Exercise and The Brain Lab Report
\nCOURSEWORK ASSESSMENT SPECIFICATION<\/p>\n
Details of Module and Team
\nWhat Learning Outcomes are assessed?
\nWhat are my Deadlines and how much does this assessment contribute to my Module Grade?<\/p>\n
What am I required to do in the assessment?
\nWhat are my assessment criteria? (What do I have to achieve for each grade?)
\nCan I get formative feedback before submitting ? If so, how?
\nWhat extra support could I look for myself?<\/p>\n
How and when do I submit this assessment?
\nHow and when will I get summative feedback?
\nWhat skills might this work evidence to employers?<\/p>\n
MODULE CODE\t\t\tSPOR30232
\nMODULE TITLE\tSport, Exercise, and the Brain
\nMODULE LEADER\tDr Ruth Boat
\nTUTOR(S)\tDr Simon Cooper
\nCOURSEWORK TITLE\tLab Report
\nLEARNING OUTCOMES
\nASSESSED\tK1 \u2013 Develop an understanding of current topics within sport, exercise, and the brain.
\nK2 \u2013 Demonstrate ability to synthesise and critically evaluate relevant research across selected areas in sport, exercise, and the brain.
\nS1 \u2013 Demonstrate proficiency in the collection and interpretation of psychophysiological data.
\nCONTRIBUTION TO ELEMENT\t40%
\nDATE SET\tMonday 26th September 2022 (Week 9)
\nDATE OF SUBMISSION\tBefore 2.30pm on Friday 13th January 2023 (Week 24)
\nMETHOD OF SUBMISSION\tDropbox
\nDATE OF FEEDBACK\tFriday 3rd February 2023 (Week 27)
\nMETHOD OF FEEDBACK\tDropbox
\nWork handed in up to five working days late will be given a maximum Grade of Low Third whilst work that arrives more than five working days will be given a mark of zero.
\nWork will only be accepted beyond the five working day deadline if satisfactory evidence, for example, an NEC is provided. Any issues requiring NEC https:\/\/ntu.ac.uk\/current_students\/resources\/student_handbook\/appeals\/index.html
\nThe University views plagiarism and collusion as serious academic irregularities and there are a number of different penalties which may be applied to such offences. The Student Handbook has a section on Academic Irregularities, which outlines the penalties and states that plagiarism includes:<\/p>\n
‘The incorporation of material (including text, graph, diagrams, videos etc.) derived from the work (published or unpublished) of another, by unacknowledged quotation, paraphrased imitation or other device in any work submitted for progression towards or for the completion of an award, which in any way suggests that it is the student’s own original work. Such work may include printed material in textbooks, journals and material accessible electronically for example from web pages.’<\/p>\n
Whereas collusion includes:<\/p>\n
\u201cUnauthorised and unacknowledged copying or use of material prepared by another person for use in submitted work. This may be with or without their consent or agreement to the copying or use of their work.\u201d
\nIf copied with the agreement of the other candidate both parties are considered guilty of Academic Irregularity.<\/p>\n
Penalties for Academic irregularities range from capped marks and zero marks to dismissal from the course and termination of studies.<\/p>\n
To help you avoid plagiarism and collusion, you are permitted to submit your work once to a separate drop box entitled \u201cDraft report\u201d to view both the matching score and look at what areas are affected. It is then down to you to make any changes needed.<\/p>\n
Turnitin cannot say if something has been plagiarised or not. Instead it highlights matches between your text and other Turnitin content. There is no Good or Bad score , it depends on the piece of work
\nIf you find your text matching there may be a problem, see the examples below.<\/p>\n
1)\tThe reference section is highlighted. This may mean you have referenced correctly and this has been matched with other well referenced documents online.<\/p>\n
2)\tA table containing class data is highlighted. This is acceptable as long as any text accompanying the table is not similar picked up as identical<\/p>\n
3)\tParagraphs of text in the introduction or conclusion sections are highlighted. This may mean they have been copied exactly from another source. Even if this source is referenced this is bad practice, see advice below<\/p>\n
4)\tA sentence, or part of a sentence is highlighted. Sometimes there are few ways to write a sentence, especially straightforward ones. As long as this does not occur throughout a paragraph this may be acceptable. There will be occasions where a few words within a sentence produce a match. This is acceptable but ensure that this not a common occurrence or a patchwork of copied statements from different sources.<\/p>\n
Overall when you look at the work, put yourself in the place of the marker. Is a lot of the work highlighted so it does not really look like the author\u2019s work? If so, then you need to work on it some more<\/p>\n
