Lab Report CGB021 Food Engineering – MARKS and FEEDBACK

STUDENT IDs:

MARKED BY: Andy Stapley

Marking scheme Mark awarded (%)

allocation (%)
Summary 10
Introduction and Conclusions 15
Methods (experimental and analysis) 20
Results and discussion 40
Editorial efforts 10
Data analysis (presented in week 2) 5
Total mark awarded 100

Guidelines for marking scheme

10% 15% 20% 40%
80+ Outstanding 8 – 10 12 – 15 16 – 20 32– 40
70-79 Distinction 7 11 14 – 15 28 – 31
60-69 Merit 6 9 – 10 12 – 13 24 – 27
50-59 A good pass 5 8–9 10 – 11 20 – 23
40-49 A pass 4 6–7 8–9 16 – 19
Below 40 A fail 0–3 0–5 0–7 0 – 15

FEEDBACK FROM MARKER

A marking rubric is shown overleaf. Additional comments are given below and on the report itself. These are to enable
you to understand the reasons for grade awarded, including strengths & weaknesses.

THINGS YOU SHOULD CONSIDER FOR NEXT TIME

Note: There are additional resources available on Learn to help you understand and make best use of the feedback that you receive. To view, go to your ‘My modules’
page and access ‘Chemical Engineering – Department Information’. Resources include guides to ‘grade descriptors’, ‘what to do with feedback’ and ‘delivering a
successful project’. There are also copies of presentations on ‘how to avoid plagiarism’ and ‘making use of the library’.
1
 Lab Report CGB021 – FEEDBACK FORM
marker to highlight individual bullets
80+ Outstanding
• Clear and concise
standalone summary of the communicated, but could be
Summary report. All key points
included: context, experiment • Is able to standalone.
(10 %)
explained, clear aims,
outcomes and impact. No
irrelevant info. No errors.
Introduction
• Introduction does all of:
- briefly introduces the
experiment
- gives relevant context
- explains theoretical
principles and links this to
experiment
- has clear and explicit aims
Introduction - rationale for expt. is clear
• No errors in understanding
and
• No irrelevant information.
Conclusion
Conclusion:
(15 %) • Clear and succinct
summary of main outcomes
which fully link to aims in
introduction, and wider
ramifications.
• Thorough assessment of
the limitations of the expt.
Has very useful suggestions
for improving the experiment
or further study.
• Method begins with a brief • Clear description of the
overview.
• Comprehensive yet
Experimental succinct description of the
Methods and experimental set-up and
Methods of procedure with an accurate
Analysis and fully labelled
Sections engineering diagram.
(20 %) • Calc procedure is clear
and logically presented
with explanations.
Basis/origin of eqns is clear.
• All calculations complete
and without error, all
assumptions clearly stated
and justified.
• All relevant results clearly
presented and follow best
Results and practice formatting.
discussion • Discussion reveals a deep
(40 %) and comprehensive
understanding of the
underlying science, with deft
use of literature.
• Sources of error are
comprehensively evaluated.
• No spelling errors. Clear
and exceptionally easy to
read and follow. Sentences
are not too long. Paragraphs
have distinct themes and
Editorial flow well together.
efforts • All externally derived
(10 %) information is referenced.
• Seamless use of
literature when discussing
results.
• References and citations
accurately cited and listed.
70-79 Distinction
• All key points
more concise.
Introduction:
• Almost an excellent
introduction, but with one or
two very minor issues, e.g.
comments betraying a slight
lack of understanding, or
may not have properly
introduced the experiment.
Conclusion:
• Clear summary of the main
findings of the study with clear
reference to the initial study
aims, but with slightly too
much or too little detail.
• Assesses the limitations of
the experiment.
• Has plausible suggestions
for improving the experiment.
experimental set-up and
procedure with only minor
discrepancies/omissions
with accurate and fully
labelled engineering diagram.
• Calculation procedure is
provided in report and is
explained but is either not
completely clear or lacking
minor details.
• All calculations complete
without error, all
assumptions are stated,
• All relevant results clearly
presented with only very
minor deviations from best
practice formatting.
• Results have been
thoroughly discussed and
related to theory and literature
with only minor omissions.
• Has considered the most
important sources of error.
• Negligible spelling and
grammatical errors.
• Fluent writing but could
use shorter sentences in
places.
• Almost all externally derived
information is referenced.
• Competent use of literature
when discussing results.
• References and citations
accurate and almost all
written to standards.
60-69 Merit
• Almost all key points
communicated, but it could
be more concise and there
are one or two errors.
• Not totally standalone.
Introduction:
• Provided context which is
mostly relevant with minor
omissions.
• Satisfactory outline of
relevant theory, with only
minor inaccuracies or
omissions.
• Aims and objectives OK
but could be more explicit.
Conclusion:
• Summarises the main
findings of the study with
reference to the initial study
aims, but with some
omissions or irrelevant
material.
Limited discussion of expt’l
difficulties/limitations or
possible improvements
