BSc Assessment Guidelines for Students About this guide: The purpose of this document is to give you a broad overview of the assessments you will undertake this year. Each BSc pathway may vary in its approach to assessments, however there will be certain constraints applied to ensure consistency. Key parameters such as word counts / presentation durations (in the blue boxes in Part 2 of this document) are fixed across all pathways. If you are a Humanities, Philosophy and Law or Global Health student, please refer to your specific pathway handbook because assessments will vary. This guide has been developed with input from student shapers. StudentShapers is a College-wide programme that allows students to be involved in curriculum development. 2021/22 Imperial College School of Medicine
Transcript
1
BSc Assessment Guidelines for Students
About this guide:
The purpose of this document is to give you a broad overview of the assessments you will undertake this year.
Each BSc pathway may vary in its approach to assessments, however there will be certain constraints applied to ensure consistency. Key parameters such as word counts / presentation durations (in the blue boxes in Part 2 of this document) are fixed across all pathways.
If you are a Humanities, Philosophy and Law or Global Health student, please refer to your specific pathway handbook because assessments will vary.
This guide has been developed with input from student shapers. StudentShapers is a College-wide programme that allows students to be involved in curriculum development.
2021/22 Imperial College School of Medicine
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Please note each of these titles is hyperlinked and you can click on them to quickly navigate the
document)
PART 1: GENERAL ASSESSMENT INFORMATION 3
Assessment Overview 4
Key Dates 4
Assessment Mapped to Programme Level Learning Outcomes 5
Teaching and Assessment Timetable 6
Submitting your work 7
How your Assessments are marked 7
BSc Degree Classification 7
Assessment Weighting 8
Support for Assessments 8
How to Utilise Feedback Effectively 9
Time Management 9
Publication 9
PART 2: INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENT DETAILS 10
A1. Module 1 Written Task 11
A2. Module 1 Oral Task 12
A3. Module 1 Data Management 13
A4. Module 2 Group Literature Review 15
A5. Module 2 Science in Context (SiC) 18
A6. Module 3 Project Report 20
A7. Module 3 Project Oral Presentation 21
PART 3: APPENDICES 22
Appendix 1: Module 1 Assessments Mapped to Learning Outcomes 23
Appendix 2: Module 2 Assessment Mapped to Learning Outcomes 24
Appendix 3: Module 3 Assessment Mapped to Learning Outcomes 25
Appendix 14: How to Peer Review 47 For more specific details about marking and assessments, please refer to your BSc pathway specific guidance. Each BSc pathway may choose to adapt the assessment criteria as assessments may vary across pathways.
PART 1: GENERAL ASSESSMENT INFORMATION
4
Assessment Overview
Module 1
A1. Written assessment of specialism-specific knowledge within scientific context
A2. Oral assessment of specialism-specific knowledge within scientific context
A3. Assessment of data management, interpretation and communication of findings
Module 2
A4. Group Literature Review: Assessment of group work and appraisal of literature
A5. Science in Context (SiC) - Clinical Case Study
Module 3
A6. Assessment of Project work – Project Report
A7. Assessment of Project work - Oral Presentation
Key Dates
Module 1 Taught Module Monday 27th September – Friday 17th December 2021 (12 weeks)
27th Sept Induction morning 18th-22nd Oct Consolidation week 15th-19th Nov Consolidation week 13th- 17th Dec Consolidation week
Dec 18th - Jan 3rd Christmas Break
Module 2 Self-Directed Learning
Tuesday 4th January – Friday 28th February 2022 (4 weeks) 4th - 7th Jan Library support sessions. Dates - TBC. 17th Jan Submit A4 - Group Literature Review - CST first version 21st Jan Submit A4 - Group Literature Review - peer review 24th Jan Submit A5 – Science in Context report 28th Jan Submit A4 - Group Literature Review - CST final version 2nd Feb Submit A4 - Group Literature Review - peer evaluation
Module 3 BSc Project
Monday 31st January – Friday 27 May 2022 (17 weeks) 31st Jan Project guidance session
April 13th - 19th Easter Break 9th – 20th May Project write-up window 23rd - 25th May A7 - Oral Presentation window 27th May Submit A6 - Project Report
5
Assessment Mapped to Programme Level Learning Outcomes
1. Demonstrate and apply the principles and ethics of academic integrity and quality
2. Demonstrate curiosity and thoughtfulness and be able to question or justify “accepted” facts and theories
3. Demonstrate effective team and individual work
4. Manage, analyse and interpret research data, quantitative and qualitative evidence
5. Critically appraise the strengths and weaknesses of research work
6. Integrate different types of information and knowledge to justify a point of view
7. Design a robust study plan to address a research question
8. Communicate research effectively to a range of audiences
9. Demonstrate an understanding of the research process, including discussion of the rationale, characteristics and limitations of different research approaches
10. Discuss the translation of research to the clinical forum as well as the application of an informed approach to patient care
11. Demonstrate an in-depth understanding of the chosen BSc subject
12. BSc Pathway level learning outcomes
6
Teaching and Assessment Timetable
Project Report
7
Submitting your work • With the exception of the Module 2 group work, when submitting a written assessment via
Insendi, you should provide your College ID number (CID) and NOT your name. Give the title of your work the following format ‘Your CID - Your title’. This will allow marking to be carried out anonymously.
• In accordance with College policies, work submitted up to 24 hours after the deadline will be capped at 40% and work received after this will receive no marks. However, it is compulsory to submit and pass all the assignments (even if late).
• All written work should use the ‘BSc ICA Instructions and Template’ document. This will ensure that your work is properly formatted and the word count is calculated correctly.
How your Assessments are marked All your work is marked by two independent examiners. They will mark your work according to the marking scheme (found in your Assessment Brief) and provide you with feedback which will help you to understand why you were awarded your mark and how you could improve your work. Your assessments (with the exceptions of oral presentations and Module 2 group work) are marked anonymously. The mark you receive is the average of the marks awarded by the two examiners. Your examiners must be in agreement by 5% or less, and if not, they will review their marks and may decide on a final agreed mark. In the rare event that the examiners cannot agree, a third marker will be asked to assess your work and marks from the two markers who agree (by 5% or less) will be used. You will still receive feedback from all three markers. In addition, all marks over 80% are checked by a third marker. Each BSc pathway has an external examiner who is an independent academic from another university. The external examiner has oversight of the assessments on your pathway and they ensure the standard of the degrees awarded is consistent with that of the national university system. At the exam board your overall mark for the year is finalised and the grade awarded. If your mark is close to a grade boundary, you may be awarded a grade uplift. See the ‘Borderline BSc Students’ document for more details.
BSc Degree Classification • Students are required to pass (≥ 40%) each item of assessment in the BSc to graduate/pass the
year. Any student who does not pass any component of Module 1 or 2 will be given a re-sit opportunity during the Easter break. The resit mark will be capped at the pass mark (40%) unless the student has an accepted mitigating circumstances application for the assessment they are resitting.
• For additional information on plagiarism, assessment late submission policy, and mitigating circumstances policy and procedures, please refer to the BSc Key Information.
The final degree classification will be based upon the following scheme:
Students with a Programme Overall Weighted Average of 69.50-69.99, 59.50-59.99, 49.50-49.99 or 39.50-39.99 (inclusive) will have their Programme Overall Weighted Average rounded up to 70.00, 60.00, 50.00 or 40.00 respectively and be considered as automatically meeting the requirement for that classification band.
Grade Mark (%) First 70.00% or above 2.1 60.00% or above 2.2 50.00% or above Third 40.00% or above
current knowledge base B) Written task for non-scientific
audience
70%
18.9%
21%
Module 2 Assessment of group work and appraisal of literature
4. Group literature review A) Submit literature review B) Peer-review another group’s work C) Submit revised review
60%
13.5%
15%
Assessment of using science in clinical context
5. Clinical case study
40%
9%
10%
Module 3 Assessment of BSc project
6. Project report 7. Oral presentation of research
journey and future directions
78% 22%
31.5% 9%
35% 10%
Support for Assessments There are many materials and teaching sessions available to help you to develop the skills you need for your assessments.
1. The pre-sessional research skills course will provide guidance on reading, interpreting and communicating science.
2. On-line support sessions offered by the library, including a compulsory plagiarism awareness course, will help you to search and cite the scientific literature. You may be offered other support workshops from the library during your course.
3. Consolidation week workshops will be available to help you to develop core skills. 4. Your BSc pathway will offer training for your assessments during Module 1, in the form of
tutorials, group work and/or formative assessments where you can practice and learn the skills needed. Do take on board any feedback from these sessions as it will be very valuable.
5. The BSc Project Guidance Session and other workshops will give you helpful guidance on how to approach your project work, report writing and presentations.
How to Utilise Feedback Effectively Alongside the marks for each assessment, you will get written feedback which will be valuable in improving your skills. You will also be given feedback on any formative work you undertake in Module 1. Please take the time to read your feedback properly as the skills in each assessment will be utilised throughout the course. Finally, you will each be offered a feedback session with your Pathway Lead to help you to understand your feedback and where you can improve.
Try to approach your feedback unemotionally. If you feel upset at first, leave it for a few hours/days and come back to your feedback when you can look at it objectively.
