THE UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH

THE ROYAL COLLEGE OF SURGEONS OF EDINBURGH

ESSQ Year 2
Course Handbook
ChM in Urology

2013 - 2014

Year 2 Director: Mr Grant Stewart

Contents
Contents ..............................................................................................................................2
Introduction ..........................................................................................................................3
Reflective ePortfolio .............................................................................................................3
Specialist academic activity Research Project..................................................................4
Advice about choosing a project ..........................................................................................4
Finding a Project Supervisor................................................................................................5
Project Supervisors..............................................................................................................5
Year 2 eDissertation Submission Deadlines and Timetable ................................................6
Year 2 Marks Allocation .......................................................................................................7
Phase 2 - the format of the Year 2 Detailed Summary ........................................................8
Phase 3 - the format of the Year 2 e-Poster ........................................................................8
Phase 4 - the format of the Year 2 Project Report ...............................................................9
Peer reviewed publication of project report........................................................................10
Plagiarism ..........................................................................................................................10
Enquiries and Further Information .....................................................................................11
Project Supervisor Role Description ..................................................................................12
Project Marking Forms ..14
Student Reflective Review Form .....25

Students are reminded to read this handbook in conjunction with the main Year 1
Programme Handbook.

Introduction
The 2nd year of the ESSQ course leads to a ChM level qualification in Urology. The
Reflective ePortfolio and eDissertation form the focus of the 2nd year academic modules.
For each assessment there will be multiple milestones to allow you to gauge your
progress. Some of these milestones will also form part of your in-course assessment.

Reflective ePortfolio
The Core Academic Activity module will develop your critical reflection through the use of a
Reflective ePortfolio. This ePortfolio is your own dedicated space to critically analyse and
reflect upon your experiences, actions, and learning, in your day-to-day clinical
environment and the ChM course.
For full information on accessing your eportfolio please refer to the welcome module of the
UroSURG VLE.
When and how often to post:
It is likely that the number of posts you submit for assessment will be fewer than the total
collected. We recommend trying to post whenever you can to make sure you do not miss
an opportunity for reflection. These can just be notes initially that you can develop later if
needed. We suggest at least one or two posts a week which you would then go back and
comment on/add to at the end of the month.
It is not just quantity but quality that is important, and also your evidence of critical
reflection. You may decide that one experience or observation is very interesting /
important and develop this further. If you do this please keep posting on new topics at the
same time in case your key post leads you to a dead end.

Assessment:
Your entire Reflective ePortfolio will contribute towards 75% of your mark for the Core
Academic Activity module.
You must submit your Reflective ePortfolio by 5pm on Monday 27th January 2014.
You may submit up to 30 entries (not including comments) that should be spread evenly
over the 5 topics below.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Quality improvement and patient care

Literature evaluation skills
Research and experimental design
Teaching skills
Self-learning abilities and habits

Using your ePortfolio posts as points of reference you should summarise each subsection
of posts with a report 500 - 1000 words. Thus your final submission will contain 5 x 500 1000 word reports or 'chapters' each with ~ 6 supporting ePortfolio entries (no more than
30 in total) added as an appendix (these entries do not count towards the word count).
Creating five chapters to summarise your ePortfolio entries will allow you to reflect upon
them in a broader context. Think of this as writing a 500 1000 word narrative for each
topic, referring to specific posts as evidence. Each ePortfolio entry should be cited in your
report as if you were citing a journal article.
Please refer to the assessment criteria set out in the marking scheme (accessible on the
UroSURG VLE, under the Appendix of the Introduction module see
http://learning.urosurg.ed.ac.uk/modules/welcome-to-the-chm/coursebooks/starthere/reflective-eportfolio-marking-scheme).
Please refer to the UroSURG VLE for full instruction on PDF creation, ePortfolio export
and submission.

Specialist Academic Activity module Research Project

Advice about choosing a project
There are no restrictions on the type of project which can be undertaken. Some individuals
may choose to perform a systematic review or meta-analysis while others may choose to
perform a piece of original research.
If you have a number of publications to your name already you may wish to
consider reviewing your own impact on the field
If you have little resources available locally you may wish to consider a literature
based meta-analysis
If you opt for a data-based project you will likely want to start your project as soon
as possible to give time for generating data. You are welcome to submit the first
phase of the project as soon as you wish.
It important that the research should be achievable within the timetable. Projects
which are clearly achievable are more likely to generate a report and meet the timelines
outlined in this document. The timings for submission of reports are fixed and there is no
latitude for late submission so be realistic about what can be achieved as part of your
project. A project may be awarded a distinction pass if submitted within the timetable but
late or delayed submission of projects would preclude these from being considered for
distinction pass.
Choose an area which interests you. People tend to write much better about subjects in
which they have a genuine interest, so research around your area of interest. Try asking
consultants or experienced registrars for hot topics in the subject areas that you are
interested, or look up the leading journals in the area and try to find out what the
controversial or new areas are. Is there an unanswered question which could be the focus
of your project?
In our experience people are more than happy to give their advice to you - all you need to
do is ask.
4

