Honours Handbook 2018 - Honours Degree at the Australian Regenerative Medicine Institute - Australian Regenerative ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Honours Handbook 2018 Honours Degree at the Australian Regenerative Medicine Institute
Table of Contents
CONTACTS AT ARMI 1 Assessment Task 4 – Literature Review External Topic 15
Details of task 15
HONOURS AT ARMI 2
Value 15
WELCOME FROM THE DIRECTOR 3 Date due 15
ACADEMIC OVERVIEW 4 Literature review presentation requirements 15
Learning Objectives 4 Literature review criteria 15
Graduate Attributes 4 Supervisor input into the literature review 15
Assessment Schedule 4 Criteria for assessment of literature review 16
ASSESSMENT 5 Assessment Task 5 – Poster Presentation on
Scoring Matrices 5 project topic 17
What Are My Responsibilities For Learning? 6 Details of task 17
When Should I Begin? 6 Value 17
Date due 17
LABORATORY CONDUCT AND SAFETY 7 Poster presentation requirements 17
UNIT SCHEDULE 8 Criteria for assessment of Poster Presentation 17
ORIENTATION PROGRAM 9 Assessment Task 6 – Thesis 17
Details of task 17
ASSESSMENT REQUIREMENTS 10 Value 17
ARMI Seminars 10 Due date 17
Assignment submission 10 Thesis presentation requirements 17
Hardcopy submission 10 Thesis assessment rubric 18
Extensions and penalties 10 Supervisor input into the thesis preparation 18
Assessment Task 1 – Project Outline 10 Criteria for assessment 19
Details of task 10 Assessment Task 7 – Seminar 2 23
Value 10 Details of task 23
Date due 10 Value 23
Project outline presentation requirements 10 Date due 23
Assessment Task 2 – Literature Review and Final Abstract presentation requirements 23
Project Outline 10 Seminar 23
Details of task 10 Seminar presentation requirements 23
Value 10 Seminar time allocations 23
Date due 10 Seminar assessment 23
Literature review presentation requirements 10 Criteria for assessment 24
Literature review criteria 11 Assessment Task 8 – Thesis Defence 24
Supervisor input into the literature review 11 Details of task 24
Criteria for assessment of literature review 11 Value 24
Literature Review Assessment Rubric 12 Date due 24
Assessment Task 3 – Seminar 1 14 Defence presentation requirements 24
Details of task 14 Examiners panel 25
Value 14 Spokesperson 25
Date due 14 Format of the interview 25
Abstract presentation requirements 14 Supervisor 25
Seminar 14 Criteria for Marking 25
Seminar presentation requirements 14 GUIDELINES FOR SUPERVISORS 26
Seminar time allocations 14 Selection of a Suitable Project 26
Seminar assessment 14 Conditions for Comment by Supervisors on Thesis Drafts 26
Criteria for assessment of seminar 15 Role of Supervisors in Assessment Procedures 27
Guidelines For Co-Supervisors 27
ii
OTHER INFORMATION 28
Science Honours Program Policy 28
Guide To Effective Thesis Writing 28
Structure of Thesis 28
Abstract/summary 28
Introduction 28
Materials and methods 28
Results 28
Discussion 28
Bibliography 29
Appendices 29
Illustrations and figures 29
Statistics 29
What to do if all your results are negative? 29
When to finish your research? 29
Cost of thesis illustrations and binding 29
Tips and tricks for thesis preparation 29
Final check of your thesis before submission 29
Organisation and presentation 29
Abstract 30
Methodology and experimental design 30
Data collection, treatment and analysis 30
Discussion 30
Guide To Effective Powerpoint Presentations 30
Referencing 31
Assessment 31
Assessment process and grades 31
Honours Grades 31
Appeal process 32
Special consideration 32
Feedback 32
Plagiarism 32
Hargrave-Andrew Library 32
Tutorials 32
Introduction to EndNote 32
Attendance at Institute Research Seminars 32
Student Counselling 33
Coping with a Crisis 33
Individual Counselling 33
Computers and desk allocation 33
Cover Page template 34
Map of Clayton Campus 35
Further information Back cover
Copyright © Monash University 2016. All rights reserved. Except as provided in the Copyright Act 1968, this work may not be reproduced in any
form without the written permission of the host Faculty and School/Department.
