Effect of Antibiotics on the Entero-bacteriaceae
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 research 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 Curriculum 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, clear background that leads to reason behind the experiment. All features of a D grade but better attention to detail. Very clear understanding of the experiment, detailed topic knowledge presented concisely. Has delivered specific examples from cited sources to support the experiment. Clear hypothesis. Understands the topic, covers the topic, rationale for the experiments, and the context of this research. Clear evidence of research and cited sources. Understands the topic, covers the basic background to the topic and reason for the experiment. Does not show evidence of serious research even though sources are cited. Context is inadequate. No citations to research material; no clear understanding of the topic. Results 1 (10%) Description of Results As per D grade but greater attention to detail, no errors. Demonstrates clear understanding of the data. Clear and concise description of the data. No errors in interpretation or presentation of data. Clear descriptions of the data, easy to follow and helpful to the reader. Some minor errors in presentation and interpretation. Limited description of the results, clear and accurate. Some errors or misinterpretations. No description of results, disorganised and not fully reflecting the expected outcomes of the experiment Results (25%) Figures As per D grade, no errors. Demonstrates a high standard of analysis. Appropriate figures to show outcomes of experiments. Complete figure legends or table titles. Minor errors in data presentation but superior to Credit standard. Appendix to show how data was calculated Appropriate figures show outcomes of experiments. Minor errors, complete figure legends and appendix to show how data was calculated. Appropriate figures, not presenting data in tables, to show outcomes of experiments. Not repeating data in both formats. Some errors appendix included to show calculations. Figures are poorly presented; repetition 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 errors, places the data in the context of the scientific literature. No issues to standard of writing. Goes beyond what has been provided on vUWS. Conforms to the style of a scientific discussion, clearly written with few errors, 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. Minor errors in interpretation. Approaches the style of a scientific article. Clear discussion, places results in context of scientific literature. Errors 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 but highest standard expected. Insightful proposals for future experiments and applications. No errors. Clear description of how experiment could be modified or improved based on careful reading of scientific literature, proposes application of the technology. Few errors. Clear description of how experiment could be modified or improved based on careful reading of scientific literature, proposes application of the technology. Some errors. Indicates how experiment could be modified or improved, proposes application of the technology. Errors that impede understanding of the discussion. No discussion of how the experiment can be modified or improved. References (5%) All aspects of referencing in both the text and the reference list are consistent with the Harvard/Vancouver Style. Only peer-reviewed articles used. No Errors. Referencing is consistent with Harvard/Vancouver style but with minor errors Generally follow Harvard/Vancouver style, but numerous minor errors References provided but not consistently adhering to the Harvard/Vancouver Style No attempt to organise the references according to the ref style, frequent errors 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 research 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 Curriculum 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, clear background that leads to reason behind the experiment. All features of a D grade but better attention to detail. Very clear understanding of the experiment, detailed topic knowledge presented concisely. Has delivered specific examples from cited sources to support the experiment. Clear hypothesis. Understands the topic, covers the topic, rationale for the experiments, and the context of this research. Clear evidence of research and cited sources. Understands the topic, covers the basic background to the topic and reason for the experiment. Does not show evidence of serious research even though sources are cited. Context is inadequate. No citations to research material; no clear understanding of the topic. Results 1 (10%) Description of Results As per D grade but greater attention to detail, no errors. Demonstrates clear understanding of the data. Clear and concise description of the data. No errors in interpretation or presentation of data. Clear descriptions of the data, easy to follow and helpful to the reader. Some minor errors in presentation and interpretation. Limited description of the results, clear and accurate. Some errors or misinterpretations. No description of results, disorganised and not fully reflecting the expected outcomes of the experiment Results (25%) Figures As per D grade, no errors. Demonstrates a high standard of analysis. Appropriate figures to show outcomes of experiments. Complete figure legends or table titles. Minor errors in data presentation but superior to Credit standard. Appendix to show how data was calculated Appropriate figures show outcomes of experiments. Minor errors, complete figure legends and appendix to show how data was calculated. Appropriate figures, not presenting data in tables, to show outcomes of experiments. Not repeating data in both formats. Some errors appendix included to show calculations. Figures are poorly presented; repetition 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 errors, places the data in the context of the scientific literature. No issues to standard of writing. Goes beyond what has been provided on vUWS. Conforms to the style of a scientific discussion, clearly written with few errors, 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. Minor errors in interpretation. Approaches the style of a scientific article. Clear discussion, places results in context of scientific literature. Errors 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 but highest standard expected. Insightful proposals for future experiments and applications. No errors. Clear description of how experiment could be modified or improved based on careful reading of scientific literature, proposes application of the technology. Few errors. Clear description of how experiment could be modified or improved based on careful reading of scientific literature, proposes application of the technology. Some errors. Indicates how experiment could be modified or improved, proposes application of the technology. Errors that impede understanding of the discussion. No discussion of how the experiment can be modified or improved. References (5%) All aspects of referencing in both the text and the reference list are consistent with the Harvard/Vancouver Style. Only peer-reviewed articles used. No Errors. Referencing is consistent with Harvard/Vancouver style but with minor errors Generally follow Harvard/Vancouver style, but numerous minor errors References provided but not consistently adhering to the Harvard/Vancouver Style No attempt to organise the references according to the ref style, frequent errors 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