Submission Deadline

Marks and Feedback

Before 10am on:

15/05/2020

20 working days after deadline (L4, 5 and 7)15 working days after deadline (L6)10 working days after deadline (block delivery)

12/06/2020

Unit title & code

BHS002-1Microbiology and Biochemistry

Assignment number and title

Assessment 2 Practical Portfolio (Biochemistry)

Assignmenttype

WR-Lab

Weighting of assignment

25%

Size or length of assessment

2000 words

Unit learning outcomes

· Present, analyse and interpret experimental data and clearly communicate your findings in writing.

· Demonstrate understanding of the molecular and cellular mechanisms involved in metabolic pathways through the relationship between biochemical and biotechnological systems

What am I required to do in this assignment?

You will carry out two practicals

1. In the first session you will carry out the Trinder’s assay of Glucose. This will require calibration using a standard absorbance curve; identification of an unknown glucose concentration will follow.

2. In the second session you will use thin layer chromatography to analyse the behaviour of lipid samples.

Following the practical sessions you will be expected to produce a portfolio comprising two laboratory reports detailing your findings across both sessions. Each report will be self-contained, but they should be submitted as a single document of no more than 2000 words. Excessive word counts will negatively affect grading. The lab report should be structured like a research article in a scientific journal (see details below), and should be submitted via Breo.

What do I need to do to pass? (Threshold Expectations from UIF)

· In order to pass Assessment 2 you will need to:

· Produce a scientific report according to expectations described in the assignment brief to demonstrating understanding of relevant laboratory techniques.

· Demonstrate understanding of Biochemistry, (biomolecular structure and function and basic metabolism) and microbiology (structure, function and role) with an emphasis on the relevance of these concepts to human health

How do I produce high quality work that merits a good grade?

Each lab report should contain foursections: Introduction, Results, Discussion and References. Each section should be clearly labelled. Clarity of English language and presentation is essential throughout. The report should be presented using 12 point Perpetua, with 1.5 line spacing.

Introduction:This section should typically represent approximately 30% of each report. It should summarise the published background literature relevant to this study. It must explain what your experimental study is about, and place it in context of the previously published literature. It should state the scientific aim of the study.

Results and discussion:This section should typically represent the remaining 60-70% of each report. Data may be presented in tables, graphs, diagrams, or photographs as appropriate for your particular experimental study. Figures and tables should be separately numbered, and be clearly labelled. You should include written text to explain what your findings are and what is shown in the figures and tables. Results should describe your findings/observations, but not interpret their meaning. In the discussion you should interpret your results, explaining what they indicate. You should evaluate the quality of your data. You should identify any problems with the technique or data (if any exist) and suggest possible solutions. You should compare your findings to previously published findings or your expected findings, and should place your results in the context of published scientific literature. Your discussion should also include a reflection on your performance within the practical. What insights did you gain from the practical sessions; what problems did you have to overcome etc.

References:You should include at least three peer-reviewed scientific journal articles or textbooks as sources. These should be listed in correct UoB Harvard format in a single reference list. The reference list should only contain sources that have been cited appropriately - eg (Smith, 2010) - in the main text of your report.

Special instructions

Practical 1 – This should include tables showing all data obtained during the experiment in addition to graphs (produced using Excel or other graphing software) of the standard curve and a histogram for the second set of data. The handwritten data sheet from the experiment should be included as an appendix.

Practical 2 – Your write-up should include a data table similar to the one in the protocol. The signed off sketch of the tlc plate and the table of predicted solubilities/migration orders should form an appendix.

References:

You should include at least three peer-reviewed scientific journal articles or textbooks as sources. These should be listed in correct UoB/Harvard format (see https://lrweb.beds.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/557568/UoBHarvard17_18.pdf) in a single reference list. The reference list should only contain sources that have been cited appropriately – e.g. (Smith, 2010) - in the main text of your report.

How does this assignment relate to what we are doing in scheduled sessions?

The assignment tasks are based upon the direct application of techniques that have been discussed in lectures. In addition, you will be expected to gain insight into the biological process.

How will my assignment be marked?

Your assignment will be marked according to the threshold expectations and the criteria on the following page.

You can use them to evaluate your own work and consider your grade before you submit.

Pass – 40-49%

Pass – 50-59%

Commendation – 60-69%

Distinction– 70%+

Quality of understanding and analysis of scientific principles and knowledge base. (30%)

Understanding of scientific principles ata basic threshold level. Some evidence of a literature review.

Acceptable level of understanding of relevant scientific principles and knowledge base. Adequate review of relevant literature, though some omissions or tangents. A reasonable attempt to relate study to broader context and explain aim and approach.

A good understanding of the scientific principles and knowledge base. Literature review should be more critical. Context requires a more detailed approach.

A comprehensive understanding of the scientific principles and knowledge base. Detailed and focused review of previously published literature. Broader context of study clearly described. Experimental aim and approach well defined.

Data handling and presentation. (15%)

Data analysis is present but incomplete. Presentation is could be improved. Explanations of data superficial.

Data analysis is mostly correct with few errors or omissions. Presentation is generally clear and appropriate. Some attempt is given to explain what is being presented.

Data analysis is accurate, but not complete. Presentation is clear and appropriate. Clear explanation of what is presented is given. Good understanding of data analysis shown

Data analysis is accurate, thorough and complete. Presentation is clear and appropriate. Clear explanation of what is presented is given. Excellent understanding of data analysis shown.

Critical evaluation and discussion. (25%)

Evidence of reflection and evaluation of scientific problem and approach. More critical evaluation of cited literature is required.Demonstrates some ability to make evaluative links between the current scientific thought and the work in hand, but the evaluation is often rather superficial.

Satisfactory evidence of reflection and evaluation of scientific problem and approach. Some critical evaluation of cited literature, though at times a little shallow. Demonstrates some ability to make evaluative links between the current scientific thought and the work in hand, but the evaluation is sometimes rather superficial.

Demonstrates some ability to evaluate scientific problems and to make clear evaluative links between the current scientific thought and the work in hand. Shows good critical evaluation of cited literature.

Demonstrates a well-developed ability to evaluate scientific problems and to make clear evaluative links between the current scientific thought and the work in hand, which are capable of contributing to the advance of scientific knowledge. Shows excellent, deep critical evaluation of cited literature.

Written expression and structure. (20%)

Written expression is not always clear and arguments can sometimes be confused The structure of the work is satisfactory but planning could have been more thorough in parts.

Written expression is clear and arguments can be followed without undue difficulty. The structure of the work is satisfactory but planning could have been more thorough in parts.

Written expression is clear and concise. Arguments are put forward succinctly but the structure of the piece needs further planning to enhance its readability

Written expression is clear and concise. Arguments are put forward succinctly and the structure of the piece is well planned, well-thought out and logical, enhancing its readability.

Use of literature and referencing.(10%)

A limited range of literature cited, with considerable reliance on secondary sources. Incorrect use of UoB Harvard referencing format or lack of appropriate citations within text of report.

A range of primary sources is accessed. Possible errors in the use of the UoB Harvardformatting of citations and reference list.

A broad range of primary sources is accessed. Possible errors in the UoB Harvard referencing format.

A broad range of primary sources is accessed. Correct Journal of Cell Science formatting of citations and reference list used throughout.

2

Marks and feedback

Submit assignment

Completing Your Assignment

Marks and Feedback