iii
Notes iv
Contacts at ARMI
Ms Jane McCausland
Honours Coordinator
ARMI
15 Innovation Walk, Level 1
Tel: 9902-9607
Email: jane.mccausland@monash.edu
Prof Graham Lieschke
Director,
Student Programs
ARMI
15 Innovation Walk, Level 1, North
Tel: 9902-9720
Email: graham.lieschke@monash.edu
1
Honours at ARMI
A full-time Honours year at ARMI gives students the Other topics may be available by further discussion with staff.
opportunity to undertake a specific avenue of research The course is also designed to prepare selected students for
selected from the range of research interests within the postgraduate research work leading to a Doctor of Philosophy
Institute. ARMI integrates research in three key platforms: degree. Students may enrol through the School of Biomedical
structural biology (molecular level), cell biology (cell level) Sciences (Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences) or
and regenerative biology (organism level). Specific areas the Faculty of Science and undertake the Honours/BMedSc or
of research include neuronal development and disease, BSc(Hons) course in any of the research groups within ARMI.
morphogenesis and muscle development, embryo patterning,
development and function of white blood cells, stem cell
maintenance and reprogramming, and heart development
and regeneration.
Mode of Delivery Clayton, Semesters 1 and 2, 2018
Workload: • 1 x Project Outline and Literature Review
• 2 x Seminars
• 1 x Literature Review External Topic
• 1x Poster Presentation Project Topic
• 1 x Thesis
• 1 x Thesis Defence
Unit Relationships and Bachelor of Biomedical Sciences – an average of 70% or higher in at least 24 points at
Prerequisites: 3rd year (including 12 points in BMS core units)
Bachelor of Science – A distinction grade average (70%) in 24 points of relevant 3rd year
units. These 24 points of studies will normally include at least 18 points of units in the
science area of study in which honours is undertaken.
Unit Coordinators: Prof Graham Lieschke
Campus: Clayton
Email: graham.lieschke@monash.edu
Office hours: Monday – Friday, 10.00am – 4.00pm
Honours Coordinator: Ms Jane McCausland
Location: ARMI, 15 Innovation Walk, Level 1
Campus: Clayton
Phone: 03 9902 9607
Email: jane.mccausland@monash.edu
Office Hours: Monday – Friday, 9.00am – 4.00pm
2
Welcome from the Director
Professor Peter Currie
Congratulations on gaining entry to the Honours program at the Australian
Regenerative Medicine Institute.
You have joined the Institute at a very exciting time. All of our Group Leaders have had
excellent success in obtaining competitive research grant funding in recent years, and
you are joining us as we continue to expand and grow. More than 200 researchers are
located in the Institute, and thus there are plenty of people to inspire you and help you
to begin thinking like a real scientist.
Regenerative Medicine is one of the most important and promising new arenas for research in the life
sciences. Its potential to radically transform our understanding and treatment of disease is generating
excitement in medical research laboratories throughout the world. Underpinned by advanced science and
new research technologies, regenerative medicine is an ideal platform for forging a career in the life sciences.
ARMI is one of the world’s largest regenerative medicine and stem cell research hubs and you will find
we offer a top-tier research environment, extensive facilities, and the opportunity to work with a team of
international experts in regenerative medicine.
I encourage you to become an active member of the ARMI Postgraduate Student Society. This group
represents the interests of Honours and PhD students in the Institute, and in addition to providing career
advice and peer support, also organises regular social time.
Finally, we consider you to be an integral part of the ARMI team. We are truly privileged to be able to
contribute to your training. I wish you every success in your Honours year at ARMI.
Best wishes,
Professor Peter Currie
Director, ARMI
February 2018
3Academic Overview
Learning Objectives Graduate Attributes
Congratulations! …and welcome to your Honours year at Monash prepares its graduates to be:
ARMI. The Honours year is an exciting time in which you will
1. responsible and effective global citizens who:
have the opportunity to find out what research is all about
a. engage in an internationalised world
under the watchful eye of your project supervisor or other
b. exhibit cross-cultural competence
senior members of the laboratory. It should be a year in which
c. demonstrate ethical values
you learn how to develop a hypothesis from previous studies,
define a series of research aims/objectives for your project, 2. critical and creative scholars who:
design suitable experiments to achieve your research goals a. produce innovative solutions to problems
and prepare a detailed and scholarly report called the THESIS. b. apply research skills to a range of challenges
The thesis will describe your research achievements and the c. communicate perceptively and effectively
significance of the results.
