Assignment brief coursework resits and deferrals PDF

Preview

Summary

Assignment brief coursework resits and deferrals ...

Description

Assessment Brief Module title and Module Code Assignment title (and number, if more than one) Module Leader(s) and Module Team

Clinical Biochemistry 304BMS Coursework – 2000-word critical review

Task details and instructions

You are required to produce a 2000-word critical review of a research paper, which should be fully referenced. You will be given three papers to choose from – links to these will be made available under the Assessment tile on Moodle. Read all three carefully before selecting ONE paper to analyse. RESITS: if you are resitting this assessment, please review the SAME paper as your original submission. You must make sure that you show evidence of substantial improvement to your first submission in order to pass. Ensure that you respond to the feedback and improve your summary, introduction and critical analysis as appropriate.

Module leader: Dr. Ann Wilson Module team: Dr. Sadie Dean, Dr. Mike Dodd, Dr. Rosemary Bland, Mrs. Emma Braybrook (plus guest lecturers)

The review should consist of the following sections; a) A 500-word summary of the paper (included in the overall word count). This should NOT simply paraphrase the abstract. b) An introduction to the topic – this should be your own work and should NOT simply paraphrase the introduction of the paper. c) A critical analysis of the paper. This should identify the strengths and weaknesses in the study design, evaluate the key findings and place these in the context of current literature. d) A suitable conclusion based on your wider reading e) Reference list - it is expected that you will support your analysis with extensive reference to other reliable sources e.g. books and journal articles. When critically analysing the paper, please take the following into consideration: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

How valid is the methodology? What samples are used in the research? How many samples are used? Is this appropriate? Who are the samples from? Are the results representative of a general population? Are there studies in the literature that show similar findings? Are there studies giving conflicting results? Why might this be? Do these studies use the same methodology?

You should NOT comment on the writing style or the formatting of the paper – the latter is dictated by the journal. You must consider how your paper fits into current literature and provide evidence to support your conclusion.

1

Remember 10% of your marks are associated with presentation and referencing, so ensure your submission is: 1. Concise and coherent 2. Visually attractive. Include relevant images or diagrams that can help communicate key ideas/concepts or summary tables if applicable. Remember to include appropriate legends and citations for these and refer to them in the text. 3. Organised into sections with sub headings 4. Within the word limit (i.e. 2000 words ±10%) 5. Checked for grammar, spelling and punctuation 6. Correct in terms of the scientific terminology used 7. Correctly referenced using CUHarvard Task- type

Critical review Working as a scientist will require you to find, read and critically evaluate scientific literature. This assignment will assess your ability to understand the content of a scientific paper, adopt a critical approach to evaluate its validity and discuss the findings in the context of the wider literature on this topic. These skills are also vital in preparing the proposal for your final year research project.

Module learning outcomes aligned to this assessment

3. Develop digital literacy skills to research a disease related topic and critically review this scientific information. 4. Communicate effectively using an informed, reasoned and critical approach

Submission Instructions

The submission deadline date and time is the 6th April 2020 by 18:00hrs You are required to submit an electronic copy of this assessment through the TurnitinUK link on the 304BMS Moodle web-page (under the assessment tab). • Please convert your final submission to a PDF format as these suffer less from formatting changes. • Please remember that submission can take time to complete, and therefore ensure you do this early. The TurnitinUK system will record the date and time of your submission and cannot be overwritten. • You can submit multiple times through the same gateway, the final version submitted will be the one that is assessed. • Please ensure that your document name includes reference to the paper you have been assigned

Guidance on size/word limit

The word limit for this assignment is 2000 words. The following are included in your word allowance: • The text of your written work • Reference citations and reference to figures and tables within the text • Descriptive paragraphs as Figure or Table legends The following are excluded from your word allowance: • The title • Your student ID number, course, module name/code etc. • Figure and Table headings

2

• • • Penalties for overlong submissions Referencing

Feedback policy

Support and guidance

Words, sequences and numbers associated with figures and tables Reference list The word count details

If you exceed this word limit by more than 10% i.e. if you exceed 2200 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. Coventry University has adopted the Harvard Referencing System as the standard format for citations and references. There is a Centre for Academic Writing (located next to the library, also see the links on Moodle) which can provide detailed support on the Harvard System. There is also a useful reference guide on the Harvard Style that we advise you to download and keep. This can be found at the Library Student Portal. All marks released are subject to final Assessment Board decisions and are therefore provisional until after the Assessment Board sits. Provisional marks will be released on 20th April 2020 via Turnitin 1. An introduction to the coursework and guidance on how to approach was given in the workshops in week 1 in semester 1. You would have practised critical evaluation of published material in this workshop 2. General guidance about how to research a topic has been given in the professional skills modules at Levels 1 and 2. 3. Students are invited to post questions in the Moodle discussion forum. This will be regularly monitored so the module team can respond to your queries. 4. Drop-in sessions were held by the module team during week 5 of semester 1 to provide support with the preparation of the coursework. Please note: staff are NOT permitted to read drafts of your work. 5. Drop-in sessions will be held by the module leader towards the end of semester 2 to support resits and deferrals. Please look for announcements on Moodle. If you have a special requirement such as a variation of assessment need please contact the disabilities team.

Extensions / Deferrals

Late or nonsubmissions

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. 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. Normal penalties for late / non-submission apply: • 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).

3

•

Plagiarism and Cheating

Work that is not submitted 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).

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.

