Leeds Curriculum
Final Year Project Case Study
1. School: School of Biomedical Sciences
2. Programme Title: BSc Human Physiology; BSc Medical Sciences; BSc Neuroscience; BSc Pharmacology
3. FYP Module title: BMSC3301 Research Project in Biomedical Sciences
4. Number of credits FYP module: 40
5. Module Leader, name and contact details:
Dr Dave Lewis.
School of Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Biological Sciences
Email: d.i.lewis@leeds.ac.uk Tel: 0113 343 4233
6. Learning Outcomes addressed by the FYP (programme and level):
Programme:
 Provide students with a comprehensive knowledge and understanding of the major areas of
physiology/medical sciences/neuroscience/pharmacology, from molecules & cells to systems in the
first two years, with a more detailed appreciation of some specialist areas at Level 6 through researchled teaching, reflecting the research expertise within the School.
 Provide students with knowledge of current techniques and methodologies appropriate to
physiology/medical sciences/neuroscience/pharmacology, with hands on practical experience of some
of these.
 Require students to undertake a project in their final year. This may take the form of either a
laboratory based research project or a hypothesis-driven non laboratory-based project in a subject
area of relevance to physiology/medical sciences/neuroscience/pharmacology.
 Ensure that, on graduation, students are able to:
 analyse, interpret and evaluate data
 acquire and integrate information, and use information to solve problems
 communicate effectively through a variety of media.
 Equip students with the necessary transferable skills for further academic study in areas related to
physiology/medical sciences/neuroscience/pharmacology or to pursue a career in a variety of
occupations.
Level 6:
 understand and demonstrate coherent and detailed subject knowledge and professional
competencies some of which will be informed by recent research/scholarship in physiology/medical
sciences/neuroscience/pharmacology
 deploy accurately standard techniques of analysis and enquiry within physiology/medical
sciences/neuroscience/pharmacology
 demonstrate a conceptual understanding which enables the development and sustaining of an
argument;
 describe and comment on particular aspects of recent research and/or scholarship;
appreciate the uncertainty, ambiguity and limitations of knowledge in physiology/medical
sciences/neuroscience/pharmacology
 make appropriate use of scholarly reviews and primary sources;
 apply their knowledge and understanding in order to initiate and carry out an extended piece of work
or project.
7. Research Methods Training provision: Students are provided with training in basic laboratory skills,
scientific report writing, and data handling, analysis and interpretation at levels 4 and 5. At Level 6, all
students are enrolled on BMSC3140 Advanced Scientific Skills in semester 1 (projects are undertaken in
semester 2) which provides research methods training including: undertaking critical reviews of the
literature; writing grant proposals; experimental design and planning; research governance, ethics and
1
societal impact. Prior to starting their projects, students are provided with project-specific training in Health
and Safety. Students undertaking survey, educational development or science and society projects are
provided with training in survey design and the qualitative and quantitative analysis of data. Students
undertaking science and society projects are provided with training in working and communicating with
young people.
8. FYP Allocation mechanism: Students are provided with a list of projects (with project descriptors) in March
of the year preceding their final year and invited to choose, in rank order, 10 projects they would like to be
considered for. Projects are then allocated based on student choice and ranking within the year group, with
projects staring in the January of their Final Year and lasting for 8 weeks.
9. FYP Supervision model: Supervisors are required to commit one hour per week to meeting with project
students during the 8 week duration of the project. Typically, individual supervisors will be supervising 6-8
students. For group projects, at the initial stages of the project, these may be group meetings. Day-to-day
supervision for those students undertaking laboratory projects may be delegated to technical or research
staff. Supervisors are also required to provide general feedback on draft dissertations and grant proposals
(using specific feedback proformas) within a two week time window and to listen to/provide feedback on a
rehearsal of the student’s oral presentation. They are also required to be available to assess at least one 3
hour oral presentation session.
10. FYP output: Students have the opportunity to undertake one of the following nine types of research project
(with a further two under development). Each project is of 8 weeks duration, with students expected to
commit 3.5 days per week to their project:
i.
Individual laboratory projects
Students undertake an individual programme of research in the laboratory of their project supervisor,
often contributing to ongoing research within that laboratory.
ii.
Group laboratory projects
Students work collaboratively, in a team of 3-4, to undertake a programme of research, based either in
their supervisor’s laboratory or in the teaching laboratories. The format of the project varies between
groups; they could all be undertaking similar studies or addressing different elements of a research
question (e.g. using different techniques or pharmacological agents). The design of the studies and
ongoing development of the project is decided collectively by the group. At the end of the programme
of research, all data is shared, but each member of the group writes their dissertation and delivers their
oral communication independently.
iii. Computer simulation projects
Students investigate the function of biological systems using established computer models (e.g. human
cardiac myocytes). Students are trained in the use of these models (e.g. to obtain and plot ionic
currents, action potentials, action potential durations etc). They then challenge these models.
iv.
Bioinformatics (plus) projects
Students undertake data-mining exercises of publically available databases (e.g. to identify candidate
gene sequences); the area of interest decided in consultation with their supervisor. The information
gained will then be utilised in subsequent laboratory studies undertaken by the student (e.g.
transfection of DNA into cells; human physiological studies).
v.
