2025-2026 BIO202 Advanced Biochemical Methods
Self-Design Experiment (30% of final mark)
Learning objectives
To understand the principles of experimental design, to demonstrate abilities in problem-solving and to be able to work cooperatively in teams to produce interpretable, statistically-analysed experimental results.
The report
The report should show how well you have achieved the learning objectives of this practical block by progress towards the aim of determining the changes in the conditions. One report should be prepared for each team.
By the morning of the experiments, you should have amassed a considerable amount of data - your exploratory data, your full experiments and the analyses that derive from them. You must be selective and efficient in the material that you write up. Hence only 2500 words of text are allowed (excluding a title page, figure legends, tables and reference list). Any reports over this limit will be penalised. However, since part of the exercise is to assess your experimental design, it follows that you must provide adequate experimental details - volumes, amounts of materials, times, temperatures etc. for the material that you present, although it not necessary that you write up every experiment.
The report should be in scientific format and consist of the following sections. Refer back to the practice you had in scientific writing this semester.
Assessment of group report
Learning objectives
To understand the principles of experimental design, to demonstrate abilities in problem solving and to be able to work co-operatively in teams to produce interpretable, statistically-analysed experimental results.
Marking
The report will be marked out of 100 marks with the following weighing:
Title: max. 4 marks
Abstract: max. 10 marks
Introduction: max. 10 marks
Material & Methods: max. 10 marks
Results and Analysis: max. 40 marks
Conclusion & Discussion: max. 20 marks
References: max. 6 marks
This report should show how well the students have achieved the learning objectives of this practical block. One report should be prepared for each team.
2500 words of text are allowed (excluding the title page, figure legends, tables and reference list).
Any reports over this limit will be penalized with deduction of 10 marks.
The report should be in scientific format and consist of the following sections:
Abstract: 200 words maximum (no repetition of practical notes)
Introduction: Materials & Methods: The methods employed for achieving the presented results must be described. Do not include methods used in trial experiments that you have not included in the final version of the report.
Results & Analysis: This section should include the results of the final experiments as a priority over key trial experiments. Results may be presented in narrative style. to put the data in context. Usage of graphical or tabular representations of the data, wherever it is sensible to do so, is expected. All figures and tables must be referred to in the text and must have appropriate legends. They will not count towards the 2500 word limit.
Conclusion & Discussion: This section may be brief, but should put the results into context or highlight any problems encountered that prevented the objectives from being achieved. Additionally, this section should critically evaluate and interpret qualitative and quantitative data.
References: Use Endnote or similar.
Weighing of individual contributions to the final report:
The report will be assessed and marked in its entity.
The individual students of a given group will be asked to fill out a peer assessment form. in order to rate the performance of each individual within the group. One group submit one peer assessment form. Please discuss with your group membrane to identify each individual’s contribution.
They can rate their peers on a scale from 0 (no performance) to 100 (outstanding performance). The average score from the peer assessment for an individual will then be converted to the relative peer contribution (RPC) and the RPC will determine the final mark. For example, if the report gets 60 marks while the average scores of 3 students in the peer assessment are: 70, 80 and 90, then the RPCs will be 70/90=0.78, 80/90=0.89 and 90/90=1 respectively. The weighted mark of the final report will be: 60*0.78=46.8 marks for the 1st student; 60*0.89=53.4 marks for the 2nd student; 60*1=60 marks for the 3rd student.
The peer assessment is meant to be employed in a responsible and fair way, so that individual contributions to the final report are properly recognised. If, however, this feature is abused, the module leader maintains the right to limit its impact on the final mark.
The table below states the precise assessment criteria for every section of the report.
|
Range
|
0-20 %
|
21-40 %
|
41-60%
|
61-80%
|
81-100 %
|
|
Title
|
· Missing or irrelevant to the practical
|
· Copy the aims from the practical handbook
|
· Unclear aims or conclusions
|
· relevant aims or conclusions
|
· Exact description of either the conclusion or aims
|
|
Abstract
|
· missing
· no obvious structure
|
· structure somewhat vague
· relevant variables are not described
|
· structured
· relevant variables are not clearly described
|
· clear structure
· relevant variables are described
|
· structure is clearly defined
· relevant variables are correctly described
|
|
Introduction
|
· no introduction
· background info is not stated
· rationale is not described
|
· background info not clearly stated
· rationale is not described
|
· background info is stated
· rationale is not accurately described
|
· background info is clearly stated
· rationale is described
|
· background info is clearly and comprehensively stated
· rationale is clearly described
|
|
Materials & Methods
|
· material list not included
· procedures are not described
|
· material list is partially included
· procedures are not clearly described
|
· material list is not complete
· procedures are described
|
· material list is mostly complete
· procedures are clearly described
|
· material list is complete
· procedures are clearly and comprehensively described
|
|
Results & Analysis
|
· data are not represented
· no or irrelevant data analysis
|
· data are not completely represented
· the analysis is wrong or inadequate
|
· data are accurately described but deviate significantly form. the expected
· correct analysis
|
· data are accurately described and don’t deviate significantly from the expected
|
· data are accurately and comprehensively represented and fit well within the expected outcome
· analysis is accurate, comprehensive and insightful
|
|
Conclusion & Discussion
|
· missing or little to no effort and reflection visible
· no discussion
|
· statement of the results is incomplete with little reflection present
· discussion is presented but largely irrelevant
|
· statement in included and aligns somewhat the results with rationale
· problems are identified but largely irrelevant
|
· accurate statement of the results of the lab and indication of alignment of data and rationale
· accurate identification and discussion of the problems
|
· accurate statement of the results and indication of alignment of the results with rationale
· accurate identification and comprehensive discussion of problems
|
|
References
|
· no reference
|
· some references
· format issues
|
· insufficient references
· format issues
|
· complete references
· format issues
|
· complete references
· correct format
|