4

For more details (including misconduct investigations and penalties) please consult the Faculty of Health and Life Sciences Student Handbook. Marking and Moderation

Coursework marks will be banded to the nearest band (0, 10, 20, 30, 35, 42, 45, 48, 52, 55, 58, 62, 65, 68, 72, 75, 78, 82, 85, 88, 90, 95, 100) This assignment brief has been moderated by a member of academic staff outside the module and the external examiner. Marking will be completed by the module team. The marking will then be moderated by a member of the module team and an academic outside the team. The module feedback and marks will then be moderated by the external examiner to ensure parity and fairness of marking.

Anonymous marking

It is the intention to mark all work anonymously. In order to assign marking appropriately within the module team please indicate which paper you analysed in the file name. Do NOT include your name on your work or in the file name.

5

Indicative Marking Criteria

Third

Fail

(72-100)

First Upper (62, 65, 68)

Lower (52, 55, 58)

(42, 45, 48)

(0-35)

Summary (15%)

Summary is logical and reflects student’s informed evaluation of the article. Covers the majority of the key points presented in the paper (11-15)

A reasonable summary; some findings are identified clearly but may be lacking in detail or accuracy. (8)

Summary is inconsistently tied to some of the information discussed in the article; related findings are oversimplified or inaccurately reported. May show significant paraphrasing of abstract (6-7)

Summary is missing or fails to properly summarize the findings of the article being reviewed. Findings are over simplified or inaccurate. (0-6)

Introduction (15%) Provide a background to the study

The article and related topic are introduced in a concise and accurate fashion. The aims posed by the article are considered critically and it is stated clearly how the review will evaluate the paper. The introduction delivers all relevant background information (11-15) Information is taken from a wide array of source(s) with evaluation to develop a comprehensive analysis. Student uses peer reviewed primary literature to provide context for the selected paper and has formulated an argument based on questioning the evidence of the authors. Clear highlighting of main strengths and weaknesses of the paper. (2840)

Summary is logical and shows some evidence of evaluation. Key findings of the study are identified clearly, but irrelevant or overly basic information may be included. (9-10) The article and topic are introduced in a succinct fashion with very few omissions. The introduction includes most of the relevant information to enable the reader to understand the background to the study (910) Information is taken from source(s) with evaluation to develop a coherent analysis or synthesis. Student uses peer reviewed primary literature to provide context for the selected paper and has formulated an argument based on questioning the evidence of the authors. Some strengths and weaknesses identified (2427) The structure and cohesion is very good, evidencing a reasonably high level of

The article and topic are introduced with some omissions. The introduction leaves some terms undefined, ambiguities unexplored, and/or background unknown.(8)

The article and topic are briefly introduced but there are several omissions in key facts and details. Some terms are left undefined and the background to the study is undefined. (6-7)

The article and/or the topic are not properly introduced, with many omissions. The introduction is either too long or too short. It lacks detail and clarity. (0-6)

Information is taken from source(s) with some interpretation/evaluation, but not enough to develop a coherent analysis or synthesis. Student relies mainly on review articles, over primary sources. Student has mainly taken evidence from the selected paper as fact, with little questioning. Evaluation may be one-sided or lacking in detail (2023)

Information is taken from source(s) without any interpretation/evaluation. Findings of the selected paper are taken as fact, without question. Errors in interpreting evidence presented by authors and little critical analysis. (16-19)

Information taken from inappropriate non-peer reviewed source(s) such as websites. Little attempt to place selected paper in context and no evaluation or interpretation of the presented data. Viewpoints of authors are taken as fact, without question. At the lower end, a simple description of the paper. (0-15)

The structure and cohesion is good, evidencing an above average level of planning. Good

The structure and cohesion is fair, The work is in need of structure evidencing some planning. Fair and coherence, with specific need paragraph formulation and/or for one or both of the following:

Analysis and Evidence (40%) Finding and using up-to date information from a number of sources to evaluate the article

Coherence (20%) Clarity and structure

The structure and cohesion is excellent, clearly evidencing a high level of planning. Excellent

2nd class

6

paragraph formulation and order, so that research is highly synthesised and lines of argument are exceptionally clear throughout. (14-20) Presentation and Referencing (10%) Standard of writing, formatting according to coursework brief, and referencing.

planning. Very good paragraph formulation and order, so that research is synthesised and lines of argument are very clear throughout. (12-13) The work is well formatted and The work is mostly well the writing is of a high standard. formatted, with appropriate Citations and references are headings and structure. entirely formatted to CU Harvard. Writing is of a high standard. (7-10) Citations and references are mostly formatted to CU Harvard. (6)

paragraph formulation and order, so that research is fairly synthesised and lines of argument are mostly clear throughout or very clear in most places. (10-11)

order, with some research synthesis and/or lines of argument are fairly clear throughout or clear in some places. (8-9)

The work is generally formatted in a sensible fashion. The writing is of a good quality, with some minor grammatical and spelling errors. Citations and references are generally formatted to CU Harvard with a few minor errors. (5)

The work is partly formatted correctly but has some errors. The standard of writing is fair, but there are several grammatical and spelling errors. Citations and references may be partly or inconsistently formatted to CU Harvard, and some citations or references may be missing. (4)

7

(i) planning (ii) paragraph formulation and/or order (iii) research synthesis and arguments. At the lower end, there will be little to no structure or coherence. (0-7) The work is in need of a higher standard of writing and / or formatting is not correct. Citations and references are missing and / or need formatting to CU Harvard. (0-3)...