ILP Assessment Overview

[MFAC4501] Independent Learning Project 1- Literature Review and Progress Report

At the end of the first 8 week period students will submit a literature review (maximum 3000 words, excluding references, figure legends and tables) that presents a scholarly account of the literature relevant to their area of study. The review will be assessed as satisfactory or unsatisfactory by the supervisor, a copy of the review must be submitted to the portfolio system and will be viewed by the ILP committee. The project supervisor must warrant that the student is making satisfactory progress in all aspects of their project. For more details, please click here

[MFAC4502] Independent Learning Project 2 – Supervisor’s Report

At the end of the second period supervisors will receive an email from ILP administrator and be asked to submit a progress report on the student. The student’s performance will be graded as satisfactory or unsatisfactory. For more details, please click here

[MFAC4503] Independent Learning Project 3- Final Report

At the end of the 32 week ILP period students will submit a written report of the studies undertaken during their ILP.

The report will be in the form of a research paper (maximum 5000 words, excluding abstract, references, figure legends and tables). The format of the report will include an abstract (250 words) and match the format of papers in their area of research.

The student’s overall mark for the ILP will be based on two evaluations. One will be a mark (out of 100) awarded by the supervisor based on the student’s overall performance during the year. The other will be a mark (out of 100) awarded by the external examiner for the final ILP report. The final mark awarded to the student will be calculated with the supervisor’s mark contributing 40% and the external examiner’s mark contributing 60%. A student will have to gain a combined score of at least 50% in order to successfully complete the ILP.
Final reports not submitted on time will attract a late-penalty of 2% per day for reports up to 25 days late.

Reports submitted more than 25 days late will automatically be graded as a fail. Following grading of the submitted report, the ILP committee will take into account any applications for special consideration and has the authority to waive or reduce any late penalty.

a) Supervisor’s Report
Approximately 1 week after receiving the student's final report, supervisors are expected to submit a report commenting on the student’s overall performance, and award a mark out of 100 using the grading criteria (provided in the journal that students received at the start of ILP) .
b) Examiner’s Report
Approximately 2 weeks after receiving the student's final report, the examiner will grade the final report, awarding the report a mark out of 100 based on the approved grading criteria (provided in the journal that students received at the start of ILP).

More information can be found here

[MFAC4501] Independent Learning Project 1 - Literature review and Progress Report
The production of the literature review is expected to reflect the culmination of a collaborative process, of review and editing, in which both the student and the supervisor are satisfied that the end product is a scholarly account that accurately reflects the current standing of knowledge in the area of research. At the time of submitting the literature review (see below) the supervisor will be required to warrant, not only that the literature review been completed to their satisfaction, but that the student has made timely and appropriate progress in all aspects of their ILP project. Both requirements must be met before a satisfactory grade is recorded on the student’s academic record.

In order to achieve a satisfactory grade in the literature review, the student must demonstrate an active and timely engagement in the preparation, editing and review of the literature review. [Students should note that the preparation of a literature review often involves several revisions of their original draft. Therefore, it is important that writing of the review is commenced in a timely manner and feedback from peers is sought – during the ILP this is most likely to be your supervisor and/or co-supervisor].
Late submissions will be referred to the ILP committee for further consideration. The literature review should display the following attributes:

Appropriate background information provided
Covers the main issues in sufficient detail
Identifies the areas of controversy and assesses them critically.
Has clear and logical flow.
Citation style appropriate and consistent.
Citation list free of careless errors.

In the determination of a satisfactory grade the supervisor must be convinced that the student has made a concerted effort to achieve the following ILP goals:

An ability and inclination to question the basis of current scientific thinking in relation to medical and public health practice.
To retrieve literature on a topic and demonstrate a familiarity with the use of medical databases.
To evaluate current knowledge in a field and to provide a critical appraisal of that body of knowledge.
To identify a problem in their chosen field and to understand and participate in the process of designing a scientific investigation of the problem.

Supervisor’s Report (ILP-1)
In addition to the preparation of a Literature Review, students are expected to actively participate in the collegial activities of the Research Group/Department/School and make appropriate and timely progress in all aspects of their ILP. Participation in collegial activities and progress in the project shall be reviewed at regular, preferably weekly, meetings between the supervisor and student. At these meetings the supervisor should review and sign the ILP Journal – this journal may be requested by the ILP committee when determining the final grade.
When awarding a satisfactory grade the supervisors must be convinced that the student has made a concerted effort to engage in the range of collegial activities and further the progress of their project. The online reporting system will allow for separate grading (Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory) of the Literature Review and the student’s progress. Space will be provided for the supervisor to add comments, or flag concerns relating to the student’s progress; these comments will be released to students. Both students and supervisors are encouraged to discuss all concerns as they arise. Where concerns arise that cannot be resolved between the student and supervisor, or where either party wishes additional advice, both parties are encouraged to contact the ILP coordinator as-soon-as-possible.
In all cases the initial approach is confidential and need go no further. However, where the ILP coordinator feels further action is warranted the ILP coordinator may approach the supervisor, student or seek guidance from the ILP committee and/or UNSW bodies. All concerns will be dealt with in accordance with the UNSW policy on grievance resolution procedure for undergraduate and postgraduate (coursework) students.

[MFAC4502] Independent Learning Project 2 – Supervisor’s Report
Towards the end of the second ILP-enrolment [MFAC4502] ILP supervisors are required to warrant that the student has made appropriate and timely progress in all aspects of their ILP. This assessment should be undertaken with reference to the original project description, the time-line described in the ILP-work contract, the activities described in the student’s ILP journal and with appropriate consideration to the diligence and effort with which the student attempted to resolve problems as they arise. Matters beyond the student’s
immediate control (e.g., unexpected delays in the supply essential equipment or reagents) should not contribute to the student’s assessment.

