School of Science and Technology
COURSEWORK ASSESSMENT SPECIFICATION

MODULE CODE : BIOL40472
MODULE TITLE : Medical Microbiology (e-learning)
MODULE LEADER : Dr Jody Winter
TUTOR(S) : Dr Jody Winter

TITLE : Review article
LEARNING OUTCOMES
ASSESSED : K1-4, S1-4
CONTRIBUTION TO
ELEMENT : 50% of module mark
DATE SET : Week 16
DATE OF
SUBMISSION : 11.59 PM, Thursday 3rd December (Week 19)
SUBMISSION
METHOD : NOW
FEEDBACK DATE : Thursday 24th December (Week 22)
FEEDBACK
METHOD : NOW

NOTE : The usual University penalties apply for late submission and plagiarism. Please consult your student handbook for further details.

© NTU Copyright 2015

I. Assessment Requirements

You should produce a review article of approximately 3000 words on the topic outlined in Section II below. Your article should be appropriately referenced and formatted in the style of a professional journal such as Trends in Microbiology.

You should submit your article to NOW by Thursday 3rd December (Week 19). Conversion of your article to pdf format before submission is recommended but please also submit the original Word document file.
II. Assessment Scenario/Problem

Your article title should be:

Is Clostridium difficile still a problem in UK hospitals?

The prevalence of hospital-acquired C. difficile has fallen dramatically in recent years. Introduce this organism and the disease it causes, and outline the recent history of C. difficile infection prevalence. You should explain why it has been such a serious problem over the past decade, including consideration of issues around diagnostic methods for this organism. Finally, give your own opinion on whether or not you think C. difficile is still a problem in UK hospitals and provide some recommendations for the prevention of C. difficile outbreaks in the future.

III. Assessment Criteria
Class/
Grade

Assessment Criteria
Exceptional Distinction
(includes all features of Distinction with the additional characteristics listed below) Distinction
Low | Mid | High Commendation
Low | Mid | High Pass
Low | Mid | High Marginal Fail Fail
Low | Mid Zero
Content (breadth and depth of coverage of topic)
Weighting 0.6 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.
Uses a sophisticated level of the English language in an eloquent and professional manner to both technical and non-technical audiences 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 are provided that are well-supported by the literature.
Work may be beyond the prescribed range and may evidences a competent understanding of the topic.
Demonstrates an ability to communicate effectively using own style that is suited to both technical and non-technical audiences. Very good knowledge and understanding is evidenced as the student is typically able to independently relate facts/concepts together some of which are at the forefront of the discipline.
Arguments and explanations provided are supported by the literature.
Content is balanced and well-explained with competent use of the English language at a level suitable for a general scientific audience. There is some analysis.
Satisfactory knowledge and understanding of the area of study but balanced towards the descriptive rather than the critical or analytical.
Arguments and explanations are limited in range and depth although they are usually adequately supported by the literature.
Coverage of the topic may be imbalanced. Information may be poorly selected with somewhat too much information.
Content is mostly of an appropriate level for the intended audience. Minor factual errors may be present. Knowledge and understanding is marginally insufficient as the student is typically only able to deal with terminology, basic facts and concepts.
Works shows adequate knowledge of concepts within the topic but fails to add meaningful detail or make sufficient links between concepts.
The writing provides descriptive and unsubstantiated arguments, and there is a lack of reasoned judgement and evaluation. There may be major factual errors.
Knowledge and understanding is insufficient as the student only evidences an understanding of small subset of the necessary concepts and techniques.
Many arguments in this section are not supported by appropriate literature.
Content may be limited and simplistic.
The rationale lacks coherence and fails to make sufficient links between known concepts and facts.
Multiple major factual errors. No submission or penalty.
Structure and presentation of the article
Weighting 0.3 Exceptionally well-organised structure of fully professional standard.
Article is fully professional in style and suitable for publication in the suggested journals. Excellent structure with clear signposting throughout.
Concepts are well developed and dealt with in a logical order. Introduction and conclusions are excellent with detailed and insightful outlook to the future.
Article is formatted to near professional level and could be suitable for publication with little/no editing.
Figures and/or tables are excellent and are used effectively to illustrate key points. A clear and logical structure with appropriate introductory and concluding sections. Thoughtful outlook to the future.
Arguments are developed clearly and succinctly throughout the article.
Article is set out in a neat and visually attractive style. There may be some very minor formatting issues.
Figures and/or tables are well presented and are almost always used effectively to illustrate key points. All key points are included but the account may be poorly structured in places.
There may be imbalance between the sections.
The clarity of the introduction and/or conclusions could be improved. Limited future outlook.
Some effort has been made to format the article into the appropriate style but there may be some significant formatting issues.
Figures and/or tables are included but may not be appropriately formatted. Links between the Figures and narrative may not be made explicit.
Article is not organized to develop a logical argument and may be overly repetitive.
Irrelevant materials may be included.
Introduction and/or conclusions may be weak or missing.
Little or no effort made to format the article into the appropriate style.
Figures and/or tables are poorly formatted and/or have limited relevance. The article may be competent in places but fails to demonstrate structure, clarity and/or focus.
Most of the relevant key concepts are not explained in a coherent way. Writing lacks a coherent structure.
Little or no effort made to format the article into the appropriate style.
Figures and/or tables are absent or add little of value to the article. No submission or penalty
References
Weighting 0.1 References are original papers and reputable data sources. Cited sources are highly relevant to the topic under discussion, recent and of high quality. References show evidence of an extensive survey of relevant literature and careful selection of sources to provide balanced evidence in support of the arguments made.
Formatting of both the reference list and citations in the text is at a level appropriate for submission to the suggested journal. References show evidence of a careful independent literature survey.
They are well-selected. Almost all are relevant and many are at the forefront of the field and recently published.
The references are used appropriately to support arguments in the text.
The reference list and the in-text citations are all well-formatted with few mistakes and all bibliographic information is complete. The reference list shows evidence of an independent literature review.
The number of references is sufficient and they are used effectively to support key assertions.
Some references may not be immediately relevant to the topic under discussion.
Formatting of references is mainly consistent and correct, and all are cited in the text. There is some evidence of literature review, although there may be limited use of sources beyond those suggested in seminars.
Not all references are relevant to the topic and a significant proportion may be review articles. The number of references may be insufficient.
There may be errors in the listing of references and/or the reference list may not match citations in the text. Literature review is weak or unbalanced.
Little evidence of independent identification of appropriate sources.
Heavy reliance on reviews, irrelevant sources and/or non-reputable sources.
Formatting of in-text citations and reference list is inconsistent with some entries being incomplete. No submission or penalty
IV. Feedback Opportunities
Formative (Whilst you’re working on the coursework)
You will have an opportunity for informal feedback on your plans and drafts during the seminar in Week 18. Formative feedback will be given once per student on written material prior to submission. This feedback will be of a generic nature.
Summative (After you’ve submitted the coursework)
You will receive specific feedback regarding your coursework submission together with your awarded grade when it is returned to you. Clearly, feedback provided with your coursework is only for developmental purposes so that you can improve for the next assessment or subject-related module.
V. Moderation
The Moderation Process
All assessments are subject to a two-stage moderation process. Firstly, any details related to the assessment (e.g., clarity of information and the assessment criteria) are considered by an independent person (usually a member of the module team). Secondly, the grades awarded are considered by the module team to check for consistency and fairness across the cohort for the piece of work submitted.

VI. Aspects for Professional Development Portfolio
You could use extracts from your review article, or the whole article, as evidence of your skills in scientific writing for your Skills Portfolio.