You may wish to use the chart below to help you utilise your feedback effectively:
Time Management You will have enough time to work on assessments, so you should NOT miss lectures and teaching sessions. Module 1 teaching may directly inform the assessments and provides the foundations for future modules and the research project so it is very important to attend.
Publication You may wish to publish your work from the BSc year. There are various guidelines you need to consider and you must gain approval from your module lead and supervisor before attempting to publish. See the ‘Student Publication Guidelines’ for more information.
How to utilise feedback effectively
Reflect on the positive and negative feedback
that you received
Consider the points that could be useful to address for future
A1. Module 1 Written Task (More in-depth information on this assessment will be provided by your BSc pathway) (The order of Module 1 assessments varies amongst pathways) Background
An important part of research is questioning “accepted” facts and theories. This written task aims to develop this skill through writing a commentary or Letter to the Editor of a scientific journal on a research article. You will achieve this through:
Critically analysing different types of information and knowledge
Assessing data Considering caveats and drawing appropriate conclusions Justifying a point of view Communicating experimental strategies, results and
conclusions effectively and succinctly
In this report, you may be asked to: Set the scene on what is being claimed by giving a brief history/background of the
issue to inform the reader. Identify the initial source of the data or science. Identify what hypothesis the work is trying to test. Summarise the key results. Discuss whether the conclusions are supported by the
results. Comment on the limitations of the methodology and analysis. Discuss the implications of the research in the wider context. Identify what, if any, is the counterargument. Are there objections to a proposed
position and can these be justified? Use and cite appropriate evidence to support your arguments and/or opinions.
Discuss the robustness of the study and supporting evidence.
Features of a good report Shows in-depth critical analysis Uses high-quality primary research articles Key strengths, limitations and controversies in the field are discussed Carefully pitched to the level of the audience Well organised and easy to follow; there is a logical progression of ideas and concepts
that eventually lend itself towards the conclusions Engaging and convincing The report has a professional presentation References follow the accepted norms (typically Vancouver or Harvard) Criticisms and disagreements must be expressed professionally
Click here for Module 1 written task generic assessment criteria Click here for written task mapping to module level outcomes
A2. Module 1 Oral Task (More in-depth information on this assessment will be provided by your BSc pathway) (The order of Module 1 assessments varies amongst pathways) Background
As a researcher, you will communicate your research orally within your research group and at external conferences. An effective oral presentation is key to getting your research noticed amongst relevant stakeholders in your field of work.
The content of the oral task can vary across BSc pathways. Examples include:
1. A 'pitch' for a research proposal. 2. A critical review of a paper. 3. New areas of research, therapies, diagnostics.
In this presentation, you should:
• Provide the necessary history/background of the issue to inform the audience • Describe the hypothesis or research question, if relevant • Identify arguments/counterarguments, using appropriate evidence to support them • Take a critical approach. Consider the robustness of the evidence and caveats of the
data • Draw out a balanced conclusion
You will defend your arguments and respond to questioning following your presentation during 5 minutes of Q&A. Features of a good presentation
• A good quality of presentation that includes speaking authoritatively, clearly articulating your stance and engaging the audience
• Exceptional command of the relevant concepts and facts • Consistent critical treatment of the information • Exceptional answers to questions • Your visual materials (such as presentation slides or poster) are at conference level in
accuracy, appearance and arrangement Click here for Module 1 oral task generic assessment criteria
Click here for Oral task mapping to module level outcomes
Assessment weighting:
15% of module 1
4.5% of overall BSc*
Deadline:
This is pathway-specific
Time limit:
10 minutes for presentation, 5 minutes for Q&A
*As calculated for intercalating students
13
A3. Module 1 Data Management (More in-depth information on this assessment will be provided by your pathway) (The order of Module 1 assessments varies amongst pathways)
Background
The skill of analysing data goes beyond the use of statistics and includes ways in which you interpret the data, present your results and draw meaningful conclusions. This is an important skill for researchers and clinicians. Through this data management task, you will develop your confidence in data analysis and this will be useful when you conduct the independent research project later on.
In this task, you will:
• Manage and analyse data within a scientific context. • Formulate and test a hypothesis from given data, using
appropriate statistical analysis, with a justification of the rationale. • Communicate experimental strategies, results and conclusions succinctly and precisely. • Demonstrate an appreciation of different language and writing styles required for
articles for different audiences.
Summary of the task:
Your task will be in 3 parts: Results Compendium: You will write a concise but detailed report which includes a description of the processes involved in managing and analysing your data, your results and conclusions. Scientific Abstract: You will present your main finding(s) in the format of a scientific abstract. Suggested headings: Background, Research Question/Hypothesis, Methods (incl. statistical analysis), Results, Discussion/Conclusions Lay Summary: (e.g.: a magazine/ newspaper article) You will communicate your findings to individuals whose understanding of the underlying science is not as extensive as your own, taking care to give appropriate levels of context and not to overstate conclusions. It is expected that you will work independently to understand the data and what it represents. You will be required to have an in-depth knowledge of the topic related to the data and be able to formulate and test a meaningful hypothesis. You will manipulate the data and use an appropriate statistical analysis package (Excel, SPSS, Prism etc). Where appropriate, you will test the distribution of the data and you will justify your chosen analysis plan. You will be expected to produce tables and figures, appropriate to the data.
Assessment weighting:
70% of module 1
21% of overall BSc*
Deadline:
This is pathway-specific
Results compendium = 70% of ICA
Word limit = ≤ 7 single figures/tables; 1500 words
Abstract = 15% of ICA
Word limit = 350 words
Lay Summary = 15% of ICA
Word limit = 500 words
*As calculated for intercalating students
14
Features of a good report:
Results Compendium
• Provide enough background to place the work in the scientific context • State the hypothesis and scientific aims of the study • Demonstrate an understanding of methods used to obtain the data and your
step-by-step approach to data management and analysis • Show justification for methods chosen and evidence of methods rejected, where
appropriate • Summarise and draw conclusions from your data in the context of your
knowledge of the topic
Scientific Abstract
• Background: Concisely sets the scene • Research Question/Hypothesis: Clearly stated, appropriate and testable • Methods: Set out and justify the management of the data and statistical testing
performed • Results: Demonstrate a clear, concise description of the data and the main
findings. • Discussion/Conclusion: Addresses the research question/hypothesis, is not over-
or under-stated, shows how this data sits within the current literature • Overall: Able to use scientific language to communicate findings Lay Summary • Convey research questions and their findings to a lay audience • Discuss complex concepts in an easy-to-understand manner • Communicate a message without losing its impact • Provide enough background knowledge to help the reader understand how these
new findings fit with our current understanding of the topic • Does not over- or under- state findings
Click here for data management generic assessment criteria
Click here for data management mapping to module level outcomes
15
A4. Module 2 Group Literature Review Background:
This is a self-directed module that builds on the knowledge and skills gained in Module 1. This task will develop your independent learning and teamwork skills. In addition, you will get a good understanding of the process of scientific journal article submission.
Summary of the task:
You will be divided into groups of 4 or 5 and will be assigned a topic for critical review in the first week of Module Two.
Videos introducing this assessment can be found on your Pathway Module 2 Insendi page.
Your group task will consist of 3 parts:
1) Critical Summary of the Topic In your group, you will perform a literature search, critically appraise the literature and write a Critical Summary of the Topic (CST). This is NOT a systematic review.
You will submit your CST for peer review, including a covering letter to the editor.
2) Peer Review Your group will then peer review another group’s CST, providing critical and constructive feedback in a professional way. You will advise the editor on the group’s expert opinion of the CST, and whether it should be published, rejected, or modified. Further guidance on how to peer review.
3) Revisions and Rebuttal Finally, your group will receive their own CST peer feedback and make modifications. You will provide a revised submission including your final CST and another letter to the editor which details your responses to the feedback, justifies your amendments, and defends parts that you wish to remain unaltered.
Mark distribution:
CST Version 1 = 50% of ICA
Word limit:
3500 words + 350 word abstract
Mark distribution:
Peer review report = 25% of ICA
Word limit: 1000 words
Mark distribution:
CST Final version = 15% Rebuttal Letter = 10%
Word limit:
Final draft- 3500 words
Rebuttal: 1000 words
Assessment weighting:
60% of module 2
15% of overall BSc*
Deadline:
CST Version 1 – 17/1/2022, 10am
Peer Review – 21/1/2022, 10am.
Revisions and Rebuttal –28/1/2022, 10am.
*As calculated for intercalating students
16
Teamwork and Peer Assessment
• This task is also about teamwork. You are expected to actively contribute to different team processes. This will include completing a Team Contract, which will identify and highlight key features and expectations of your team. In addition, you are expected to actively participate in team meetings and engage with any roles assigned to you.
• Your group will also be required to minute the meetings (click here for an example). • Finally, you have a responsibility for providing a true honest appraisal of your peers'
teamwork capabilities. This will take place at the end of the module and the scores that you provide will determine the final individual mark that your teammates receive. The peer evaluation format in this module has some differences from what you may be accustomed to in previous years. Hence, we suggest that you familiarise yourself with it. Click here for a sample peer evaluation form.
