MBChB Course
Student Selected Components (SSCs)
Guide to Year 3
SSC Organization
The teaching and learning processes utilized in SSCs are extremely heterogeneous, ranging
from "conventional" taught courses involving lectures, tutorials, seminars and practical classes
to fully autonomous learning activities using a very wide variety of resources with little direct
teaching input from the Supervisor. The method of organization of an SSC can be described as
falling within one of three broad categories: project-based, course-based or a combination of
these. Course-based modules are usually highly structured and the student’s activities are all
pre-determined. Project-based modules are more flexible where there might be an area to be
investigated by the student (e.g. library-based project) and staff input might be limited to
regular meetings to discuss progress. Clinical modules often involve combinations of a project
with clinical activities such as interviewing and examining patients, attending theatre,
outpatients or ward rounds.
Attendance
Students are expected to participate in all their SSC blocks. If there is any medical or other
problem that will interfere with attendance, the SSC Supervisor must be informed
immediately, along with the SSC Office. If absent for less than 5 term days, the student should
self-certificate; if more, a relevant medical certificate should be provided . Poor attendance
without good cause will be considered to be unprofessional behaviour and dealt with
accordingly.
Submission of SSCs
Staff or students can propose SSCs. In either instance staff act as Supervisors whose
responsibility is to monitor student progress during the module and ensure that the
assessment process is of an acceptable academic standard and fair.
Menu-based SSCs
SSCs in years 2 and 3 mostly originate from academic and honorary academic staff and are
offered to students in a “menu” form for one of the SSC blocks. Outlines, one for each, are
provided for each block to allow students to make an informed choice. Once students have
made their choices the SSC Supervisor is expected to make contact to inform them of the
date, time and place of the first meeting of the module. If such contact is not made near to the
start date of the module, students should contact the SSC Supervisor. As all SSCs are
assessed and this process is scrutinised by the External Examiners, a particularly important
issue is how the module is assessed. The same rules apply whether staff or students propose
the module.
SSC Allocation
A computerised ranked-choice allocation system is used for allocation of SSC places. From the
list of available SSCs, students are asked to rank their choice of 6 SSCs and submit these on
line. Thereafter, an algorithm within the VALE system randomly selects a student and allocates
him/her to his/her highest choice available and this process is repeated until all students are
allocated to SSCs. The algorithm is run many times over until the best possible ‘fit’ is obtained
in terms of all students getting their highest choice possible within the constraints of the
number of places available. Thus, it is possible for one student to be allocated to a SSC lower
down in his/her ranking than another student who had the same SSC ranked higher.
Student-proposed SSCs
Students are encouraged to propose their own SSCs from the Year 3 SSC onwards. These can
be undertaken in Glasgow or elsewhere. SSCs can be undertaken which run into the elective
period and these can be in an overseas laboratory, hospital or other appropriate location.
Steps:
1. Identify the subject area of interest. Be as specific as possible and consider
possible titles for any report.
2. Identify a Supervisor In the case of SSCs outwith the Glasgow area it is necessary to
identify an academic supervisor in the distant laboratory/hospital and an academic
member of staff in Glasgow (or NHS staff with Honorary status at the University of
Glasgow) who is prepared to discuss the content and assessment of the module as well
as mark the written work. Although some assistance in identifying suitable individuals
may be available from the SSC Coordinator in cases of difficulty, students are normally
expected to undertake this and approach the individuals concerned. For studentproposed SSCs in and around Glasgow it is likely that the Supervisor will be able to
assess the work or suggest someone who can mark the report, but this individual must
be associated with the university (a member of academic staff or honorary staff). For all
such modules, both the distant and the “Glasgow” Supervisor should send a
confirmatory e-mail to the SSC Office in lieu of signatures to indicate their willingness
to act in this capacity and agreement with the Learning Contract.
3.
Prepare the SSC Self-proposal Form
This should be prepared in conjunction with the SSC Supervisor (and Glasgow marker where
relevant) and submitted on line. In case of difficulties, a hard copy can be submitted to the SSC
Office (SSC Forms page). This will be examined and feedback given, where necessary. In some
instances the SSC Supervisor may decide to prepare an outline (view example) in which case the
Learning Contract may not be required. The learning outcomes and the assessment are crucial
parts of the contract, being the only means by which the module can be judged by the External
Examiners.
One student (the Lead Student) usually takes the initiative in approaching staff and developing
the module but often, other students will seek to join the module. Whether these other
students are accepted is entirely up to the Supervisor who will determine student numbers
based on available resources. The crucial elements of the learning contract are the assessment
process (see below) and the learning outcomes. Whether the latter are achieved by the end of
the module can be used to gauge student performance, assuming these have not been set too
high at the outset. The contract can be re-negotiated in such circumstances.
SSCs outwith Glasgow raise particular issues that must be addressed before the start of the
SSC. A minimum of 80% of the assessment should be in a form accessible to Examiners
(Internal and External) in Glasgow. Subjective assessment of student performance by the
Supervisor should not have a weighting of more than 20% of the total.