Assessment Schedule
Assessment Task Date Due Time Due
1. Project Outline 9 March 4.00pm
2. Literature Review 12 April 4.00pm
3. Seminar 1 2 May 10.00am
4. Literature Review on external topic 28 June 4.00pm
5. Poster Presentation on Project Topic 8 August TBC 1.00pm
6. Thesis 11 October 4.00pm
7. Seminar 2 24 October 10.00am
8. Thesis Defence 1 November TBA
4Assessment
The Honours course comprises two units.
4100 = 75% of overall mark
4200 = 25% of overall mark
Please note that assessment is Faculty dependent.
Below are the scoring matrices for Faculty of Science and School of Biomedical Sciences (FBPS). Please review the matrix for the
Faculty in which you are enrolled to understand the weighting of each assessment task.
ARMI / Faculty of Science Grading Matrix
MIS4100 Regenerative Medicine Research Project % unit % year Assessment
(36 points=75%)
Literature Review 13.5% 10% ARMI
Seminar 1 6.5% 5% ARMI
Seminar 2 13.5% 10% ARMI
Thesis 66.5% 50% ARMI
Total 100% 75%
MIS4200 Advanced Studies in Regenerative Medicine % unit % year Assessment
(12 points=25%)
Discipline Specific Component 40%
Poster presentation 20% 5% ARMI
Literature Review on external topic 20% 5% ARMI
Thesis Defence 60% 15% ARMI
ARMI Seminar Program attendance NA ARMI
Total 100% 25%
ARMI / BMS Grading Matrix
BMS4100 Biomedical Research Project % unit % year Assessment
(36 points=75%)
Literature Review 10% 7.5% ARMI
Seminar 1 NS/S ARMI
Seminar 2 10% 7.5% ARMI
Thesis 80% 60% ARMI
Total 100% 75%
BMS4200 Advanced Studies in Biomedical Science % unit % year Assessment
(12 points=25%)
Discipline Specific Component 40%
Poster presentation 20% 5% ARMI
Literature Review on external topic 20% 5% ARMI
Thesis Defence NS/S ARMI
ARMI Seminar Program attendance NA ARMI
Common Core Component 60%
Statistics course 30% 7.5% Faculty
Written Critique 30% 7.5% Faculty
Total 100% 25%
NA = Not Assessed NS = Not Satisfactory S = Satisfactory
5Assessment (continued)
Due to the significant impact of the Honours results on • to meet deadlines for work to be submitted
your career objectives and outcomes, great care is taken to • to take the initiative and consult appropriately when
provide fair and objective assessment of the Honours year. problems arise
An examiners panel of 3–4 academics and scientists plus the • to submit original work for assessment without plagiarising
Honours Coordinator will ensure that the grading process is or cheating
carried out with the highest standards. Members of this panel • to attend lectures, tutorials and seminars for each unit in
will be assessors themselves but will rely on a large number of which they are enrolled
“consultant” examiners who will read and assess your literature • to accept joint responsibility for their own learning
reviews and final theses. Refer to the Assessment Summary for • to contribute to the development of University programs
information about how marks will be allocated. and policies by participating in consultative and
deliberative processes in a responsible and ethical manner
What Are My Responsibilities For Learning? • to be aware of the University’s commitment to equal
Responsibilities of students (Extract from the Education Policy opportunity and to demonstrate tolerance and respect for
(1994)) all members of the University community
• to respect the right of staff members to express views and
• to apply themselves to their studies to the best of their opinions
abilities • to respect the working environment of others in all areas of
• to become familiar with the rules and regulations the University.
governing the degree in which they are enrolled, and
to ensure that the units selected meet the degree When Should I Begin?
requirements
The official commencement date for Honours at ARMI starts
• to be aware of the policies and practices of the University
with the Orientation Program (refer to page 9).
and of any Faculty and Department in which they are
enrolled and which are contained in the materials and
information made available to them
• to be aware of the rules and regulations concerning the
use of University computing, library and other facilities, as
set out in published material
6Laboratory Conduct and Safety
Renae Hayle is the Manager, Resources & Scientific Services Renae Hayle
at ARMI. She is responsible for the organisation and • 0417 966 995 or ext 29610 – renae.hayle@monash.edu
coordination of laboratory practices, purchasing laboratory
equipment, managing the ARMI store staff, looking after • Call 24/7 with any emergency, safety or building issue
occupational health and safety matters, ethics and biosafety. Security
She also looks after the building maintenance and building
• 990 53333 or ext 333 (for emergencies – fire/ambulance/
access. All staff, students, visitors and affiliates of ARMI that
police) or 990 53038 (non-emergencies)
work at 15 Innovation Walk are required to do a safety
induction with Renae. • Always ring security directly for emergencies – not 000.
