MCDD coursework report feedback

1. Faculty of Health and Wellbeing - Department of Biosciences
ASSESSED WORK FEEDBACK FORM
Student Name: Raman Khadka
Student ID number: 29013392
Module Title: Medicinal Chemistry and Drug Discovery
Title of coursework Individual Report
Marker: D. Allw ood
MARK*:
Mid-2:1 (65%)
Strengths:
Diagrams correctly formatted and referred to in the text.
Nice discussion and retrosynthesis of drug.
MoA section is well written and flows well. Well illustrated with diagrams.
Good range of references, RSC formatted.
Weaknesses:
Figure 1 is referred to in the introduction, so put it in that section.
Molecule names shouldn’t be capitalised unless they’re a brand name.
Is the melting point relevant? Don’t include information for the sake of it.
Some steps in the Swern and Wittig reactions are wrong – covered both of these in 2nd year.
Scheme 4 should be multiple steps.
Structures should all be the same size.
Fig 2 needs referencing.
Suggestions for Improvement:
Abstract is informative but could include more information relevant to report i.e synthesis.
Introduction is quite brief and doesn’t really flow.
Discovery section is too brief – could have included more relevant information and a diagram.
Could have drawn curly arrows on the cycle in Fig 5.
Student comments for Feed-forward (how will you use this feedback to improve your future work?):
Make abstract more relevant to the report- add more information in the text into the abstract
Add more background information to the research topic to provide an easier read and better flow
SIGNATURE DATE: 10/12/21
*Unratified mark.

2. Indicator FIRST FIRST UPPER SECOND LOWER SECOND THIRD FAIL FAIL% mark
Abstract
(5%)
Outstanding, succinct
paragraph which
provides an excellent
overview of the report.
Adheres to word limit.
Excellent and concise
paragraph which effectively
summarises the report.
Adheres to word limit.
Generally good abstract.
Covers key aspects in a
reasonably concise manner.
Adheres to word limit.
Mainly relevant abstract.
May be lacking in
conciseness or miss some
key points. Adheres to word
limit.
Fairly weak abstract. May
contain irrelevant material,
miss key points or lack
conciseness, including
exceeding the word limit.
Poor attempt at abstract
writing. May be very short,
contain irrelevant material
or exceed the word limit.
Little or no attempt
made to include an
abstract or vastly
exceeds word
count.
Introduction
(10%)
Shows advanced
understanding of
subject. Excellent
original writing and
diagrams with a wide
range of relevant
literature accessed.
Excellent grasp of relevant
literature and sound
understanding of subject
area. Good standard of
intelligent, independent
thinking. Very good original
writing and diagrams.
Relevant and well-focused
material.Evidence of some
independent thinking. Very
good understanding.
Serious attempt to engage
with breadth of relevant
literature. Good standard of
original diagrams and
writing.
Mainly relevant material,
althoughlargely descriptive
in focus. Satisfactory
understanding of subject.
Evidence of reasonably
sound engagement with
relevant literature. Minor
errors. Adequate diagrams.
An obviousattempt to address
the topic but may lack
relevance. Too descriptive
with no independent thinking.
Superficial or inconsistent
grasp of material.Evidence of
some understanding. Limited
literature engagement and
major errors in accuracy. Poor
diagrams.
Unfocused, insufficient
engagement with the
topic. Major omissions.
Poor understanding.
Scarce research. Very
poor or no diagrams.
No understanding
of the topic and
little attempt to
address it. Brief or
wholly irrelevant
material. No
diagrams.
How drug was
discovered
(10%)
Shows advanced
understanding of
subject. Excellent
original writing and
diagrams with a wide
range of relevant
literature accessed.
Excellent grasp of relevant
literature and sound
understanding of subject
area. Good standard of
intelligent, independent
thinking. Very good original
writing and diagrams.
Relevant and well-focused
material.Evidence of some
independent thinking. Very
good understanding.
Serious attempt to engage
with breadth of relevant
literature. Good standard of
original diagrams and
writing.
Mainly relevant material,
althoughlargely descriptive
in focus. Satisfactory
understanding of subject.
Evidence of reasonably
sound engagement with
relevant literature. Minor
errors. Adequate diagrams.
An obviousattempt to address
the topic but may lack
relevance. Too descriptive
with no independent thinking.
Superficial or inconsistent
grasp of material.Evidence of
some understanding. Limited
literature engagement and
major errors in accuracy. Poor
diagrams.
Unfocused, insufficient
engagement with the
topic. Major omissions.