Finding a Project Supervisor

You need to identify an individual who can act as your Project Supervisor to support your
2nd year studies. Project Supervisors are usually consultants who have a higher degree
and evidence of previous supervision of students. Occasionally we will accept the
nomination of a senior postdoctoral trainee.
The most important thing is to choose a person who is able to support your ideas and who
has a proven track record of supervision, e.g. supervision of an MD thesis or successful
clinical projects. Although it is best to be able to meet your supervisor face-to-face there is
no reason why your supervisor cannot be in a different geographical area and can
supervise through telephone, e-mail, or online video conferencing (Skype).

Project Supervisors
During the year you should maintain regular contact with your supervisor. The level of
supervision will vary between projects and between students. It is more likely you will be in
frequent contact with your Project Supervisor in the initial stages of the year and also near
the end of the project, in the analysis and writing stages.
Different patterns of student-supervisor interaction will develop depending on your
particular circumstances and needs.

Utilise academic feedback from your supervisor effectively - your ability to appreciate
and incorporate suggestions, ideas, themes, interpretations etc, that you will likely
receive most frequently as informal academic feedback in discussions with your
supervisor will form a significant component of your supervisors future assessment of
your performance.

Appropriate input from your supervisor into your final report working with your
supervisor throughout your project on a wide range of facets including planning and
study design, becoming familiar with the literature, analysing your data, and then
interpreting and critically appraising your findings and how they relate to understanding
within the field, are important components of the year.

Towards the end of your project you should have discussed most aspects of your project
in detail. It is not appropriate for you to submit multiple early draft versions of your project
for your supervisor to review. You should be able to use this deeper understanding across
your whole project to produce a well formulated and polished final draft which should be a
coherent and fluent presentation of the field and your findings. This final draft will likely
have a few queries remaining that you generated during the writing process, but these
questions should be well formulated. The discussion with your supervisor of this final draft
to complete your project represents an important formative part of your Year 2.
If you feel that adequate supervision is not being provided you should discuss this initially
and as soon as possible with your supervisor. If you still feel there is a problem, contact
the ESSQ Office. For supervisors who are concerned about the performance of the
student who they are supervising, they should address this with the student, and contact
the Year Director, Mr Grant Stewart, via the ESSQ Office.

Edinburgh Specialist Surgical Qualification

Year 2 eDissertation Submission Deadlines and Timetable
Monday, 23rd September 2013
Start of term

Phase 1

9am on Monday, 3rd February 2014

Students send Project Supervisor details to
ESSQ Office

Phase 2

9am on Monday, 10th March 2014

Deadline for project summary

Phase 3

9am on Monday, 28th April 2014

Deadline for formal e-poster

Phase 4

9am on Monday, 2nd June 2014

Deadline for completed e-dissertation

Confirmed due dates are absolute deadlines. Late submissions need not be accepted without good reason
being given. If it is accepted late with good reason being provided, then no penalty will be exacted. If it is
accepted late without good reason being provided, it will be recorded as late and a penalty may be exacted.
That penalty will be in accordance with the current University Guidelines for Taught Postgraduate Degrees
(http://www.docs.sasg.ed.ac.uk/AcademicServices/Regulations/PGT_AssessmentRegulations.PDF). At time
of going to press the penalty for late submission is a reduction of the mark by 5% of the maximum obtainable
mark per working day (e.g. a mark of 65% on the common marking scale would be reduced to 60% up to 24
hours later). This would apply for up to five working days (or to the time when feedback is given, if this is
sooner), after which a mark of zero should be given. Students should consult the online guidelines for the
most up-to-date version.

