Medicinal Biotechnology – Hire Academic Expert

School of Life Sciences Assessment Brief Academic Year 2021-22

Section 1: Key information
Module Code 7024bms
Module Name Medicinal Biotechnology
Semester 2
Status Normal
Module Leader Eliot Barson [email protected]
Assessment Title CW2: Lab report (2000 words)
Core /Applied Core Applied Core
Credit weighting 10
Group/Individual
assessment
Individual
Task outline Produce a 2000-word lab report on your lab work and analysis
through bioinformatics databases.
Submission
deadline/attendance
date
Laboratory sessions will be in week 7 which you need to attend.
You lab report will need to be submitted on the 24
th March 2022
at 18:00
A 24h grace period applies to normal time submissions only.
Submission/attendanc
e instructions
You must attend lab sessions on campus.
Word or time limit The word limit is 2000 words.
Penalties for overlong submissions i.e. >10% (2200+ words)
Cannot penalise too short just for being too short, but likely will
not have included sufficient detail/breadth if not using full
allowance.
Special instructions By submitting this assessment you are declaring yourself fit to do
so. If you are not fit to submit at this time you may apply for
extension to the deadline or deferral to the next assessment
period (see Extension and Deferral request instructions). Please
note that if an extension to the deadline is granted, the 24 hour
grace period DOES NOT apply.
By submitting this assessment you agree to the following statement:
I confirm that this CW submission represents my own work, and I have not received
any unauthorised assistance. I understand the rules around plagiarism, collusion
and contract cheating and that it is my responsibility to act with honesty and
integrity in the assessment process. I understand that there will be no tolerance
towards academic dishonesty, and that cheating can and will lead to serious
consequences.
Section 2- Detail of the Assessment task
The student will be required to write a 2000-word report on their laboratory work, which should be fully
referenced based around seasonal influenza vaccine design and manufacture.
In the report the student will need to consider the following points:
1. The Introduction should contain a critical review of journal papers providing the reader with a
concise overview of influenza vaccine design and manufacture and aims and objectives of the material
investigated in the report.
2. Include detailed information on methodology (including bioinformatics), including comments on
limitations and sensitivity/specificity.
3. Present results clearly and accurately from both the laboratory and bioinformatical investigations.

 

4. Provide a detailed and thoughtful Discussion of the data obtained and what these results mean in
the broader context of the existing literature in this area of biotechnology.
5. In general demonstrate that they have extensively researched the topic, including relevant journal
reviews, original papers and this instance vaccine manufacturers and WHO websites. As this is an MSc,
there should be a sufficient number (20-25) of references included which reflect the depth of your
research.
Detail of submission/ attendance instructions
A DRAFT Turnitin link is available in the Course Community Aula site to allow you to check
your similarity score prior to making your final submission. You may submit multiple times
to this link, but do remember that obtaining a similarity report may take up to 24 hours.
The FINAL Turnitin link on the module Aula page is for submission of your work for
assessment. You may submit only ONCE to this link. Remember that submission make take
some time to complete, so aim to submit several hours before the deadline.
The TurnitinUK system will record the date and time of your submission and cannot be over
written.
Please convert your final submission to a PDF format as these suffer less from formatting
changes.
If you experience any technical problems when trying to submit your work, please consult
Aula help via the question mark link. If these problems are experienced at the time of the
submission deadline and cannot be quickly resolved, please capture screenshots as
evidence and email these and your completed assessment to the module leader asap.
Word count details
The following are included in your word allowance:
The text of your written work
Reference citations and reference to Figures and Tables within the text
Descriptive paragraphs as Figure or Table legends
The following are excluded from your word allowance:
The title
Your name, course etc
Figure and Table headings
Words associated with Figures and Tables
Primer sequences and DNA sequence alignments
Reference list
The word count details
Contents page
Data presented in an appendix
Section 3: Help and Support
In week 8 you will have 2 sessions which will explore the sequencing data and the laboratory
report. There will be drop in sessions to help with other aspects of the report
If you have a special requirement such as a variation of assessment need please contact
the
disabilities team.
Links to additional
assessment
information
Coventry University now uses the APA Referencing Style. If you started
your course before 1st September 2020, you may continue to use the
Coventry University Guide to Referencing in Harvard Style until you
graduate. For support and advice on how to reference appropriately

