Assignment Brief

1) You will be assigned a topic based on ONE of the FOUR Lab sessions you
took this term.
2) Please DO NOT submit a write-up based on any other topic. The assessment
of your work will be based on the criteria established for your assigned topic.
If you present a work based on a topic not assigned to you, it will be scored
ZERO.
3) The word limit for the Coursework Report is 1000 words, including Figures
and Tables. There will be a sliding score based on WORD COUNT. A 10%
mark will be deducted from a report with 10% words over the limit, 20% for
20% over the limit, and so on.
4) References are excluded from the WORD COUNT.
5) You may use ANY acceptable referencing format, as long as you are
consistent with the in-text citations throughout your report and your list of
references. The most common referencing styles are the Havard and
Numerical referencing methods. You may use any of these.
6) Your report MUST follow that convention for reporting a scientific experiment.
It must include:
a. Introduction
b. Materials and Method
c. Result and Discussions
d. Conclusion
e. References
7) You MUST use Arial 12-point font with double-line spacing
8) You may use the cover sheet template included in this document (Page 2)
9) The marking criteria will be based on the document attached (from Page 3)
10) More details on presenting a good report will be discussed at our ONLINE
seminar scheduled for the 15th of February. Please check the Moodle
calendar/Announcement for the link to join the meeting

1
 Faculty of Engineering and Science
School of Science

ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES and

OMED 0104

FULL TITLE OF THE EXPERIMENT AS PER MANUAL

Name: XX
ID number: XX
Laboratory Group: XX

This submission is part of the Lab component of the

2
 80-100 70-79 60-69 50-59 30-49 Below 30
Introduction Excellent details, written to a Evidence of wide reading Evidence of wide reading Evidence of adequate wider Evidence of some wider No evidence of outside
publishable standard. Well- and a very good and a good understanding of reading and a basic reading and a very basic reading or limited outside
formulated general aims and understanding of the subject the subject area. Reasonable understanding of the subject understanding of the subject reading and a poor
objectives. The level of area. Very good use of use of figures and citations. area. Scientific writing will area. Poor use of understanding of the subject
scientific writing is at a figures/captions, citations, Few require improvements. figures/captions. area was demonstrated.
publishable level, with no and references in the text. typographical/grammatical Better use of
errors. Excellent use of Very good level of scientific errors. Scientific writing is figures/captions would
figures and supporting writing. Minimal adequate. improve the work.
arguments. errors/typos and
grammatical mistakes.

Method Excellent and accurate Very good explanation of Clear, accurate and relevant Clear and accurate 3rd class: Limited Mainly inaccurate and
explanation. All methods appropriate methods. A explanation of the explanation of largely explanation of the methods. ambiguous description of
systematically described large amount of information appropriate method. A good appropriate method. Basic Very little information the methods with confused
such that a reader could that describes the methods amount of information information presented presented that describes the and unclear explanation.
replicate the study. Excellent accurately is presented. Very presented which describes describing the methods methods accurately. Much
use of description of few mistakes or errors and the methods accurately. Few accurately, but the scientific information missing.
statistical analysis (as very good scientific writing errors or mistakes, but the writing style needs to be
appropriate). All equations style. Statistics/data analysis scientific writing style could improved. Some
are explained. Reference to is described where be improved. unnecessary information
prior studies is made where appropriate. included.
appropriate. Written to a
publishable standard.

Results Exceptional presentation of Very good presentation of Good presentation of the Basic presentation of the 3rd class: Very basic Failure to understand the
highest quality results the results showing a clear results showing a good results. Data is too brief and presentation of the results. results.
showing a clear understanding of the understanding of the information is missing. Some Relevant graphs and tables Insufficient/inaccurate
understanding of the experiment. Standard experiment. Minor mistakes mistakes in graphs and/or included, but no explanations supplied.
experiment. Standard deviations/errors included in in graphs/tables or lacking table presentation. accompanying written Presents irrelevant graphs or
deviations/errors included in table/graphs as appropriate, standard deviations/errors explanation or relevant includes only raw data.
table/graphs as appropriate, all labelled correctly. Results (as appropriate). The results explanation accompanied by
all labelled correctly. Results presented with could have been better no/very poorly presented
presented with accompanying text referring presented. graphs and tables.
accompanying text referring to figures/tables. Very good
to figures/tables. Very good level of scientific writing.
level of scientific writing.

Discussion Excellent discussion of the Very good discussion of the Good discussion of the Basic discussion of the 3rd class: Very basic Poor discussion of the
results with excellent results with very good result with good results. Basic interpretation discussion of the results, results, essential information
interpretation/understandin interpretation/understandin interpretation/understandin or understanding of the with very little interpretation missing.
g of the results using g of the results. Accurate g shown. Mainly accurate results. Some attempt to of understanding. Not
accurate/relevant theory/justification used. and/or relevant discuss the findings shown, attempt to relate results to
theory/justification. Analytical skill demonstrated theory/justification used. but use either inaccurate theoretical/empirical
Analytical skill demonstrated in discussion of results, Some attempt to express and/or irrelevant research. Poor support of

3
 in discussion of the results, including inaccuracies in the opinion and place results in theories/justifications. the discussed text with
including inaccuracies in the data, using logical and perspective. The level of Scientific writing requires references.
data, using logical and appropriate statements to scientific writing is improvement. Use of
appropriate statements to justify some of the reasonably good. references inadequate.
justify all experimental experimental outcomes.
outcomes. Discussion of the
results contextualised.
Background reading evident.
Written to a publishable
standard.

Conclusion Excellent synthesis of Very good synthesis of Good synthesis of argument Reasonable synthesis of Adequate synthesis of Poor synthesis of argument,
argument supported by argument supported by supported by relevant argument, missing only argument. Conclusions missing essential
relevant experimental relevant experimental experimental evidence. Cites one/two pieces of written in wrong style/tense information.
evidence and addressing evidence. Cites all relevant all relevant data but does information/experimental or missing significant
aims and objectives. Written data not address aims and evidence. Scientific writing information and
to a publishable standard. objectives. style needs improvement. experimental evidence.

Reference All references from All references from All sources appropriately Mostly referenced 3rd class: Some sources Some references, but
appropriate sources and appropriate sources and referenced, reasonably appropriately. Sufficient referenced appropriately, multiple errors. No clarity in
referenced correctly. Broad referenced correctly. All accurate, limited numbers of references. Limited use of but either relevance or what how they were used.
bibliography. No references obtained from web-only sources. One or standard references, with precisely is being referred to
discrepancies between text appropriate published two discrepancies between some references web-based is unclear.
and references. Written to a literature. No discrepancies text and references. only with unclear sources.
publishable standard. between text and Minor discrepancies
references. between text and
references.

Structure Excellent structure. Logical Excellent structure. Logical Individually well-structured Individually well-structured 3rd class: Limited or poor Limited or poor structure.
progression of theme. progression. Synthesis of sections. Occasional sections. Some structure. Some Poor spelling and grammar.
Synthesis of ideas. No ideas. Few/no grammatical/spelling errors. grammatical/spelling errors. grammatical/typographical
grammatical/spelling errors. grammatical/spelling errors. Reasonably good scientific Scientific writing style errors. Poor scientific
Written to a publishable writing level. requires improvement. writing.
standard.

4
5