Students can combine their Junior Elective with their SSC to yield a nine week block provided
they can arrange to do their SSC in the first block in Year 4. The Year 4 Secretary should be
contacted in order to align the SSC block with the beginning of term. Under these conditions
the written work should be more extensive (~4.5k words) and can also be used for the Elective
report.
Insurance
NOTE: Students are responsible for their own travel insurance.
Assessment of SSCs
This is a crucial part of the SSC as it provides the only means whereby the External Examiners
can assess the academic rigour of students’ work. The SSC Supervisor can undertake
assessment of the students’ work as long as he/she did not significantly contribute to its
development. If this is the case, then a colleague who can be nominated as a Deputy should
assess the report etc. Assessment instruments are very variable between SSCs but in all
instances at least 60% must be in a form accessible to the External Examiners e.g. a report,
dissertation or other piece of work (e.g. production of a DVD, development of a web page etc).
An important point to bear in mind is that if one of the major assessment instruments is a
group report or some other form of group activity (e.g. multimedia presentation) then some
means of assessing individual student contribution or performance must be included e.g. a
summary or reflective commentary of about 500 words. In particular, A grades cannot be
awarded on the basis of group assessments alone. The assessment proforma should be
completed for each student in the module although this may not be necessary for coursebased modules, particularly with large student numbers. If fail grades are awarded then the
assessment proforma must be completed, as the External Examiners will inspect these.
Ideally, the main assessment instrument should consist of a properly referenced
report/dissertation/essay (2.5 to 3.5k words) on some aspect of the area of study. This
should be the main outcome measure and have the largest weighting (minimum of 60%).
Scientific rigour is expected and simple case reports (i.e. clerking of patients) are not
acceptable unless accompanied by a reflective commentary of some 500 words, which should
also
include
references.
This
commentary
can
cover
aspects
such
as
pathophysiology/management/epidemiology etc., with the patient’s history and findings being
illustrative. If only this type of case report is to be presented for assessment, a minimum of
three are expected, to give reflective commentaries totalling about 1.5k words. The learning
outcomes of the work (i.e. the educational objectives and the extent to which these have
been achieved) should be clearly stated, preferably up front in a separate section.
Note: If a case report is included, it must be written in such a way that the patient should not
be identifiable. Please do not use initials and date of birth, instead use terms such as Mr X
and the age of the patient.
Format of Written Work
To improve clarity, reports/dissertations/essays must include a cover page with a title of the
work as well as the student’s matriculation number and contain relevant subsections e.g.
introduction and conclusions. If appropriate, written work may be in the form of a scientific
paper and should have the following subsections: Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion,
Conclusions and References.
Code of Assessment
In order to comply with university regulations, it is necessary to assess all work produced by
students using the University of Glasgow code of assessment. This involves using an A to G
grading system which employs descriptors of student performance based on learning outcomes
– in effect the learning objectives of the module. For each relevant assessment instrument, a
grade with secondary band will be awarded. These will be summed subsequently to calculate
the overall grade which will also be sub-banded. Please note that, in keeping with assessments
in other parts of the course, there is no formal mechanism for challenging the grade awarded.
Penalties for Late Submission
Students are expected to complete all written work by the end of the SSC block and submit
this via a website to a secure server. This allows storage and “date stamping” of submitted
work. Failure to do so will incur a penalty of reduction of the grade awarded by two
secondary bands for each working day (or part of a working day) the work was submitted
late. In circumstances where due to a minor problem a student is unable to submit
coursework by this deadline, or who anticipates being unable to so submit, he/she may ask the
SSC Supervisor for a deferral of the deadline, subject to a limit of three days.
Where a student experiences a major problem with submission e.g. due to illness or other
adverse personal circumstances, he/she must make the circumstances known to the SSC
Director or Deputy, and provide appropriate written evidence such as:
Medical documentation e.g. a medical certificate, a medical report or a note from a hospital
or
Other types of documentation e.g. a note from an independent responsible person who can
vouch for the event(s) which led to difficulties; evidence from a member of staff who was
alerted to the circumstances at the time (e.g. Advisor of Studies); a letter from a student
counsellor or other professional that the student actually consulted during the period when the
difficulties were occurring, or a note from the police.
Notification should normally be made before the end of the SSC block but not later than one
week after the date at which submission of the work for assessment was due, otherwise this
shall not be taken into account unless circumstances have prevented the student from
notifying the SSC Director or Deputy within this time. If the documentary evidence presented
is accepted, a new deadline will be set to which the student must adhere, otherwise the late
submission penalty described above will apply.
Appendix I shows a flow diagram of the procedure for applying penalties.
IMPORTANT: The work submitted to the Supervisor/marker for grading will be accepted as
the final version. Any subsequent versions (electronic or hard) will not be accepted.
Although the final grade cannot be confirmed until approved by the External Examiners, SSC
Supervisors can indicate the provisional grade, or at least the Pass/Fail divide. Students who
fail the SSC should be informed by the Supervisor and offered the opportunity of
remediation, unless the reason for failure is non-submission of requested assessments or
non-attendance. In addition, Supervisors are encouraged to offer feedback to students, both
verbal and written (see below).