 

please see the online referencing guidance or contact your Academic
Liaison Librarian
Section 4: Learning Outcomes and Marking Rubric
Mapping to module
Learning outcomes
This assessment is designed to assess Learning Outcomes 1,
2 and 3 of the module:
Critically evaluate current advances in biotechnology to produce
medicinal products for the prevention and treatment of human
diseases
Work effectively within a team to plan, conduct, record and
analyse laboratory experiments to investigate viral vaccine
manufacturing processes
Critically evaluate and report laboratory evidence with regard to
published information
Mapping to course
Learning Outcomes
This assessment relates to the following Course Learning
Outcomes:
1. Demonstrate an understanding of a number of aspects of
biotechnology and apply knowledge to problem based scenarios
2. Critically analyse and synthesise scientific information in
the subject area of biotechnology and articulate and present this
effectively, through written, oral and digital formats, to a diverse
and global audience
5. Demonstrate an independent approach to learning, reflect
on their own practice, and take responsibility for personal
development
Task type/scheduling
rationale
A key skill a biotechnologist requires is to present analyse and
present data while integrating findings into the wider context of
the literature. This lab report allows you to explore how this is
done.
Submission 3 weeks after lab data collection which should give
you ample time to analyse and write your results.
Indicative marking criteria:
Distinction Merit Pass Pass Fail
(72-100) (62, 65, 68) High (52, 55,
58)
Low (42, 45,
48)
(0-35)
Introduction
20%
An appropriate
and concise
literature review
which
introduces the
main concepts
Rationale for
methodology
Appropriate and
critical literature
review of the
topic but
contains minor
omissions or
misconceptions
Adequate
literature review,
possibly lacking
in discrimination
with relevant
facts
Incomplete
literature review,
sections are
included not
relevant to the
research
question;
Very incomplete
or absent
literature review,
sections are
included not
relevant to the
research
question; very
poor

 

discussed;
clear links
between
method and
theory
Research
question(s)
clearly outlined
and related to
current state of
knowledge.
Clear research
question/hypoth
esis must be
stated;
Rationale for
methodology
discussed, but
ambiguous/uncl
ear links to the
background
theory.
Research
question/hypothe
sis outlined.
Aspects of
methodology
associated with
laboratory
protocol covered,
but
misinterpreted/po
orly explained.
Research
question/hypoth
esis unclear or
unspecified;
understanding
shown
Research
question/hypoth
esis unclear or
unspecified or
incorrect.
Methods 5% Includes
specific details
i.e. primer
sequences.
Deviations from
the original
method noted
without
repeating
unnecessary
detail;
Where scientific
software has
been used for
data analysis
appropriate
details are to be
added
Correct SI units
to be used
throughout.
Methodology
well-presented
but a small
proportion of the
key details (e.g.
SI units) are
missing / overly
complicated and
requires editing.
Where scientific
software has
been used for
data analysis
appropriate
details are to be
added
A description of
the methods are
covered but
lacking detail in
large proportions
and/or this
section requires
further work and
editing to be
concise;
Many details
such as SI units
missing or
misrepresented
Little indication of
statistical tests
used.
Incomplete extra
information
describing
ligands, software
etc.
Lacking clarity
with key
sections
missing,
Alternatively
simply copy and
paste of
unedited
methods lacking
insight into key
aspects.
Failure to use
units and
specific details,
statistical
methods lacking
clarity
Lacking clarity
with key
sections
missing,
Alternatively,
has simply
copied and
pasted unedited
methods lacking
insight into key
aspects. May
contain major
errors and
omissions.
Failure to use
units and
specific details,
relevant
statistical
methods or
calculations
lacking clarity or
incorrect or
absent
Results 35% Summaries of
experimental
rational to be
used to
introduce and
narrate results
sub sections;
Correctly
labelled figure
and tables are
presented with
informative
figure legends;
Clear narrative
introducing data
in the form of
figures and
tables etc;
Clear
description of
results which
highlight the
major findings;
Figures and
tables present
but not of
Results section
ordered logically
but little
descriptive text
between
experimental
findings.
Figures, tables
and legends
adequate but
require some
interpretation
Figures, tables
and legends
present but with
no narrative
present linking
them to the
results
Data is poorly
presented
making
interpretations
difficult to
Figures, tables
and legends
may be present
but with little or
no narrative
present linking
them to the
results.
Data is very
poorly
presented
making
interpretations
difficult or

 