[MFAC4503] Independent Learning Project 3 - Final report
a) Supervisor’s Final Report
Grading Criteria for the Final Supervisor’s Report
Supervisors should award marks within the following bands, when a student’s performance is best characterised by the following descriptors.
Fail (< 50%):
The student has:

not reviewed the literature with any degree of competence, retelling other sources with inadequate analysis or development of an argument,
not engaged with the project or applied themselves for the required time period of the ILP (i.e. equivalent of 24 weeks full-time research),
not met deadlines in a timely manner,
performed or analysed the research poorly,
shown little or no understanding of the project and is unable to effectively communicate the results, or answer questions concerning the research.

Pass (50-65%):
The student has:

demonstrated a relatively superficial or limited understanding of the core aspects of the topic,
reviewed the literature competently,
usually met deadlines,
engaged with the project in an adequate but superficial manner,
displayed some ability to communicate aspects of the study,
one or two aspects may not be well done but the overall result is still satisfactory.

Credit (65-74%):
In addition to meeting the criteria for a pass grade, the student has:

applied themselves diligently to the project and was successful in completing the tasks set,
shown evidence of critical analysis,
met all deadlines in a timely manner,
communicated clearly and effectively.

Distinction (75- 84%):
The student has performed well in all areas of the project. This level of performance involves all of the characteristics of a credit performance but also:

a degree of originality, creativity, or depth of thought and understanding,
the student demonstrates abstract thinking, or the ability to take an idea or an application into a new context, understand the demands of that context and make modifications,
demonstrates a superior understanding of the relevant literature with a clear synthesis of ideas,
can answer questions regarding the project intelligently and with insight.

High Distinction (85-100%):
The student performance has matched that required for a distinction AND

the research is substantial and represents an original contribution to the field,
has shown initiative and an in-depth and sophisticated understanding of the project,
has shown characteristics of a maturing independent researcher, suggesting new avenues of research or redefining the questions being asked,
has taken a lead role in attempts to publish the results (if appropriate).

b) Examiner’s Report
The production of the Final Report is expected to reflect the culmination of a collaborative process, of review and editing, in which both the student and the supervisor are satisfied that the end product accurately reflects the outcomes of the project. The final report should be a single document that contains all text and figures.
Where possible the document should be submitted as a .pdf. An external reviewer will assess and fully grade this report. This process of review will be at arm’s length from the supervisor and the student. When examining the final report the following attributes should be examined in accordance with the Grading Criteria for the final report.
Project report attributes
The report will be in the form of a research paper (maximum 5000 words, excluding abstract, references, figure legends and tables). It must contain an abstract (maximum 250 words).
The remainder of the report must be presented in the format of an appropriate journal in the field. For example, a report from a qualitative study might include an introduction, methods, findings, and conclusions, whereas a report from a laboratory-based quantitative project might include a brief introduction, aims and hypotheses, materials and methods, results and discussion sections. The length and format of all sections should be based on those in representative published papers, while staying within the 5000 word limit.
The introduction (or introductory sections) should define the problem being examined and place it in the context of published work in the area without being a complete review of the literature. All students should identify the limitations of the literature and areas of controversy and give clear and valid aims (and/or hypotheses).
The methods should be appropriate for the stated aims and clearly described and fully referenced. The results or findings should reflect a significant body of work that has been analysed using appropriate statistical tests or qualitative approaches and that is presented in a clear and logical manner. Figures, tables, illustrations, or quotes etc must be used to support points raised in the body of the report. Figures or tables must be visually instructive; axes should be clearly labelled and accompanied by a legend.
The discussion should be relevant to the introduction, methods, and results or findings sections, logical in presentation and scientific content, show critical/creative analysis, place the findings of the study in the context of past studies and/or relevant theories and have suggestions for future studies. The references cited should be presented accurately, and in a style consistent with journals in the relevant field.
Grading Criteria for the Final Report
Fail (< 50%):
This grade is used when the student has not submitted completed work for assessment, failed to comply with a prescribed remedial process, misunderstood the point of the project or failed to address key issues. The literature review may rely on retelling other sources with inadequate analysis or development of an argument. Important research may be poorly performed and the results presented in a superficial manner that shows little attention to detail and are inadequately analysed. Overall the written report displays little coherence with the conclusions being poorly substantiated by the research conducted or the literature cited.
Pass (50-65%):
The report is satisfactory. The student has demonstrated a relatively superficial or limited understanding of the core aspects of the topic. The project report may contain reasonable components, but be minimally integrated or fail to synthesise the report into a convincing coherent statement or argument. Written work displays little evidence that the student is capable of transforming the literature into personal understanding or that the student is able to communicate that understanding. Elements of the project are treated superficially.
Credit (65-74%):
The project report comes together to make a broadly coherent whole. The report addresses the topic selected, makes a sound argument, draws on appropriate evidence, and shows some selectivity and judgment in deciding what is important and what is not. The project report demonstrates an understanding of the literature relevant to this topic. Communication is clear and effective.
Distinction (75- 84%):
This level of performance involves all of the characteristics of a credit performance but also a level of originality, creativity, or depth of thought and understanding. The work might involve a high level of abstract thinking, or the ability to take an idea or an application into a new context, understand the demands of that context and make modifications. Demonstrates understanding of the relevant literature with a clear synthesis of ideas and well constructed thesis.
High Distinction (85-100%):
This level of performance involves all of the characteristics of a distinction performance where all aspects of the report are well done and the scope of the work described is both substantial and represents an original contribution to the field of research. This project report is of sufficient standard to have a high probability of being published in a peer reviewed journal.