For help, do not contact the setter of the work, but use these links (Plagiarism Support and Turnitin support) to book time with staff and students to help with<\/p>\n
I. Assessment Requirements<\/p>\n
General instructions
\nThe report should be double spaced throughout (except for table and figure legends, which can be single-spaced). Use Verdana font size 10. Use page margins of 3 cm at the sides, and 2.5 cm at the top and bottom of the page. Structure the report into the following sections:
\n\u2022\tIntroduction
\n\u2022\tMethods
\n\u2022\tResults
\n\u2022\tDiscussion
\n\u2022\tReferences<\/p>\n
Any text that exceeds the page limits will NOT BE MARKED.<\/p>\n
Introduction (2 side A4 maximum)
\nProvide a brief overview of the research area. When describing primary literature give precise, detailed, and specific information about aims, methodologies, and findings. Give a clear statement of the experimental aims and research hypotheses for your experiment.<\/p>\n
Methods (2 sides of A4 maximum)
\nProvide an accurate, concise description of:
\n\u2022\tParticipants
\n\u2022\tEquipment and experimental protocols
\n\u2022\tStatistical analyses
\nYour description of methods should be as brief as possible yet contain sufficient detail to allow someone to replicate your study. When describing participants give mean \uf0b1 SD for age, mass, and height. Remember \u2013 participants volunteered (they were not selected at random or made to take part). Full details (including manufacturer and model) of all equipment should be provided where appropriate. Do not write in lists or bullet points \u2013 explain what the equipment was used for using complete sentences. Describe the exercise protocols including what measurements were taken and when they were taken. Structure your writing throughout.<\/p>\n
Results (2 side of A4 maximum, including 1 table and 1 graph)
\nAlways present group mean \uf0b1 SD data. Remember to provide figure legends and numbering and show these in the correct place. Symbols and units should be presented consistently and accurately.
\nYou must perform, describe and interpret appropriate statistical analyses to determine if there are any significant differences in your data. Report the outcome of these analyses as described in the supporting seminar sessions.
\nProvide some text to describe the most important findings and integrate your figures and tables within the text where they are described.<\/p>\n
Discussion (2 sides of A4 maximum)
\nBegin your discussion by restating your aim and main hypotheses. What were the main findings of the experiment? Do your results agree with previous research? Compare and contrast your methods and results with previous research. When comparing your work to the literature be specific and detailed. For example, include detailed descriptions of methodologies (e.g. what type of participants were studied and what exercise modalities were used). When making comparisons be as specific as possible \u2013 make reference to actual values reported in the literature. Sentences such as \u201csupplementation caused a reduction in exercise performance\u201d might be better written as \u201ccreatine supplementation resulted in a 15% decrease (10.2 \u00b1 3.1 min vs. 8.1 \u00b1 2.2 min) in subsequent constant power cycling exercise capacity at 85% maximal oxygen uptake\u201d (author et al., year). Ensure all your arguments and explanations are based on sound scientific evidence (i.e. supporting literature). Provide suggestions regarding potential limitations of the study and for improvement of experimental design. If you are critiquing methodologies it would be useful to consult research methods textbooks. For example, a common error made by students on research modules is to suggest that a sample size of 10 participants is a limitation. However, a sample size of 10 may be appropriate given the nature of that specific research study. End your discussion with some suggestions for future research and provide a clear and concise conclusion.<\/p>\n
References
\nIf you cite internet sources you will receive zero marks for that piece of information. Cite your references using the APA system.<\/p>\n
Assessment<\/p>\n
IMPORTANT: YOU WILL BE CONDUCTING THE SAME RESEARCH PROJECT AND COLLECTING AND ANALYSING THE SAME DATA SET AS PEERS ON YOUR COURSE DURING TERM 1. PLEASE SHARE IDEAS AND SKILLS ACROSS TERM 1 BUT BE SURE TO PRODUCE YOUR OWN LAB REPORT. YOU MUST PRODUCE YOUR OWN WORK (I.E., INTRODUCTION, METHOD, RESULTS (GRAPH, TABLE, AND TEXT), DISCUSSION, AND REFERENCE LIST). COLLUSION AND PLAGIARISM WILL NOT BE TOLERATED.<\/p>\n
Your work will be assessed in its entirety in the context of the module learning outcomes (see page 2) and grade-based expectations (see page 7-8). Thus, your coursework will be awarded a single grade. The grade-based assessment grid outlines the expectations of what you will need to produce to achieve each grade. For this piece of work greater emphasis will be placed on certain assessment areas compared to others. Thus the pie chart below demonstrates the emphasis\/priority of the assessment areas for this particular piece of work.<\/p>\n
