MSc Pharmaceutical Analysis and MSc Analytical Chemistry The Analytical Approach Assignment

Student Name:

Module Title:

The Analytical Approach

Title of coursework:

Essay

Marker:

Criteria (max mark)

mark out of 10

weighting

mark

Information gathering 

• range of literature sources (primary and secondary)
• range of reading 
• chronological range of literature ( historical vs. current)

x1

Scientific Content 

• coverage of relevant information
• understanding of scientific concepts
• presentation of scientific content
• quality of evidence

x 3.5

Structure and Argument 

• overall essay structure
• development of argument
• critical judgments about evidence/data
• synthesis of ideas

x 3.5

Presentation and Writing 

• clarity for a wider scientific audience
• use of diagrams and figures
• spelling, grammar and punctuation
• citation and referencing format
• adherence to scientific conventions
• competency and style of written English

x2

Strengths:

Weaknesses

SIGNATURE

DATE:

mark

Knowledge and Understanding

Arguments and Evaluation

Communication and Structure

Use of citations and referencing

High
Distinction

Exceptional breadth and depth of knowledge and understanding, evidenced by own independent insight and critical awareness of concepts at the forefront of the discipline

Cogent arguments and explanations are consistently provided. A sustained academic approach to all aspects of the tasks is evidenced.

Effectively and competent communication in a style very close to publishable or commercial standard. English language is presented in an eloquent and professional manner.

Evidence of extensive and appropriate independent inquiry operating with advanced concepts, methods and techniques at the forefront of the discipline.

Distinction

Excellent knowledge and understanding evidenced by some clear independent insight and critical awareness of relevant concepts some of which are at the forefront of the discipline.

Arguments and explanations show a competent understanding of all of the relevant content. A sustained academic approach to most aspects of the tasks is evidenced.

Effectively and competent communication and structure in a style that is suited to a technical audience.

Evidence of independent inquiry. Arguments and explanations are provided that are well - supported by the literature at the forefront of the discipline. APA or RSC style referencing throughout. 

Merit

Very good knowledge and understanding is evidenced through facts and concepts that are related together.

Arguments and explanations are provided that are typically supported by the literature and in some cases may challenge some received wisdoms.

Effectively and competent communication and structure.

Evidence of some competent independent inquiry. Able to relate taught facts/concepts together some of which are at the forefront of the discipline. APA or RSC style referencing throughout.  .

Pass

Good knowledge and understanding of the area of study balanced towards the descriptive rather than critical or analytical and mostly confined to concepts that are not at the forefront of the discipline

Arguments and explanations are limited in range and depth although some are adequately supported by the literature albeit descriptively rather than critically.

Communication shows clarity but structure may not always be coherent.

Evidence of some independent reading and research to advance work and inform arguments and approaches. APA or RSC style referencing throughout may have minor errors. 

Fail

Knowledge and understanding is marginally insufficient as the text  typically deals with terminology, basic facts and concepts

Adequate knowledge of concepts but fails to add meaningful detail or make sufficient links between concepts and facts.

Communication/presentation fails to  demonstrate clarity and focus; inability to adequately define problems and make reasoned judgements.

Some ability to  independently select and evaluate reading/research however there is a strong reliance on set sources and to provide descriptive and unsubstantiated arguments/method. APA or RSC style referencing throughout may have major errors. 

Fail

Knowledge and understanding is highly insufficient as the text is unable to evidence any meaningful understanding of theory,

 concepts or methods.

Very limited evidence of reading and research to advance work. Limited or lack of understanding of the boundaries of the discipline

May not have clearly distinguished sections, poor structure. Lacks connections between sections and little evidence of a developing argument

Inability to communicate coherently

English may be confused and inappropriate. Main data are poorly presented. APA or RSC style referencing throughout may have major errors. 

Zero

Work of no merit OR absent, work not submitted, penalty in some misconduct cases.

Criteria (max mark)

A good essay will...........................

