This module consists of a supervised research project selected from a portfolio prepared by members of staff from their own research interests. In addition to new research work (either within research laboratories or in silico in the case of computational projects), the work will include a literature survey, preparation of a project dissertation and an oral presentation. The dissertation and presentation will be examined orally. 

Please enter the learning outcomes of the Module here. The learning outcomes set out what a typical student should know, understand or be able to do by the end of the Module of study. Guidance on writing learning outcomes can be found on the Institutional Expectations intranet pages.

• Carry out experiments and/or simulations within a team as directed by an academic supervisor and their senior research team members. 

• Comprehensively explain and critique the chemistry underlying the chosen project to a specialist or lay audience. 

• Work safely, efficiently and independently on research level tasks. 

• Critically evaluate current and recent literature/advanced scholarship in the area and employ this to innovate and devise new experiments and/or simulations as the project evolves. 

• Disseminate results in both report and oral format and defend their work and decision making to peers who have critically evaluated the work. 

Independent investigation, in research laboratories, in silico and in university library resources, supervised by a member of academic staff or their nominee from the relevant research team. 

Cohort level support will be provided in the form of seminars and workshops in essential skills, including Health and Safety (including COSHH), widely used spectroscopic techniques (e.g. NMR spectroscopy), academic writing and presentation. 

Students will be invited to and expected to attend the School’s weekly research seminars. 

Chemistry specific skills 

• Plan, innovate and carry out an original investigation into their allocated area of practical and/or theoretical chemistry. 

• Independently and with self-direction, select primary source literature, place it within the context of the project, with critical assessment of preceding work. 

• Record working notes in a professional and appropriate manner, with reference to risks and hazards where applicable. 

• Plan and compose a detailed report in the standard format required for the research area , allowing a later researcher to repeat the work and understand the context and current level of theory which underpinned this work. 

• Present a precisely timed lecture on their research work and answer critical questions at advanced scholarship level in an oral examination. 

Transferrable skills 

• On completion of the module, the student will be able to professionally present their advanced scholarship to a lay audience in both written and oral form and demonstrate their comprehensive understanding and defend proposals and conclusions when questioned. 

• Students will gain experience in mid- to long term project planning and delivery. 

This module will be assessed on the basis of four criteria: 

1. performance in the laboratory and/or in computational based research 

1. a written research report,  

1. an oral presentation 

1. an oral (viva voce) examination. 

Criterion 1 will be assessed by the research supervisor and will be justified according to the students attendance/effort and ability to innovate/intellectually contribute to the work independently. 

Criteria 2-4 will be assessed by two examiners appointed from the experts within the area existing within the school academic staff. 

Students can demonstrate their ability to carry out experiments and/or simulations through their experimental section and through answering practical-based questions in the viva. 

Comprehension and critical thinking will be assessed in both the viva and the oral presentation. 

The ability to work safely, efficiently and independently will be shown mostly in the intellectual and practical contribution mark from the supervisor but will also can be examined in the viva. 

Ability to effectively disseminate work will be showcased by the student in the oral presentation and report. 

Assessment Criteria 

For guidance, here is a summary of what is expected for the award of marks in each decade. 

80 or more: An outstanding performance: excellent in all respects 

Contains evidence that the work was fully understood and that experimental methods were comprehensively implemented. Initiative is exhibited in the design or application of approaches and/or techniques in the laboratory, and/or data analysis. High quality work in the laboratory. Appropriate analytical methods are used and fully understood, including the concepts underlying statistical interpretation. The report must contain a very well argued, very well focused and penetrating discussion of the results, which are presented effectively in tables, diagrams, etc. Limitations are explicitly taken into account at all stages of the investigation. Insight and originality is present, and the conceptual framework of the study is apparent in the discussion and conclusion. There is evidence of extensive, relevant background reading. A thorough appreciation of the nature and importance of the results are indicated in a very strong conclusion and polished abstract. May approach publishable standard. 

Marks above 85% are exceptional and rarely awarded. 

70 – 79: An excellent performance in most respects 

Shows evidence of a high level of understanding of the conceptual framework with appropriate background reading. High quality work in the laboratory. Uses appropriate methods of analysis, the limitations of which are fully understood. Calculations are accurate and statistical analysis and concepts are fully understood. Discussion of the results is convincingly argued in the context of the problem with evidence of a very good ability to analyse, synthesise and evaluate. Exhibits a comprehensive grasp of the material, considers almost all of the salient points and has a very strong conclusion. Standard of presentation is high.  