Figure 1. Emphasis of focus areas within the assessment
\nII. Assessment Criteria<\/p>\n
Sport, Exercise, and the Brain (SPOR30232) Marking Descriptors
\nAssessment: Formal Report
\nMarking descriptors
\nGrade\tScale\tIntroduction\tMethods\tResults Analysis & Presentation\tDiscussion\tCiting & Referencing<\/p>\n
FIRST
\n(Excellent)\tExceptional 1st
\nExceptional demonstration of academic writing style characterised by precise, concise and explicit use of language. Work provides an exceptional overview of the study area: relevant primary literature is described entirely appropriately. Synthesis of multiple information sources may be in evidence. Work is of an exceptional standard and draws on material beyond the prescribed range. There may be evidence of critical evaluation of primary literature. Clear, relevant, and contextualised aims and hypotheses.\tMethod is concise and accurate and refers to the relevant information. Accurate and detailed description of participants, equipment, and protocol, with no omissions. Data analyses procedures are appropriate and described accurately. Method is structured logically and is wholly coherent. \tExceptional data analysis handing. Accurate calculations. Excellent and appropriate presentation of data (e.g., tables and figures with comprehensive titles and legends) and results of statistical analyses. Results are described concisely and appropriately and reflect the data presented. \tLogical and detailed interpretation of the data supported by analysis of associated literature which typically extends beyond the prescribed range. Work is of an excellent standard with strong scientific writing evident. Insightful suggestions regarding potential limitations of the study and for improvement of experimental design.\tCitations and references are accurate throughout and consistently presented in the APA style.
\nHigh 1st<\/p>\n
Mid 1st<\/p>\n
Low 1st<\/p>\n
UPPER SECOND
\n(Very good)\tHigh 2.1<\/p>\n
Very good writing style characterised by appropriate use of tense phrasing and language. Writing is mostly concise and meaning is clear. Work provides a very good overview of the study area: the prescribed primary literature is described entirely appropriately. Clear and relevant aims and hypotheses\/ \tMethod is concise and accurate and refers to the relevant information. Accurate and detailed description of participants, equipment, and protocol, but with a few omissions. Data analyses procedures are appropriate but description may lack clarity. Method is structured logically and is mostly coherent.\tVery good data analysis handling. Accurate calculations. Appropriate presentation of data (e.g., tables and figures with sound titles and legends) and results of statistical analyses. Results are described appropriately and reflect the data presented. Some omissions evident. \tLogical interpretation of the data supported by comparison to prescribed literature. The work typically relates facts\/concepts together applying known\/taught concepts. Work is of a good standard with strong scientific writing evident. Appropriate suggestions regarding potential limitations of the study and for improvement of experimental design.\tCitations and references are presented in the APA style but with a few inaccuracies\/omissions.<\/p>\n
Mid 2.1<\/p>\n
Low 2.1<\/p>\n
LOWER SECOND
\n(Good)\tHigh 2.2<\/p>\n
Writing style is generally sound but may be characterised by lack of clarity and\/or precision. Work is mostly sound but lacks depth and may include irrelevant detail. Description of the prescribed primary literature contains inaccuracies and omissions. Statement of aims and hypotheses may be unclear and\/or contain inaccuracies. \tMethod is mostly sound but lacks depth and includes some irrelevant information. Good description of participants, equipment, and protocol but contains inaccuracies and omissions. Data analyses procedures are appropriate but description is superficial and lacks clarity. Some problems with structure and coherence.\tGood data analysis handing. Calculations include some errors. Presentation of data is good but unbalanced (e.g., poor use of titles and legends). Results are described but with some inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and in limited context. Inaccuracies and omissions evident. \tInterpretation of the data is mostly sound but low in evaluation\/analysis and synthesis. Comparisons with prescribed literature are rather shallow and\/or unbalanced in parts with some inaccuracies\/irrelevant content. Suggestions regarding potential limitations of the study and for improvement of experimental design may be flawed and\/or superficial.<\/p>\n
Citations and references are not always presented using the APA style. Some inaccuracies\/omissions are evident.
