1

School of Science and Technology

COURSEWORK ASSESSMENT SPECIFICATION (UG)

Details of Module and Team

What Learning Outcomes are assessed?
What are my Deadlines and how much does this
assessment contribute to my Module Grade?

What am I required to do in the assessment?

What are my assessment criteria? (What do I
have to achieve for each grade?)
Can I get formative feedback before submitting ?
If so, how?
What extra support could I look for myself?

How and when do I submit this assessment?

How and when will I get summative feedback?
What skills might this work evidence to
employers?
2
MODULE CODE BIOL40241

MODULE TITLE Microbial Diagnostics

MODULE LEADER Dr Jonathan Thomas
TUTOR(S) Dr Jonathan Thomas
COURSEWORK TITLE Scientific Paper
LEARNING OUTCOMES K1. Appraise the use of selective and
ASSESSED differential media for culture
based diagnostics
K3. Critically evaluate the principles
of PCR and real-time PCR for
microbial detection
K4. Design, perform and evaluate a
PCR based diagnostic assay
S1. Prepare and present scientific
reports using literature resources
effectively
S2. Demonstrate critical skills in the
use of scientific knowledge and data
CONTRIBUTION TO ELEMENT 1 of 1 coursework tasks (70% of module
mark)
DATE SET Monday22ndNovember 2021 (Teaching
Week 18)
DATE OF SUBMISSION 5pm, Friday 10thDecember 2021
(Teaching Week 20)
METHOD OF SUBMISSION VLE (Dropbox on NOW) with post to JISC
Turnitin
DATE OF FEEDBACK Friday24th January 2022
(Teaching Week 27)
METHOD OF FEEDBACK Via Dropbox (on NOW)
Work handed in up to five working days late will be given a maximum Grade of
Low Pass whilst work that arrives more than five working days will be given a
mark of zero.  
 
Work will only be accepted beyond the five working day deadline if satisfactory
evidence, for example, an NEC is provided. Any issues requiring an NEC please
use this link https://www.ntu.ac.uk/studenthub/my-course/student-
handbook/submit-a-notification-of-extenuating-circumstances
 
 
The University views plagiarism and collusion as serious academic
irregularities and there are a number of different penalties which may be
applied to such offences. The Student Handbook has a section on Academic
Irregularities, which outlines the penalties and states that plagiarism includes:
'The incorporation of material (including text, graph, diagrams, videos etc.)
derived from the work (published or unpublished) of another, by
3
unacknowledged quotation, paraphrased imitation or other device in any work
submitted for progression towards or for the completion of an award, which in
any way suggests that it is the student's own original work. Such work may
include printed material in textbooks, journals and material accessible
electronically for example from web pages.'
Whereas collusion includes: 
“Unauthorised and unacknowledged copying or use of material prepared by
another person for use in submitted work. This may be with or without their
consent or agreement to the copying or use of their work.”
If copied with the agreement of the other candidate both parties are considered
guilty of Academic Irregularity.
 
Penalties for Academic irregularities range from capped grades and zero grades
to dismissal from the course and termination of studies.
 
To ensure that you are not accused of plagiarism, look at the sections on the
Library site here.  https://www.ntu.ac.uk/m/library/plagiarism-and-turnitin
4
I. Assessment Requirements
The major piece of work for this module (70% of the mark) is a scientific research
article based on your design and validation of a qPCR assay for detection of HA-MRSA
or CA-MRSA, as well as the antimicrobial susceptibility tests.

• The word limit is 3,000 words (maximum)

The word count DOES NOT INCLUDE title, figures, tables, legends and
references.

• There is no penalty for being under the word limit, although it will be difficult to
achieve higher grades if you are significantly under. Nothing beyond the 3000
word limit will contribute towards your mark, although feedback may still be
provided.
• It should be written in MS Word and submitted as a single file.
• It should be submitted electronically to the correct folder in the module
dropbox on NOW.
• It will be examined using Turnitin anti-plagiarism software before it is marked
by your tutor.
• You should always keep a back-up copy of your work during its preparation-
e.g. in Myfiles on NOW as well as on a memory stick. This will reduce the
chances of it being accidentally lost or corrupted.

Abstract (10%): concise and informative. Limit the abstract to 250 words or fewer
and concisely summarize the basic content of the paper without presenting extensive
experimental details. Avoid abbreviations and references, and do not include
diagrams. Conclude the abstract with a summary statement. Since abstracts are often
published separately to the main text of a paper, it must be complete and
understandable without reference to the text.

