PSP1 formative lab report on Oil of Wintergreen

1. Professional and Scientific Practice 1:Labs
Department of Biosciences & Chemistry
L4 FLR Formative Assessment
Instructions:
1) Complete your name.
2) Save file as: surname_FLR_form_2019-20.docx e.g. Campbell_S_FLR _form_2019-20.docx
3) Insert your work on the final page so that the feedback forms are at the front.
4) Submit your work to Blackboard submission tool on the Blackboard site and Turnitin as a Word-
compatible file (not a pdf).
Student Name: Raman Khadka
Number: 29013392
Learning contract? Insert details if applicable here.
Marker: Dr M.A.Khan
Grade: 59% [2.1 class][Borderlinecasebutyou have1st
and 2.1 and so overall only just]
Strengths: results obtained, mechanism of reaction, IR spectra,
Areas to improve: Title & background information is weak, need equilibrium arrows for mechanism
which is untidy and unformatted, , discussion is missing importance of work-up procedure and TLC analysis
in detail, methods section needs major revision, more references needed ,formating/presentation is poor.
Student comments for feed-forward
how will you use this feedback to improve your future work?:
Focus on the formatting and presentation of the report to ensure it looks much cleaner and more
structured. Also use and add more primary and secondary resources.

2. Indicator
First
(High)
First Upper Second
Lower Second Third Fail Fail
Introduction
(Hypothesis
and aims
only)
20%
Exceptional knowledge and
understanding of the subject and
its underlying concepts
Hypothesis is relevant and
clearly stated. Concise and
appropriate aims and objectives
for experiment outlined. All
elements of report introduced in
a correct, clear, concise manner.
No errors.
Excellent knowledge of the subject
beyond what was taught.
Hypothesis is relevant and clearly
stated. Concise and appropriate
aims and objectives for experiment
outlined. All elements of report
introduced in a correct, clear,
concise manner. Very minor errors.
A very good breadth of knowledge
and understanding relating facts
and concepts together. Hypothesis
is relevant and clearly stated.
Concise and appropriate aims and
objectives for experiment outlined.
All elements of report introduced in
a scientifically correct manner.
Minor errors.
A good breadth of knowledge and
understanding. Hypothesis is
stated, but may be unclear. Aims
and objectives stated, but may be
unclear or limited. All areas of the
report introduced, but lack of
understanding shown in some
areas.
Knowledge and understanding is
sufficient to deal with terminology,
basic facts and concepts. Hypothesis
is stated, but may be unclear or
incomplete. Aims and objectives
stated, but may be unclear, limited or
incomplete. Most areas of report
introduced, may show lack of
understanding.
Insufficient knowledge and
understanding of the subject
and its underlying concepts.
Hypothesis absent. Statement
of aims unclear, limited or
incomplete. Introduction
incomplete and contains major
errors in understanding.
Highlyinsufficient or
no evidence of
knowledge or
understanding of the
subject. No statement
of aims or hypothesis.
Introduction missing,
irrelevant or inaccurate
in the most part.
Materials
and Methods
20%
Clear methods, in past
impersonal tense and in
paragraphs. Updates from
modifications from the lab script
given. Correct format and details
of statistical analysis. No errors.
Clear methods, in past impersonal
tense and in paragraphs. Updates
from modifications from the lab
script given. Correct format and
details of statistical analysis. Very
minor errors.
Clear methods, in past impersonal
tense and in paragraphs. Updates
from modifications from the lab
script given. Correct format and
details of statistical analysis. Minor
errors.
Methods provided in past
impersonal tense and in
paragraphs but changes may not
have been incorporated and some
errors in style.
Some information given on
statistics, but may be incomplete or
inaccurate.
Lab script re-worded but may lack full
consistency to style of past tense/
paragraphs. i.e. may use bullet points.
No details of statistical analysis.
Some attempt to re-word lab
script but not in past tense or in
paragraphs.
Bullets from lab script.
Results
30%
Data presentation is exceptional.
Clear well labeled graphs (to
include title, axis titles and
units). Figures with correct
annotations and clear legends
(including figure numbers).
Correct statistics provided. Well
written logical description of
results, to make the data
understandable to the reader.
No errors.
Data presentation excellent. Clearly
labeled graphs (to include title, axis
titles and units). Figures with
correct annotations and clear
legends (including figure numbers).
Correct statistics provided. Well
written logical description of results,
to make the data understandable to
the reader. Very minor errors.
Data presentation is very good.
Clear well labeled graphs (to
include title, axis titles and units).
Figures with correct annotations
and clear legends (including figure
numbers). Correct statistics
provided. Well written logical
description of results, to make the
data understandable to the reader.
Minor errors.
Graphs and tables are good but
may be incorrectly labelled. Limited
written description of result. Figure
legends limited. Statistical analysis
contains errors.
Graphs and tables are sufficient.
Maybe incorrectly labelled, some may
be absent. No written description of
result. Figure legends absent. Data
analysis contains errors
Graphs and tables insufficient.
Incorrectly labelled, some may
be absent. No written description
of result. Figure legends absent.
No data analysis.
Limited results, some
graphs or raw data
given.
Discussion
15%
Discussion shows critical
evaluation of whether the aims
of the experiment were
achieved. Aims of lab or
hypothesis referred to. All key
findings and results
summarised. All relevant results
linked to literature. No errors.
Discussion goes beyond what has
been taught. Aims of lab or
hypothesis referred to. All key
findings and results summarised.
Full discussion of whether the aims
of the experiment were achieved.
All relevant results linked to
literature. Very minor errors.
Discussion able to relate
facts/concepts together. Aims of lab
or hypothesis referred to. All key
findings and results summarised.
Full discussion of whether the aims
of the experiment were achieved.
Relevant results linked to literature.
Minor errors.
Discussion balanced towards the
descriptive rather than analytical.
Summary of results given but
limited discussion of whether aims
were achieved. Some attempt to
link results to literature.
Discussion deals with terminology,
basic facts and concepts. Summary of
some results, limited link to aims or
hypothesis. Limited attempt to link
results to literature.
Discussion is descriptive.
Summary of some results, no
link to aims or hypothesis. No
attempt to link results to
literature.
Inaccurate and irrelevant
content
Formatting,
referencing
and
scientific
presentation
15%
Excellent communication skills
beyond expectation of the level.
Exception use of relevant
scientific language throughout.
Citations correct and thorough.
Reference list complete, and
properly laid out.
No errors present. Feedback
form includes considered
student response to the
feedback and evidence in the
report that this was used to good
effect
Strong communication skills. Clear,
informative title. Report is written
clearly, concisely, in the appropriate
tense and impersonal style.
Excellent use of relevant scientific
language. Very minor error present.
Section content is correct. Citations
correct and thorough. Reference list
complete, and properly laid out.
Very minor errors. Feedback form
includes considered student
response to the feedback and
evidence in the report that this was
used.
Very good demonstration of
communication skills. Clear,
informative title. Report is, written
clearly, concisely, in the appropriate
tense and correct use of scientific
language. Minor errors present.
Section content is correct. Citations
correct and thorough. Reference list
complete, and properly laid out.
Minor errors. Very good use of the
previous feedback form and
constructive remarks in the student
response section of previously
Good demonstration of
communication skills. Title is basic
and not informative.
May be errors in use of tense and
style. Mistakes in use of scientific
English.
Section content is correct. Some
citations in text but not complete.
Reference list complete, may be
errors in formatting. Feedback form
completed and some evidence of
responses acted on
Communication/presentation is
generally competent but with some
weaknesses. Title is sufficient and but
not informative. Many errors in use of
tense and style. Mistakes in use of
scientific English may not be
appropriate. Some confusion over
section content. Citations in text
mostly absent, reference list limited or
contains many errors. Feedback form
included and some reflection
/response given by the student
Title is insufficient. English,
language may not be appropriate
errors in tense and or style.
Much confusion over section
content. Citations in text absent,
reference list limited or contains
major errors. Maybe a feedback
form, but no constructive
reflection on the feedback and
no evidence that it has been
used in this piece of work
No title. Report not word
processed. English is
generally confused and
inappropriate. Section
content
not adhered to fully. No
referencing. No feedback
form from previous FLR