Information gathering (10)

• range of literature sources 
• range of reading
• chronological range of literature

..use an appropriate balance of primary and secondary literature sources

..demonstrate a wide range of reading by including references from sources other than the main subject journals

..include reference to the most up to date literature as well relevant historical literature where appropriate

Scientific Content (35)

• coverage of relevant information
• understanding of scientific concepts
• presentation of scientific content
• quality of evidence

..prioritise the most relevant information and give appropriate weighting to historic and contemporary evidence and ideas

..reveal an understanding of the scientific concepts being discussed and terminology used

..present and summarise scientific content accurately

...use the most appropriate evidence and data to explain a given point 

Structure and Argument (35)

• overall essay structure
• development of argument
• critical judgments about evidence/data
• synthesis of ideas

. . introduce the context and remit of the essay, have a logical structure and effectively conclude the issues that are discussed

..develop a strong argument that is easy to follow because the relevance of evidence/data is clearly explained

..present evidence in a convincing manner to support the argument which reflects critical judgments made about that evidence

..present a synthesis of published and original ideas

Presentation and writing  (20)

• clarity for a wider scientific audience
• use of diagrams and figures
• spelling, grammar and punctuation
• competency and style of written English
• citation and referencing format
• adherence to scientific convention

..be readable and understandable by a wider scientific audience (e.g. specialist terminology supported by glossary)

..make pertinent use of clearly annotated, appropriately titled diagrams/figures/tables to enhance reader`s understanding, refer to diagram in text

..have accurate spelling and make correct use of grammar/punctuation to aid the reader`s comprehension

..use written style of English that is clear, unambiguous and appropriate to a scientific journal

...accurately cite and reference information sources using the APA or RSC system

.. adhere consistently to recognised scientific conventions for acronyms, abbreviations, Latin names, SI units, gene and protein nomenclature etc

Criteria (max total mark)

You may lose marks if you......................

Information gathering (10)

• range of literature sources
• range of reading
• appropriate chronological range of literature

rely heavily on secondary literature sources or internet websites and fail to consult primary literature sources appropriately

..rely heavily on one or 2 reviews

..only draw material from a narrow range of subject journals

..focus on older, established literature without heeding more recent advances or vice versa

Scientific Content (35)

• coverage of relevant information
• understanding of scientific concepts
• presentation of scientific content
• quality of evidence

 ..try to cover all facts that you have researched in your topic area, including areas that are not relevant to your title, or fail to acknowledge key findings/information or give inappropriate weighting to historic vs. contemporary ideas

..fail to grasp the key issues of a concept or model

..inaccurately present scientific content or omit facts that are important to the reader`s full understanding (e.g. this may occur when attempting to summarise a concept or pathway)

..use the inappropriate evidence and data to support a given point

Structure and Argument (35)

• overall essay structure
• development of argument
• critical judgments about evidence/data
• synthesis of ideas

 .. fail to introduce the context and remit of the essay and conclude the argument effectively (e.g. repeating the introduction in the conclusion) or present a poorly structured essay that is difficult to understand because it does not flow logically from one idea to the next

..simply present a series of facts about your topic, or if your argument is not supported by convincing evidence.

..present unconvincing evidence because you have accepted all data/evidence without critical analysis (e.g. if you used only the Wakefield paper to support the argument that the MMR vaccine should be banned)

..have not synthesised your ideas (e.g. you may mention the same concept several times without realising an obvious connection to points you have made elsewhere)

Presentation and writing  (20)

• clarity for a wider scientific audience
• use of diagrams and figures
• spelling, grammar and punctuation
• competency and style of written English
• citation and referencing format
• adherence to scientific convention

 ..use terminology/jargon without explaining the meaning for a wider scientific audience

..present diagrams/figures/tables that are of limited use, that are poorly annotated

..have inaccurate spelling, (including mistakes such as form instead of from) and make incorrect use of grammar/punctuation

..write in a style that is similar to spoken English, use journalistic or colloquial style of English that is inappropriate to a scientific journal

..submit work that contains mistakes that could easily be picked up by proof reading

..do not use the APA or RSC reference format, or inaccurately cite and list references

..do not adhere consistently to scientific conventions for use of acronyms abbreviations, Latin names, SI units, gene and protein nomenclature etc