To comply with Medical School regulations, in order to graduate students must pass ALL SSC
blocks. In addition, the SSC grades will be used, in proportion to their contribution to the
curriculum as a whole, for the award of Honours and Commendation, along with the “core”
assessments from Final and other years of the course. To comply with the Data Protection Act,
students’ written work (electronic or otherwise) will be kept for 6 months after publication of
the SSC grades for that block and thereafter destroyed, these grades becoming immutable
thereafter.
Assessments by SSC Supervisors should be completed on line via the SSC website, but if
internet access is not available then a hard copy of the assessment proforma should be
returned to the SSC Office, Room 332 Wolfson Medical School Building, Glasgow University,
G12 8QQ within 30 days of receipt of the students’ work.
Student Feedback
A document management system is now in place that requires students to submit their written
work to a secure server at the end of the module. SSC Supervisors can access this work via
the website, but students are also asked to submit a hard copy of their written work to their
Supervisor. This now offers the opportunity to provide students with feedback by return of
their annotated written work after assessment. However, if a Fail grade has been
awarded, the original written work should be forwarded to the SSC Office and a
photocopy given to the student. The originals are required for evaluation by the External
Examiners.
Students should also be offered feedback about their performance during the module using the
Comments section. This section must be completed if an A grade or a Fail grade has been
awarded, to assist the External Examiners. A grades and all Fail grades will be made available
for inspection by the External Examiners, along with a selection of Pass grades.
Plagiarism, citation and referencing
An increasingly recognized problem is a tendency amongst students to use someone else’s
work without giving credit to the original author by providing a reference. The following
statement appears in the COPE Report (1999): “Plagiarism ranges from the unreferenced use
of others’ published and unpublished ideas, including research grant applications to submission
under ‘new’ authorship of a complete paper, sometimes in a different language.
It may occur at any stage of planning, research, writing or publication: it applies to print and
electronic versions”. The ease of access to the Internet, and download there from, sometimes
results in large chunks of text being “lifted” and inserted into an essay, report etc without
referencing. This is an unacceptable practice and if detected can result in disciplinary action.
The rules for citation and referencing are quite simple and will avoid plagiarism:
Verbatim duplication of someone else’s work must be enclosed by inverted commas and
referenced. Modification (e.g. re-writing) of someone else’s work while still conveying the
original author’s concepts always requires referencing. This should go all the way back to the
original author and not simply a reference to a review article which itself refers to others’ work.
It goes without saying that the original reference must always be read and critically evaluated
by the student. Caution is required with material derived from the Internet as little of this is
peer-reviewed, unless from recognized scientific journals.
Students should use the Vancouver style where references are numbered in the text (the
number being superscripted or bracketed), with the bibliographic details appearing in
numerical order at the end of the text in a section labelled “References”. Footnotes should
never be used for referencing and are discouraged as they break up the flow of text. Footnotes
are never used in scientific papers to communicate any information of relevance to the main
text, which should be self-contained.
(http://www2.le.ac.uk/library/help/citing/vancouver-numbered-system/vancouver-numbered-system)
Students should include and sign the following statement at the conclusion of their written
work:
Plagiarism Statement
I am signing to undertake that the attached work is all my own, except where proper
attribution has been made to material paraphrased, copied, transcribed or quoted directly
from another source, in accordance with the definitions in Plagiarism Statement (item
XXXIII, page Gen. 48) under "University Fees and General Information for Students" in the
2006-7 Calendar.
Signed___________________________________________________________________
The calendar can be accessed via the following link: http://senate.gla.ac.uk/calendar/
SSC submissions
SSC Secretary
Wolfson Medical School Building
University of Glasgow
Glasgow
G12 8QQ
Tel:
0141 330 8037
Fax:
0141 330 2776
E-mail:
SSM@clinmed.gla.ac.uk
Appendix 1
SSC Submission Procedure (including penalties for late submission)
Friday Week 5 of SSC Block
Deadline for Submission of All Assignments
(submit electronically by 12 midnight)
Submitted by Deadline
-Work Graded
Major Problem with Submission
e.g health problem/major personal issue
Minor Problem with Submission
e.g computer problems
Contact Medical School (in advance)
SSC Director or Deputies
No Submission & No Contact
with SSC Supervisor
Contact SSC Supervisor
(in advance)
No Submission & No Contact
with SSC Supervisor
provide appropriate evidence e.g
medical certificate (see regulations)
New submission date set
Work penalised according to
University Guidelines
2 subgrade points per working
day late
Arrange deferral of
submission date up to a max
of 3 working days
Work penalised according to
University Guidelines
2 subgrade points per working
day late
Submitted by Deadline
-Work Graded
No or Late Submission & No Contact with
SSC Director or Deputies
Work penalised according to University
Guidelines
2 subgrade points per working day late
Submitted by Deadline
-Work Graded
No or Late Submission & No Contact
with SSC Supervisor
Work penalised according to University
Guidelines
2 subgrade points per working day late