Clear and
concise
narrative to be
added to the
main text to
support figure
and tables etc.
Clear
referencing of
figures and
tables to be
included in the
main body of
the text.
Only analysed/
processed data
is presented i.e.
raw
data/unprocess
ed is not to be
included;
Correct choice
and usage of
statistical
techniques
used.
publication
quality in places;
Legends
present but not
complete or
concise in
places;
Failure, in
places, to refer
to figures and
tables in the
main body of the
text;
Correct choice
and good
command of any
statistical
techniques
used.
from additional
sources or prior
knowledge in
places
Evidence of
repetition of data,
inappropriate
choice of
presentation of
data or missing
data in a small
section;
Incomplete
referencing of
figures/tables etc
in the main body
of the text;
The presented is
generally well
chosen and use
of some
statistical
techniques
employed;
reader.
Proportions of
data missing
and/or miss
represented
Legends
brief/missing
and
uninformative.
Raw data
presented
Little or
inappropriate
use of statistics.
impossible for
the reader.
Large
proportions of
data may be
missing and/or
misrepresented
or illogically
presented,
Legends
brief/missing
and
uninformative or
inaccurate.
Raw data may
be presented
with little or no
interpretation or
explanation
Little or
inappropriate
use of statistics.
Disscussion
35%
A critical
evaluation of
how the initial
research
question(s) and
resulting data fit
in to the wider
scientific
literature;
Combine
literature to
construct
critical analysis;
Critical
evaluation of
the literature
which supports
or opposes the
data and/or
initial research
question;
Full
consideration of
the impact i.e.
practical
implications of
Thorough and
interpretive, but
not presented in
a logical
progression;
Research
question/hypoth
esis associated
to the wider
scientific
literature;
Critical
evaluation of the
literature which
supports or
opposes the
data and/or
initial research
question;
Some
discussion of
practical
implications of
findings and
ideas for further
investigation to
Discussion
covering the
most relevant
factors/key
findings;
Including
relevant
conclusions
offered for key
elements related
to existing
knowledge and
present research
presented within
report
Consideration of
supporting but
possibly
insufficient
attention to
scientific
literature that is
inconsistent to
the research
question and / or
Discussion
incomplete and
possibly
superficial;
Some
unsubstantiated
or inappropriate
conclusions;
Discussion
liable to
irrelevancies;
Little evidence
of ability to
weigh conflicting
or inconsistent
data;
Discussion
absent or
incomplete and
possibly
superficial; may
contain many
very significant
errors
May contain
many
unsubstantiated
or inappropriate
conclusions;
Discussion
contains
multiple to
irrelevancies
and
inaccuracies;
Little or no
evidence of

 

experimental
findings which
includes
directions for
future work;
Full
consideration of
shortcomings
and limitations
of present
study;
Relevant
conclusions
with original
analysis in
relation to
literature.
include
shortcomings of
the project;
Relevant
conclusions with
partial critical
analysis in
relation to
literature.
data obtained in
the laboratory;
Little/no
discussion of
practical
implications of
findings and
ideas for further
investigation;
Limited critical
discussion and
without support
from the wider
scientific
literature.
ability to weigh
conflicting or
inconsistent
data.
Presentation
5%
Appropriate
subdivision of
text into
sections;
Excellent use of
scientific
Text clear and
succinct, with
no ambiguity;
Consistent use
of appropriate
terminology;
References,
graphs, tables,
figures (if used)
of publishable
quality;
No inaccuracies
of any
significance;
Appropriate
subdivision of
text into
sections;
Good use of
scientific English
Neat and
accurate
throughout;
References,
graphs, tables,
figures (if used)
legible and
accurate;
Negligible
errors;
generally, a high
level of clarity
Appropriate
subdivision of
text into sections;
Reasonable use
of scientific
English;
Reasonable
standard of
neatness and
accuracy;
References,
graphs, tables,
figures (if used)
for the most part
legible and free
from errors;
Generally a
reasonable level
of clarity.
Poor level of
neatness and
accuracy;
Poor scientific
English
References,
graphs, tables,
figures (if used)
inaccurate,
incomplete or
difficult to
interpret;
Some parts of
the report
unclear.
Very poor level
of neatness and
accuracy;
Very poor
scientific English
References,
graphs, tables,
figures (if used)
inaccurate,
incomplete,
absent or
difficult to
interpret;
Several parts of
the report very
unclear and
poorly written.

 

Section 5: Marks return and feedback
Marking and moderation
Information
This assignment brief has been moderated by a member of
academic staff outside the module team.
All submissions will be marked anonymously. Marking will be
completed by academic staff, which may include hourly paid
staff. The marking will then be moderated by a member of the
module team and reviewed by an academic staff member
outside the team. The module feedback and marks will then
be moderated by the external examiner.