Edinburgh Surgical Sciences Qualification

Year 2 Marks Allocation

Phase 1

Nominate supervisor

Phase 2

Detailed summary submission

15%

Phase 3

Formal e-poster presentation

25%

Phase 4

Submission of project report

60%

Phase 4 breakdown of marks:

Performance mark from the Supervisor = 15%
Project Report mark from the Supervisor = 15%
Project Report mark from the Second Examiner = 30%
Required word count for each phase:

Phase 2 = 1,000 words

Phase 4 = 7,500 - 10,000 words

For each phase, failure to submit by the due deadline will be penalised (see above) and
may limit progression. It is vital that notification on or before the deadline is made in
writing to the ESSQ Office and Project Supervisor for any late submission due to mitigating
circumstances.
Marks for Phase 2 will be awarded according to the following criteria:
1. Existing knowledge
2. Hypothesis / aim of study
3. Methodology
4. Achievability
5. Novelty
Marks for Phase 3 will be awarded according to the following criteria:
1. Visual impact/presentation
2. Clarity and understandability
3. Quality of content
4. Presentation of data and statistical analysis
Marks for Phase 4 will be awarded according to the following criteria:
1. Background and review of current literature
2. Methodology
3. Data presentation and statistical analysis
4. Interpretation of results in the context of the available literature
5. Quality of content and originality
To pass this module you need to achieve a minimum of 50% of the available marks across
Phases 2 - 4, therefore if you do not do well at Phase 2 you have the opportunity to
respond to feedback and achieve a pass at Phase 3 and Phase 4 stage.
7

Phase 2 - the format of the Year 2 Detailed Summary

Phase 2 is a detailed report (1,000 words) which should contain:

An in-depth view of the existing knowledge around the subject and the
deficiencies in this knowledge that have lead to the research question.

A set of research question(s) you will address, and an explanation of why these
are important.

A description of exactly how the study will be conducted and the data analysed.

Achievability, whereby you discuss issues surrounding the practical delivery of

the project. This is also an opportunity for individuals to raise their own concerns
about areas of the project that they perceive as being potentially difficult (this won't
count against you but may help refine the design).

Finally novelty, again an opportunity to make clear what the niche is that makes
this study new or different from previous studies.

Regarding data, if you have already started accruing data and want to include these in
your Phase 2 submission that is fine but it is not essential, since Phase 2 is more about
making sure that the question, study design, and feasibility are all acceptable and on track.
The Detailed Summary is worth 15% of the Year 2 Assessment

Phase 3 - the format of the Year 2 e-Poster

Phase 3 is an opportunity for students to present their work in the form of an e-Poster.
This e-Poster takes the same format that a poster at a meeting would have, and should
contain the same structure as your final report will comprise, specifically;

Introduction
Aims or hypothesis
Methods (patients) including statistical analysis.
Results (these can be presented as graphs and tables in addition to text as you
feel appropriate)
Conclusions

Example e-Posters will be made available to you. Do not include your or your
supervisors name on the e-Poster, only your matriculation number.
We have also made a poster template available to you which you can edit in PowerPoint.
Please feel free to change the colours and design to suit your study and your preferences.
In addition you are at liberty to use your own template should you so wish.
You should aim to create an attractive presentation of your work so far. If you only have
preliminary results do not worry. You will need to summarise your work as the poster
format needs to be readable and this will limit the amount of text you can use.
8

Please note that this presentation should be undertaken as you continue to develop your
Project. Please also consider discussing your presentation with your supervisor prior to
submission.
The e-Poster is worth 25% of the Year 2 Assessment.

Phase 4 - the format of the Year 2 Project Report

The final Project Report which you must provide is an electronic report in between 7,500
and 10,000 words in standard publication format with:

Title of your project and your matriculation number (do not put your name anywhere on
the file).

Declaration of support received and acknowledgements Specify in detail the help

and assistance you have received over the course of your project, e.g. support from
your supervisor, members of the e-tutor team, help with skills, techniques,
questionnaire design, data collection, analysis of samples, other data and preliminary
data (not included in word count). You should also clearly detail any previous or
current project work or database you have used produced by another student.

Abstract (limited to 250 words; not included in the word count) - Brief summary of your
project introduction; methodologies used; principal results; major conclusion(s).

Introduction Briefly but adequately introduce your project (Remember, a nonspecialist may become a marker); include hypothesis and/or aims of study; include
appropriate references.

Methods The essential points about the methodologies used in your study; you
should refer to appropriate references to enable you to reduce the text; the methods of
analysis/statistics.

Results succinctly detail your important findings; integrate with tables, figures,
photographs, diagrams as appropriate (note tables, figure legends, etc. are not
included in the word count).

Figures and tables should be embedded into the text where appropriate. Consider the
most appropriate form of diagram to present. All should have a legend, axes should be
labelled and abbreviations explained.

Discussion Detail the major conclusions you can make from your results; discuss
how these fit with the existing knowledge and literature; critically assess your work and
work of others; you may want to propose future areas for study.

References not included in the word count. You should conform to a standard style,
e.g. Vancouver or Harvard style and be consistent in its use throughout.

