FBMMSH

Food Microbiology assignments

Dr. Gemma Walton
[email protected]
 Assessment
• Coursework (50%)
% Exam Assignment 1 Assignment 2

FBMMSH 50 25 25
FBMMHD 50 25 25

• Penalties for late submission

where the piece of work is submitted after the original deadline (or any formally agreed
extension to the deadline): 10% of the total marks available for that piece of work will be
deducted from the mark for each working day (or part thereof) following the deadline up to a
total of five working days;

• Examination (50%)
– Written examination during January
• Plagiarism…. Please avoid this!
 Assignment 1
• Relating to the lab practical classes

• You will be given milk and cultures of bacteria

investigate the best combinations for yoghurt
production
 To complete the task
• You will inoculate milk with combinations of
• Serratia plymithica
• Lactobacillus bulgaricus
• Streptococcus thermophilus

• And will be provided with a protocol

• https://web.microsoftstream.com/video/c68d
e3a1-00bd-4c2c-9e72-
 Considerations
• Which the optimal bacterial combination is
from the three bacteria used?

• Consider the dynamics of bacterial growth – is

there a reason the bacteria growth the way
they do?

• What do the results mean?

 Page limit for assignment
• No more than 8 pages including figures
(references can be on a separate page)

• Font size 12. Double spaced

 The write up
• Introduction
– Why are starter cultures used in yoghurt
production?
– What are the roles played by the bacteria
– Could other combinations of bacteria be used?
– What approaches could be used to check?
 Materials and Methods
• Which materials did you use
• What did you do? (written in past tense)
 Results
• Display the results
• pH
• Consistency
• How best to display the results?
– Use of a table?
 Discussion
• Considering your results which do you think
the best starter culture is?
• What does the other data tell you about the
activities of the bacteria (e.g. culture activity)
• What could have been done better / different
approach could have been taken?

• Reference – to back up what you were

expecting
  Levels of Achievement
Criteria A (>70%) B (69–60%) C (59–50%) D (49–40%) Fail (<40%)
Good presentation.
Excellent presentation. Poor presentation. Does not follow
Well structured/ordered. Some shortfalls in Basic presentation. Some Incorrect tense used in guidelines: page limit,
language and/or
Presentation Tables/figures correctly presentation. Not all parts lack clarity. Tables/ some places. Most but hand written, wrong font
(10%) cited in text and are figures lack not all guidelines are size/
stand-alone (i.e. good guidelines for clarity/citation in text. followed. Poor spacing/tense/tables/fig
tables/figures correctly
legends/footnotes). tables/figures. ures. Disorganised.
followed.
Poor introduction.
Introduction Nice concise introduction. Reasonable introduction. Basic introduction/ aim. Erroneous/lacks clear Lacks introduction/ aim.
and Aim (20%) Excellent, clear aim. Good aim. Lacks clarity.
aim.
Clearly states bacteria
used and milk treatment. Clearly states bacteria
Materials and and milk treatment. Food listed. Methods not
Methods Clear and concise Some summary of work sufficient to allow Unclear. Lacks concise Lacks food. Methods, not
summary of work done. summary of work done. apparent.
(10%) Written in past tense done (lacks clarity/isn’t replication.
concise).
without use of first person

Results clearly presented. Results well presented, Results well presented

Results poorly presented Very poor results.
Results (10%) Data clearly some small mistakes. but with some mistakes. and/or erroneous. Unclear.
shown/explained. Data not shown clearly. Minor errors .

In depth discussion which

shows very good Discussion in some depth Basic understanding of Poor understanding of
Discussion with reference to subject shown. Some
(30%) understanding of the literature. Good inappropriate/ erroneous subject. Lacks/ erroneous No discussion of data
practical and the discussion.
relevance of the subject. understanding of subject. discussion.

Conclusions lack
Conclusions Poor conclusions/ lacks
(10%) Excellent conclusions. Reasonable conclusions. clarity/not fully in line reference to aim. No conclusions.
with findings.
Engaged well with Poor use of references,
References literature and cited Engaged with literature, Literature engaged with although some attempt No referencing
(10%) appropriately in text some errors with citation not appropriate in places made
  Levels of Achievement

Criteria A (>70%) B (69–60%) C (59–50%) D (49–40%) Fail (<40%)

Excellent Good Poor presentation. Does not follow

presentation. Well presentation. Basic presentation.
structured/ordered. Some shortfalls in Some parts lack Incorrect tense guidelines: page
used in some limit, hand written,
Presentati Tables/figures language and/or clarity. Tables/
on (10%) correctly cited in presentation. Not figures lack places. Most but wrong font size/
not all guidelines spacing/tense/tabl
text and are stand- all guidelines for clarity/citation in
are followed. Poor es/figures.
alone (i.e. good tables/figures text. tables/figures. Disorganised.
legends/footnotes). correctly followed.

