Assessment of Dr Project Work (Approach and Technique)

CONTENTS | NEXT PAGE

Assessment of Dry Project Work (Approach and Technique)

The performance of the student in the course of his/her project work will be assessed relative to the learning objectives above, using the criteria and descriptors below. In each section, the supervisor will select the statement (descriptor) which most closely describes the consistent performance achieved by the student towards the end of the project work. In some cases, for example, data interpretation, the worst or best manifestation of this criterion may be taken into account.

The descriptors below are ranked in order of increasing value. Each one carries a mark appropriate to that value and the average of these marks for the 14 sections, expressed as a percentage, will comprise the total mark for Approach and Technique, which itself forms 30% of the project mark. For certain types of project, it may be appropriate to omit one or two sections. In such cases, where the omissions are justified by the supervisor, the average of the remaining sections will be used as the basis for the mark.

In the version used by the assessors, the descriptors will be randomised within each category.

1. Understanding of Methodology

a
No appreciation of the background to methodology.

b
Little understanding of the background of methodology; blindly follows instructions.

c
Understands the primary methodology in outline.

d
Understands the principles of most methods used.

e
Understands the detailed rationale of almost all methodology.

f
Exemplary understanding of all aspects of methods used. Can rationally adapt methodology.

2. Methodological Ability

a
Failed to master even basic methodology.

b
Difficulty in assimilating relevant methodology; forgetful of details.

c
Learned from mistakes in early attempts to master methodology.

d
Easily acquired and retained methodological skills.

e
Able to reproduce methodology successfully from published sources.

f
Developed own methodology in furtherance of the aims of the project.

3. Reliability of Data Acquisition - optional

a
Data unreliable and always untrustworthy.

b
Little confidence in reliability of data.

c
Trends in data or observation sometimes discernible.

d
Normally reliable data. Only occasional lapses in reproducibility.

e
Data very sound - can be relied on.

f
Results currently being written up for publication.

4. Interpretation of Data

a
Unable to attempt any explanation for data or to draw conclusions.

b
Uses incorrect methods and/or logic in analysis of data.

c
Attempts analysis of data, but unable to draw many valid conclusions.

d
Often able to draw plausible conclusions; may require assistance in some cases.

e
Shows good analytical skill and ability to draw valid/sensible conclusions from data.

f
Demonstrates novel insights into or interpretations of data, suitable for publication.

5. Scientific Planning

a
Unable to suggest any plausible follow-up or control investigations.

b
Only able to suggest next step with extensive prompting.

c
Identifies broad direction of subsequent investigation, but needs assistance with planning.

d
Offers planning of some, but not all, subsequent parts of the investigation.

e
Able to devise most control or follow-up investigations, but needs help with fine detail.

f
Competent to devise all subsequent investigations in detail without supervisor input.

6. Time Management

a
Unable to plan schedule. Constant instruction required for time management.

b
Attempts planning but frequently cannot estimate time required. Little foresight.

c
Difficulty with planning; assistance required with schedule.

d
Can plan and execute a short task to fit in available time.

e
Able to devise and execute short and medium term schedule with little assistance.

f
Devises long-term schedules and dovetails multiple tasks to optimise efficiency.

7. Independence

a
No initiative. Dependent on constant supervision and instruction throughout project.

b
Unable to recognise when guidance is required. Inappropriate initiative.

c
Shows little initiative. Able to work for only short periods without guidance.

d
Gained some independence, but still required help on a regular basis.

e
Developed ability to work largely independently, but sought advice where appropriate.

f
Worked totally independently to produce successful investigations.

8. Records

a
No adequate notes/records of investigations carried out.

b
Sketchy and/or incomplete record of work.

c
Record of date and outline of most investigations available.

d
Adequate notes with most details recorded.

e
Largely comprehensive and intelligible records. investigations could probably be repeated from notes.

f
Comprehensive, concise and fully intelligible record of both methods and outcomes. Work could easily be repeated from notes.

9. Communication

a
Unable or unwilling to give any account of progress even with prompting.

b
Could only convey with difficulty the progress made on the project.

c
Could give an adequate account of progress in response to leading questions from the supervisor.

d
Able to give a fairly complete account of progress in discussion with supervisor.

e
Could give a good account of progress with little or no prompting.

f
Initiates discussion with supervisor and conveys easily a full account of progress.

10. Interaction - optional

a
Inappropriate or inconsiderate attitude to other laboratory workers or support staff.

b
Little or no interaction with other workers.

c
Minimum interaction with others, without seeking advice.

d
Adequate interaction with other staff, without very productive result.

e
Interacts productively with other staff - a good lab member.

f
Productive interaction and discussion with other staff, enhancing progress of project.