Features of a good report
You should aim for the following in your first draft:
• The use of good primary sources of literature • Good overall coverage of the topic • Evidence of an analytical and critical approach • Key strengths and limitations are discussed • The review is well organised, easy to follow; there is a logical progression of ideas and
concepts that eventually lend itself towards the conclusions • References and figures follow the acceptable norms
The peer review should:
• Be concise and informative • Show a clear understanding of the expectations and purpose of a narrative review • Provide appropriate comments on the scope of work that includes strengths,
limitations and controversies of the field of work • Be critical based upon high quality evidence in the field of work • Be an objective viewpoint and unbiased review • Give careful thought to the audience for the literature review task • Provide comments on the presentation including the abstract, organisation of report,
the textual features such as font size, style of references, figures etc
A good final draft and rebuttal letter will have the following features:
• The report and rebuttal letter clearly document how the group have addressed the peer review comments and provide sound justifications for not acting on specific comments, if any
• The final draft thoughtfully incorporates the changes based on peer review and editor’s comments
• The report suggests an in-depth understanding of the topic • A clear analytical and critical approach is evident • Key strengths, limitations and controversies in the field are discussed
17
• The review is well organised, easy to follow; there is a logical progression of ideas and concepts that eventually lend itself towards the conclusions
• Sources from which the evidence is drawn are high quality primary research articles • The overall report is engaging and convincing • The report has a professional presentation • References and figures follow the acceptable norm
Module 2 Literature Review Guidance for Students with Mitigating Circumstances
• If a member of your group is unable to work due to mitigating circumstances, the group will continue to work on their assignment and submit to the agreed deadlines.
• If you are unable to work due to mitigating circumstances, please let your group know. You do not have to communicate any personal details, but let them know that you won’t be able to contribute to the group work. The group should record any absence in their group minutes.
• Students should not be penalised in the peer evaluation scores for absence if this was due to mitigating circumstances.
• The student with mitigating circumstances must inform the FEO using the on-line Mitigating Circumstances request form.
• If a student misses up to 2 weeks of the group work, they will be marked in the same way as other group members i.e. awarded the full group mark, moderated by their peer evaluation scores. If the student misses more than 2 weeks due to mitigating circumstances, they will complete an equivalent resit, e.g. a literature review essay, later in the year.
• The Module 2 leads will be made aware that a student has mitigating circumstances and will notify those marking the reviews, who will take this into account when marking.
Click here for Group Literature Review assessment criteria
Click here for assessment mapping to module level outcomes
This task will help you appreciate how research and science underpin our understanding and management of diseases. This will help you in adopting a research informed approach as a future competent practitioner or clinical researcher.
The context here is a clinical case that forms the basis for an in-depth scientific exploration. You may have the opportunity to observe a patient in clinic or be provided with a virtual patient.
This is an individual independent task, but you will receive guidance on what aspect of the case to focus on and how to approach writing your report.
Summary of the task
You will write a case summary that provides all the necessary context and details that align to the in-depth critique of evidence that follows. This might include: the presenting condition; history of the presenting condition, subjective and objective examination findings; relevant clinical investigations and management. You might also include the differential or definitive diagnosis, and/or influential comorbidities. You should comment on how patient consent was obtained. You should include the prognosis of the patient, if known. You are not expected to access patient medical notes, and your report will not identify the patient directly.
You will also provide an in-depth critique of the current and emerging evidence: Emphasis should be on achieving depth rather than breadth of discussion. An overview or a literature review should be avoided. You will receive details of the clinical case in Module 1 and must manage your time carefully to work on your report and meet the submission deadline during Module 2.
Structure of the report • Title - Brief and informative. • Abstract - Word limit of 250 words
Summarises the key features of the clinical case and the evidence based discussion, followed by a conclusion.
• Case Summary (~ 3rd of the length of the report) Concise and attract the reader's attention. Describes the uniqueness of the case and/or how the case contributes to the
existing literature. Describes the current medical condition and medical history in chronological
order. Includes details of the clinical presentation and examinations (including
imaging and lab findings).
Assessment weighting:
40% of module 2
10% of overall BSc*
Deadline: Jan 24th 2022, 10am
Word limit:
1500 words + 250 word abstract
*As calculated for intercalating students
19
Describes the treatments, follow-up, and differential or final diagnosis adequately
• Evidence-based discussion (~ 𝟐𝟐 𝟑𝟑� of the length of the report) • Explains the rationale for reporting the case. • Summarises the essential features and places the case in the context of the
existing literature. • States the lessons/experiences that may be learnt from the SiC report, including
future areas for research and clinical implications, such as how things could be managed differently in a similar situation/case.
• References ≤ 15. Figures and tables as appropriate.
Features of a good report
1. The clinical summary is succinct, logical and easy to read. It provides the context and is aligned with the scientific evidence-based discussion.
2. The evidence-based discussion is thorough, balanced and has elements that provide a wider perspective.
3. Key references are used and form the basis of the evidence-based discussion. 4. An exceptional critical appraisal that teases out the key points in the discussion. 5. Conclusions deliver a concise message that is relevant to the pathophysiology or
management of the case. 6. Ideas and discussion are easy to follow, logically organised and convey the intended
meaning.
Click here for SiC assessment criteria
Click here for SiC mapping to module level outcomes
20
A6. Module 3 Project Report See the BSc Research Project Handbook for more details
Summary of the task
You will write-up your project work as a research paper.
You will need to consult the instructions in the project handbook, for details of formatting guidelines; style, referencing, figure recommendations, etc.
• Shows a thorough understanding of all the concepts and the distinguishing features and trends within the field of study.
• Clearly defined aims and objectives. • Concisely written up with a clear structure that incorporates critical analysis and
evaluation. • Interesting and appropriate conclusions. Conclusions are justified and the report shows
an appreciation of the context and significance of the project and its findings. • Illustrates a profound understanding of the findings and their relevance. • Clear ideas expressed on how the work could proceed. • Perceptive analysis, particularly insight in interpreting the findings and in dealing with
the issues (either of technique or of theory) that arise from the work and its interpretation in the field.
• Good flow and a clear style and of such quality that the reader will enjoy the experience. • Excellent use of presentation techniques (diagrams, tables, pictures, etc.). • Suitable for publication either as a stand-alone piece or as part of a larger paper.
Click here for project report assessment criteria
Click here for project report mapping to module level outcomes
A7. Module 3 Project Oral Presentation See the BSc Research Project Handbook for more details
Summary of the task
You will be required to show an in-depth reflection of your project and the research processes that you have experienced, as well as describing your personal research journey. To achieve this, you will critique your own work, methodologies, analyses and conclusions. You should be able to identify limitations, and opportunities to move the work forward or suggest alternative directions for the research. You should also reflect on your research experience, the skills you have developed and your role in the research team.
• You will be given exactly 10 minutes for your oral presentation followed by 5 minutes of questions from 2 markers.
• Please be aware that you will be stopped if you over-run. • Your BSc pathway will tell you when your oral presentation will take place.
Roughly one-third of your time should be addressed to each of the following: • A brief summary of the main findings of your project Will typically include an introduction to the project, its background, methods and key results • A critique of your own project and proposed future direction(s) for your work May include problems encountered, strengths and limitations, future work, summary and conclusions • A personal reflection A reflection on a few key experiences What constitutes a good presentation?
