10/2009
GRADING FORM
529212 / 882560 Advanced Laboratory Training in a Research Group
10 ECTS credits
Name of the student: _________________________________________________________________
Title of the project: ___________________________________________________________________
Supervisor(s): _______________________________________________________________________
HEBIOT, MBIOT professor in charge: _____________________________________________________
Description of the study unit:
Time: Recommended to be completed during the first or second year, but before the Master’s thesis.
Completion according to an advance agreement with the person responsible for this study unit
Preceding studies: Bachelor's degree or equivalent in biotechnology or in a related field
Objective: To engage students in scientific thinking through small-scale projects and to develop their
ability for independent work and the reporting of results. This course can be completed in two separate
sections and preferably in two different research groups.
Contents: Laboratory training in a research group or equivalent group operating in a company or
research institute. The training is to be agreed upon in advance with the person responsible for this study
unit.
Study material and literature: Scientific literature related to the training
Completion: The person responsible for this study unit and the director of the relevant research group will
approve in advance the student’s research proposal (1-2 pages), which must indicate the scientific
problems, methodology to be applied and include supervision arrangements related to the training. An
approved laboratory note book and a written report in article form (see the instructions below) are also
required, as is succesful completion of an oral or written examination. Duration: 7 weeks of full-time work
Evaluation: The evaluation will be agreed upon with the person responsible for this study unit before the
beginning of the placement period. The evaluation includes A) the research proposal, the laboratory work
in practice, the laboratory note book, B) a written report, and C) a written or oral exam. The tables below
give the exact criteria for the evaluation. Grading scale: 0-5
Responsible person: Professors in charge of HEBIOT, MBIOT (Faculty of Biosciences: Prof. Dennis
Bamford, Prof. Kari Keinänen, Prof. Timo Korhonen or Prof. Tapio Palva; Faculty of Agriculture and
Forestry: Prof. Tapani Alatossava, Prof. Fred Asiegbu, Univ. lecturer Kari Elo/Prof. Jarmo Juga, Prof.
Annele Hatakka or Prof. Teemu Teeri)
Part A. Research proposal, laboratory work in practice, and laboratory note book
EVALUATION
Choosing the sources (literature), familiarity
Analysis of the research
Experimental/theoretical part
Discussion, conclusions
Independency of the student
Presentation: clearness, linguistic form
5
4
3
2
1
0
General conduct in the lab
Part B. Written report
EVALUATION
5
4
3
2
1
0
5
4
3
2
1
0
Choosing the sources, familiarity
Analysis of the research
Experimental/theoretical part
Discussion, conclusions
Independency of the student
Presentation: clearness, linguistic form
Part C. Exam (oral or writen)
EVALUATION
Familiarity with literature
Analysis of the research
Understanding of theory behind methods
Discussion and conclusions from work
Understanding of other appropriate techniques
5 = excellent: understands the objectives, carries out task, analyses results and shows a deep understanding of the
subject, critical reflection of the work is obvious, references are appropriate, plentiful and show that student has read
around the subject, not just relied on the references given by the supervisor. Length is appropriate, presentation is
excellent.
4 = extremely good: virtually everything has been understood correctly, some mistakes. Important information has
all been understood and presented. Some original thought obvious. Has continuously attempted critical reflection in
lab book etc. References are appropriate and extensive but can be some small mistakes.
3 = good: good understanding of main research themes, relevant side issues may not have been touched upon.
Only a small amount of original thought obvious. Only intermittent reflection obvious. References appropriate but
some larger mistakes
2 = satisfactory: satisfactory understanding of main research themes. No reflection or original thought obvious.
Missing relevant information, some major mistakes.
1 = sufficient: carried out the work but with little understanding, needing extensive supervision and guidance, but
reliable, minimal referencing, using sources provided by supervisor
0 = fail Major errors in understanding, in execution of work, unreliable recording of results, inappropriate referencing.