Computer generated word count.

Only in exceptional circumstances can this format be varied, by agreement with both your
supervisor and the Board of Examiners, through the ESSQ Office. This should be
discussed in the planning stages, well before the start of your Project Report.
9

Demonstrate your critical appraisal skills. As already discussed under supervision,

your ability to incorporate academic feedback in discussions with your supervisor (and
also perhaps their team members) will form a significant component of your
supervisors future assessment of your performance. Students can perhaps be too
uncritical of their own findings and projects. For instance, if a project has
methodological weaknesses, these should be fully discussed in the project report and
any conclusions should take these into account. Examiners are instructed to look
favourably upon those reports where the student has shown ability to critically and
objectively appraise their own work and work of others. Look carefully at the structure
of the other literature surrounding your project. These will not include every scrap of
data. You should also critically appraise your own findings in this way.

Declaration of support received and acknowledgements. It is important that the report

contains a clear declaration of the support you have received and an
acknowledgements statement indicating your contribution and the contribution of
others to the work reported. This should include intellectual input from everyone
including your supervisor and all other people who helped.

The Project Report is worth 60% of the Year 2 Assessment.

Peer reviewed publication of project report

You are encouraged to submit elements of your Project for peer reviewed publication if
you and your supervisor feel that this is appropriate. We would ask that if you do this that
you acknowledge that the work was undertaken as part of the Edinburgh Specialist
Surgical Qualification.

Plagiarism
Plagiarism is regarded as a serious offence and all projects will be checked using
plagiarism detection software. Ensure you adequately acknowledge and reference all your
sources including all individuals upon whose advice or co-operation you were dependent
during the design, development and conduct of your project and in the analysis or
interpretation of your results. You should refer to the following guidelines:
http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/information-services/services/learningtechnology/assessment/plagiarism
including the relevant section Student Guidance on the Avoidance of Plagiarism. Note
that the electronic version of your project in your portfolio will be tested using plagiarism
detection software, in accordance with University regulations.

10

Enquiries and Further Information

All enquiries, other than those to your Project Supervisor, should be directed through the
ESSQ office:
ESSQ Office
The Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh
Nicolson Street
Edinburgh
EH8 9DW
e-mail: urosurg@rcsed.ac.uk
Tel: +44 (0)131 527 3496
Fax: +44 (0)131 527 3416

If you experience any problems and find that you are struggling at any point, or need to
request an extension, you must contact the Year and Programme Director through the
ESSQ Office, as soon as possible.

11

Project Supervisor Role Description

Job Information
Job Title
Location
Working Hours

Position in the organisation

Reports to
Responsible for
Works in conjunction with

Project Supervisor in Urology

University of Edinburgh / Royal College of
Surgeons of Edinburgh
Approximately 1 hour per week (approximately 15
weeks of academic year)

Year Director
Supervision of Year 2 Project, possibly including
some e-tutoring and/or content work
Other project supervisors and Year Director

Overall Job Purpose

To take responsibility for the supervision of a student project. Providing student with
guidance on selection and development of a theme that will lead to production of a
7,500 10,000 word report.
Tutors with a specific skillset may be invited to contribute to other elements or modules
of the course.
To support students enrolled in the Edinburgh Specialist Surgical Qualification elearning programme, enabling them to achieve a positive course outcome.
Project supervisors not already affiliated with the University of Edinburgh will be put
forward for an Honorary position at the university.

Responsibilities and Accountabilities

Responsible in providing support to the student face-to-face and direct by email.

Being familiar with specific material and information relevant to the students
project.
Ensuring that the student meets the required targets set for the programme of
study in year 2.
Complete assessment of student Project Report using template and serve as
external assessor of one other student report if requested.
Provide feedback and suggestions from student to year director to ensure
accurate evaluation and continuously improved supervisor support.
Meet timelines outlined in programme handbook.

12

Skills Required:
Essential skills:
Well organised and demonstrable leadership skills
Teaching and communication skills
Sound level of technology skills used for e-learning and understanding the
limitations of the technology
Experience in producing surgical manuscript and evidence of surgical publication
Knowledge or experience of clinical audit and/or systematic review
Preferred skills
Previous experience of providing distance learning support
Knowledge of Edinburgh Specialist Surgical Qualification

Qualities Required:
A good Project Supervisor should be able to develop online rapport with
individuals/groups. They should:

Be POSITIVE: Build understanding, generate enthusiasm, maintain interest and

help work through a variety of issues.

Be PROACTIVE: Make things happen, be a catalyst if necessary to help

learners get going on the course, recognise when action needs to be taken and
take it. Identify and anticipate problems before they arise.