Introduction (20%): fully introduces background and rationale of the research. Give
a brief critical evaluation of qPCR vs. classical phenotypic approaches as diagnostic
methods. Provide a brief summary of the results of your bioinformatics report, and
state the gene you have used in your diagnostic assay here. The introduction should
also provide the hypothesis that was addressed for the present study. Choose
references carefully to provide the most salient background rather than an exhaustive
review of the topic.

Methods (15%): concise, relevant and in appropriate style. Should include details on
primer design, the qPCR and qPCR program (number of cycles and at what
temperature), and the antimicrobial susceptibility tests. The methods section must
include sufficient technical information to allow the experiments to be repeated.No
need to repeat methods for CARD (from report 1) here, even though you will be
making reference to these results in the discussion. Also include methods for the disk
diffusion and E-tests.

Results (15%): Concise, relevant and well presented, with appropriate supporting
commentary, avoiding addition of numerous irrelevant tables and figures. Reserve
extensive interpretation of the results for the Discussion section.
5
Should focus on the results of the primer design and qPCR assay, rather than the
comparative genomics, which you presented in your previous report (and have been
summarised in the introduction), as well as the antimicrobial susceptibility test
results.

Discussion (30%): interpret your results – did your qPCR work? Could it distinguish
between CA-MRSA and HA-MRSA?

Did your antimicrobial susceptibility tests results agree with CARD’s predictions of
which antibiotics each strain would be resistant to (refer to report 1 for these results).
Do the disk diffusion results agree with the e-test results for gentamicin? What might
be the reason for any differences between any of these results?

It must not contain extensive repetition of the Results section or reiteration of the
introduction. Discuss any limitations of your study and how you might improve it/what
further work you might include in the future.

References (5%): relevant, recent references in correct style/format.

Follow the NTU citing guide:

https://now.ntu.ac.uk/d2l/lor/viewer/view.d2l?ou=6605&loIdentId=25435

for both in text citations and the end of article reference section.

Overall style/quality of written presentation (5%): written in an appropriate

scientific style.
 II. Assessment Criteria
6

Class/ Exceptional Distinction Commendation Pass High fail Fail

Grade Distinction near miss

(includes all features of a

Distinction with the
Marking
additional characteristics
criteria listed below)

Abstract/Summary As for a distinction, but
(10%) abstract is written to
engage the reader.
A concise abstract Abstract covers all the Abstract is a fair Abstract is Abstract is over-
that selects the most important points of the summary of the significantly brief with
significant findings review in a balanced contents of the imbalanced with significant
and states them manner and shows good article, possibly with omissions. May omissions and
concisely. understanding minor omissions or contain some inaccuracies or
imbalances minor does not reflect
inaccuracies. May the content of the
be poor in paper.
structure.

Introduction Shows an excellent Introduction is well- The background The introduction Introduction may Introduction may
(20%) grasp of the context of structured and information is well contains a factual be too short or too be too short.
the problem, including explains the context summarised and account of the long. It may have major
latest developments in of the article with current, with few background to the It is imbalanced omissions or
related fields. clarity, using current omissions. problem. Most and may have inaccuracies.
literature. relevant ideas are omissions or slight It may contain
inaccuracies. much irrelevant
mentioned.
material.
States the aims of the Aims of the article are Aims are clearly Aims may be
article clearly and explicit and appropriate. mentioned and/or Aims are absent
stated
concisely. reflect confusion
Methods As for distinction, plus All the information Most of the information The information Some effort at Some description
(15%) appropriately required to replicate required to replicate the required to replicate describing the of the methods
referenced. the experiment and experiment and retrieve the experiment and methods but one but very
retrieve the same the same data can be retrieve the same or more methods superficial and
data can be found in found in this section, data is not complete is missing. generic and/or
this section. but some non-crucial and further guidance major
steps/info is missing. would be required. inaccuracies.