This is a large campus and emergency services can get lost
All labs in ARMI are PC2 and accredited for animal ethics work.
trying to find our building.
This means that lab coats and closed shoes are compulsory
at all times while working in ARMI laboratories. No food or • In the event of a fire evacuation – the evacuation point for
drink is to be taken into the lab at any time. Hands must be 15 Innovation Walk is across the road from Cinque Lire Cafe
washed with soap and water when leaving the laboratory. in front of 12 Innovation Walk
Any student found disregarding these rules will be removed
• Security are available 24/7 and will walk you to your car
from the lab and the Honours Coordinator, Supervisor and
after hours if requested
Manager informed.
The ARMI store (Rm 111) provides stocks of communal Occupational Health, Safety and Environment branch:
consumables, reagents and laundered lab coats. Any time • http://www.monash.edu.au/ohs/
consumables are obtained from the store they must be signed • ohsehelpline@monash.edu
out under your lab on the computer system. The store will also
autoclave goods and clean all lab glass and plasticware. • Tel: 9905 1016
Here is a list of contact information that may help while you • Location: 30 Research Way, Clayton campus
are working in ARMI. “Ask Monash” is an on-line service which allows Monash staff
and students to find out the answers to questions quickly
and conveniently by searching a database of frequently asked
questions. If a suitable answer cannot be found, you can
submit the inquiry to OHSE for resolution.
https://my.monash.edu.au/askmonash/
I look forward to meeting you all, and enjoy your Honours year
at ARMI.
Renae
Manager, Resources & Scientific Services at ARMI
7Unit Schedule
Task # Activity Date
Orientation program commences Monday 19 February
Academic year begins Monday 26 February
1 PROJECT OUTLINE Friday 9 March
2 LITERATURE REVIEW (including project hypotheses and aims) Thursday 12 April
Seminar 1 abstract due Friday 27 April 4pm
3 SEMINAR 1 Wednesday 2 May
Release date for External Literature Review Topic Friday 25 May
4 LITERATURE REVIEW ON EXTERNAL TOPIC Thursday 28 June
5 POSTER PRESENTATION ON PROJECT TOPIC Wednesday 8 August TBC
Thesis preparation and Information on PhD scholarship applications Friday 14 September
6 THESIS Thursday 11 October
Seminar 2 abstract due Friday 19 October 4pm
7 SEMINAR 2 Wednesday 24 October
PhD Application Deadline 31 October
8 THESIS DEFENCE Thursday 1 November
Formal Dinner for students, supervisors, Director and course coordinators Thursday 1 November
8Orientation Program
Attendance at the sessions below is COMPULSORY.
Event Date
BMS Orientation Program Monday 19 February
10.00am – 12.00pm in lecture theatre S7, 21 Rainforest Walk, Clayton campus
Commercialisation and IP
2.00pm – 3.00pm in lecture theatre S7, 21 Rainforest Walk, Clayton campus
Laboratory Animal Care and Use Tuesday 20 February
10.00am – 12.30pm in lecture lecture theatre S7, 21 Rainforest Walk, Clayton campus
ARMI Orientation Program Tuesday 20 February
2.30pm – 4.30pm in Outback Meeting Room, Level 1, ARMI, 15 Innovation Walk,
Clayton campus
OH&S sessions – Student Project Safety and Biosafety 1 Wednesday 21 February
9.30am – 2.00pm in Lecture theatre S7, 21 Rainforest Walk, Clayton campus
Biosafety 2 – OGTR session Wednesday 21 February
3.00pm – 4.00pm in lecture theatre S7, 21 Rainforest Walk, Clayton campus
COMMON CORE COMPONENT: Stats Course Begins Wednesday 28 Feb
Wednesday Group 1, 3.00pm – 4.30pm (ends 11 April – 6 tutorials)
Wednesday Group 2, 4.30pm – 6pm No tutorial in mid semester break
(4 April)
Digilabs 144, 145, 146, 18 Innovation Walk, Clayton campus
Finding information for your literature review Monday 5 March 9.30am – 11.00am
Students to attend one class only Tuesday 6 March 9.30am – 11.00am
Thursday 8 March 9.30am – 11.00am
Introduction to Endnote sessions Monday 5 March 11.30am – 1.00pm
Students to attend one class only Tuesday 6 March 11.30am – 1.00pm
(Register through the library online booking system in my.monash) Thursday 8 March 11.30am – 1.00pm
Literature Review Writing class Monday 26 February 10.00am – 11.30am
Students to attend one class only Tuesday 6 March 4.30pm – 6.00pm
(Register through the library online booking system in my.monash) Monday 12 March 12.00pm – 1.30pm
Surviving Your Honours Year session Session to be confirmed
Attendance compulsory. Students to attend one session only Tuesday 20 February 1–5pm
Venue to be advised Thursday 22 February
Friday 23 February
Professor David Vaux special seminar TBA
9Assessment Requirements
ARMI Seminars Project outline presentation requirements
• Margins 2 cm
Attendance at all internal and external speaker ARMI seminars
• Double spacing
is compulsory and attendance is monitored.