• Mostly clear description of
set-up and method, but it is
too verbose.
• A mostly accurate and
almost fully labelled
engineering diagram.
• Calculation procedure
given, but some details or
explanations are missing.
• All calculations completed
with one or two small
errors.
• All relevant results have
been accurately presented,
with small deviations from
best practice.
• Results discussed and
related to theory/literature
data with a few minor errors
or omissions.
• Some sources of error
mentioned.
• Occasional spelling and
grammatical errors.
• Commentary generally
makes sense but could be
better structured.
• Used literature reasonably
well when discussing results.
• References and citations
accurate and mostly written
to standards.
50-59 Good pass
• A reasonable abstract that • Poor summary with many • Cannot be used as a
provides some outcomes,
but has several flaws (e.g.
not standalone, does not
explain experiment, other
errors).
Introduction:
• Written as if the reader
will already be familiar with
the experiment.
• Background information is
mostly relevant but does not
provide full context.
• Covers most aspects of
relevant theory with some
inaccuracies.
• Aims and objectives are
missing the main point.
Conclusion:
• Simple repeat of
discussion section without
adding wider implications.
• Conclusion section is too
longwinded – you need to
focus more on the important
outcomes (those which
relate to the original aims).
• No discussion of expt’l
limitations or improvements.
• Description of
experimental set-up and
procedure has some gaps.
• Method assumes reader is
already familiar with expt.
• Experimental diagram
does not follow engineering
standards and has errors.
• Equations given but not
explained or related to
expt’l variables
• Equations not numbered.
• All calculations completed
but some errors.
• Sample calcs incomplete.
• Results are clear, but
graph/table formatting
could be improved.
• Some errors with units
(including capitalisations).
• A few results quoted with
excessive significant figures.
• Patchy discussion of
results with some errors in
understanding.
• Superficial discussion of
sources of error.
• Some spelling and
grammatical errors.
• Work occasionally
difficult to follow.
• Discussion can ramble or
sentences can be too long.
• Use of literature is patchy
and/or predominantly based
on web-sites rather than
books/journals.
• Some errors in citations
and listings.
40-49 Pass
aspects missing and/or
poorly expressed.
• Written more as an
introduction than as a
summary.
Introduction:
• Background information is
superficial or of limited
relevance and does not
provide proper context.
• Incomplete or unclear
description of theory with
major omissions or errors.
• Aims and objectives are
not specific or cannot be
tested.
Conclusion:
• Conclusions have limited
reference to initial aims.
• Some very important
details omitted.
• Conclusions should focus
on experimental findings
rather than what was
found in the literature.
• Experimental method has
major errors/omissions
• Written as a list of
instructions (present tense)
• Method makes little or no
reference to expt’l diagram.
• Experimental diagram is
hand-drawn or unclear.
• Calc procedure missing
from main part of report.
• Calculations (including
sample calcs) contain
significant errors.
• Important results are
included, but there are some
omissions.
• Multiple errors with units.
• Some figures/tables are
not referenced in main text.
• Poor formatting of graphs.
• Superficial discussion of
results with little reference to
theory and literature.
• No discussion of sources
of error.
• Frequent spelling and
grammatical errors.
• Work often difficult to
follow.
• Language is too “chatty”.
• Little sympathy for
reader or signposting.
• Report formatting could be
improved.
• Poor or negligible use of
literature.
Below 40 Fail
substitute for the report.
Reader has no alternative
but to read the report to
know what happened or
what the outcomes were.
• No abstract given.
Introduction:
• No explanation of expt.
• Very little or no context
provided.
• Theoretical principles are
either not explained or
simply lifted from the lab
script.
• Aims and objectives
either missing or not
relevant.
Conclusion:
• No outcomes/
conclusions given.
• Saying that you met the
aims/objectives or completed
the experiment is not a valid
conclusion in isolation
without saying what you
actually found out.
• Exp’l description is simple
replication of lab script.
• No experimental diagram
(photo is no substitute).
• No indication how data
are processed or analysed.
• Symbols are not
explained.
• Safety issues are not
mentioned.
• Calculations contain major
errors or are incomplete.
• No sample calcs in Appx.
• Presentation of results is
very unclear.
• No commentary on results.
• Units missing from almost
all quantities reported.
• Number of significant
figures given is routinely
more than accuracy justifies.
• Major errors in interpreting
the results/understanding.
• No reference to literature
or sources of error.
• Very frequent spelling and
grammatical errors.
• Work often difficult to
understand.
• Unacceptable formatting
of report document.
• Frequent use of 1st person
pronouns (e.g. I, we, our).
• No references cited.
• No page numbers.
• No contents page.