPPER SECOND
68 As below but very good work characterised by evidence of wider understanding of the subject as the student is typically able to relate
facts/concepts together with some ability to apply to known/taught contexts; identification and selection of material to inform development
of work; very good demonstration of relevant skills; demonstrates good communication skills.
65
62
LOWER SECOND
58 Agoodbreadth of knowledge and understanding ofthetaught content although balanced towardsthedescriptive rather than analytical; uses
set material to inform development of work; addresses all aspects ofthe given brief; good demonstration of relevant taught skills,
though may belimited in range; communication shows clarity but structure may lack coherence.
55
52
THIRD
48 Knowledgeandunderstandingissufficienttodealwithterminology,basicfactsandconceptsbutfailstomakemeaningfulsynthesis;relies on set
material to inform development of work; generally addresses most of the requirements of the given brief; adequate demonstration of
relevant skills over a limited range; communication/presentation is generally competent but with some weaknesses.
45
42
FAIL
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 addressedor mayignorekeyaspectsofthebrief;demonstration of relevant skillsoverareducedrange;communication shows
limited clarity, poor presentation, structure may not be coherent.
25
15 Highly insufficient or no evidence of knowledge or understanding of the subject; understanding of taught concepts is typically at the word
levelwithfactsbeingreproducedin adisjointedordecontextualisedmanner; ignoressetmaterialindevelopment ofwork;failsto address most
or all of the requirements of the brief; fails to demonstrate relevant skills; lacks basic communication skills.
5
ZERO 0 Work of no merit OR absent, work not submitted, penalty in some misconduct cases.
