3008BMS Independent Project in Biomedical Science Assessment Brief 2020-21 Semester 2 Assignment title (and number, if more than one) Thesis CW1 Module Leader(s) and Module Team Module leader: Dr Lauren Acton Module team: BMS academic staff involved with delivery of the Biomedical Science course Module learning outcomes aligned to this assessment LO2

Assignment title (and number, if more than one)

Thesis CW1

Module Leader(s) and Module Team

Module leader: Dr Lauren Acton Module team: BMS academic staff involved with delivery of the Biomedical Science course

Module learning outcomes aligned to this assessment

LO2. Analyse, present and interpret data in a clear and meaningful way, including a synthesis with research literature, structured as introduction, methods, results and discussion in a written report.

Task details and instructions

The information below provides you with an overview of the required structure and content for this assessment. Further information and guidance will be provided on the 3008BMS Aula page, your project supervisor will also give you with further support for the assessment.

Details of Assignment:

You will have to produce a detailed thesis describing the work you have carried out in your project.

Contents

Your thesis should include the following sections:

Title and name

Contents (plus word count)

Abstract

Introduction

Methods

Results

Discussion

References

Acknowledgements

Abstract

The abstract should provide a summary of the entire thesis and with a similar structure to the thesis in terms of the content and structure. The abstract should be presented as paragraph/paragraphs of text which can be read independently of the thesis, sub headings are not required but key content from each of the sections (introduction, methods, results, discussion) should be included in the abstract.

Introduction

The format will be similar to what you have produced for lab reports in previous assessments, whilst you can use the sources used for the literature review for the proposal, material must not be directly copied and pasted. Aims should be stated at the end of the introduction, not at the beginning, subheadings are not required.

Methods

All methods used need to be included here and in sufficient detail for someone to be able to replicate the work if required. At the beginning of the section, there should be a statement that the project has received ethical approval.  Methods should be in paragraphs with appropriate subheadings, you should be aiming for a style similar to that found in journals. Methods for data analysis such as statistical tests should also be included here.

Methods should not be in the format of a detailed schedule or protocol, bullet points/lists should not be used.

Results

This section should present your processed data and description of this data. Figures and tables should be labelled with numbers as well as legends/titles. Descriptive text should include key points and general trends, not a detailed description of all results. Your supervisor will provide further guidance on how to structure your results section.

Discussion

The discussion should interpret your data and put it into the context of published literature therefore this section should be heavily referenced. The discussion should not just repeat the results but discuss them in the context of published literature therefore it should be clear how this relates to the results from the project. Limitations and potential for further work can be included briefly however rational for these should be explained and evidenced rather than a description of things that may have gone wrong, how things could have been improved etc.

The discussion should finish with a conclusion which refers back to the aims and whether achieved.

Task-type

The thesis is one of the coursework assessments for this module. The assessment reflects the standard presentation of scientific data and demonstrates: understanding of the rationale for the project, reporting of the methods used, recording, interpretation, and analysis of the data collected.

Deadline and Submission Instructions

The submission deadline date and time is 24th March 2021 by 18:00hrs GMT through the Turnitin link on the 3008BMS Aula page.

There will be two Turnitin links labelled DRAFT and FINAL available in the Assessments area of the Aula site for this module.

The DRAFT site is provided for you to be able 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 site 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.

• Please convert your final submission to a PDF format as these suffer less from formatting changes.
• You may also wish to specify the file name required here too.  

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 immediately.

Task scheduling

This deadline has been chosen as it provides students an adequate amount of time to write up their thesis following the data collection period.

Support and guidance

If you don’t understand any of the information above then please contact your project supervisor in the first instance, this can be done via email or when you meet with them as part of your regular project meetings. If you still require further information then contact the module leader (Dr Lauren Acton – ab1914@coventry.ac.uk).

If you have a special requirement such as a variation of assessment need please contact the disabilities team.

Guidance on size/word limit

The word limit for this assignment is 5000 words.