Be PATIENT: Understand the needs of the learner and the group, adapt to their
timeframes as far as possible.

Be PERSISTENT: keep at things, stop learners from drifting away and deal with
any technical or other issues.

Be CONFIDENT: and believe in online learning.

Be SYMPATHETIC: to the student and provide honest and constructive

communication.

A Project Supervisor needs to be intuitive, show initiative and be assertive. The Project
Supervisor will also need to have ability to assess students needs.

Work Environment

The Project Supervisor will need a computer and access to the internet through
broadband.

The supervisor will be provided a bursary of 150 for the academic year
(equivalent) to offset any incurred costs of supporting module.

Access to the University UroSURG and e-library platforms - provided for

academic year.
13

ChM

in

Urology

Project

Marking

2013-14

The Project Report will be marked by the students Project Supervisor and an appropriate Second
Examiner. This second marker may have limited experience of your specific project, and a third marker
(moderator) may be from a different course, so students should ensure topics are adequately introduced.
This includes e.g. explaining all acronyms the first time they are used. Project Reports will not routinely be
sent out to the External Examiner, although the External Examiner has access to all student work via
UroSURG, and can randomly select any project during their scrutiny of Project Reports.
Examiners will take account of a number of factors in assessing the Project Report including:
contribution to understanding
appropriate use of techniques and methods
critical analysis and appraisal of data
development of an argument based on project findings
critical assessment of work by others in the field
effective presentation
interpretation of results in the context of current work in the project area
The students own supervisor will also assess the student on how they performed during the various
phases and developing and planning of their Project. The performance will take into consideration several
factors, including:
Interaction adequate interaction between student and supervisor is required to pass
Effort, work and motivation, during all phases of the project
Organisation
Interaction between student and supervisor to develop the project
Whether the opportunity was taken by the student to learn new skills and manage their own learning
Awareness and ability to incorporate academic feedback, much of which may have been given
during informal discussions
Interpersonal skills
The supervisor will give a separate mark for Performance and the Project Report.
Examiner will mark only the Project Report.

The Second

Breakdown of Marks
In-course
Phase 1
Phase 2
will count as 15 % of the overall total
Phase 3
will count as 25 % of the overall total
Phase 4 (Project Report)
The Performance mark from the supervisor
will count as 15 % of the overall total
The Project Report mark from the supervisor
will count as 15 % of the overall total
The Project Report mark from the Second Examiner will count as 30 % of the overall total
Note: Both the Performance and Project Report components must be passed to ensure an overall
pass.
Marks will be based on the Universitys Postgraduate Common Marking Scheme (see below). Both
Examiners will use the appropriate sections of the three assessment forms to improve the objectivity of these

14

marks, and will be prepared to use the full range of marks within each grade. Thus, the performance of the
student with respect to different aspects of the project will be taken into account. Examiners are required to
use their discretion, particularly as the format of Project Reports varies widely, and the objective criteria may
not be entirely appropriate to specific projects. All marks will be provisional until confirmation at the Board of
Examiners meeting(s).
Project Reports that are borderline fail, and Reports where there is a wide discrepancy between marks
awarded by the two examiners (i.e. a discrepancy of equivalent of more than one grade), will be further
reviewed independently and without prior knowledge of other marks awarded, by one member of the Board
of Examiners. In this case, the median of the three marks may be taken. If the Project Report and/or
performance of any student are given a fail mark (Grade D, E, F, G or H) by any Examiner, the Project
Report will be assessed further by members of the Board of Examiners and the External Examiner, and the
supervisor may be consulted.
Students will be failed if both examiners mark the student as a D, E, F, G or H grade, and after consultation
with the Examination Board and the External Examiner. This would usually occur when the student's
performance and/or Project Report were unsatisfactory on a number of points.
Not all students will have solid results (often through no fault of their own), and it is much easier to
write up good results than preliminary ones. Allowances will be made for poor results, provided that
they are adequately explained.
The University of Edinburghs Postgraduate Common Marking Scheme (http://www.ed.ac.uk/schoolsdepartments/registry/exams/regulations/common-marking-scheme) will be used throughout.
The Postgraduate Common Marking Scheme
1
Mark (%)
90-100
80-89
70-79
60-69
50-59

2
Grade
A1
A2
A3
B
C

40-49*

30-39
20-29
10-19

E
F
G

0-9

3
Description
An excellent performance
A very good performance
A good performance, satisfactory for a Masters degree
A satisfactory performance for the Diploma, but inadequate for
a Masters degree
Marginal Fail
Clear Fail

Bad Fail

A mark of 48 49 may be used to denote the possibility that by minor revision the work may be
upgraded to Masters standard

15

ChM in Urology
Student Performance &
Report Grade
from Project Supervisor (first marker)
Supervisors Assessment
Part A, pages 1-3 Performance
Part B, pages 4-6 Project Report
The role of the supervisor is to evaluate the
Performance of the student and to assess the
final written project report.

