What are the limitations of this study and what future approaches could be taken to improve those limitations?

Abstract

5 marks 200 words outlining the report Exactly 200 words organised into a brief introduction (what, why, brief background), methods (how), key results and key conclusions. Emphasis is given to the results. (4-5) Approximately 200 words organised into a brief introduction (what, why, background), methods (how), key results and key conclusions (3) Approximately 200 words covering the project but might be biased towards the background and show few results.(2) Broad overview of the report with few specifics (1.5) Poorly structured with no indication of what was found in the study. (1) Little or no abstract. (0)
Introduction

20 marks Overall aims of the report. Why the study is being conducted and what is the aim). Background to the overall study site. Brief description of the location and strengths/weakness of studying parasites in this location. Brief description of the range of hosts and parasites. Include tables of current prevalences Background to the specific chosen host-parasite system. Literature review on the behaviour/life cycle of the host. Literature review on what is known of the taxonomy, life cycle and morphology of the chosen parasite.
Background to what is NOT known about the chosen host parasite system. (i.e.gap in scientific knowledge). Detailed objectives. List of objectives. Overall aims of why the study is being conducted and what it aims to achieve which clearly sets the scene. Good background to the study site explaining the strengths and weaknesses of choosing this site. Comprehensive literature review on both the host and parasite quoting research papers which are both relevant and recent. In the absence of many papers on the parasite, the literature review may consider related parasites and draw comparisons. The lack of knowledge of that host parasite system is clearly identified. Detailed objectives written as bullet points which correspond to the detailed studies listed (1-8 in the results).
(14-20) Overall aims of the study generally well set out. The study site is described but may not indicate why it is/is not a good site. A good literature review on both the host and parasite quoting mainly research papers but also web sites. Some information may be missing. Some information on related parasites may be given in the. A brief description of the gap in knowledge may be given. Objectives may be presented in a general form which broadly covers the areas tackled in the results (ie. Sections 1 – 8, results) (12-13) Brief introduction to the study. Brief introduction to the site. Brief literature review on both the host and parasite using mainly web sites, books and few research papers. Information may be missing. The introduction may have irrelevances – such as descriptions/life cycles of parasites that are not part of the chosen host – parasite system. Objectives may be presented which are not detailed and are more like broad aims. (10-11) Brief introduction to the study. Brief introduction to the site, the host and parasite. Few references may be consulted and the introduction may have lots of irrelevances – such as descriptions/life cycles of parasites that are not part of the chosen host – parasite system. Objectives not presented.
(8-9) Brief description of the site, the hosts and parasites with little inclusion of references beyond the field course manual. No objectives.
(6-7) Introduction consists of little more than a rewording of the field course manual.
(0-5)
Methods

10 marks Detailed description of the methods carried out. Methods described fully (i.e. clearly enough to be repeated by another person) and in prose (i.e. non bullet point) format using formal scientific (i.e.the 3rd person) language. Of sufficient quality to appear in a scientific paper (mark >80%).
(7-10) Methods described in prose (i.e. non bullet point) format but may contain some omissions or lapses in formal scientific language.
(6) Methods described either briefly in prose or in more detail but in bullet point format. (5) Methods described briefly and in bullet point format. (4) Very brief description of the methods and there may be confusion with results presented in this section. (3) Methods very muddled and may contain some confusion with results.
(0-2)
Results – presentation style and data analysis