Results The results provide a The results provide a A clear question is Supporting figures No clear problem Succession of
(15%) clear descriptiopn of the good description of answered using a and tables have not is investigated and tables/figures with
main findings using only the main findings reasonable choice of been carefully chosen, answered. No minimum or no
7
relevant figures and a using well chosen figures and tables. rather a list of raw structure to data description. Z
clear concise supporting figures and a data with some presented.
E
commentary. It has no supporting supporting Includes aspects
obvious omissions. commentary commentary Description of the of Discussion R
data sometimes section O
Obvious thought and Some thought and care Little thought and absent, i.e. little
care has been put into has been put into the care has been put into supporting No thought and
the summary and summary and the summary and commentary care has been put
W
presentation of the presentation of the presentation of the into the summary o
data. data. data. One or more and presentation r
required topics not of the data. k
covered.

o
f

n
o

m
e
r
i
t

o
r

a
b
s
e
n
c
e

Discussion The article presents A critical evaluation of There is evidence of an Arguments are mostly There is much Significant
8
(30%) strongly-evidence-based primary sources is analytical and critical clear and logical. The description but no concepts may be
arguments that in evident approach, with many balance is towards the evidence of misunderstood
places include original Contentions are arguments supported descriptive rather analysis. There Arguments are
synthesis of ideas by supported by citations by citations. than the analytical. may be a poorly structured
the student. tendency to make in places and
Recommendations show Conclusions are sound The student makes a A few minor unsubstantiated discussion may be
insight into the potential and cover the clear and valid misunderstandings assertions. difficult to follow.
of current and material discussed summary of their may be present. Ideas
developing adequately. findings, with some and information are Contains
technologies. indication of gaps in adequately data/information
Recommendations for current knowledge summarised. that should be in
future research show the results.
a thorough
understanding of the Conclusions may
problem. not be present or
they may not be
Valid conclusion, Valid conclusion, with Valid conclusion, Valid conclusion, valid.
concisely explained. some explanation. poorly explained. with no
explanation.
References Exceptional range of Excellent number of Very good number of Good number of A few references Inadequate
(5%) references, cited fully to references cited fully references, all from references given, provided, mostly number of
professional journal to typical academic sources. mostly from academic from non- references with
practice and used postgraduate taught sources. academic sources. formatting
throughout the paper. level and used Mostly cited correctly attempted but
throughout the paper. but with some errors. Formatting is Referencing largely incorrect.
incomplete or attempted but is
References used in inconsistent in places. typically Not much citing
throughout the paper. fragmented or throughout.
References used only incomplete.
in introduction and
discussion sections. References
present mainly in
the introduction.

Quality of written Uses quality of scientific Uses high-quality Writes in appropriate The work is mainly in Language may be The work lacks
presentation English expected for scientific English scientific style. The good scientific too informal structure and
(5%) publication of findings. giving overall clarity English is generally English, but with and/or there may there is little
to the work. easy to follow with few some errors of be major errors of evidence of the
errors. spelling and/or grammar. student following
grammar. Language Structure of the a givenstructure.
9
may be too informal writing is lacking Writing may be
in places. in places. disorganised and
contain major
grammatical
errors.
10

III. Feedback Opportunities

Formative (Whilst you’re working on the coursework)
You will be given the opportunity to book appointments to discuss the
assessment outside of class time . You will also have the opportunity to
ask questions related to the assessment in a seminar in week 18 and a
drop in session in week 19.

Summative (After you’ve submitted the coursework)

You will receive specific feedback regarding your coursework submission
together with your awarded grade when it is returned to you. Clearly,
feedback provided with your coursework is only for developmental
purposes so that you can improve for the next assessment or subject-
related module.

IV. Resources that may be useful

Referencing styles please use Harvard as detailed here
Guide to planning your time here and an automated planner here
Further guidance on avoiding cheating ishere

Remember to use Outlook or physical calendars to block out time between

lectures and labs to work on this coursework.

V. Moderation

The Moderation Process

All assessments are subject to a two-stage moderation process. Firstly, any
details related to the assessment (e.g., clarity of information and the
assessment criteria) are considered by an independent person (usually a
member of the module team). Secondly, the grades awarded are considered by
the module team to check for consistency and fairness across the cohort for the
piece of work submitted.

VI. Aspects for Professional Development

Laboratory skills
qPCR
Pipetting

The report itself covers examples of:

Writing a scientific-style report
Referencing appropriately
Construction and proper labelling of figures

Many of these are useful transferable skills for employment applications or your
11

Skills Portfolio. Similarly, the practical class protocols provide several examples
appropriate for use in the Skills Portfolio as bioscience (i.e. subject-specific)
sexecutableskills.