3. Class CG% General Characteristics L4
FIRST
96
Exceptional knowledge and understanding of the subject and its underlying concepts; critical evaluation/synthesis/analysis and of
reading/research; evidence of breadth and depth of reading/research to inform development of work; exceptional demonstration of
relevant skills; excellent communication; performance in some, if not all, areas deemed beyond expectation of the level.
89
81 Excellent knowledge of thesubjectasthestudent istypically able togobeyond what hasbeentaught (particularly forahigh 1st
); evidence of
breadth of reading/research to inform development of work; excellent demonstration of relevant skills; demonstrates strong
communication skills.
74
UPPER SECOND
68 As below but very good work characterised by evidence of wider understandingof the subjectas the student is typically able to relate
facts/concepts together with some ability to apply to known/taught contexts; identification and selection of material to informdevelopment
of work; very good demonstration of relevantskills;demonstrates good communication skills.
65
62
LOWER SECOND
58 Agood breadth of knowledge and understanding of thetaughtcontent although balanced towards the descriptive rather than analytical; uses
set material to inform development of work; addresses all aspects of the given brief; good demonstration of relevant taught skills,
though may be limited in range; communication shows clarity but structure may lack coherence.
55
52
THIRD
48 Knowledgeandunderstanding issufficient todealwithterminology,basicfactsandconceptsbutfailstomakemeaningful synthesis;relies on set
material to informdevelopment of work; generally addresses mostof the requirements of the given brief; adequate demonstration of
relevant skills over a limited range; communication/presentation is generally competent but with some weaknesses.
45
42
FAIL
35
Insufficient knowledge and understanding of the subject and its underlying concepts; some ability to evaluate given reading/research
however work is more generally descriptive; naively follows or may ignore set material in development of work; given brief may be only
tangentially addressed or may ignore key aspects of the brief; demonstration of relevant skills over areduced range; communication shows
limited clarity, poor presentation, structure may not be coherent.
25
15 Highly insufficientor no evidence of knowledge or understandingof the subject; understanding of taught concepts is typically at the word
levelwithfacts beingreproducedin adisjointed or decontextualised manner; ignores setmaterial in developmentof work;failsto address most
or all of the requirements of the brief;failsto demonstrate relevant skills;lacks basic communication skills.
5
ZERO 0 Work of no merit OR absent, work not submitted, penalty in some misconductcases.