Year 2: Research Project lab report feedback

1. Faculty of Health and Wellbeing - Department of Biosciences
ASSESSED WORK FEEDBACK FORM
Student Name: Raman Khadka
Student ID number:
Module Title: Professional and Scientific practice 2
Title of coursework Project Report in style of paper (Chemistry)
Marker: D. Allw ood
MARK*:
65%
Strengths:
Retrosynthesis included.
Discussion of methods and comparison with others.
Range of spectroscopic methods discussed with some atom-up approach.
Good level of analysis of methods proposed and alternatives.
Experimental written in correct tone and most data included.
Demonstrated good understanding of the route proposal process.
Decent range of references used. Good attempt at RSC formatting.
Weaknesses:
Have you just typed “It has uses within areas such as” and then copy-pasted a paper title? Because the
sentence doesn’t make sense. Makes it sound like you haven’t read this article...
Intro is a bit fragmented. Just provide a general intro so the reader knows why you’re trying to synthesise this
drug, they’re not interested in random specific data from one or two sources. Would have been better to have
a diagram of the latter part regarding ion channel binding.
Your discussion of the retrosynthesis is confused. You’re not actually doing these reactions, so your first
disconnection isn’t a hydrolysis – it’s an esterification. Same with rest of steps.
Personal language – you.
“Spectra” means more than one spectrum. You then use the word “spectrums”, which is not a word.
“Solubilised CDCL3”? CDCl3 is a solvent, what does “solubilised” mean in this context?
Amines are shielding by resonance – ortho, para directing.
“Due to their (typo) being a low intensity of the amine group within the benzocaine ” – what does this mean?
Experimental: how much deionised water? How much ethyl acetate? How much water did you wash with? Etc.
Suggestions for Improvement:
Put all your retrosynthesis in one diagram. No reason to spread it out over 3. Same with forward synthesis.
What about availability of reagents etc? Your conditions for the first two steps are not usual.
Use page numbers, not DOIs for RSC referencing. Unless the paper is ASAP so it doesn’t have page numbers
yet.
Student comments for Feed-forward (how will you use this feedback to improve your future work?):
SIGNATURE DATE: 30/04/21
*Unratified mark.