Introductio Nice concise Reasonable Basic introduction/ Poor introduction. Lacks introduction/
n and Aim introduction. introduction. Good Erroneous/lacks
(20%) Excellent, clear aim. aim. aim. Lacks clarity. clear aim. aim.

Clearly states
Clearly states
bacteria used and bacteria and milk
Materials milk treatment. Food listed.
and Clear and concise treatment. Some Methods not Unclear. Lacks Lacks food.
summary of work concise summary Methods, not
Methods summary of work done (lacks sufficient to allow of work done. apparent.
(10%) done. Written in replication.
clarity/isn’t
past tense without
use of first person concise).
  Levels of Achievement

Criteria A (>70%) B (69–60%) C (59–50%) D (49–40%) Fail (<40%)

Results well
Results clearly presented, some Results well
Results presented. Data presented but with Results poorly Very poor results.
small mistakes. presented and/or
(10%) clearly Data not shown some mistakes. erroneous. Unclear.
shown/explained. Minor errors.
clearly.

Basic
In depth discussion Discussion in some
which shows very depth with understanding of Poor
subject shown. understanding of
Discussion good understanding reference to Some subject. Lacks/ No discussion of
(30%) of the practical and literature. Good data.
the relevance of the understanding of inappropriate/ erroneous
erroneous discussion.
subject. subject.
discussion.

Conclusions lack Poor conclusions/

Conclusion Excellent Reasonable clarity/not fully in lacks reference to No conclusions.
s (10%) conclusions. conclusions. line with findings. aim.

Engaged well with Engaged with Literature engaged Poor use of

References literature and cited literature, some with not references,
No referencing.
(10%) appropriately in errors with appropriate in although some
text. citation. places. attempt made.
 Assignment 2 – (FBMMSH)
• 8th October – titles assigned
• Video assignment – considering how the
media report a microbial story
• You will be assigned a headline and asked to
investigate if the headline is bias? and to put
across what the real story is
• (deadline 13th November)
 Why the video task?

As an alternative to
written
communication Convey key
– can use oral and information in a
visual approaches to concise and
communicate (in)formal manner
information (perhaps
more effectively)
Things to Consider

1) The words you say

(content)

2) The manner in which

you say them (delivery)

PREPARATION!
 Click icon to add picture. Visit www.reading.ac.uk/imagebank for more.

CONTENT

17

Copyright University of Reading LIMITLESS POTENTIAL | LIMITLESS OPPORTUNITIES | LIMITLESS IMPACT

 What to include
• Summarise your newspaper article
• Look at the original research article – how well do
you think the newspaper article summarises the
findings.
• Do you think the findings on the original research
article are founded? (enough volunteers, good
experimental procedures)
• If you were a journalist working for the newspaper
how would you portray the research to the public?

18
 LOGICAL ORDERING
Start, middle and end
(“storytelling”)

• Include signposting in
your presentation if
there are discrete or
disconnected topics
– E.g. outline slide at the
beginning
19
 Click icon to add picture. Visit www.reading.ac.uk/imagebank for more.

DELIVERY

20

Copyright University of Reading LIMITLESS POTENTIAL | LIMITLESS OPPORTUNITIES | LIMITLESS IMPACT

 COMMUNICATING EFFECTIVELY
• Start, middle and end
(“storytelling”)
– Strong opening – get your audiences
attention
– Closing statement /take home
message – don’t finish abruptly
• Voice
– Enthusiastic, loud enough and not too
fast
• Body language
– Confidence! 21
 The Format
• Filmed on a smart phone
• Think about your background – is there
anything around you detracting from what you
are saying?

• The entire production should be no more than

7 minutes

• https://youtu.be/XHzbXLORQ-A
22
 The marks
Marks

Setting the scene (20%)

• Summarising the newspaper article
Considering the original article as compared to the newspaper report
(30%)
• Details of the original article and compared to the newspaper report
Is the original article good quality (30%)
Comment on quality and relevance of the original article
Delivery of the messages (20%)
• Audibility
•Clear concise statements •Appropriate length and information and flow
of presentation

23