40 marks Detailed analysis of retrospective data for one host parasite association for the last 10 years. Analyses should include:
1. Prevalence data (%) (Pooled data for all years and Annual data)
2. Intensity data (number parasites counted) (Pooled data for all years and Annual data)
3.Length or weight (=age) group in classes vs mean prevalence
4, Length or weight (=age) group in classes vs mean Intensity.
5a. Male vs female Mean prevalence in different sexes using
2 x 2 tables (non fish hosts only)
5b. Co-infection of parasite with another parasite species using 2 x 2 tables. Fish Hosts only.
6. Mean annual rainfall and mean prevalence: correlation
7. Mean annual rainfall and mean intensity: correlation
8. Other detailed scientific hypotheses designed independently by the student without recourse to staff members. Such hypotheses might be derived from scientific papers based on similar approaches. Report covers all sections (1 – 7). In all cases, data is presented clearly as tables and or figures (as appropriate). Figures and tables have a clear title and a legend enabling them to be understood in a standalone format. There is sufficient text which explains each figure/table and suitable linking text to ensure that the results section flows in a readable manner. Appropriate statistical analyses are conducted for all aspects (1-7). Statistical analysis is carried out correctly with minimal errors (70-80%) or no errors (>80%)..
The report contains other hypotheses that have been thought up and correctly tested with appropriate statistical tests independently by the student (see 8) . Marks >90% awarded for testing significant hypotheses worthy of publication in a scientific journal.
(28-40) Report covers all sections (1 – 7). In all cases, data is presented clearly as tables and or figures (as appropriate). Figures and tables have a clear title and a legend enabling them to be understood in a standalone format. There is text which explains each figure/table but may be presented as blocks of text with little to link ideas together. Appropriate statistical analyses are conducted for more than half of the aspects (1-7). Statistical analysis is carried out correctly but may have minor errors.
The report attempts to contain other hypotheses that have been thought up independently by the student (see 8) but these are variations on the main sections (1 – 7) or are very superficial. (24-27) Report covers all sections (1 – 7). In all cases, data is presented as tables and or figures (as appropriate). Figures and tables may not have a clear title and a legend. There is text which explains each figure/table but is minimal and is presented as blocks of unconnected text. Statistical analyses are attempted for some of the aspects (1-7) and are either correctly applied to one or two aspects or attempted incorrectly for more than two aspects. There may be evidence of understanding of the conclusions of the statistics.
There is no attempt to consider other hypotheses that have been thought up independently by the student (see 8) or the scientific questions presented have no real meaning or substance.
(20-23) Report covers some (>50%) sections (1 – 7). Data is presented as tables and or figures (as appropriate) but these figures may be incorrectly presented and may not have a title and legend. There is little or no text which explains each figure/table. No statistical analysis is carried out.
No attempt is made to consider valid scientific questions beyond those suggested (i.e. 1 -7). (16-19) Report covers less than half of the scientific questions posed (1 -7). Some tables and figures are evident but incorrectly presented. There may be no text describing the results. There is some evidence to suggest that there is understanding of the results but any conclusions are poorly presented.
(12-15) Report covers very little beyond a description of the data. There is only very limited evidence that there is understanding of the results. There may be a mixture of results and methods in this section.
(0-11)
Discussion

20 marks Summary of the outcome of each objective (i.e. 1 -8 results section). Technical discussion. The strengths and weaknesses of the whole study. Consideration of how valid each conclusion (i.e. 1 – 8, results) is based on the data used to address that question (i.e. strengths and weaknesses of the data. Consideration of results in comparison with other studies. Comparison of findings in this study with other published literature such as papers reviewed in the introduction or other papers.
Broader implications of this study. What are the overall strengths and weaknesses of this study? What are the broader findings that this study reveals about host parasite interactions? What does this study tell us about how we should conduct future studies of parasites in their natural ecosystems? Future work. What are the limitations of this study and what future approaches could be taken to improve those limitations? A clearly written paragraph that summarises the conclusions of the 8 results objectives (ie results 1 – 9) and links each conclusion together. A clear discussion of the strengths of the study approach and the quality of the data obtained which shows an understanding of what aspects of the study provide solid data and clear conclusions. A clear understanding of the weaknesses of the study and what could be done to improve those. A good comparison of the findings in relation to other published studies which highlights similarities and differences. A good attempt made to explain why the similarities and differences exist. A comprehensive range of external publications used. A good attempt to put the study into a wider context showing how lessons learned from this study could be used to improve future studies. A good attempt at a detailed description of future work that could be studied at the Malham site. Overall, good evidence that the student has used their own thoughts and ideas in combination with solid factual information from the literature to consider the interpretation of the results and the context of the study. (14-20) A paragraph that summarises the general conclusions of the results. An attempt to describe the strengths weaknesses of the study and the data collected and what could be done to improve those. A broad comparison of the findings in relation to other published studies which does not explain why the similarities and differences exist. A good range of external publications used. Some attempts to put the study into a wider context but ideas may be general and lack specific points. A attempt at a description of future work that could be studied at the Malham site. Some evidence that the student has used their own thoughts and ideas. However, some ideas might not be founded on examples from the literature or may be very general in nature, (12-13) The general conclusions of the results may be listed in bullet point form. Some broad strengths weaknesses of the study are listed. A comparison of the findings are discussed in the light of only one or two papers. Some possible future studies presented. Some broad ideas about the wider context of the study but evidence of struggling to address this area.
(10-11) The general conclusions of the results may be listed in bullet point form or presented in a muddled manner. There may be significant repetition of results and little attempt to consider the strengths and weaknesses of the study or data. Some brief ideas on future work given. (8-9) Little attempt to consider the meaning of the results. May be a repeat of the results section.
(6-7) Muddled attempt to reiterate the results. Evidence of lack of understanding as to what the results mean and why the study was carried out.
(0-5)

Are you looking for a similar paper or any other quality academic essay? Then look no further. Our research paper writing service is what you require. Our team of experienced writers is on standby to deliver to you an original paper as per your specified instructions with zero plagiarism guaranteed. This is the perfect way you can prepare your own unique academic paper and score the grades you deserve.

Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.