2. Indicator First
(high)
First Upper second Lower second Third Fail Fail mark
Introduction
(weighting
x3 )
Content is relev ant and is
f ully ev aluated. Full
introduction to background to
lab Broad and deep
knowledge of theory and
concepts, with creativ e and
imaginativ e application.
Draws on a wide range of
sources which are
themselv es ev aluated.
Critical analy sis.
Retrosy nthetic scheme
included
Relev ance of content to subject
of coursework is f ully ev aluated.
Full introduction to background
to lab. Broad and deep
knowledge of theory and
concepts, with relev ant
application. Draws on a wide
range of sources.
Critical analy sis.
Retrosy nthetic scheme
included.
Relev ance of the content to
topic is v ery well reasoned.
introduction to background to
lab and some simple theory
may be included. .A broad
knowledge of theory and
concepts, with aspects well
explained and applied. Draws
on a wide range of sources.
Critical analy sis.
Retrosy nthetic scheme included
Relev ance of the content to
topic is reasoned. Introduction
little basic in places A general
knowledge of theory and
concepts, with reasonable
attempt to explain to
demonstrate understanding.
Draws on a range of sources
Retrosy nthetic scheme included
Relev ance of the content to the
topic is generally described
although may be weak in places
or lacking depth. may include
unnecessary theory of techniques
Knowledge of theory and
concepts is linked to the scope of
the study . Relies on main
recognized sources e.g. directed
texts.
Choice of content weakly
justif ied, only descriptiv e use
of knowledge. Little indication
of relev ance of theory and
concepts, conf used
application of the knowledge
to topic limited sources of
inf ormation
Inaccurate and
irrelev ant content,
knowledge or theory and
concepts. Conf used
application knowledge to
problem. Very limited
sources of inf ormation or
inappropriate.
Experimental
(weighting
x2)
Clear methods, in past
impersonal tense and in
paragraphs. Updates f rom
modif ications f rom the lab
script giv en. Discussion of
data presentation in
accordance with chemical
prof essional standards.
Details of data analy sis clear
nothing omitted or in error
Clear methods, in past
impersonal tense and in
paragraphs.
Discussion of data in
accordance with chemical
prof essional standards
. Details of data analy sis clear
Methods prov ided in past
impersonal tense and in
paragraphs. Changes made in
lab included and details of
stages, may be jumbled and
some simplistic methods
included
Some attempt to discus data
presentation in accordance with
chemical prof essional
standards
Methods prov ided in past
impersonal tense and in
paragraphs but changes may
not hav e been incorporated and
some errors in sty le
Methods re worded but may lack
f ull consistency to sty le of past
tense/ paragraphs
Some attempt to reword
methods but not in past tense
or in paragraphs
Bullets f rom lab method
Discussion
(weighting
x3 )
Work presentation excellent,
clear well labeled graphs,
images and annotations clear
legends and correct statistics
prov ided. Clear descriptions
of data giv en.
Outstanding discussion of
Work presented with a strong
atom up or structural f ocus.
Content is relev ant and is
f ully ev aluated. Broad and
deep knowledge of theory
and concepts, with creativ e
and imaginativ e application.
Draws on a wide range of
sources which are
themselv es ev aluated. Links
results/data gained clearly to
published literature
Ov erarching sy nthetic
scheme included.
Work presentation excellent,
clear graphs, images and
annotations clear legends and
correct statistics prov ided.
Discussion of work presented
with a strong atom up or
structural f ocus.
Links results/data gained
clearly to published literature
Relev ance of content to subject
of coursework is f ully ev aluated.
Broad and deep knowledge of
theory and concepts, with
relev ant application. Draws on
a wide range of sources
Ov erarching sy nthetic scheme
included.
Work presented clearly and
appropriately in images and
graphs where needed. Figure
legends included and
descriptiv e, and data described
clearly and statistical analy sis
perf ormed where appropriate.
Some discussion of work
presented with a strong atom
up or structural f ocus.
Aims of lab clearly giv en and
key results/data prov ided,
linked to some ref erences.
Relev ance of the content to
topic is v ery well reasoned. A
broad knowledge of theory and
concepts, with aspects well
explained and applied. Draws
on a wide range of sources.
Ov erarching sy nthetic scheme
included.
Work presented in images and
graphs where needed. Figure
legends included and
descriptiv e, and data described.
Summary of results/data giv en
and links to literature made.
Relev ance of the content to
topic is reasoned. A general
knowledge of theory and
concepts, with reasonable
attempt to explain to
demonstrate understanding.
Draws on a range of sources.
Ov erarching sy nthetic scheme
included.
Some attempts made to present
work in sensible f ashion but may
be reparativ e and inclusion of raw
data, some descriptions giv en
Summary of results/data giv en
and some links to literature made.
Relev ance of the content to the
topic is generally described
although may be weak in places
or lacking depth. Knowledge of
theory and concepts is linked to
the scope of the study . Relies on
main recognized sources e.g.
directed texts.
Some work presented but not
accurately giv en in graphs
and limited descriptions of
data.
Summary of results/data may
be giv en. Choice of content
weakly justif ied, only
descriptiv e use of knowledge.
Little indication of relev ance
of theory and concepts,
conf used application of the
knowledge to topic limited
sources of inf ormation
Limited results/data,
some graphs or schemes
giv en
Limited, summary of
results/data may be
giv en. Inaccurate and
irrelev ant content,
knowledge or theory and
concepts. Conf used
application knowledge to
problem. Very limited
sources of inf ormation or
inappropriate
Formatting
and
Referencing
(weighting x
1)
Recent rev iews and
landmark primary papers
cited (In RSC sty le).
Appropriate academic and
prof essional standard, with
creativ ity in the use of
language. Well-presented
work
Ref s correct and thorough.
Bibliography complete, and
properly laid out (In RSC sty le).
Very minor errors.
Appropriate academic and
prof essional standard, with well
presented work.
Ref erences accurate.
Bibliography complete and
properly laid out (In RSC sty le).
Minor errors. Generally of an
appropriate academic and
prof essional standard. Work is
clearly presented.
May use older rev iews and may
not use landmark papers.
Generally correct but needs
some attention. English is clear
and appropriate. Work is clearly
presented.
Citation and ref erencing(In RSC
sty le) is accurate and related to
ref erences in the text.
Some incorrect ref erencing and
incomplete or not properly laid out
bibliography . English is
understandable. Work is clearly
presented.
Citation and ref erencing (In RSC
sty le) is generally accurate and
related to ref erences in the text.
Little or no proper
ref erencing. Bibliography
inadequate. English may be
conf used and inappropriate.
Work is poorly presented.
Citation and ref erencing is
inaccurate and unrelated to
ref erences in the text.
English is generally
conf used and
inappropriate. Work is
poorly presented.
Citation and ref erencing
is inaccurate and
unrelated to ref erences
in the text.
Project
Planning and
Ethics
(weighting
x1)
An excellent concise account
of the experiment, including
details of specialist f acilities
required. Retro sy nthesis
f orms hy pothesis. Thought
out progression and impact
of results/data on f uture
experiments. A complete
consideration of all aspects
of ethical implications of the
project
An excellent account of the
experiments, including details
of specialist f acilities required.
Retro sy nthesis f orms
hy pothesis. Thought out
progression and impact of
results/data on f uture
experiments
(may miss a f ew aspects). A
consideration of most aspects
of ethical implications of the
An account of the experiments
that will be perf ormed.
Retro sy nthesis f orms
hy pothesis. An incomplete but
thought out consideration of
ethical implications of the
project
An account of the experiments
that will be perf ormed.
Retro sy nthesis included f orms
hy pothesis.. May be unclear on
links between stages
(may miss a f ew aspects). An
incomplete consideration of
ethical implications.
An account of the experiments
that will be perf ormed.. (may not
include all)
(may miss a f ew aspects). An
incomplete consideration of
ethical implications
An attempt made at account
of experiments to be
perf ormed lacks details of
appropriate inf ormation. A
limited consideration of
ethical implications
Minimal attempt made to
describe experiments to
be perf ormed, no details
of controls or repeats.
SHUREC1 Form not
completed

3. project