• Clear concise summary that provides context for scientific critique and personal reflections
• Scientific critique is effective and includes future directions of research • Insightful in-depth personal reflective account that is beyond mere description of
events • Spoken confidently, fluently, with little/no hesitation, in an engaging manner within
the provided time limit • Slides well designed with a clear logical structure • Answers questions well
Click here for project oral presentation assessment criteria
Click here for project oral presentation mapping to module level outcomes
1. Critically appraise literature, synthesise current evidence and opinion, and identify evidence gaps in the student’s subject area
2. Identify and describe the characteristics and rationale of different research methodologies: E.g. quantitative/qualitative, observational/experimental 3. Evaluate applicability of different research methodologies to answer research questions
4. Discuss limitations of research methodologies (bias, confounders, validity, reliability, chance) and understand their implications on methodology, analysis and sample size 5. Interpret parametric and non-parametric data
6. Organise and analyse data, justifying selection of the approaches used
7. Explain results in a descriptive and inferential manner and articulate objective conclusions
8. Communicate scientific concepts, in writing and in speech, for a range of audiences e.g. academic and lay, written and oral presentations 9. Explain the ethical issues of research and their implications, particularly in relation to patients/animals
10. Demonstrate an in-depth understanding of the chosen BSc subject
24
Appendix 2: Module 2 Assessment Mapped to Learning Outcomes
Module Learning Outcomes Module 2
Grou
p lit
erat
ure
revi
ew
Scie
nce
in co
ntex
t
1. Perform a literature review in your own subject area and reach objective conclusions 2. Critically appraise literature, and synthesise current evidence and opinion, and identify evidence gaps in your own subject area 3. Evaluate applicability of different research methodologies to answer research questions 4. Identify and describe the characteristics and rationale of different research methodologies: E.g. quantitative/qualitative, observational/experimental 5. Discuss limitations of research methodologies (bias, confounding, validity, reliability, chance) and understand their implications on methodology, analysis and sample size
6. Communicate scientific concepts by academic writing 7. Formulate and communicate constructive feedback for peers; also respond professionally to peer feedback 8. Perform a written clinical case study on a patient or patient group based on current and emerging evidence and guidelines using skills from Module 1 and your literature review 9. Undertake independent and group work and exercise independent thought, specifically demonstrating: – Ability to learn/ work both independently and in a group – Flexibility and open-mindedness – Self-awareness – Ability to seek help in appropriate manner
10. Demonstrate an in-depth understanding of the chosen BSc subject
25
Appendix 3: Module 3 Assessment Mapped to Learning Outcomes
Module Learning Outcomes Module 3
Proj
ect r
epor
t
Ora
l pre
sent
atio
n
1. Critically appraise literature, synthesise current evidence and opinion, reach objective conclusions 2. Formulate a testable hypothesis based on your subject area 3. Justify rationale behind hypothesis and null hypothesis 4. Design a feasible study to answer a research question/ test a hypothesis, including choice of methodology/s, and analysis 5. Perform a power calculation and justification of sample size (if applicable) 6. Implement a study design under supervision; generate data, recording it accurately and transparently
7. Develop practical research skills (subject-specific) 8. Interpret parametric and non-parametric data 9. Organize and analyse data, justifying selection of the approaches used 10. Explain results in a descriptive and inferential manner and articulate objective conclusions 11. Discuss limitations of research methodologies (bias, confounders, validity, reliability, chance) and understand their implications on methodology, analysis and sample size 12. Communicate scientific concepts, in writing and in speech, for a range of audiences e.g. academic and lay writing and presentations 13. Explain the ethical issues of research and their implications, particularly in relation to patients/animals
14. Undertake independent work and exercise independent thought, specifically demonstrating: – Ability to learn and work independently – Creativity and innovation – Flexibility and open-mindedness – Self-awareness – Ability to seek help in appropriate manner
15. Demonstrate an in-depth understanding of the chosen BSc subject
26
Appendix 4: A1. Module 1 Written Task Generic Assessment Criteria (Please note that BSc pathways may wish to adapt these criteria. In this event, you should refer to the pathway specific criteria)
Mark (%) Criteria Exceptional
(100, 90, 95)
Provides an in-depth independent critical and innovative analysis of the information. Shows an exceptional understanding of all concepts, distinguishing features and trends with the field of study. Written at a standard suitable for publication.
Outstanding
(85, 80)
Provides an outstanding, thorough, independent critical analysis of the information and research methodology, and a balanced and nuanced discussion of its limitations and the implications. Shows an outstanding, comprehensive understanding of the key concepts and of the distinguishing features and trends within the field of study, making use of seminal and recent publications. Goes above the standard expected of an excellent student.
Excellent
(76, 72)
Provides excellent, in-depth critical analysis of the information and research methodology, and a balanced discussion of its limitations and implications. Shows excellent synthesis of the literature demonstrating an understanding of the key concepts and knowledge gaps within the field of study, the wider clinical and research context. Written and presented in a fluent and engaging style supported by citation of key primary papers.
Very good
(68, 65, 62)
Provides critical appraisal and evaluation of the strengths and limitations of the information and methodology. Shows a very good understanding of the research process, the key concepts in the field, and places the work in the wider context, with some synthesis and discussion. The work is clearly written and presented, with a good logical structure and is supported with appropriate citation, including primary papers, with only minor errors.
Good
(58, 55, 52)
Provides some critical analysis but in places it is limited in scope, superficial or has errors. Shows some understanding of the research process and field of study. The work is mostly well written and supported with citations, but may lack clarity or contain errors in places and there may be an over reliance on limited citations or review articles.
Adequate
(48, 45, 42)
Provides very little critical analysis or the analysis has significant errors. Shows a basic grasp of the concepts and the field of study but there is a significant lack of understanding, brevity, or major errors.
Fail
≤ 40
Provides no critical analysis or the analysis has major errors. Shows a lack of understanding of the basic concepts. Quality of writing is poor and indicates that the student has not understood what they have been doing or why.
27
Appendix 5: A2. Module 1 Oral Task Generic Assessment Criteria (Please note that pathways may wish to adapt these criteria. In this event, you should refer to the pathway specific criteria) Mark (%) Criteria
100 95 90
Exceptional Presentation is masterful in communicating a very substantial body of scientific information. The presenters held the audience’s attention, showed exceptional command of the relevant concepts and facts, spoke authoritatively and to time without notes and showed evidence of substantial appreciation of supplementary material. The presenters provided consistently critical treatment of the information, gave exceptional answers to questions, and demonstrated fluency in the use of any teaching aids. The presentation was at conference level in accuracy, appearance and arrangement. Keywords (in addition to those for ‘excellent’): exceptional, insightful, masterful, important
85 80
Outstanding Presentation is outstanding in communicating a very substantial body of scientific information. It meets all of the criteria for a mark of 76, as well as meeting most but not all of the criteria for a mark of 90+. Keywords (in addition to those for Excellent): outstanding, superb, original, academically rigorous, scrupulous
76 72
Excellent Presentation is excellent in communicating a very substantial body of scientific information. It meets all the criteria for a mark of 68 as well as meeting one or a few of the qualities of a 80+ presentation. Keywords: excellent, accomplished, perceptive, comprehensive, extensive, intelligent, admirable, detailed
68 65 62
Very Good Presentation effectively communicates a significant body of scientific information, is logically-structured and enables the audience to appreciate the significance of the material presented. Presentations in this range would generally be expected to show the following characteristics: Awareness of appropriate material, sound critical treatment of the information, no evidence of significant errors of understanding during the talk or in answers to questions, used resources well, spoke without notes, little or no hesitation, and kept to time. The presentation was mostly well designed with a clear logical structure. Keywords: very good, engaged, nuanced, well-judged, commendable, competent
58 55 52
Good Presentation successfully communicates a significant body of scientific information. It is a mostly accurate account of most of the expected relevant material, showing evidence of use of some supplementary material and adequate preparation, but marred by some of the following: confused sections, poor use of resources, omissions, errors, hesitation, irrelevance, an over-reliance on reading from notes and may over-run. Keywords: good, fair, solid, could be enhanced / improved / enriched / corrected / refined
48 45 42
Adequate Presentation achieves only limited communication of scientific information, containing major errors or omissions. Presenter delivers a mainly accurate account of at least a third of the expected relevant material, showing a generally weak understanding and evidence of little background reading or preparation. Keywords: adequate, could be substantially enhanced / improved / enriched / corrected / refined
38, 35, 30, 25 20, 15, 10, 5 0
Fail Presentation fails to communicate any significant scientific information. Presenter demonstrates understanding of less than a third of the expected relevant material (either through errors, lack of preparation, or by omission). Presentation fails to communicate scientific information and is, on balance, misleading. It shows understanding of less than a quarter of the expected relevant material, but is so inaccurate and/or irrelevant that it succeeds only in misinforming and confusing the audience. Presentation not given. Keywords: fail, weak, inadequate, inappropriate
28
Appendix 6: A3 Module 1 Data Management Task Generic Assessment Criteria (Please note that pathways may wish to adapt these criteria. In this event, you should refer to the pathway specific criteria) Lay Summary Assessment Criteria
Mark Criteria 100 95 90
An exceptional summary that is carefully pitched at the level of the audience. A masterful synopsis reflecting total command of the subject. Salient concepts and facts are put across in a clear, engaging prose. Complex concepts are discussed in an easy to understand manner. All the necessary background is provided enabling the reader to understand the key facts. The overall summary provides a balanced view and does not overstate or understate the conclusions. Key words: exceptional, masterful, balanced
85 80
An outstanding summary that meets all of the criteria for a mark of 76, as well as meeting most but not all of the criteria for a mark of 90+. Key words: outstanding, well organised, accurate, balanced
76 72
An excellent summary that is well-organised and pitched at the level of the audience. It demonstrates an accurate account of the most salient concepts and facts to be put across and is written in clear prose. An excellent attempt at simplifying complex concepts. The necessary background is provided for a lay audience and the overall summary provides a balanced view. Key words: excellent, well-organised, accurate, balanced
68 65 62
A very good summary that delivers a largely accurate synopsis. The summary meets all the requirements of a mark of 72 but has some minor deficiencies. Key words: very good, accurate, minor deficiency/ies
58 55 52
A good summary. While some information is accurate, it is written in a style that is not completely suited to the target audience, or is marred by defective organisation, omissions or errors that indicate a lack of understanding of the purpose of the lay summary. Key words: good, some accuracy, major errors/omissions
48 45 42
A fair summary. Some accurate information but poorly organised or fails to highlight several salient concepts and facts, thus severely limiting the scope. Additionally, the summary may not be audience-appropriate in style or lack clarity and/or is marred by major errors and/or irrelevance. Key words: fair, some accuracy, several major errors/omissions, poor organisation
38 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
The summary mostly inaccurate, irrelevant or brief indicating a vague understanding of the topic or of the audience. Key words: inaccurate, irrelevant, brief, vague
29
Scientific Abstract Assessment Criteria
Mark Criteria 100 95 90
An exceptional abstract that is comprehensive, clear and concisely written. The information provides the reader a masterful account of the research undertaken. The abstract follows all the journal norms including the word count. Each section is informative, builds from the previous one and lends itself towards the conclusions. There are no spelling/grammar errors. A scientific tone is maintained throughout the abstract. All acronyms are defined at first use. Key words: outstanding, masterful, informative
85 80
An outstanding abstract that meets all of the criteria for a mark of 76, as well as meeting most but not all of the criteria for a mark of 90+. Key words: outstanding, accurate
76 72
An excellent abstract that is comprehensive and clear. The information provided is an excellent account of the research, although it falls short of being masterful, suggesting comprehensive understanding and critical analysis. The abstract follows all the journal norms including the word count. Each section provides accurate information. There are no spelling/grammar errors. A scientific tone is maintained throughout the abstract. All acronyms are defined at first use. Key words: excellent, accurate
68 65 62
A very good abstract that is generally comprehensive and clear. Demonstrates a good knowledge of the topic, sets the scene concisely and states an appropriate, testable hypothesis. Methods and data analysis are set out clearly and justified. A clear concise description of the data and main findings is followed by a balanced conclusion with some evidence of critical analysis. The abstract meets all the requirements of a mark of 72 but has some minor deficiencies. Key words: very good, accurate, minor deficiencies
58 55 52
A good abstract that is generally well written. While the abstract is structured in different sections, the information in each section may be limited in scope or not accurate or lacks key information. The abstract may overemphasise on one particular section or overstate some facts. It is marred with grammar/spelling errors. Some acronyms may not have been described in first use. Key words: good, limited scope, not accurate, overemphasis
48 45 42
A fair abstract that has some features of a mark of 52 but more severely restricted in scope or lacks clarity. Additionally, the abstract is marred by errors and/or irrelevance. Key words: severely restricted in scope
38 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
The abstract is mostly inaccurate, irrelevant or brief indicating a vague understanding of the topic or of the audience. Key words: inaccurate, irrelevant, brief, vague
(10 %) No structure and organisation. The information not easily followed and appears chaotic.