The minimum of 72% will be used for projects which are clearly first class. 

60 – 69:  A good to very good performance 

Shows sound knowledge and understanding of the practical and theoretical aspects of the work, which is complete. Good laboratory work. Mostly accurate but may contain occasional errors in calculations or of fact or interpretation. Methods are substantially correct. Weaknesses may be evident in: theoretical understanding, technical understanding, statistical analysis. Contains a serious attempt to link the results to the aims or problem considered with at least some appreciation of the limitations of the results. Most aspects of the interpretation are covered although fewer salient points in greater depth may be acceptable. Full implications of results may not be grasped. Weaknesses may be evident in the ability to analyse, synthesise and evaluate. May be flaws in a generally good presentation. Strengths in content and organisation are characteristic rather than strengths in insight or originality.  

Normally, the modal mark is expected to be in the lower 60s. 

50 – 59: An adequate to competent performance 

Shows a reasonable knowledge and understanding of the aims and experimental work required for the project, most of which is complete. Laboratory work is undistinguished. Methods are substantially correct. Analyses may not have been pursued rigorously and there may be a failure to discuss results in sufficient depth or to relate them back to the aims. Important points of interpretation are missed or misunderstood. There may be occasional serious errors of judgement. Flaws in organisation and presentation are likely. Conclusion and abstract may be weak. 

40 – 49: A weak to deficient performance 

Shows a limited grasp of the project beyond the more obvious experimental requirements, not all of which may have been completed. Laboratory work may be poor. Errors may occur in the application of methods and inaccuracies in the results. Serious omissions or conceptual flaws are present in the interpretation. Discussion of results may be superficial. Conclusion and abstract may be weak and repetitive. The report may be incomplete and/or contain several flaws in presentation. 

The minimum of 42% will be used for a clear pass. 

30 – 39: A poor performance 

Lacks understanding of the project but most of the laboratory work is complete. Extensive errors may have been made in following instructions, both in the laboratory and in writing up the report. Results may be incomplete or interpreted sparsely or spuriously. Discussion of results may be short or absent. There is, however, evidence of some relevant knowledge. Conclusions may be short and insubstantial. Abstract may not give a clear idea of the content of the report. Presentation may be flawed. 

20 – 29: A very poor performance 

Contains serious flaws in several respects, such as: incomplete or, missing sections of work, excessive brevity in describing and interpreting results, fundamental errors and misunderstandings throughout, extremely poor presentation. 

19 or less: An exceptionally poor performance 

Shows few signs of the work having been taken seriously. 

Zero is reserved for non-submission. 

Note that these guidelines apply to both the project report and performance in the lab. 

Any academic or competence standards which may limit the availability of adjustments or alternative assessments for disabled students should be clearly stated in line with guidance provided in the Reasonable Adjustment Policy and Procedure 

THE OPPORTUNITY FOR REASSESSMENT IN THIS MODULE: 

Opportunities for re-assessment is only permitted provided you have not failed more credit than in the resit rule adopted by your programme.  If the amount of credit you have failed is more than permitted by the relevant resit rule, you may be permitted to repeat study if you are within the threshold set for the Repeat rule adopted by your programme.  You will be notified of your eligibility to resit/repeat any modules after the Examining Board in the Summer period. 

Resit assessments will be held in the Resit Examination period, prior to the start of the following academic session or in the following academic session should further practical work be required. 

Reassessment will consist of a second attempt at report, oral presentation and/or oral examination, depending on which parameters were failed in the first attempt.  In extreme cases it may be necessary to repeat the laboratory work in the following academic year. 

Type of assess                         % Contrib   Title                                                            Duration   Approx. date of Assess.

Dissertation                               40                  Written Report                                           N/A            September 

Practical based assessment     20                   Intellectual and practical contribution        n/a            September 

Presentation                              20                  Oral Presentation                                       20 min      October 

Oral/Aural Assessment             20                  Oral Examination                                        40 min      October 

This module consists of one supervised research project spread over two semesters, in any suitable area of chemistry. The work will include new studies, a literature survey, and preparation of a project report which will be examined orally. Topics will normally involve practical laboratory work, but projects with a large theoretical component are also possible, in appropriate areas.