• No less than 11 point arial font
• Maximum 4 pages plus references
Assignment submission • Include project title, student name and ID number,
Submission supervisor(s) (do not place this information in heading
All work is to be submitted by date/time on page 8 as 2 or footer)
electronic copies to Honours_ARMI@monash.edu, as a • By date/time on page 8: Submit 2 electronic copies to
Word and PDF file. Save file as Lastname[Task}.doc and Honours_ARMI@monash.edu, as a Word and PDF file. Save
Lastname[Task].pdf. Make sure file size is• References Criteria for assessment of literature review
– References for original Project Outline should be Assessors will receive the following questions, which are
combined with those of the Literature Review designed to assist them in their assessment of the
– Students should use the Harvard system of referencing. literature review:
Please see page 31 for an example of the “Harvard”
referencing system. 1. Understanding of the Topic
• By date/time on page 8: Submit 2 electronic copies to Is there a clearly defined rationale for the study? Is the previous
Honours_ARMI@monash.edu, as a Word and PDF file. Save work leading to this study clearly explained and in context?
file as LastnameLR.doc and LastnameLR.pdf. Make sure file Have key references been given?
size isTASK 2 – LITERATURE REVIEW: CRITERIA FOR ASSESSMENT
H1 Upper H1 Lower H2A H2B H3 Fail
(90–100) (80–89) (70–79) (60–69) (50–59) (≤ 50)
Comprehension of topic – Out of 20 marks
An outstanding An excellent A good piece of An adequate piece Argument There is little
piece of work. piece of work. work. The student of work, which obscure, weak evidence of
The student The student shows a firm grasp shows evidence or unbalanced. comprehension of
demonstrates demonstrates of the majority of background Evidence of the topic.
that they have a a high-level of of the relevant reading. only partial
comprehensive understanding literature. comprehension of
understanding of the relevant the topic.
of the relevant literature.
literature and
shows an
outstanding
synthesis of factual
and conceptual
components.
Coverage of topic – Out of 20 marks
The background The background Evidence of Clear links between Much of the Coverage of
is focussed, clear is focussed, fairly extensive aim and literature basic information the literature is
and detailed, but clear, detailed background sometimes is missing. For inadequate with
concise. Where and concise. All reading with included. For systematic reviews, little information
appropriate, concepts are appropriate systematic reviews, the search strategy and no critical
strengths, well-linked. Where reference to the search strategy is absent or very review. For
weaknesses and appropriate, original articles. is included, but poorly explained. systematic reviews,
discrepancies in discrepancies in For a systematic poorly explained. Links between no search strategy
the literature are the literature are review, the search aims and literature is included.
highlighted and highlighted and strategy used is are missing
explained. Work explained. Work explained clearly
contains extensive contains extensive
and appropriate and appropriate
reference to reference to
original articles. original articles.
For a systematic For a systematic
review, the search review, the search
strategy used is strategy used is
explained very explained very
clearly. clearly.
Analysis and integration – Out of 20 marks
Hypothesis(es) or Hypothesis(es) or Hypothesis(es) or Hypothesis or Hypothesis/ No aim, hypothesis,
research question research question research question research question research question or research
and aim(s) are and aim(s) are and aim(s) are does not match is poorly described, question provided.
clearly stated. clearly stated. clearly stated. well with the aim poorly justified
There is excellent There is very good There is a clear link or methods to be and does not
integration of the integration of the between the aim(s) used. match with aims or
aim(s) of the study aim(s) of the study of the study and methods.
and the literature. and the literature. the literature.