Some attempt made to provide a structured report. Missing crucial information that would enable the experiments to be reproduced or allowing logical conclusions to be made from the data. Aims of experiment and data is often missing or not clearly outlined.
Some structure to the report. Contains some of the crucial information that would enable the experiments to be reproduced or allow logical conclusions to be made from the data. Aims of experiment and data is not consistent throughout the report.
Good structure to the report. Contains most of the crucial information that would enable the experiments to be reproduced or allow logical conclusions to be made from the data. Aims of experiment and data is consistent throughout the report. Most of the chronology is in place.
Well-structured report contains all of the crucial information that would enable the experiments to be reproduced and allow reader to verify the conclusions made from the data. Aims of experiment and data is consistent throughout the report. The structure and organisation provides an accurate chronological record
Background &
Hypothesis (25 %)
Does not provide context for the experiments. Aims are absent or not clearly laid out. No direct links between the experimental aims and the proposed method for data collection.
Provides a very basic or disorganised: superficial scientific background, unclear experimental aims and overview of the data. Lacks focus, clarity and organisation.
Provides in the following order: a brief basic scientific background; a list of experimental aims and how these address the research question. However, clear rationale for the experimental approach is lacking.
Provides in the following order and with links: a scientific background, clear experimental aims with rationale, a clear and succinct outline of how the main data will be collected and analysed. Demonstrates some focus and depth.
Provide with fluency and clear interesting links: a clear and organised background, very clearly stated experimental aims with strong rationale, for how the data collection and analysis. Demonstrates insight, clarity and organisation.
Methods (15 %)
Does not provide enough procedural details of the material and methods to understand the experimental design adopted, and how these address the research question.
Gives some of the procedural information but lacks some crucial elements. Might lack in clarity.
Gives most of the procedural information required to understand the experiments performed but may lack some details.
Presents in a clear, organised and succinct manner most of the required procedural information to understand the experimental protocols.
Provides in a clear, organised and succinct manner the necessary and sufficient information in order to understand all the experiments protocols. Provides links to subsequent experiments or cross-references to other approaches to verify/ confirm the experimental approach.
Results (25 %)
Absent or incomplete data for the experiments. The data has errors and lacks in structure and clarity, i.e. units and appropriate presentation of the data.
Limited data for the experiments. The data has errors and lacks in structure and clarity, i.e. units and appropriate presentation of the data is inconsistent. Attempts to interpret the data demonstrate significant errors.
Adequate collection of raw data for the experiments. The data has structure and clarity, i.e. units and appropriate presentation of the data is inconsistent. Attempts to interpret the data demonstrates some critical analysis but does not consider wider implication of the result.
Contains a range of data types that are appropriate, well organised and reference to the research questions. Units and labels are correctly applied. Good attempt to analyse and interpret the data however missing some aspects related to limitation of the data.
Provides a precise, clear, and very organised dataset. Combines both raw and analysed data that clearly addresses the research question. The data interpretation is to very high standards and in a critical manner, recognising the implications and limitation of the data. Alternatives approaches also considered.
Discussion & Conclusion
(25%)
No or limited reflection on the meaning of the data and how they address the research question.
Summarises most of the data obtained. The comments lack depth and critical consideration. Troubleshooting (beyond the very obvious) and future experiments are not proposed.
Provides a summary of the data obtained followed by a technical discussion of the problems encountered as well as basic troubleshooting ideas. Contains some scientific critical discussion of the data, placing them in the context of the starting hypothesis and background.
Provides an organised summary of the data, a realistic technical consideration of the problems encountered as well as advanced and realistic troubleshooting ideas. Clear links with the starting hypothesis and background are made and future experiments proposed. Demonstrates some critical appraisal of own work.
Summarises and discusses all the data in a very clear, focussed, critical and organised manner. The data are considered in depth and with high levels of criticality and in an un-biased way. The troubleshooting and future experiments proposed are at the technical forefront of immunology, draw from outside reading to propose realistic new avenues of investigation.
31
Appendix 7: A4 Module 2 Group Literature Review Assessment Criteria – CST Assessment Criteria (Please note that pathways may wish to adapt these criteria. In this event, you should refer to the pathway specific criteria)
Exceptional Outstanding Excellent Very good Good Adequate Fail Overall 100, 95, 90 85, 80
An outstanding review that has the following features: 1.Quality reflective of an expert review as published in a scientific journal 2.Substantial body of evidence presented that suggests a clear and possibly novel insight of the topic 3.There is a consistent analytical and critical approach adopted, which in turn is supplemented by discussion of key strengths, limitations and controversies in the field of work. 4.Exceptional synthesis of information from several sources and well organised making it an engaging convincing read
A near outstanding review that has most features of 90’s with few minor misses
An excellent review with several features of 90’s but several minor misses such as critique of literature, discussion of strengths and weaknesses, insight into the topic or synthesis of information.
A very good review with good body of evidence that suggests a clear insight albeit lacking some depth. Some critique of literature. Some discussion on the strengths and limitations of studies A very good synthesis of information, however requires some effort for the reader to extract the line of thought
A good review with a good body of evidence, however, lacking in scope as a result of one of the following: 1. Lack of discussion around some key concepts of the topic 2.Lack of discussion on strengths and limitations of studies 3.While good coverage of the topic and some critique presented, the report is tough to read and requires significant effort on the part of the reader to extract relevant information
An adequate report with some body of evidence that is relevant to the topic, but severely lacking scope due to one of the following 1.Lack of discussion around several key concepts of the topic 2.Lack of discussion on strengths and limitations of studies 3.Lacking any synthesis of information
Inadequate report with marked lack of evidence in the topic area and most key concepts not been discussed.
32
Search criteria and quality of citations*
Outstanding evidence of using multiple searches, multiple databases in a clearly drawn out and documented search strategy Predominant and comprehensive use of primary articles. Many articles presented from recent or seminal publications
Very careful reviewing and combinations of search terms with a clear documentation of the search strategy Predominant use of primary articles. Many articles presented from recent or seminal publications.
Documented Evidence of reviewing, slightly incomplete but using appropriate approaches Predominant use of primary articles. Could have used more articles from recent or seminal publications.
Incomplete but adequate search that can identify most part of the literature Some over reliance on reviews or texts. Could have used more articles from recent or seminal publications
Incomplete but adequate search but identifies only a part of the literature Some over reliance on reviews or texts. Many articles not from recent or seminal publications
A barely adequate search strategy that identifies barely acceptable literature Significant over reliance on reviews or texts. Limited number of recent or seminal articles used.
Little or no evidence of an approach to searching literature Use of literature limited to a few articles and reviews. Poor attempt to explore literature
Presentation of review
The report is carefully organised as per instructions of the journal and meets all norms for figures and references
The report is mostly organised as per instructions of the journal and meets all norms for figures and references
The report is mostly organised as per instructions of the journal and meets most norms for figures and references. There are few minor formatting issues.