Critical review projects (with linked grant proposal)
Students undertake a hypothesis driven critical review of the literature in a specific area/topic within
the biosciences. They agree a research area/topic with their supervisor, construct a hypothesis and
then search, evaluate and critically review the literature in this area to provide key arguments and
evidence, both in support of and against their hypothesis. They then write a dissertation and a 5 page,
self-contained, fully-costed grant proposal for a 1 year pilot study which, if undertaken, would advance
scientific knowledge in one area of the research they reviewed.
vi.
Therapeutic audits
2
Students undertake a meta-analysis of published clinical trials in an area of their choosing (e.g.
effectiveness of drug therapies versus exercise therapies versus bariatric surgery in the treatment of
obesity). Statistical analysis is undertaken using open access software available on the Cochrane
Collection website. They then use publically available databases to expand their study and put the
results into a wider context (e.g. post-code lottery prescribing, cost-effectiveness of treatments,
prescribing patterns in different countries).
vii. Survey projects
Students undertake a public health survey under the general theme of “Healthy Lifestyles”. In
consultation with their supervisor, they decide their research question and client population (e.g.
Evaluation of Fit-Fans, a lifestyle/health promotion programme for male rugby league supporters).
They then design a questionnaire, evaluate its effectiveness through focus groups before using it to
survey their client population(s) by conducting semi-structured face-to-face interviews. Students are
required to compare a minimum of at least two populations or client sub-groups. On completion of the
survey, they may put their results into a wider context by undertaking an extended, face-to-face
interview with a key stakeholder (e.g. Head of the PCT for the above FitFans intervention) or look at
environmental factors (e.g. concentration of fast-food outlets in the locality).
viii. Science and Society projects
Students create, deliver (up to 13 times) and evaluate an interactive, curriculum enhancing teaching in
local primary (students aged 7-11) or secondary (students aged 13-18) schools. Students design a
teaching session on their allocated topic. It must be interactive (i.e. not a didactic lecture) and
curriculum enhancing (i.e. be part of the national curriculum), but something the teachers themselves
can’t deliver (e.g. though lack of equipment, recent advances in science etc). The session must be
modifiable for different year groups or session lengths. It must also incorporate a means of evaluating
student knowledge acquisition, and feedback from both students and staff.
ix.
Educational development projects
Students create and evaluate learning resources for use in undergraduate teaching. Working either
individually or in small teams, students develop learning resources or new teaching methods (e.g. social
media) to support ongoing teaching. The resources developed address needs identified by their
supervisor (e.g. challenging topics). Students decide the most appropriate format (e.g. online data
analysis tutorial, multimedia presentations, wiki). The resources are then implemented into the
curriculum and the students evaluate their suitability and effectiveness using surveys, focus groups and
interviews.
x.
Digital resources projects (to be introduced in 2014-15)
This is an extension/modification of educational development projects
Students will create an interactive digital learning resource for use in undergraduate teaching using the
open source, e-learning software Xerte. The topic of the resource and the interactive content (e.g.
videos, web-links, quizzes etc.) to be decided in consultation with their supervisor. Given the time
constraints of the project, it is unlikely that students will be able to implement the resource they have
created into the curriculum and therefore evaluation of its quality and effectiveness will be provided by
focus groups.
xi.
Commercial projects (under development)
Students will write a technical, market research or business report for an identified business client (e.g.
market research on their/their competitor’s products; evaluation of the impact of new legislation).
The assessment for these projects is under discussion
11. FYP assessment process: The assessments for all current project types are similar. Students are required to
write a 30 page dissertation (25 pages for critical review projects) and deliver an oral presentation. Students
undertaking critical review projects also have to submit a 5 page grant proposal linked to their review. There
is also a supervisor allocated “productivity” mark. The final module marks is derived as follows:
3
All projects except critical review projects: Dissertation 70%, oral communication 10%, productivity 20%
Critical review projects: Dissertation 60%, grant proposal 20%, oral communication 10%, productivity 10%
To ensure that all project types are academically equivalent and assessed to the same standards, there are
detailed qualitative assessment criteria for all assignments, with the same criteria used for all project
dissertations except critical review projects. All dissertations and grant proposals are independently double
marked. If the first (supervisor) and second marks differ by 10 or more marks, the two markers discuss the
marks they have allocated and come to an agreed mark. If they cannot come to an agreed mark, the
assignment is third marked, with the final mark being the average of the two nearest out of the three marks.
Most supervisors offer more than one type of project and are therefore used to supervising/assessing
multiple different types of project. Furthermore, all “alternative” (non-laboratory or critical review) projects
are second marked by colleagues who supervise laboratory and critical review projects.
Oral presentations are independently assessed by two members of academic staff (who are not the
supervisor) and by a minimum of 16 students using defined qualitative assessment criteria. The two
academic staff marks each contribute 25% to the overall mark awarded, with the average student (peer)
mark contributing 50%.
To further ensure comparability in academic standards, both between different project types and with other
final year taught modules, a selection of calibration (top, middle and bottom of the mark range)
dissertations and grant proposals are made available to the four External Examiners prior to the examination
board. This selection includes examples of dissertations from all of the different project types.
4