11. Reliability and Commitment

a
Uncommitted and unreliable. Demonstrated no interest in or motivation for project work.

b
Little commitment. Less than adequate attendance.

c
Adequate, but not complete attendance. Low commitment.

d
Showed interest in project work with only occasional lapses. Available time adequately utilised.

e
Enthusiastic about project. Reliable, with full attendance.

f
Very highly committed and motivated. Made full and productive use of time.

CONTENTS | NEXT PAGE

a	No appreciation of the background to methodology.
b	Little understanding of the background of methodology; blindly follows instructions.
c	Understands the primary methodology in outline.
d	Understands the principles of most methods used.
e	Understands the detailed rationale of almost all methodology.
f	Exemplary understanding of all aspects of methods used. Can rationally adapt methodology.

a	Failed to master even basic methodology.
b	Difficulty in assimilating relevant methodology; forgetful of details.
c	Learned from mistakes in early attempts to master methodology.
d	Easily acquired and retained methodological skills.
e	Able to reproduce methodology successfully from published sources.
f	Developed own methodology in furtherance of the aims of the project.

a	Data unreliable and always untrustworthy.
b	Little confidence in reliability of data.
c	Trends in data or observation sometimes discernible.
d	Normally reliable data. Only occasional lapses in reproducibility.
e	Data very sound - can be relied on.
f	Results currently being written up for publication.

a	Unable to attempt any explanation for data or to draw conclusions.
b	Uses incorrect methods and/or logic in analysis of data.
c	Attempts analysis of data, but unable to draw many valid conclusions.
d	Often able to draw plausible conclusions; may require assistance in some cases.
e	Shows good analytical skill and ability to draw valid/sensible conclusions from data.
f	Demonstrates novel insights into or interpretations of data, suitable for publication.

a	Unable to suggest any plausible follow-up or control investigations.
b	Only able to suggest next step with extensive prompting.
c	Identifies broad direction of subsequent investigation, but needs assistance with planning.
d	Offers planning of some, but not all, subsequent parts of the investigation.
e	Able to devise most control or follow-up investigations, but needs help with fine detail.
f	Competent to devise all subsequent investigations in detail without supervisor input.

a	Unable to plan schedule. Constant instruction required for time management.
b	Attempts planning but frequently cannot estimate time required. Little foresight.
c	Difficulty with planning; assistance required with schedule.
d	Can plan and execute a short task to fit in available time.
e	Able to devise and execute short and medium term schedule with little assistance.
f	Devises long-term schedules and dovetails multiple tasks to optimise efficiency.

a	No initiative. Dependent on constant supervision and instruction throughout project.
b	Unable to recognise when guidance is required. Inappropriate initiative.
c	Shows little initiative. Able to work for only short periods without guidance.
d	Gained some independence, but still required help on a regular basis.
e	Developed ability to work largely independently, but sought advice where appropriate.
f	Worked totally independently to produce successful investigations.

a	No adequate notes/records of investigations carried out.
b	Sketchy and/or incomplete record of work.
c	Record of date and outline of most investigations available.
d	Adequate notes with most details recorded.
e	Largely comprehensive and intelligible records. investigations could probably be repeated from notes.
f	Comprehensive, concise and fully intelligible record of both methods and outcomes. Work could easily be repeated from notes.

a	Unable or unwilling to give any account of progress even with prompting.
b	Could only convey with difficulty the progress made on the project.
c	Could give an adequate account of progress in response to leading questions from the supervisor.
d	Able to give a fairly complete account of progress in discussion with supervisor.
e	Could give a good account of progress with little or no prompting.
f	Initiates discussion with supervisor and conveys easily a full account of progress.

a	Inappropriate or inconsiderate attitude to other laboratory workers or support staff.
b	Little or no interaction with other workers.
c	Minimum interaction with others, without seeking advice.
d	Adequate interaction with other staff, without very productive result.
e	Interacts productively with other staff - a good lab member.
f	Productive interaction and discussion with other staff, enhancing progress of project.

a	Uncommitted and unreliable. Demonstrated no interest in or motivation for project work.
b	Little commitment. Less than adequate attendance.
c	Adequate, but not complete attendance. Low commitment.
d	Showed interest in project work with only occasional lapses. Available time adequately utilised.
e	Enthusiastic about project. Reliable, with full attendance.
f	Very highly committed and motivated. Made full and productive use of time.