The report is generally organised as per instructions of the journal. It meets the norms for figures and references but has an occasional major error
The report shows a level of organisation, however, misses several instructions of the journal, hence, suggesting some lack of understanding of how a report is organised for publication
The report has a barely acceptable organisation, but is reflective of a clear understanding of how a report is organised for publication
The report has an unacceptable organisation
33
Peer Review Assessment Criteria
Mark Criteria 100 95 90
An exceptional peer review that meets all the criteria of 85 and is well beyond the standard expected at this level of study. Key words: exceptional
85 80
An outstanding review that is balanced, rigorous, comprehensive, clear and succinct. The review is insightful, critical and highlights the key strengths and limitations of the work. The peer review demonstrates a mastery of the subject area and awareness of controversies in the field. Comments are constructive, professional and present an objective unbiased viewpoint, with careful consideration of the audience. The overall comments provide the author the scope to improve their work to an exceptionally high standard. Key words: outstanding, accurate, detailed, critical, constructive, professional, unbiased
76 72
An excellent peer review that is comprehensive and clear. The peer comments reflect a clear understanding of the expectations and purpose of a peer review. The review is critical, accurate and highlights most strengths and limitations. Comments are constructive, professional and present an objective unbiased viewpoint. The comments are based on high quality evidence demonstrating an excellent understanding of the field of work. The overall comments provide the author the scope to improve their work to a high standard. Key words: excellent, accurate, professional
68 65 62
A very good peer review that is detailed, clear and reflects an understanding of the purpose of a peer review. The review is thoughtful, critical and highlights the strengths and limitations of the work. Comments are constructive and professional. The overall comments provide the author scope to improve their work. May include some minor deficiencies/misses. Key words: very good, accurate, minor deficiencies, minor misses
58 55 52
A good peer review that highlights key areas for improvement and demonstrates a good understanding of the subject area. However, it may be limited in scope or inaccurate in places. Comments are mostly clear and constructive, but some may fall short of professional standards. Key words: good, limited scope, not accurate
48 45 42
A fair review that has some features of a mark of 52 but more severely restricted in scope or lacks clarity. Additionally, the review is marred by significant errors and/or irrelevance. Key words: severely restricted in scope
38 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
The review is mostly inaccurate, irrelevant or brief indicating a vague understanding. Key words: inaccurate, irrelevant, brief, vague
34
Rebuttal Letter Assessment Criteria
Mark Criteria 100 95 90
An exceptional rebuttal letter that meets all the criteria of 85 and is well beyond the standard expected at this level of study. Key words: exceptional, professional, convincing
85 80
An outstanding rebuttal letter that is comprehensive, clear and succinct and demonstrates exceptional knowledge and insight into the controversies of the field. The letter is clearly and professionally written, documents how each peer review comment has been critiqued and acted upon. It incorporates and builds on the comments to make insightful improvements to the final draft. It provides sound, robust, evidence based, and convincing arguments for each response. Key words: outstanding, accurate
76 72
An excellent rebuttal letter that is comprehensive and clear and demonstrates an in-depth understanding of the topic. The letter engages thoughtfully with the peer review, clearly documents why and how the comments have been addressed and provides evidence based justification for not acting on specific comments. The point by point reply is clearly and professionally written, demonstrating through consideration of the reviewers’ comments. The suggested changes have been thoughtfully incorporated into the final draft leading to an improvement in the scope and presentation of the review. Key words: excellent, accurate
68 65 62
A very good rebuttal. The letter clearly documents how the peer review comments have been addressed and provides justification for not acting on specific comments. The point by point reply is clearly and professionally written, demonstrating consideration of each of the reviewers’ comments in turn. The suggested changes have been appropriately incorporated into the final draft of the review. May have some minor deficiencies/misses. Key words: very good, accurate, minor deficiencies, minor misses
58 55 52
A good rebuttal that responds to the key comments. Most of the changes have been incorporated into the final draft however in places this may have been done in a way that does not improve or reduces the quality of the review. The rebuttal letter may be somewhat limited in scope or not convincingly argued or lack a professional approach/clarity in places. Key words: good, limited scope, not convincing, unclear
48 45 42
A fair rebuttal that has some features of a mark of 52 but more severely restricted in scope or lacks clarity and understanding of the reviewers comments. Key words: severely restricted in scope /clarity
38 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
The rebuttal is mostly inaccurate, irrelevant or brief indicating a vague understanding. Key words: inaccurate, irrelevant, brief, vague
35
Appendix 8: A5 Module 2 Science in Context Assessment Criteria (Please note that pathways may wish to adapt these criteria. In this event, you should refer to the pathway specific criteria) Abstract Assessment Criteria
Abstract (15%)
100 95 90 85
An exceptional abstract that is extremely well written, succinct and logically structured. The information provides the reader comprehensive account of the key features of the clinical case, a masterful critique and synthesis of current evidence and opinions in the field. Each section is informative, builds from the previous one and lends itself towards insightful and balanced conclusions.
Key words: outstanding, masterful, informative
80 76 72
An excellent abstract that is succinct, logically structured and clear. Summarises the key features of the clinical case concisely and defines the basis for the discussion. Concisely synthesises current evidence and opinion in the field, with evidence of critical analysis, links the science to future research and clinical practice and states a balanced conclusion. A scientific tone is maintained throughout the abstract.
Key words: excellent, accurate
68 65 62
A very good clearly written abstract. Summarises the clinical case and defines the basis for the discussion. Concisely summarises our current understanding of the field, with evidence of critical analysis, links the science to clinical practice and states a balanced conclusion. May have some minor deficiencies.
Key words: very good, accurate, minor deficiencies
58 55 52
A good abstract that is generally well written. While the abstract includes details of the clinical case and the basis for discussion, some may be irrelevant, not accurate or lack key information. The summary of our understanding of the field may overemphasise one area or overstate some facts, and not be appropriately linked to clinical practice. It may be marred with grammar/spelling errors.
Key words: good, limited scope, not accurate, overemphasis
48 45 42
A fair abstract that has some features of a mark of 52 but more severely restricted in scope or lacks clarity. Additionally, the abstract is marred by errors and/or irrelevance.
Key words: severely restricted in scope
≤40
The abstract is mostly inaccurate, irrelevant or brief indicating a vague understanding of the topic or of the audience.
Key words: inaccurate, irrelevant, brief, vague
36
Case Summary Assessment Criteria Case summary (15%)
100 95 90 85
An outstanding clinical summary that is succinct, logical and easy to read. The summary provides the necessary details and maps to the evidence-based discussion. All abbreviations and units included.
80 76 72
An excellent clinical summary that is well written, edited and easy to follow. The summary provides sufficient details that maps to evidence-based discussion. All abbreviations explained and SI units included
68 65 62
A very good clinical summary. Reasonable clinical details which follows a logical structure and presents a picture of the patient’s clinical course. Some excess detail may be present. Occasional minor omission of relevant details. It maps well to the evidence-based discussion. Occasional abbreviation or SI units omitted.
58 55 52
A good clinical summary. May contain large quantities of unnecessary details. May be missing some key aspects of the topic that is being discussed. A clear mapping to the evidence-based discussion may be lacking. While clinical details may be present, the sequence may be difficult to follow.
48 45 42
A fair clinical summary, however, significantly restricted in scope. May contain large quantities of unnecessary details. May be missing some key aspects of the topic that is being discussed. A clear mapping to the evidence-based discussion may be lacking. While clinical details may be present, the sequence may be difficult to follow.
≤40 A poor clinical summary lacking relevant clinical details and missing the key points significantly.
37
Evidence Based Discussion Assessment Criteria Evidence based discussion (70%)
100 95 90 85
Provides a rigorous in-depth critical analysis with a balanced and thorough discussion. The work shows all the following features: - concisely written and suggestive of an exceptional synthesis of information. -outstanding, clear, logical progression of ideas that inform the argument and brings out the key points. - predominant use of primary research articles, of which many are recent or seminal papers, depending upon the topic of discussion. -conclusions relevant to the wider context (such as management or pathophysiology) of the clinical case and cleverly drawn from the evidence-based discussion. -No errors in citation style and reference list is complete. No grammar and spelling mistakes.
80 76 72
A good depth in critical analysis with a balanced and thorough discussion. The work shows most of the following features: - concisely written and suggestive of an excellent synthesis of information. -excellent clear, logical progression of ideas that inform the argument and brings out the key points. -predominant use of primary research articles, but could use more recent or seminal papers, depending upon the topic of discussion and accomplished synthesis and criticism of the relevant material. - conclusions relevant pointing to a wider context (such as management or pathophysiology) of the clinical case and is mainly drawn from the evidence based discussion. -Some minor errors in citation style and reference list is acceptable at this level. Some grammar and spelling mistakes.
68 65 62
A very good balanced discussion with some evidence of critical analysis. The work has some/all of the following features: - mostly concisely written and suggestive of a good synthesis of information. -good logical progression of ideas that inform the argument and brings out most of the key points. - minor details or key points missing -The information is drawn from primary research articles, however some reliance on review articles. -relevant conclusions with links to the wider context. -Minor errors and inconsistencies in citation style and reference list. Minor grammar and spelling mistakes.
38
58 55 52
A good discussion. The work has several of the following features. - minimal critical analysis and although the work is mostly well written, it lacks evidence of major synthesis of information, or may contain errors. -Some use of bias/lack of scientific tone affecting the conclusions drawn. -Some logical progression of ideas and argument leading to the conclusion, although the ideas are based on limited sources. Some over reliance on reviews. -Major inconsistencies and errors in citation style and reference list. -Many grammar and spelling mistakes.