Poor understanding.
Scarce research. Very
poor or no diagrams.
No understanding
of the topic and
little attempt to
address it. Brief or
wholly irrelevant
material. No
diagrams.
How drug is
produced
(40%)
Shows advanced
understanding of
subject. Excellent
original writing and
diagrams with a wide
range of relevant
literature accessed.
Three reactions
discussed in excellent
detail.
Excellent grasp of relevant
literature and sound
understanding of subject
area. Good standard of
intelligent, independent
thinking. Very good original
writing and diagrams. Three
reactions discussed in very
good detail.
Relevant and well-focused
material.Evidence of some
independent thinking. Very
good understanding.
Serious attempt to engage
with breadth of relevant
literature. Good standard of
original diagrams and
writing. Three reactions
discussed in detail.
Mainly relevant material,
althoughlargely descriptive
in focus. Satisfactory
understanding of subject.
Evidence of reasonably
sound engagement with
relevant literature. Minor
errors. Adequate diagrams.
Three reactions discussed.
An obviousattempt to address
the topic but may lack
relevance. Too descriptive
with no independent thinking.
Superficial or inconsistent
grasp of material.Evidence of
some understanding. Limited
literature engagement and
major errors in accuracy. Poor
diagrams. May be fewer than
three reactions discussed.
Unfocused, insufficient
engagement with the
topic. Major omissions.
Poor understanding.
Scarce research. Very
poor or no diagrams.
Fewer than three
reactions discussed.
No understanding
of the topic and
little attempt to
address it. Brief or
wholly irrelevant
material. No
diagrams. No
reactions
discussed.
Mechanism of
action
(15%)
Shows advanced
understanding of
subject. Excellent
original writing and
diagrams with a wide
range of relevant
literature accessed.
Excellent grasp of relevant
literature and sound
understanding of subject
area. Good standard of
intelligent, independent
thinking. Very good original
writing and diagrams.
Relevant and well-focused
material.Evidence of some
independent thinking. Very
good understanding.
Serious attempt to engage
with breadth of relevant
literature. Good standard of
original diagrams and
writing.
Mainly relevant material,
althoughlargely descriptive
in focus. Satisfactory
understanding of subject.
Evidence of reasonably
sound engagement with
relevant literature. Minor
errors. Adequate diagrams.
An obviousattempt to address
the topic but may lack
relevance. Too descriptive
with no independent thinking.
Superficial or inconsistent
grasp of material.Evidence of
some understanding. Limited
literature engagement and
major errors in accuracy. Poor
diagrams.
Unfocused, insufficient
engagement with the
topic. Major omissions.
Poor understanding.
Scarce research. Very
poor or no diagrams.
No understanding
of the topic and
little attempt to
address it. Brief or
wholly irrelevant
material. No
diagrams.
Conclusion
(5%)
Outstanding, succinct
conclusion which
addresses all key points
and is an excellent
summary of the topic.
Excellent and concise
conclusion which addresses
key points and effectively
summarises the topic.
Generally good conclusion.
Addresses key points in a
concise manner. Good
summary of topic.
Mainly relevant conclusion.
Addresses key points but
may be missing details or
not very concise.
Fairly weak conclusion.
Lacking in detail anddoes not
address key points
Poor attempt made to
conclude work. May be
very short or irrelevant.
Little or no attempt
made to conclude
work in any form.
Structure,
coherence,
presentation
(10%)
Outstanding structure
and presentation
throughout. Well
focused.
Excellent structure. Clear
and coherent. Flows well.
Good structure and
planning. Clear and
coherent. Minor issues.
Some evidence of planning
but does not flow smoothly.
Generally coherent but may
be lacking clarity in parts.
Weak structure and
organisation. Needs
significant improvement.
Lacks coherence and clarity in
many areas.
Structure and
organisation is poor.
Lacks focus. Incoherent
and lacking in clarity
throughout.
Very poor
organisation with
little to no structure
or focus.
References
(5%)
Outstanding scope and
accuracy. Perfectly
formatted in RSC style.
Excellent scope of
references, accurately cited.
Perfectly formatted in RSC
style.
Good scope of references,
accurately cited.Formatting
correct in RSC style with
only minor errors.
Adequate scope. Generally
accurate. Formatting
generally correct in RSC
style. Errors largely minor or
superficial.
Some incorrect referencing or
partial scope. Not properly
formatted in RSC style.
Little to no proper
referencing. Inadequate
scope of references. Not
properly formattedin RSC
style.
No referencing.