The following are included in your word allowance

The following are included in your word limit:

1. The text of your written work

2. In-text citations and reference to Figures and Tables within the text

3. Descriptive paragraphs as Figure or Table legends

The following are excluded from word allowances:

4. The title

5. Your names course etc

6. Figure and Table headings, except where expanded to full legends

7. Words included in Figures and Tables (legends are included in the word limit)

8. Reference list

9. Word count details

10. Contents page

11. Acknowledgements

Penalties for overlong submissions

The word limit is 5000 words. If you exceed this word limit by more than 10% i.e. if you exceed 5500 words, then you will be penalised by deduction of 10% of your final mark. You should state your word count at the end of your work. Work that is more than 30% above the allocated word limit (i.e. 6500 words or more) will only be read up to the allocated limit.

Referencing

Coventry University now uses the APA Referencing Style. 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.

Extensions/ Deferrals

The University’s normal policy on extensions and deferrals is given below.

Please note that 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. 4 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, please seek advice if you are considering deferring an assessment.

Late or non-submissions

The University’s policy on late or non-submission of assessment is given below:

• 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). For assessments that are submitted through Turnitin, the University allows a 24 hour grace period for receipt of submission. This should not be viewed as extra time to complete the assessment but is provided to allow for any unforeseen technical issues that may occur around the submission deadline, especially when Turnitin is handling large numbers of submissions. Please note that the University does not allow this 24h grace period for submissions that have a permitted 5 or 10 working day extension granted.
• Work that is not submitted or tests 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 Assessment Board as to whether you will be permitted a resit attempt).

Normal penalties for late or non-submission apply

Plagiarism and Cheating

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) 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. 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.

For resit assessments in which you are asked to improve an original submission, taking into account feedback provided, the rules on self-plagiarism do not apply.

However, if you were alerted to plagiarism detection in your first submission you must ensure that this is NOT repeated in your resubmission.

Moderation and Marketing

This assignment brief has been moderated by a member of academic staff outside the module team and the external examiner. Marking will be completed by the module team and if required this 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. This 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 shown in the rubric below

Anonymous marketing

Given the nature of this assessment, anonymous marking is not feasible.

Feedback policy

All marks released are subject to final Assessment Board decisions and are therefore provisional until after the Assessment Board sits.

Feedback and provisional marks will be released on 9th April via the Aula site in the Student Success App.

For work submitted through Turnitin, feedback comments can be accessed by clicking on your submission and selecting the comments icon. The completed marks rubric can be accessed through the rubric icon.

Following the Assessment Board, your marks will be confirmed and you will be able to view your final grades through SOLAR together with any resit or deferral arrangements.

Criteria

(weighting)

Abstract and Introduction (15%)

Methods

(15%)

Results

(25%)

Discussion

(35%)

Presentation and referencing (10%)

Grading

Outstanding 82

85

88

90

95

100

Abstract is succinct and comprehensive, providing a broad overview of the project, appropriate weighting of different sections and defined structure. Information is relevant, focused and demonstrates understanding of beyond would be expected. All key concepts are included in the relevant level of detail and in a concise manner. Aims are clearly stated and focused on the report.

All relevant methods have been included and are an accurate reflection of those used during the data collection period. Sufficient and appropriate detail is included for all methods that can be easily followed by others.

Data has been processed effectively and presented in an appropriate format in the report. Description of the results is succinct and identifies the key trends and results. Analysis of the results has extended what would be expected and is of publication quality.

Overall the section is of publication quality and suitable for submission to a peer reviewed journal. Discussion is focused on the results obtained and is supported by evidence of relevant published literature. Discussion points expand beyond the subject knowledge expected yet are concise and relevant to the report. Conclusion is succinct and clearly relate to the aims of the experiment.

Very well written and presented. No spelling and/or grammatical errors and CU Harvard or APA used correctly throughout. Citations included where appropriate and all references included in the list, sources used are appropriate and broad range utilised.