48 45 42
Provides no critical analysis or the analysis has errors. The work has many of the following features: -Shows a basic grasp of few concepts but there is a marked lack of understanding, brevity, or major errors. -suggestive of an overall lack of synthesis with the major ideas and arguments being derived from one-two sources of information. -Use of significant biased tone. -Marked lack in the progression of ideas making it confusing for the reader. Significant over reliance on reviews. -Many articles missed from recent or seminal publications. -Major omissions, inconsistencies and errors in the citation style and reference list. Major grammar and spelling mistakes.
≤40
Provides no critical analysis or the analysis has errors. The work has many of the following features: -Shows evidence of a lack of grasp of the basic concepts. -Quality of writing is poor and indicates that the student has not understood what they have been doing or why. -Work has very few ideas with no clear progression. -Lack of synthesis of information. -Marked bias in tone. -Ideas presented in a manner that makes it extremely confusing for the reader to grasp the line of thought. -Use of literature limited to a few reviews, and limited articles. -Minimal citations, or absence of any reference list. Major grammar and spelling mistakes.
The project shows thorough understanding of all the concepts and of the distinguishing features and trends within the field of study. The project work has been performed to an exceptional standard and concisely written up with a clear structure that incorporates critical analysis and evaluation. There will be outstanding scholarship in all sections of the write up illustrating profound understanding of the findings and their relevance. There will be clear ideas expressed on how the work could proceed. The writing will have a good flow and a clear style and be of such quality that the reader will enjoy the experience. There will be excellent use of presentation techniques (diagrams, tables, pictures, etc.). The work might be suitable for publication either as a stand-alone piece or as part of a larger paper.
80, 76, 72 Excellent (approx 1st class):
The project shows a very thorough understanding of the key concepts and of the distinguishing features and trends within the field of study. The project work has been performed to a high standard and concisely written up with a clear structure that incorporates critical analysis and evaluation. There will be excellent scholarship displayed in all sections of the write up illustrating sound understanding of the findings and their relevance. There will be an appreciation of how the work could proceed. The writing will have a good flow, a clear style and stimulate the interest in the reader. There will be excellent use of presentation techniques (diagrams, tables, pictures, etc.). The work might be suitable for publication perhaps as part of a larger paper.
68, 65, 62 Very Good (approx Upper 2nd class):
The project shows good understanding of some, but not necessarily all, features of the field but with a fluent use of concepts. The project work has been performed to a good standard and has been written up to a high standard with reasonable critical evaluation. There will be reasonable scholarship displayed with links to some of the wider issues in the field of study and evidence of background reading and knowledge. The writing has sound structure and good flow and maintains the interest of the reader.
58, 55, 52 Good (approx Lower 2nd class):
The project shows evidence of some understanding of the field or explanation of some issues in the field that builds with some use of key concepts. The project work has been performed to a reasonable standard. The write up has sectional structure but within sections tends to be bitty or unconnected. The results will tend to be descriptive without analytical purpose and the write up generally will not stimulate the reader's interest. There will be more of a surface approach to reviewing the literature.
48, 45,42 Adequate (approx 3rd class):
The project shows evidence of some grasp of basic concepts. The project work has been performed to a moderate standard with the write up indicating limited understanding of topic and purpose. The write up will be descriptive and have a very surface approach to analyses. There will be a limited understanding of the relevance of the study to the wider field and probably a failure to present the work in a context that the reader can understand.
Below 40, 38, 35, 30, 25, 20, 15, 10, 5, 0
Fail
The project shows evidence of a poor grasp of even basic concepts. The quality of the project work has been poor and the write up indicates that the student has not understood what they have been doing or why.
Presentation was masterful in communicating a scientific critique and personal reflection of the processes adopted in the research project. A clear concise summary of their project was provided and included key findings, thus providing context for discussion. The slides were well designed and had a clear logical structure.
The student provided an outstanding in-depth critique that linked to the discussion of future directions of research and provided an insightful personal reflective account that went beyond mere description of events. The student effectively used few significant examples to explore an aspect of their learning journey in-depth.
Overall, this was delivered authoritatively, fluently and in an engaging manner within the provided time limit and the student showed an exceptional ability to answer questions.
Keywords: exceptional, insightful, masterful, important
80
76
72
Excellent
Presentation was excellent in communicating a scientific critique and insightful personal reflection of the processes adopted in the research project. A clear concise summary of their project was provided including the key findings, thus providing context for discussion. The slides were very well designed with a clear logical structure.
Overall, this was delivered confidently, fluently, with little/no hesitation, in an engaging manner within the provided time limit. The student gave perceptive and detailed answers to questioning.
Presentation was effective in communicating a scientific critique and personal reflection of the processes adopted in the research project. A clear concise summary of their project was provided including some key findings, thus providing context for discussion. The slides were mostly well designed with a clear logical structure.
Some context for discussion may be missing.
Keywords: very good, engaged, nuanced, well-judged, commendable, competent
58
55
52
Good
Presentation achieved a sound communication of a scientific critique and personal reflection of the processes adopted in the research project. It met all the criteria for a mark of 48 as well as meeting few of the qualities of a 60-69 presentation.
The presentation had some critique of the scientific research process (but limited in scope) and was a modest reflective account that went beyond mere description of events (however, restricted in
41
scope). The student provided some examples to explore their learning journey however, there was a lack of insight.
The presentation may have been markedly impacted by some confused sections, omissions, hesitation, irrelevance, irrelevance, an over-reliance on reading from notes, lack or of engagement and may have over-run.
Keywords: good, fair, solid, could be enhanced / improved / enriched / corrected / refined
48
45
42
Adequate
Presentation achieved a very limited communication of a scientific critique and personal reflection of the processes adopted in the research project. A sound summary was provided but was incomplete in providing a context for discussion.
The presentation may have little/no critique, thus impacting the scope of discussion. While some evidence of reflection in the form of description of their experiences was provided, it was severely restricted with regards to exploring the experiences in context of their learning journey.
Keywords: adequate, could be substantially enhanced / improved / enriched / corrected / refined
<40
Fail
Presentation fails to communicate any significant understanding of processes in research project or had significant major errors. Presenter demonstrated little understanding of the key findings and the background. The presentation had no critique and there is little/no evidence of reflection. The presentation was misleading, inaccurate such that it confused the audience and revealed little preparation.
Keywords: fail, weak, inadequate, inappropriate
42
Appendix 11: Peer Evaluation Instructions for completing the peer evaluation form
We are asking you to rate your peers on their contribution to the group literature review task and work as a team member. This is COMPULSORY and non-participation will lead to a penalty of 10% loss in marks ie your final individual mark will be 90% of the group mark. While your scores count towards the final grades of your Teammates, the module lead reserves the right to adjust the individual marks or remove the peer scores, for example, in case of insufficient justification or malpractice.
Please read the following carefully before you start:
A. You should provide a TRUE honest rating and show a sense of responsibility while rating your peers.
B. You should base your rating on the criteria and descriptors provided. In some instances, you may find this highly subjective. We suggest that if you have any doubt, give your peer the benefit of a higher grade. For example, if you are struggling to make a choice between 3 and 4, it is best to give a 4.
C. You are required to justify your score for the marker. Peers will not be able to see these comments.
D. You are asked to provide feedback to your peers on their strengths and areas for improvement. The comments will be anonymised and reviewed before sharing the results. Please note this is COMPULSORY. Your peers would really value your feedback.
E. You will rate yourself as a team member providing the scores and justifications as for the other members of the team. The scores you give yourself will also count towards the peer assessment grade.
F. Your scores will be compared to the group average and used to increase or decrease your final mark for this assessment (see below for details of how this is calculated).
43
Peer evaluation criteria and descriptors
Criteria 5 4 3 2 1
Contributing to the team's work
Does much higher quality work than expected. Outstanding commitment and completes assignments on time.
Between 5 and 3
Completes a fair share of the team's work with acceptable quality. Keeps commitments and completes assignments on time.
Between 1 and 3
Does not do a fair share of the team's work. Delivers sloppy or incomplete work with no genuine reasons to explain it. Misses deadlines that hinder team progress.
Contributing to group meetings
Regularly attends and improves the productivity of group meetings, encourages full participation of all group members, actively identifies and follows up on key action points and improves other processes such as note taking, etc
Between 5 and 3
Regularly attends group meetings and contributes well in planning and other processes such as note taking, facilitating etc
Between 1 and 3
A repetitive behaviour such as missing, coming late, giving excuses etc that suggest a lack of commitment to group meetings. Does not provide sufficient notice for not attending. Adopts a passive stance in the planning or other processes such as note taking, facilitating etc.
Interacting and communicating with Teammates
Asks for and shows interest in teammates' ideas and contributions Improves communication amongst team members. Provides encouragement or enthusiasm to the team Ask team-mates for feedback and uses their suggestions to improve
Between 5 and 3
Listens to teammates and respects their contributions Communicates and shares information with team-mates. Participates fully in team activities. Respects and responds to feedback from peers
Between 1 and 3
Interrupts, ignores, bosses or makes fun of peers on a regular basis Does not share information. Takes action that affects teammates without their inputs Complains, makes excuses, and accepts no help.
