2.4.2 Report
Weight: 25%
Type of Collaboration: Individual
Due: Friday 11th September by 5:00 pm (Week 8)
Submission: Via turnitin link available in the Assessment 2 folder on vUWS
Format: This assessment provides the opportunity for students to conduct research into the
effect of antibiotics on the Enterobacteriaceae. This lab report will allow students to
esearch the field of dysbiosis and report their findings.
The report will be organised like a scientific article: title, introduction, results,
discussion, reference list, and appendix (to demonstrate calculations).
The report must be 1000 words (+/- 10 words). The word count includes the
introduction, results section, and discussion (in-text citations are included in the word
count). Project titles, charts, reference lists, and figure legends are not included.
Length: 1,000 words
Cu
iculum Mode: Report
Resources:
There will be relevant articles on vUWS in the Assessment 2 folder to help students begin their research.
The data for the report will be in the Practical 2 folder on vUWS, there will also be a video tutorial on analysing the
data in this folder. Students will need to complete Practical 3 to enable them to identify the species that they must
analyse in Practical 2.
7
Marking Criteria:
Criteria High Distinction Distinction Credit Pass Unsatisfactory
Introduction (15%) Excellent
introduction, clea
ackground that
leads to reason
ehind the
experiment. All
features of a D
grade but bette
attention to detail.
Very clea
understanding of
the experiment,
detailed topic
knowledge
presented concisely.
Has delivered
specific examples
from cited sources
to support the
experiment. Clea
hypothesis.
Understands the
topic, covers the
topic, rationale fo
the experiments,
and the context of
this research. Clea
evidence of research
and cited sources.
Understands the
topic, covers the
asic background
to the topic and
eason for the
experiment. Does
not show evidence
of serious research
even though
sources are cited.
Context is
inadequate.
No citations to
esearch material;
no clea
understanding of
the topic.
Results 1 (10%)
Description of
Results
As per D grade but
greater attention to
detail, no e
ors.
Demonstrates clea
understanding of
the data.
Clear and concise
description of the
data. No e
ors in
interpretation or
presentation of
data.
Clear descriptions
of the data, easy to
follow and helpful
to the reader.
Some minor e
ors
in presentation and
interpretation.
Limited description
of the results, clea
and accurate. Some
e
ors o
misinterpretations.
No description of
esults, disorganised
and not fully
eflecting the
expected outcomes
of the experiment
Results (25%)
Figures
As per D grade, no
e
ors.
Demonstrates a
high standard of
analysis.
Appropriate figures
to show outcomes
of experiments.
Complete figure
legends or table
titles. Minor e
ors
in data presentation
ut superior to
Credit standard.
Appendix to show
how data was
calculated
Appropriate figures
show outcomes of
experiments. Mino
e
ors, complete
figure legends and
appendix to show
how data was
calculated.
Appropriate figures,
not presenting data
in tables, to show
outcomes of
experiments. Not
epeating data in
oth formats. Some
e
ors appendix
included to show
calculations.
Figures are poorly
presented;
epetition of data in
charts and figures.
No Figure Legend.
Discussion (30%)
Comparison to the
literature
Conforms to the
style of a scientific
discussion, clearly
written with few
e
ors, places the
data in the context
of the scientific
literature. No issues
to standard of
writing. Goes
eyond what has
een provided on
vUWS.
Conforms to the
style of a scientific
discussion, clearly
written with few
e
ors, places the
data in the context
of the scientific
literature. No issues
with standard of
writing.
Clear discussion,
places results in
context of scientific
literature. Mino
e
ors in
interpretation.
Approaches the
style of a scientific
article.
Clear discussion,
places results in
context of scientific
literature. E
ors in
interpretation and
does not use cited
sources well.
Writing is poor and
hinders
understanding of
what has been
written.
Demonstrates
misunderstanding
of the significance
of the results, does
not extract relevant
information from
cited references.
Discussion 2 (15%)
Future studies
As per distinction
ut highest
standard expected.
Insightful proposals
for future
experiments and
applications. No
e
ors.
Clear description of
how experiment
could be modified
or improved based
on careful reading
of scientific
literature, proposes
application of the
technology. Few
e
ors.
Clear description of
how experiment
could be modified
or improved based
on careful reading
of scientific
literature, proposes
application of the
technology. Some
e
ors.
Indicates how
experiment could
e modified o
improved, proposes
application of the
technology. E
ors
that impede
understanding of
the discussion.
No discussion of
how the experiment
can be modified o
improved.
References (5%) All aspects of
eferencing in both
the text and the
eference list are
consistent with the
Harvard/Vancouve
Style. Only
peer-reviewed
articles used. No
E
ors.
Referencing is
consistent with
Harvard/Vancouve
style but with mino
e
ors
Generally follow
Harvard/Vancouve
style, but numerous
minor e
ors
References provided
ut not consistently
adhering to the
Harvard/Vancouve
Style
No attempt to
organise the
eferences according
to the ref style,
frequent e
ors and
omissions.
Non-peer reviewed
sources.
8
2.4.2 Report
Weight: 25%
Type of Collaboration: Individual
Due: Friday 11th September by 5:00 pm (Week 8)
Submission: Via turnitin link available in the Assessment 2 folder on vUWS
Format: This assessment provides the opportunity for students to conduct research into the
effect of antibiotics on the Enterobacteriaceae. This lab report will allow students to
esearch the field of dysbiosis and report their findings.