Other comments on evaluation:
Total score (A+B+C / 3): _________
Supervisor(s)/Examiner(s): ____________________________________________________
Instructions to write a written report in article form (HEBIOT/MBIOT 2008 HS)
HOW TO MAKE A LAB REPORT
A report is a presentation of a completed lab exercise composed in an article format. The report
aims to collect, organize, analyze and describe a work in a clear and logic way, promptly enough
to allow repetition of the work on the basis of information provided. The length of the report is
not of a value as such; a good report can be fitted to approx. 4 printed pages (á 2000 characters),
including references. Additionally, the report should preferentially include some figures and
tables summing up the most important findings.
Since one of the aims is to practice scientific presentation, the report will principally be produced
according to similar guidelines for organization and other presentation techniques as is valid for
publications. As a significant difference, a report will include also primary results. A report has
the following sections: BACKGROUND (introduction), MATERIALS AND METHODS,
RESULTS and DISCUSSION. In the end, REFERENCES list the cited literature. It may be a
good idea to start the report with a short SUMMARY, and of course, a report has a TITLE which
can be the original title of the exercise or designed by yourself, and the NAME of the author. The
most crucial points in composing a report are shortly discussed below:
SUMMARY. The essential content, major results and conclusions thereof are described with a
few lines in the beginning.
BACKGROUND (introduction). Describe concisely, with your own words, the most important
background information and the aims of the work. The length of this section is up to you,
however, half a page will most often be enough.
MATERIALS AND METHODS. In this section, the various materials and methods used in the
study are listed in a well organized and concise manner. A chronological order does as a rule not
work well. Try to make subsections such as “genetic methods” (includes e.g. culture conditions,
media, used strains and plasmids, preparation of competent cells, transformation etc.), “DNA
techniques” (DNA isolation methods, determination of concentration, restriction enzyme
digestions and other enzymatic manipulations, electrophoresis, Southern and Northern blots
including probe preparation, detection etc.), “protein techniques” (protein purification, cell
fractionation, electrophoresis, immunological detections etc.) and “enzymatic assays”. The exact
number and type of titles and subtitles is under your consideration. Groupwise presentation helps
the reader to find a specific method quickly. Moreover, you will write things only once,
regardless of how many times a specific method has been used during the course of the work.
Methods section is not a copy of the lab compendium. If a method has been done according to a
given (printed) method, it is enough to cite that method. Yet, exceptions and variations have to be
explained (e.g. …was done according to Method 5, except that …). It is not uncommon that
matters belonging to Results are erroneously presented under Materials and Methods, and a vice
versa. Put some emphasis on considering what kind of matters belong to methods, and what
belong to results.
RESULTS. They should be presented from the very beginning, not just those “important ones”
acquired during the last week. Think one more time what is a result? The results need not be
presented chronologically but, as in Materials and Methods section, it may be more favorable to
show them in another way.
Show figures, tables, formula used in calculations etc. which visualize or clarify the results.
When doing so, however, you need to give them a name and number them consecutively.
Contents (but not interpretation) of any figure must be explained in the figure legend, i.e.
samples, their treatment, standards, any special marks used. Naturally, you must refer to the
figures and tables in the text. Figure that needs not be referred to is unnecessary and should not
be shown. Note that showing a figure or table does not mean that its content needs no explanation
in the text. Therefore, never just tell: “the results can be seen in figure 1”. You have to explain
what is the result you can see in the figure. A more detailed evaluation of the results and their
significance, however, does not belong to this context but instead is normally presented in
Discussion.
DISCUSSION. Here you describe concisely the central aims of the study and your main
observations. Special emphasis should be put to assess the significance of the observations, how
they agree with possible working hypotheses and available background information, how the
results of your various experiments fit to each other, or alternatively any likely explanations to
found discrepancies, effects of experimental conditions and design, possible pitfalls, an
estimation of the general reliability of the results and what they possibly tell about the matter that
has been under investigation. Discussion is the most demanding part of a report, so it will be
worth an effort to spend a while to consider reasons and consequences before putting them onto
paper.
CITATIONS. In text, cite references according to author name, e.g. (Vogel, 1995; Buell et al.
2003; Vogel and Papenfort, 2005, 2006) or Buell and coworkers show that…etc. Do not refer to
numbers in the text.
LITERATURE. List all used literature in alphabetical order. Write the references in the
following form: Author(s), year of publication, title, journal series and volume (or the name of a
book), pages (for a book also publisher and the place of publication).