To be completed by Supervisor:

Student name:
Student ID (if known):
Supervisor name:
Date:
Final Percentage Mark for Performance
[SUM of circled marks on pages 1 to 3 (out of 100%)]

Final Percentage Mark for Project Report

[SUM of circled marks on pages 4 to 6 (out of 100%)]

The student must pass both performance and the written report to ensure a pass. Using the Postgraduate Common
Marking Scheme (www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/registry/exams/regulations/common-marking-scheme) and the
full range of marks in each grade, examiners should use the descriptors below for guidance, and their discretion in
awarding an excellent mark (70-100; A grade). The difference between a satisfactory pass (C grade) and a fail (D, E,
F, G or H grade) would be that the fail would have one or more indicators in the lowest category. The middle grade (B)
is more subjective and relies on the judgement of the marker. Satisfactory communication (Q1) by the student with
the supervisor is required to ensure a pass mark. Work, effort, initiative and motivation should also be rated highly.

A. Performance Assessment by Masters Project Supervisor

1. Did the student interact?

Indicative mark

Mark
one
with X
Yes, a lot of the time
Yes, enough of the time
Not enough gives rise for
concern
2.

Descriptor
Kept appointments, made regular contact, excellent
overall interaction throughout.
Reasonable interaction; satisfactory.
Poor initial contact, poor communication, missed
interactions

Did the student design the project themselves?

Mark
one
Descriptor
with X
Clear original concept by the student adapted in an active
Mostly
collaboration with the supervisor OR much constructive
input into an idea initiated by supervisor.
Interested and provided some input, but required much
A bit
from supervisor.
Largely off the shelf ideas derived from established
Not at all gives rise for
methods and/or previous projects; provided little or no
concern
useful input.

3. Did the student demonstrate good management of their own learning?

Mark
one
Descriptor
with X
Took the initiative (whether or not designed own project);
identified needs and opportunities; clear change in quality
Yes, excellent
and quantity of students knowledge and skill base (e.g.
interviewing skills / data handling); excellent
management of own learning.
Learned some skills and developed knowledge and
Satisfactory
understanding, but did not make full use of all
opportunities available.
Little change in skills base, knowledge or understanding;
No gives rise for concern
made little effort to utilise opportunities presented; lacked
motivation.

Please circle
(out of 8%)
678
345
012

Please circle
(out of 16%)
11121314
1516
678910
012345

Please circle
(out of 8%)

678

345

012

16

4. Was the student well organised, adaptable and reliable?

Indicative mark
Mark
one
Descriptor
Please circle
with
(out of 12%)
X
Excellent advanced planning, preparation and
Yes, very organised
9101112
organisation throughout project; paid attention to time
management; reliable; rose to challenges
Yes, average organisation
Adequate, to permit reasonable progress.
5678
Not at all gives rise for
Little project management, no priorities set, no sense of
01234
concern
direction; unreliable; chaotic

5. How much effort and work did the student put in?
Mark
one
Descriptor
with
X
Very committed and motivated personally, diligent
A lot of work
worker, responsible approach, responded to challenges.
Quite committed although could have been more
Enough work
motivated.
Not enough gives rise for
Failed to respond to challenges, lack of commitment to
concern
achieving project goals, minimalist approach to project.
6. How good were the students interpersonal skills?
Mark
one
Descriptor
with
X
Excellent communicator; appreciates the roles of others;
Excellent
considerate of staff, peers and patients (as appropriate).
Reasonable communicator with others, reasonably
Satisfactory
considerate; satisfactory in team.
Communicates poorly with others; does not integrate;
Poor gives rise for concern
inconsiderate of others.

Please circle
(out of 24%)
17181920
21222324
910111213
141516
0123456
78

Please circle
(out of 8%)
678
345
012

7. Did the student write the Project Report themselves, requiring only appropriate input from you as supervisor?
Mark
one
Descriptor
Please circle
with
(out of 24%)
X
Clear vision of what was required; requested appropriate
17181920
Yes
and specific help; supervisor only viewed one polished
21222324
draft.
Supervisor had to provide more input and view a few
910111213
Partially
drafts to arrive at final version.
141516
Very poor; supervisor provided enormous amount of help
0123456
No gives rise for concern
that could be considered inappropriate for a Masters
78
student.

