Difference between revisions of "20.109(F19): Mini-report"

From Course Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "<div style="padding: 10px; width: 820px; border: 5px solid #A4A4A4;"> {{Template:20.109(F19)}} ==Overview== The culminating written assignment for Module 3 will be relativel...")
 
(→‎Formatting and length guidelines)
Line 20: Line 20:
 
==Formatting and length guidelines==
 
==Formatting and length guidelines==
  
−
The entire report text should be about 2 pages, or perhaps 3 pages at the most, not counting figures. The figures/captions may be submitted separately.
+
The entire report text should be about 2 pages, 3 pages at the most, not counting the figures. The figures/captions may be submitted separately.
  
−
You should introduce your investigation in 1-2 paragraphs. You can assume familiarity with phage display in general on the part of the reader, and thus immediately "zoom in" on the type of phage that you used and the question(s) you were trying to address. Be sure to cite relevant publications.  
+
You should introduce your investigation in 1-2 paragraphs. You can assume familiarity with the small molecule microarray (SMM) method in general on the part of the reader, and thus provide only a brief description then immediately "zoom in" on specific question(s) you were trying to address. Be sure to cite relevant publications.  
  
−
For the remainder of the paper, summarize and interpret the class-wide findings and briefly suggest future work. What we usually call Results and Discussion should be combined. The Methods section may be omitted; however, the figure captions and/or main text should include any methodological details unique to your experiment. Finally, you do not need to write an abstract, but should include a concise and informative title.
+
For the remainder of the assignment, summarize and interpret the class-wide findings and briefly suggest future work. What was separated as Results and Discussion in the Research article should be combined (as in the Data summary, but with complete sentences). The Methods section will be omitted; however, the figure captions and/or main text should include any methodological details unique to your experiment that are necessary to understand the data shown. Finally, you do not need to write an abstract, but should include a concise and informative title.
  
−
'''Figures:'''
+
'''Figure(s):'''
−
*Capacity measurements
+
*Western blot images
 
**Do the data support your hypothesis?
 
**Do the data support your hypothesis?
−
**How do your data compare to the class data pool?
+
**Are the data consistent with the DSF results generated by previous students?
−
*TEM images
+
−
**Is the composition of your nanowires what you expected?
+
  
 
'''Guiding questions for your discussion:'''
 
'''Guiding questions for your discussion:'''
−
*What comparative statements can you confidently make about different conditions? (How much variation is there between conditions versus between same-condition devices? Do you have enough data to make any statistical comparisons?)
+
*If the results of the DSF and CETSA experiments are inconsistent, what might account for this?
−
*By what mechanisms might these differences arise?
+
*What technical changes might you incorporate into the experiment if you were to repeat it?  Is there reason to believe that this change would lead to a different result?  Why?
−
*What technical changes would you want to make to sample preparation and/or assays that could improve data quality (troubleshooting ideas) or simply be more informative?
+
*What is the next step given the results of your experiment?
−
*What bigger picture changes or additions would you want to make to this investigation, if you could continue it?
+
  
 
==Evaluation==
 
==Evaluation==

Revision as of 23:33, 24 September 2019

20.109(F19): Laboratory Fundamentals of Biological Engineering

Fa19 20109 Banner image.png

Fall 2019 schedule        FYI        Assignments        Homework        Class data        Communication
       1. Measuring genomic instability        2. Modulating metabolism        3. Testing chemical probes              


Overview

The culminating written assignment for Module 3 will be relatively informal. You should continue to strive for clear writing and thorough explanations, but you do not have to provide as much context as you did in the previous written assignments. You can assume your reader is highly familiar with your field of study.

Our purpose in asking you to write this mini-report is three-fold:

  1. to include some accountability for understanding the M3 material
  2. to teach another form of written scientific communication similar
  3. to give you one more opportunity to practice your construction and communication of a scientific argument

Logistics

You will complete this assignment in partners.

As you prepare your assignment be sure to review the resources provided on the Communication tab.

Please submit your completed Mini-report on Monday, December 9th by 10 pm to Stellar, with filename TeamColor_LabSection_MR.doc (for example, Green_TR_MR.doc).

Formatting and length guidelines

The entire report text should be about 2 pages, 3 pages at the most, not counting the figures. The figures/captions may be submitted separately.

You should introduce your investigation in 1-2 paragraphs. You can assume familiarity with the small molecule microarray (SMM) method in general on the part of the reader, and thus provide only a brief description then immediately "zoom in" on specific question(s) you were trying to address. Be sure to cite relevant publications.

For the remainder of the assignment, summarize and interpret the class-wide findings and briefly suggest future work. What was separated as Results and Discussion in the Research article should be combined (as in the Data summary, but with complete sentences). The Methods section will be omitted; however, the figure captions and/or main text should include any methodological details unique to your experiment that are necessary to understand the data shown. Finally, you do not need to write an abstract, but should include a concise and informative title.

Figure(s):

  • Western blot images
    • Do the data support your hypothesis?
    • Are the data consistent with the DSF results generated by previous students?

Guiding questions for your discussion:

  • If the results of the DSF and CETSA experiments are inconsistent, what might account for this?
  • What technical changes might you incorporate into the experiment if you were to repeat it? Is there reason to believe that this change would lead to a different result? Why?
  • What is the next step given the results of your experiment?

Evaluation

Content Approximate Worth Criteria
Background and Approach 15%
  • Is your strategy for enhancing battery capacity clearly described?
  • Is it clear what specific comparisons will be made?
Results and Interpretation of Data 75%
  • Is the description of results complete (including only necessary methods details)?
  • Do the figures clearly convey the data?
  • Are interpretations of each piece of data reasonable?
Contextualizing Results and Suggestions for Future Work 10%
  • Are suggestions for future experimental changes likely to address any problems encountered?
  • Are high-level suggestions for future work interesting and relevant?
The report will be graded by Prof. Angela Belcher.
Retrieved from "http://engineerbiology.org/w/index.php?title=20.109(F19):_Mini-report&oldid=42151"