 

Your mark will be reported as a banded mark according to
the School’s banded marking guidelines.
Feedback and return of
marks
All banded marks released are subject to final Progression and
Awards Board decisions and are therefore provisional until after
the Board sits.
Provisional marks will be released on 7
th April 2022 via the Aula
ite in the Student Success App.
Feedback comments can be accessed by clicking on your
submission in Turnitin and selecting the comments icon. The
completed marks rubric can be accessed through the rubric
icon.
If you have any questions about your feedback, contact the
module leader.
Following the Progression and Awards Board, your marks will
be confirmed, and you will be able to view your final grades
through SOLAR together with information on any resit or deferral
arrangements. If you require further clarification, contact your
Course Director or Faculty Registry.
Section 6: General Information
Penalties for late/non
submissions
Work that is submitted late, without an extension or deferral
having been granted, will receive a mark of ZERO (students
will normally be eligible for a resit attempt).
Work that is not submitted or tests/exams etc not attended,
without an extension or deferral having been granted, will be
recorded as Absent (ABS). In these cases it is at the discretion
of the Progression and Awards Board as to whether you will
be permitted a resit attempt.
Extension and Deferral
requests
If you are unable to submit coursework or attend an
assessment e.g. test, examination, presentation or assessed
laboratory session, you may be eligible to apply for an
extension or a deferral. Please refer to the
Extenuating
Circumstances guidance
on the Student Portal.
Deferral or Extension requests must be made before the due
date of the assignment and must be accompanied by
appropriate evidence.
Please be aware that deferral of an
assessment may affect your ability to progress into the
next academic year of study, therefore you are advised to
seek advice from your tutor or course director if you are
considering deferring an assessment.
Reference formatting Coventry University now uses the APA Referencing Style. For
support and advice on how to reference appropriately
please see the
online referencing guidance or contact
your
Academic Liaison Librarian.
SLS banded marking
scheme
The SLS banded marking approach recognises that marking
cannot be exact and avoids students being awarded marks
that lie close to a grade boundary.

 

The banded marks that may be awarded are as follows:
Outstanding 82, 85, 88, 90, 95, 100
Excellent 72, 75, 78
Very Good: 62, 65, 68
Good 52,55,58
Acceptable 42,45,48
Fail (does not meet LOs) 0,10,20,30, 35
Academic Integrity Academic dishonesty hurts everyone in the community. It not
only damages your personal reputation, but also the reputation
of the entire University, and it will not be tolerated at Coventry
University. It is in the best interest of all students for the
University to maintain the good reputation of its awards. Your
co-operation is expected in actively protecting the integrity of the
assessment process. It is your duty to observe high personal
standards of academic honesty in your studies and to report any
instances of malpractice you become aware of, without fail.
We expect students to act with academic integrity, which means
that they will study and produce work in an open, honest and
responsible manner. It is important, therefore, that you
understand fully how to avoid academic misconduct and where
to obtain support. Academic dishonesty covers any attempt by a
student to gain unfair advantage (e.g. extra marks) for
her/himself, or for another student, in ways that are not allowed.
Examples of such dishonesty include:
Collusion includes the knowing collaboration, without
approval, between two or more students, or between a
student(s) and another person, in the preparation and
production of work which is then submitted as individual
work. In cases where one (or more) student has copied from
another, both (all) students involved may be penalised.
Falsification includes the presentation of false or
deliberately misleading data in, for example, laboratory
work, surveys or projects. It also includes citing references
that do not exist.
Deceit includes the misrepresentation or non-disclosure
of relevant information, including the failure to reveal when
work being submitted for assessment has been or will be
used for other academic purposes.
Plagiarism is the act of using other people’s words,
images etc. (whether published or unpublished) as if they
were your own. In order to make clear to readers the
difference between your words, images etc. and the work of
others, you must reference your work correctly
Self-Plagiarism is the reuse of significant, identical, or
nearly identical portions of your own work without
acknowledging that you are doing so or without citing the
original work, and without the written authorisation of the
module leader.
Re-presentation is the submission of work presented
previously or simultaneously for assessment at this or any
other institution, unless authorised in writing by the module
leader and referenced appropriately.

 

Exam Misconduct is any attempt to gain an unfair
advantage in an assessment (including exams/tests) or
assisting another student to do so. It includes: taking
unauthorised materials into exams, copying from other
candidates, collusion, impersonation, plagiarism, and
unauthorised access to unseen exam papers. For online
tests or exams where a time window applies, this also
includes sharing or accessing shared questions and/or
answers. In the event of an allegation of exam misconduct
you are advised to contact the Student Union Advice Centre
immediately after the incident.
For more details (including misconduct investigations and
penalties) please consult the
Faculty of Health and Life
Sciences Student Handbook
Also consult the Academic Integrity links on the Student Portal.
Appeals and complaints
Procedures
If you have any concerns about your assessment results then
please contact your module leader or course director in the
first instance.
If they are unable to resolve your concerns then please
contact the sessment briefs Associate Head Quality and
Accreditation (Lisa Winnall [email protected]).
Details of the processes and criteria for formal appeals and
complaints can be accessed from the Registry
Appeals and
Complaints page

 

Comments are closed.