17

Masters Project Supervisors Comments on Students Performance

18

B. Project Report Assessment by Masters Project Supervisor

The student must pass both performance and the written report to ensure a pass. Using the Postgraduate Common
Marking Scheme (www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/registry/exams/regulations/common-marking-scheme) and the
full range of marks in each grade, examiners should use the descriptors below for guidance, and their discretion in
awarding an excellent mark (70-100; A grade). The difference between a satisfactory pass (C grade) and a fail (D, E,
F, G or H grade) would be that the fail would have one or more indicators in the lowest category. The middle grade (B)
is more subjective and relies on the judgement of the marker. As Masters Projects are varied, examiners should use the
descriptors for guidance, and their discretion.

8. Is the introduction to the Project Report clear?

Indicative mark
Mark
Descriptor
Please circle
with X
(out of 16%)
Yes, very clear
Clear, focused and relevant to the project.
111213141516
Reasonable attempt, but some inaccurate or inappropriate
Yes, quite clear
678910
material, with some lack of clarity.
Poor explanation of the research area, irrelevant material,
No, not at all clear
012345
with little integration into aims of project.

9. Are the aims of the Project Report clear?

Mark
Descriptor
with X
Clear statement of project hypothesis and aims, and the
Yes, very clear
importance of the project discussed; well integrated into
introduction.

Please circle
(out of 8%)
678

Yes, quite clear

Some errors or inaccuracies.

345

No, not at all clear

No clear statement of project aims, poor or unclear

appreciation of rationale or hypothesis.

012

10. Are the methods appropriate and described clearly, and adequately and critically discussed?
Mark
Descriptor
Please circle
with X
(out of 16%)
Clear statement of project methodology in relation to
aims; rationale for specific choice of methods stated;
111213141516
Yes, very
critical awareness of limitations and strengths;
suggestions for possible improvements.
May be incomplete or containing some errors; some
Yes, quite
678910
critical assessment.
No clear statement of methods; little or no insight into
No, not at all
012345
practical methodological issues and strengths and
weaknesses; poor awareness of method enhancement.

11. Are the results presented clearly?

Mark
Descriptor
with X
Results clearly presented in a systematic way using the
Yes, very clear
most appropriate format.
Yes, quite clear
Satisfactory, but lacks some clarity.
Inappropriate and unsystematic presentation; much of
No, not at all clear
data presented unclear, with little analysis; text and
figures do not seem to match up.

Please circle
(out of 8%)
678
345
012

19

12. Are results analysed and discussed in an appropriate way?

Mark
Descriptor
with X
Uses appropriate analytical methods with clear critical
Yes, very appropriate
assessment of these analyses.
Satisfactory, but some errors or omissions; some but
Yes, quite appropriate
incomplete discussion.
No, not at all appropriate

Indicative mark

Clear mismatch between analysis and the nature of the

project.

13. Are the conclusions justified and do they contribute to our understanding?
Mark
Descriptor
with X
Careful, considered conclusions based on the findings
and the evidence contained within the Project Report;
Yes, fully
critically discussed in the context of the existing
literature.
Satisfactory, but not fully justified or some inappropriate
Yes, partially
conclusions.
Conclusions well beyond the scope of the project
No, not at all
findings. Little or no critical judgement.
14. Is the discussion well-constructed?
Mark
Descriptor
with X
Excellent organisation; shows original thought and
Yes, excellent
objective critical assessment of own results and work by
others.
Reasonably well organised, although some errors
Yes, satisfactory
omissions or inaccuracies.
Rambling with incoherent structure; little evidence of any
No, none at all
objective or critical overview of findings.
15. Is the Project Report well presented?
Mark
Descriptor
with X
Few errors, well-structured sections, concise accurate
Yes, very well presented
writing style using appropriate vocabulary.
Yes, quite well presented
Except for some inaccuracies, errors or omissions.
Untidy, raw presentation with little evidence of proofing
No, not at all well
and editing.
presented

Please circle
(out of 16%)
111213141516
678910
012345

Please circle
(out of 8%)
678

345
012

Please circle
(out of 16%)
111213141516
678910
012345

Please circle
(out of 12%)
9101112
5678
01234

20

Masters Project Supervisors Comments on Project Report (note: these will be issued to students):

21

ChM in Urology
Student Performance &
Report Grade
from Second Marker

To be completed by Second Marker:

Student ID (if known):

Second Marker name:
Date:

Masters Project Assessment by Second Marker

Use the Postgraduate Common Marking Scheme
(www.ed.ac.uk/schoolsdepartments/registry/exams/regulations/common-markingscheme) and the full range of marks in each grade. Markers
should use the descriptors below for guidance and their
discretion in awarding an excellent mark (70-100; A grade,

Second Marker Final Mark

[SUM of circled marks on pages 1 to
3 (out of 100%)]

The difference between a satisfactory pass (C grade) and a fail (D, E, F, G or H grade) would be that the fail would
have one or more indicators in the lowest category. The middle grade (B) is more subjective and relies on the
judgement of the marker. As Masters Projects are varied, examiners should use the descriptors for guidance and their
discretion.
1. Is the introduction to the Project Report clear?
Mark
with X
Yes, very clear
Yes, quite clear
No, not at all clear

Indicative mark

Descriptor

Clear, focused and relevant to the project.

Reasonable attempt, but some inaccurate or
inappropriate material, with some lack of clarity.
Poor explanation of the research area, irrelevant
material, with little integration into aims of project.

2. Are the aims of the Project Report clear?

Mark
Descriptor
with X
Clear statement of project hypothesis and aims, and
Yes, very clear
the importance of the project discussed; well
integrated into introduction.

Please circle
(out of 16%)
1112131415
16
678910
012345

Please circle
(out of 8%)
678

Yes, quite clear

Some errors or inaccuracies.

345

No, not at all clear

No clear statement of project aims, poor or unclear

appreciation of rationale or hypothesis.

012

3 Are the methods appropriate and described clearly, and adequately and critically discussed?
Mark
Descriptor
Please circle
with X
(out of 16%)
Clear statement of project methodology in relation to
1112131415
aims; rationale for specific choice of methods stated;
Yes, very
critical awareness of limitations and strengths;
16
suggestions for possible improvements.
May be incomplete or containing some errors; some
678910
Yes, quite
critical assessment.
No clear statement of methods; little or no insight
into practical methodological issues and strengths
012345
No, not at all
and weaknesses; poor awareness of method
enhancement.

22

4. Are the results presented clearly?

Mark
with X
Yes, very clear
Yes, quite clear
No, not at all clear

Indicative mark

Descriptor
Results clearly presented in a systematic way using
the most appropriate format.
Satisfactory, but lacks some clarity.
Inappropriate and unsystematic presentation; much
of data presented unclear, with little analysis; text
and figures do not seem to match up.

5. Are results analysed and discussed in an appropriate way?

Mark
Descriptor
with X
Uses appropriate analytical methods with clear
Yes, very appropriate
critical assessment of these analyses.
Satisfactory, but some errors or omissions; some but
Yes, quite appropriate
incomplete discussion.
No, not at all appropriate

Clear mismatch between analysis and the nature of

the project.

6. Are the conclusions justified and do they contribute to our understanding?

Mark
Descriptor
with X
Careful, considered conclusions based on the
findings and the evidence contained within the
Yes, fully
Project Report; critically discussed in the context of
the existing literature.
Satisfactory, but not fully justified or some
Yes, partially
inappropriate conclusions.
Conclusions well beyond the scope of the project
No, not at all
findings. Little or no critical judgement.
7. Is the discussion well-constructed?
Mark
Descriptor
with X
Excellent organisation; shows original thought and
Yes, excellent
objective critical assessment of own results and work
by others.
Reasonably well organised, although some errors
Yes, satisfactory
omissions or inaccuracies.
Rambling with incoherent structure; little evidence
No, none at all
of any objective or critical overview of findings.

Please circle
(out of 8%)
678
345
012

Please circle
(out of 16%)
1112131415
16
678910
012345

Please circle
(out of 8%)
678

345
012

Please circle
(out of 16%)
1112131415
16
678910
012345

8. Is the Project Report well presented?

Indicative mark
Mark
Descriptor
Please circle
with X
(out of 12%)
Few errors, well-structured sections, concise accurate
9101112
Yes, very well presented
writing style using appropriate vocabulary.
Yes, quite well presented
Except for some inaccuracies, errors or omissions.
5678
Untidy, raw presentation with little evidence of
No, not at all well
01234
proofing and editing.
presented

23

Second Markers Comments on Project Report (note: these will be issued to students):

24

ChM in Urology
Student Reflective Review Form
2013 - 14

To be completed by the student

Student name:
Student ID:
Supervisor name:
Date:

Each student is expected to submit a brief review on their experience of the final year and writing
and researching the Project Report, using this template, highlighting what you have gained
personally. The review should be between 300 and 500 words and should be e-mailed to the
ESSQ Office urosurg@rcsed.ac.uk .

Title of Project:
Please write your reflections below:

25