Keeping the team on track
Watches conditions affecting the team and monitors progress. Makes sure that teammates are making appropriate progress. Gives teammates specific and timely feedback.
Between 5 and 3
Notices changes that influence the team's success Knows what everyone on the team should be doing and notices problems. Alerts teammates or suggests solutions when team's success is threatened.
Between 1 and 3
Is unaware if team is meeting their goals. Does not pay attention to team-mates’ progress Avoids discussing problems even when they are obvious.
Motivating for success
Motivates the team to do excellent work. Cares that the team does outstanding work even if no additional reward. Believes that the team can do excellent work.
Between 5 and 3
Encourages the team to do good work that meets all requirements. Wants the team to perform well enough to earn all available rewards. Believes that the team can fully meet its responsibilities.
Between 1 and 3
Satisfied even when the team does not meet assigned standards. Wants the team to avoid work even if it hurts the team. Doubts the team can meet all its requirements.
44
Example Calculations for Peer Evaluation
Example scores in each category
Example calculation of individual score
Total scores Ken Joanna Prabha Mark Individual score (sum of scores from all team members and self) 76 75 65 60 Average score (average of group members’ individual scores) 69 69 69 69 Adjustment factor (individual score/average score) NB This is capped at 1.5 and scores between 0.95 and 1 are rounded to 1. 1.10 1.09 0.94 0.87 Group mark (first draft (50%) + peer review (25%) + rebuttal (10%) + final version (15%)) 70 70 70 70 Individual mark (group mark*0.9) + (group mark*0.1*adjustment factor) 70.71 70.61 69.59 69.09
final individual mark
Contributing to team meetingsKen Joanna Prabha Mark
Appendix 12: Sample Team contract (developed with input from student shapers1) Team Name: ____________________________ Date: ______________________ GOALS: What are our team goals for this project? What skills do we want to develop or refine? Prompt questions
• What kind of criteria would you set for the quality of your literature review? (look at the rubric assessment criteria- this may help you define the quality) • What skills are involved in writing the literature review (e.g. critical appraisal, writing skills, searching literature, referencing) • Are there any areas where your team feels they could develop their skills in the duration of this module? • Would your team want to attend the library drop in session?
EXPECTATIONS: What do we expect of one another regarding attendance at meetings, participation, frequency of communication, the quality of work, etc.? Prompt questions What personal values would you expect out of each member? (e.g., sincere effort, honestly, respect others’ viewpoints, listen patiently, would you expect members to work on weekends etc)
• What constitutes a good punctuality and attendance at meetings? • What constitutes good participation from team members? • When would you expect individual members to communicate to other members? (e.g. daily, when there is a problem; what constitutes a prompt response to a query) • What would you expect in terms of meeting the internal deadlines that you set for the team?
POLICIES & PROCEDURES: What ground rules can we agree on to help us meet our goals and expectations? Prompt questions
• How would you achieve good quality work? (e.g. review progress as a team- how frequently? identify problems, provide constructive solutions, critically review each other’s work, distribute roles, provide a report of where the individual work can benefit from others’ input) • How would you monitor attendance? • How would you communicate within the group? (WhatsApp, Teams etc, modes for individual communication) • What is the notice period for not making to a meeting?
CONSEQUENCES: How will we address non-performance regarding these goals, expectations, policies and procedures? Prompt questions
• How would you address issues such as peer not attending meeting, not doing the work and generally not engaging?
• When would you escalate the matter to a tutor? We share these goals and expectations, and agree to these policies, procedures, and consequences. Team member name: _________________________ Team member name: _________________________
Team member name: _________________________ Team member name: _________________________ Team member name: _________________________ 1: StudentShapers is a College-wide programme that allows students to be involved in curriculum development. Two prospective Year 4 students provided their input on the prompt questions.
46
Appendix 13: Minutes of group meeting (developed with input from student shapers1)
Given below is the information that you are expected to record in your team meetings. You can use this template or create a similar one on another platform.
Team name:
Date/Time:
Meeting called by:
Facilitator: Note taker:
Attendees:
Any apologies:
Agenda of the meeting:
Action points from previous meeting
Action Point 1 Who was responsible? Has this been fulfilled/partially fulfilled/not fulfilled? Any reason for delay in work? Anything to report to the team? Feedback from team members Action Point 2 Action Point 3 .. .
Key points of discussion (e.g. any new ideas or disagreements, any key reflections etc)
Action points from this meeting
Action items Person responsible Deadline
1: StudentShapers is a College-wide programme that allows students to be involved in curriculum development. Two prospective Year 4 students provided their input on the prompt questions.
47
Appendix 14: How to Peer Review
WHAT IS PEER REVIEW? Peer review is a process through which a potential article for publication is reviewed by peers for its quality. WHEN DOES PEER REVIEW TAKE PLACE DURING THE PUBLICATION PROCESS? Peer review takes place once a manuscript has been initially reviewed by the editor. The peer review report goes back to the editor, who will then review the comments before relaying back the information to the authors. It is important to understand this process, as in your task, you are taking up the role of the peer reviewer and NOT the editor. The editor (tutor or module lead) will be keen to hear your thoughts primarily on the science rather than the language. Any concerns around spelling and grammar is usually picked up by the Editor. Nevertheless, if there are any major concerns, you could highlight this to the editor, without going overboard commenting on individual lines or paragraphs. HOW TO APPROACH PEER REVIEW? Step 1: While conducting a peer review, it is important that you understand the scope of the report. As this is a critical summary of a topic, the report should ideally present a substantial body of evidence that suggests a clear insight into the topic; discusses key strengths, limitations and controversies of the work and adopts a critical and analytical approach. The overall presentation of the report should suggest a good synthesis of information, a logical structure and be engaging and persuasive. Step 2: While reviewing the report, use the following as guiding questions. Make a list or summary of key points.
• Is the topic discussed accurately in the context of the current literature? • Are there any areas that need clarification? • What are the key strengths and limitations? • Does the topic cover the relevant controversies in the field? • Are all factual statements correct and adequately supported by citations? • Are arguments sufficiently supported by evidence from the published literature?
Article submitted for publication
Editor reviews report
Peer reviews report
48
• Have relevant counterarguments been taken into consideration? • Are the figures and tables relevant and do they supplement the textual description? • Are the conclusions drawn balanced and justified on the basis of the presented
arguments? • Is the tone of the report unbiased? • Does the report have a logical flow? • Is the report engaging and persuasive? • Are there any overt errors?
Step 3: After this review, your group should consider the overall decision and the reasons for this.
• Reject • Accept without revision • Revise- either major or minor. You will need to clearly state what revisions are needed.
Remember
• You don’t need to communicate all the points that you found above. Instead, consider your which points are MOST relevant in context of the scope of the report (as highlighted in Step 1). You have a limited word limit- 1000 words, hence this is crucial for an effective peer review report.
• You should explain and support your judgement so that both the editor and author
are able to understand the reasoning behind it. HOW TO STRUCTURE AND WRITE THE PEER REVIEW REPORT? While writing:
1. BE courteous, professional and constructive and NOT nit-picking in tone. 2. START with a summary of the article in a short paragraph to show you have read and
understood the CST Article. eg "Smith et al have produced an up to date review of the field of.... with a particular focus on the issues of...……"
3. PROVIDE your overall impressions of the CST Article, including whether it is accurate, and has a sufficient impact. eg "This review clearly covers most the salient modern literature and is thorough and well written. I would suggest the following (minor) amendments or clarifications to aid the quality of the manuscript prior to publication…"
4. ASSESS whether the CST Article conforms to the journal-specific instructions (e.g. the instructions for author- this could vary in pathways).
5. PROVIDE comments using short, clearly defined paragraphs and make it easy for the editor and author to see what section you’re referring to. You could do this by referring to line numbers, if used.
49
6. IDENTIFY the main strengths, weaknesses, any gaps in the discussion, coverage of relevant controversies in the field and any overt errors
7. GIVE a constructive critique, it could be accompanied by potential solutions and actions to improve the work. For example, you could include
• A request to tone down the certainty of a statement if you feel the evidence doesn't really support it (good if you can counter that with a reference of your own)
• A request to consider other evidence to provide a more balanced view • a request to add in clinical relevance of a finding or conclusion • comments on whether a table/figure might improve readability • comments on any figures (are they easy to understand?) • any suggestions that might help to improve the narrative or organisation of the
report.
8. BE AWARE of the possibility for bias in your review. Unconscious bias can lead us all to make questionable decisions or form personal opinions which impact negatively on the academic publishing process
What should you avoid while writing?
1. DON’T make ad-hominem comments. 2. DON’T dismiss alternative viewpoints or theories that might conflict with your own
opinions on a topic: when reviewing, maintain an open perspective. 3. DON’T provide extensive comments on the grammar and spelling 4. DON’T feel obliged to provide an extensive discussion on the weaknesses- this
depends on the quality of work that you receive.
SUGGESTED READING
• Moher D, Jadad AR. How to peer review a manuscript (PDF - 51 KB). In Godlee F, Jefferson T, editors. Peer review in health sciences. Second edition. London: BMJ Books, 2003:183-90. • Wager E, Godlee F, Jefferson T. How to survive peer review (PDF - 261 KB). London: BMJ Books, 2002