\nMid 2.2<\/p>\n
Low 2.2<\/p>\n
THIRD
\n(Sufficient)\tHigh 3rd<\/p>\n
Writing style is of limited quality and is characterised by lack of clarity and\/or precision. Work is limited in depth and detail, sufficient to only deal with terminology and basic facts. Limited evidence of reading, comprehension, and interpretation. Description of the prescribed primary literature is confused and lacks clarity. Statement of aims and hypotheses are inaccurate and may be largely flawed. \tMethod is limited in depth and detail.
\nDescription of participants, equipment, and protocol contains many inaccuracies and omissions. Data analyses procedures are mostly inappropriate or incomplete. The method lacks structure and coherence. \tSufficient data analysis handling. Calculations may be incomplete or inaccurate. Presentation of data is limited but sufficient (e.g., poor use of figures\/tables with irrelevant titles and legends). Minimal description of results with several inconsistencies and no contextualisation. Work is of a sufficient standard but contains several inaccuracies and omissions. \tInterpretation of the data fails to relate to relevant information and make meaningful connections. Comparisons with prescribed literature are minimal. Suggestions regarding potential limitations of the study and for improvement of experimental design are of little merit.\tCitations and references are not presented in the APA style. Many inaccuracies\/omissions are evident.
\nMid 3rd<\/p>\n
Low 3rd<\/p>\n
FAIL
\n(Insufficient)\tMarginal fail
\nWriting style is inadequate and is characterised by poor structure and grammar. Introduction is poor and irrelevant. Material is superficial, with several omissions and no attempt has been made to refer to taught concepts. Description of prescribed primary literature is inadequate. Insufficient knowledge and understanding of the area of study. \tMethod description is poor, contains minimal detail and is mostly irrelevant. Inaccurate and inappropriate description of participants, equipment, and protocol. Data analyses procedures are completely inappropriate or not described.\tData analyses handling is missing or totally inadequate. Presentation of data is absent or minimal. Work is poor and inadequate. \tVery limited or no interpretation of the data. Little, if any, comparison with prescribed literature. Suggestions regarding potential limitations of the study and for improvement of experimental design are inadequate.\tCitations and references are not presented in the APA style or are missing. Inaccuracies\/omissions are evident throughout the work.
\nMid fail<\/p>\n
Low fail<\/p>\n
III. Feedback Opportunities<\/p>\n
Formative (Whilst you\u2019re working on the coursework)
\nThere will be opportunities to discuss your work during taught sessions and tutorials. In addition, you will be given the opportunity to attend drop in sessions to discuss the assessment outside of class time.<\/p>\n
Summative (After you\u2019ve submitted the coursework)
\nFeedback will be supplied within 3 weeks and will be sent to you via email. It will contain feedback and feedforward comments, and the grade clearly shown.<\/p>\n
IV. Resources that may be useful<\/p>\n
Referencing styles please use APA as detailed here.
\nThere are lots of resources on the NTU Student Help NOW page and the Skills for Success page.
\nThe Library offer regular study skills workshops and one-to-one appointments.
\nWriting and Maths support can be found here<\/p>\n
Remember to use Outlook or physical calendars to block out time between lectures and labs to work on this coursework.<\/p>\n
V. Moderation<\/p>\n
The Moderation Process
\nAll assessments are subject to a two-stage moderation process. Firstly, any details related to the assessment (e.g., clarity of information and the assessment criteria) are considered by an independent person (usually a member of the module team). Secondly, the grades awarded are considered by the module team to check for consistency and fairness across the cohort for the piece of work submitted.<\/p>\n
VI. Aspects for Professional Development<\/p>\n
Through the combination of academic content, practical activities, and statistical analysis sessions, this assessment will help to develop your writing skills and statistical analysis skills.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Exercise and The Brain Lab Report COURSEWORK ASSESSMENT SPECIFICATION Details of Module and Team What Learning Outcomes are assessed? What are my Deadlines and how much does this assessment contribute\u2026<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7410],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-51639","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-write-my-dissertation-paper"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.essaybishops.com\/essays\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/51639","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.essaybishops.com\/essays\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.essaybishops.com\/essays\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.essaybishops.com\/essays\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.essaybishops.com\/essays\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=51639"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.essaybishops.com\/essays\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/51639\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":51644,"href":"https:\/\/www.essaybishops.com\/essays\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/51639\/revisions\/51644"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.essaybishops.com\/essays\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=51639"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.essaybishops.com\/essays\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=51639"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.essaybishops.com\/essays\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=51639"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}