Excellent

72

75

78

Abstract is well structured and summarises the thesis well, weighting or length may need minor revision. Introduction is relevant with key concepts of the project included and well explained in the required level of detail. Aims are clear and focused.

Methods clearly presented and generally reflect those used during data collection. Appropriate detail included and is presented in a format which can be followed by others.

Data has been processed appropriately and presented well. Description accompanies all figures and tables with a succinct explanation which demonstrates an understanding of the results expected.

Discussion is well written and focused on the key results from the experiment. Clear understanding of the experiment is demonstrated and relevant links between published literature and results have been made. Conclusion is clear and relates to aims of the experiment.

Sparse errors in spelling and/or grammar. Presentation is clear, CU Harvard or APA used throughout with some minor errors in places, a broad range of appropriate sources used.

Very good

62

65

68

Abstract summarises thesis well but some minor revisions needed. Introduction is relevant with good level of detail. Some areas where additional detail could have been included. Aims are clear and relevant

Most of the detail relating to methods has been included, some minor omissions/errors or inclusion of irrelevant information

Data has been processed adequately and is clearly presented, some minor errors or omissions in the data. Description of the results are clear and most key trends/results included as expected

Key results have been discussed in adequate detail, strong links to published literature with supporting evidence. Further detail or discussion points could have been included; conclusion relates to aims but requires more focus.

Some errors in spelling and/or grammar, presentation clear. CU Harvard or APA generally used with some minor errors. References generally appropriate, range of sources used may be limited

Good

52

55

58

Abstract provides an overview of the thesis, may need to be more focused or include further detail. Relevant information included in the introduction but lacks detail in some areas and/or some key points missing. Aims are included but needed to be more specific/relevant to the experiment.

Omissions and/or errors in the methods, could mostly be followed by someone else. May not always accurately reflect the experiments carried out in the lab.

Not all data presented as expected, may be mistakes or omissions. Descriptive text included but detail lacking or the information included not focused on the results.

Some discussion of results included with some understanding of the results, relationship to published literature evident but limited. Multiple areas where discussion could be expanded upon or more detail included. Conclusion included and relates to the aims of experiment.

Multiple errors in spelling and/or grammar, generally well presented. Referencing adequate with CU Harvard or APA generally used but either with errors missing references and/or citations. Sources of references not always appropriate and/or a limited range used.

Adequate / Acceptable 42

45

48

Abstract gives a general indication of the content of the work but not focused and/or lacks detail. Introduction needs to be more focused on the content of the project, some relevant information but a large number of omissions/inaccuracies or irrelevant information. Aims aren’t clear and don’t adequately reflect those of the experiment.

Large areas of the methods are missing/inaccurate/not in the correct format, could not easily be followed by another person.

Data has not been processed adequately and/or missing data. Lack of descriptive text therefore difficult to follow the results presented. Major omissions/errors in the methods or not presented in an appropriate format

Discussion of the results is limited with little understanding of the results demonstrated. Little relation of results to published literature, few references throughout the section. Conclusion is limited and doesn’t relate to the aims of the experiment.

Frequent errors in spelling and/or grammar, which makes interpretation difficult. Referencing acceptable however few in text citations and reference list inaccurate, sources used not appropriate or few sources used.

Referral (fail)

35

30

20

10

 0

Abstract missing or not relevant to the thesis. No or little relevant information included in the introduction to support the experiment carried out. Inaccurate or unclear aims where there is no understanding of the experiment demonstrated.

Methods not adequately described, lack detail and cannot be followed.

Large portions of data not processed or missing. No/little descriptive text or text doesn’t relate to the results presented.

No discussion of the results obtained from the experiment either because omitted or because it doesn’t form a discussion. Text included doesn’t relate to the data presented/experiment carried out. No clear conclusion or doesn’t relate to the aim included in the introduction.

Poor spelling and grammar throughout, referencing inadequate with minimal or no in text citations, the reference list has not been included or no clear format followed. Inappropriate sources used.

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 the Los)

0, 10, 20, 30, 35