Assessment CriteriaModule: BI503(AY18-19) (BIOS5030) Assessment title: Microscopic Observation of Mating in Baker’s Yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) Date assessment set: Fridayweek 7(pre-lab week 8) Deadline for submission: Friday week 11Deadline for return of assessment: Fridayweek 14Nature of assessment: Lab report of practical investigating the application of microscopy to examine yeast mating. Key objectives of this assessment: 1. To test knowledge and understanding of fluorescescence microscopy in cell biology 2. To assess analytical and observational skills in interpreting the mating process in Baker’s yeast 3. To relate observations to cell and molecular processes underlying mating in Baker’s yeast including signalling and cytoskeletal rearrangement. This assessment addresses the following (from the module specification): 8. The intended subject specific learning outcomes. On successfully completing the module students will be able to: 8.1 Demonstrate an understanding of cellular organisation and associated processes. 8.2 Demonstrate an understanding of modern procedures for investigating cellular components. 9. Theintended generic learning outcomes. On successfully completing the module students will be able to: 9.1 Access and evaluate scientific literature.9.2 Present a concise digest of a research area both orally and in written form. Many of the criteria below apply to writing generally in bioscience. The general principles of quality, depth and breadth of knowledge and understanding, skill with which is presented, and depth and level of sourcing areapplicable. Be aware that when an assessment has multiple parts it is possible to perform some very well and other not so well and so to achieve best marks consistency and completing ALL parts is important. With practical reports it should be clear for best marks that you were aware of what you were doing, why you were doing it and why it was important to collect the particular data we have asked you to report on. Note that these criteria are for Stage 2, so more depth, detail and sophistication of knowledge, understanding, interpretation and literature research is expected than last year in stage 1.
First Class (70-100)A First Class answer will typically address all of the “Upper Second” criteria in terms of understanding, clear evidence of wide reading of relevant and appropriate subject material including substantial reference to primary literature. In addition, First Class reports will display indicators of at least one of the following: Evidence of exceptional breadth and depth of knowledge of the subject matter, as indicated by sophistication in interpretation supported by valid sources of information (e.g. research reviews and original papers that we have not drawn your attention to but has been discovered through your own ‘outside reading’ beyond lectures). This could also include wide thinking of how cell biological principles and theory can be used to explain experimental observations and produce mechanistic explanations at the cell or molecular level. Originality or scientific creativity, as indicated by novel interpretations of evidence and arguments beyond the ‘obvious’ and/or mainstream. Critical engagement, as indicated by an ability to understand the limits of certainty in evidence presented, considering evidence critically and in the context of a wider body of knowledge. An ability to use evidence with rigour and intelligence, as indicated by choosing the right evidence to support or argue points. No factual inaccuracies, or very few minor errors only. All sections addressed, requested data included (such as microscopy images and cell counts) and used effectively as evidence to make or illustrate points of explanation, analysis and/or interpretation. Generally clearly, accurately and succinctly written (clear, standard English). Submissions may be awarded high (85 or above) First Class if there is substantial evidence of compliance with and suitable stage 2 level understanding in more than one of the above indicators. Upper Second (60-69) A good understanding of the subject matter, and an accurate articulation of the material presented in the module lectures or seminars with evidence of reading the recommended material. The submission addresses the question with no major omissions, factual inaccuracies or obvious lack of understanding. The submission is well organised and presented, with little or no irrelevant content. Information is well-presented, supported with appropriate evidence, and referenced appropriately. Some evidence of original thinking. Lower Second (50-59) Not simply describing accurately what has happened but making a real attempt to explain why the experimental results might have come about in the particular way observed.
An attempt to address the question but the answer provides an incomplete account. Coverage of the subject may lack depth, miss certain essential points or a considerable number of minor ones, and material may not be well supported. The essay is primarily based upon module material with no, or very limited, engagement beyond that into relevant information sourced independently. There may be omissions and errors. Limited substantial original thought, and descriptive rather than analytical. Draws on an adequate range of literature, but may be limited in certain areas and otherwise be secondary or web-based. Third Class (40-49) An attempt to address the question but the answer has substantial shortcomings. It represents an incomplete consideration of the task. Important work is not discussed or poorly presented and structured. The work may contain significant digression, errors and demonstrate lack of understanding. Draws on a narrow range of literature resources and/or sources of lower quality (textbooks, Wikipedia, other web pages of undocumented reliability) or thatlack relevance. Marks in this range can also arise from patchy compliance with information asked for (sych as not presenting photomicrographs, cell counts, missing out comprehension/analysis section), errors in interpretation or data presentation (including calculation errors, missing scale bars etc.). Fail (0-39) A piece of work awarded a Fail mark would contain one or more of the following: Lack of knowledge, very few facts presented accurately. Serious lack of understanding, clear evidence of a failure to understand core principles or relatively simple concepts.Inability to form a coherent scientific argument or clarity of explanation. Substantial digression, with a majority of the material in the answer that does not address the question/subject. Missing sections, sub-sections or extensive omission of data that has been specified as required to be presented. Failure to answer comprehension sections can spoil otherwise passable marks for the simply practical/performance/data collecting elements. Studentsachieving good marks don’t work simply follow instructions, doing what is asked without questioning why or what it means or may show. This is the difference between an expert scientist and a very junior technician or ‘operative’. Submissions may be awarded below 30 if there is substantial evidence of more than one of these indicators. Evidence of substantial plagiarism can also lead to a fail mark. -No submission (=zero mark). CWGNovember2020