The report will be organised like a scientific article: title, introduction, results,
discussion, reference list, and appendix (to demonstrate calculations).
The report must be 1000 words (+/- 10 words). The word count includes the
introduction, results section, and discussion (in-text citations are included in the word
count). Project titles, charts, reference lists, and figure legends are not included.
Length: 1,000 words
Cu
iculum Mode: Report
Resources:
There will be relevant articles on vUWS in the Assessment 2 folder to help students begin their research.
The data for the report will be in the Practical 2 folder on vUWS, there will also be a video tutorial on analysing the
data in this folder. Students will need to complete Practical 3 to enable them to identify the species that they must
analyse in Practical 2.
7
Marking Criteria:
Criteria High Distinction Distinction Credit Pass Unsatisfactory
Introduction (15%) Excellent
introduction, clea
ackground that
leads to reason
ehind the
experiment. All
features of a D
grade but bette
attention to detail.
Very clea
understanding of
the experiment,
detailed topic
knowledge
presented concisely.
Has delivered
specific examples
from cited sources
to support the
experiment. Clea
hypothesis.
Understands the
topic, covers the
topic, rationale fo
the experiments,
and the context of
this research. Clea
evidence of research
and cited sources.
Understands the
topic, covers the
asic background
to the topic and
eason for the
experiment. Does
not show evidence
of serious research
even though
sources are cited.
Context is
inadequate.
No citations to
esearch material;
no clea
understanding of
the topic.
Results 1 (10%)
Description of
Results
As per D grade but
greater attention to
detail, no e
ors.
Demonstrates clea
understanding of
the data.
Clear and concise
description of the
data. No e
ors in
interpretation or
presentation of
data.
Clear descriptions
of the data, easy to
follow and helpful
to the reader.
Some minor e
ors
in presentation and
interpretation.
Limited description
of the results, clea
and accurate. Some
e
ors o
misinterpretations.
No description of
esults, disorganised
and not fully
eflecting the
expected outcomes
of the experiment
Results (25%)
Figures
As per D grade, no
e
ors.
Demonstrates a
high standard of
analysis.
Appropriate figures
to show outcomes
of experiments.
Complete figure
legends or table
titles. Minor e
ors
in data presentation
ut superior to
Credit standard.
Appendix to show
how data was
calculated
Appropriate figures
show outcomes of
experiments. Mino
e
ors, complete
figure legends and
appendix to show
how data was
calculated.
Appropriate figures,
not presenting data
in tables, to show
outcomes of
experiments. Not
epeating data in
oth formats. Some
e
ors appendix
included to show
calculations.
Figures are poorly
presented;
epetition of data in
charts and figures.
No Figure Legend.
Discussion (30%)
Comparison to the
literature
Conforms to the
style of a scientific
discussion, clearly
written with few
e
ors, places the
data in the context
of the scientific
literature. No issues
to standard of
writing. Goes
eyond what has
een provided on
vUWS.
Conforms to the
style of a scientific
discussion, clearly
written with few
e
ors, places the
data in the context
of the scientific
literature. No issues
with standard of
writing.
Clear discussion,
places results in
context of scientific
literature. Mino
e
ors in
interpretation.
Approaches the
style of a scientific
article.
Clear discussion,
places results in
context of scientific
literature. E
ors in
interpretation and
does not use cited
sources well.
Writing is poor and
hinders
understanding of
what has been
written.
Demonstrates
misunderstanding
of the significance
of the results, does
not extract relevant
information from
cited references.
Discussion 2 (15%)
Future studies
As per distinction
ut highest
standard expected.
Insightful proposals
for future
experiments and
applications. No
e
ors.
Clear description of
how experiment
could be modified
or improved based
on careful reading
of scientific
literature, proposes
application of the
technology. Few
e
ors.
Clear description of
how experiment
could be modified
or improved based
on careful reading
of scientific
literature, proposes
application of the
technology. Some
e
ors.
Indicates how
experiment could
e modified o
improved, proposes
application of the
technology. E
ors
that impede
understanding of
the discussion.
No discussion of
how the experiment
can be modified o
improved.
References (5%) All aspects of
eferencing in both
the text and the
eference list are
consistent with the
Harvard/Vancouve
Style. Only
peer-reviewed
articles used. No
E
ors.
Referencing is
consistent with
Harvard/Vancouve
style but with mino
e
ors
Generally follow
Harvard/Vancouve
style, but numerous
minor e
ors
References provided
ut not consistently
adhering to the
Harvard/Vancouve
Style
No attempt to
organise the
eferences according
to the ref style,
frequent e
ors and
omissions.
Non-peer reviewed
sources.
8
SCHOOL OF
ASSIGNMENT COVER SHEET
STUDENT DETAILS
Student name:
Student ID number:
UNIT AND TUTORIAL DETAILS
Unit name:
Unit number:
Tutorial group:
Tutorial day and time:
Lecturer or Tutor name:
ASSIGNMENT DETAILS
Title:
Length:
Due date:
Date submitted:
Home campus (where you are enrolled):
DECLARATION
I hold a copy of this assignment if the original is lost or damaged.
I hereby certify that no part of this assignment or product has been copied from any other student’s work or from any other source except where due acknowledgement is made in the assignment.
I hereby certify that no part of this assignment or product has been submitted by me in another (previous or