12H1 Upper H1 Lower H2A H2B H3 Fail
(90–100) (80–89) (70–79) (60–69) (50–59) (≤ 50)
Originality and critical thought – Out of 20 marks
Shows outstanding A commendable Evaluative/critical/ Some Partially successful Largely irrelevant.
insight and an degree of analytical skills understanding, attempt to use Little or no
ability to structure academic present but not reflection, and relevant examples understanding.
and synthesise originality highly developed. critical thought. and fact and
published material No obvious Partially successful minimal reflection
with research weaknesses except attempt to use and critical
project. The a lack of originality. relevant examples thought.
candidate could and facts but a lack
be expected to of originality.
achieve no more
Organisation and presentation – Out of 20 marks
Well structured, Logical layout Acceptable layout Layout and general Layout and general Literature review is
logical layout with with headings with headings presentation presentation poorly organised
headings and and subheadings and good quality lacks structure. makes it and difficult to
subheadings to to emphasize visual aids. Some Reasonable use cumbersome read. Very poor
emphasize ideas. ideas. Excellent typographical of visual aids. and difficult to grammar and
Outstanding quality of visual and grammatical Typographical and read. Frequent spelling. Figures
quality of visual aids (figures, tables, errors. References grammatical errors typographical, badly presented.
aids (figures, tables, graphs). Very few are mostly cited are common. grammatical, Little citation
graphs). Negligible typographical correctly in the References are citation and or inaccurate
typographical and grammatical text and generally mostly cited referencing errors. referencing.
and grammatical errors. References correctly formatted correctly in the References
errors. References are cited correctly in the reference list. text and generally primarily refer to
are cited correctly in the text and correctly formatted review articles
in the text and correctly formatted in the reference list.
correctly formatted in the reference list.
in the reference list.
13Assessment Task 3 – Seminar 1 Seminar time allocations
The time allocated for each student during the initial seminar
Details of task is 15 minutes (10 min presentation with a 5 min discussion
Each student will provide a one page abstract and present a period). There is no absolute time prescription for the various
literature review at a seminar. components of the seminar. Clearly, the structure and
emphasis of each seminar will to some extent be influenced
Value by the project structure and the nature of background
5% / NS/S See relevant scoring matrix on page 5. information on which it is based. Seminars may differ greatly in
emphasis depending on the timing of the various segments.
Date due However, as a general guide, you should consider the
Refer to the Unit Schedule on page 8. The seminar schedule following time allocations for each of the components when
will be issued to you and your supervisor nearer the date of planning your seminar.
the seminar.
Abstract presentation requirements
• Margins 2 cm 1 General Introduction 1 min
• Double spacing Review of the literature/rationale for the
• No less than 11 point arial font 2 4 min
project
• The abstract should state the Student’s name, Title and
Supervisor/s’ name (do not place this information in 3 Aims 1 min
heading or footer) Experimental plan (including statistical
• The body of the abstract should include: 4 3 min
analysis)
– Background
5 Expected Outcomes 1 min
– Hypothesis
– Aim/s Total 10 min
– Study Design
– Expected Outcomes
• Maximum one page including references The 10 minute presentation time for each student will be
• Submit 2 electronic copies to Honours_ARMI@monash. strictly adhered to. The chair will have a timer, which will buzz
edu, as a Word and PDF file. Save file as LastnameS1.doc after 9 minutes to indicate that you have 1 minute remaining
and LastnameS1.pdf. Make sure file size isTASK 3 – SEMINAR 1: CRITERIA FOR ASSESSMENT
Criteria Mark
1. Clear introduction and review of literature relating to project /20
2. Clear statement of aims and hypotheses /20
3. Clear description of research plans and expected outcomes /20
4. Clarity of overall presentation and use of audiovisual aids. Command of expression
/20
and logical argument
5. Response to questions /20
Total /100
Assessment Task 4 – Literature Review Literature review criteria
External Topic The review will be presented in an editorial form to highlight
and contextualise the research in the focal paper. Your paper
Details of task should be aimed at an audience of biologists who do not
necessarily study the particular topic upon which your paper
All students will conduct a literature review on a topic external will focus. You should endeavour to make the piece as clear
to their Honours project which will be written up in the form and accessible as possible. Detail may be sacrificed for the sake
of an editorial on the set article / topic (focal paper). Details of clarity, but the topic should be discussed authoritatively.
of the paper on which this task will be based will be made
available on the date shown in the Unit Schedule on page 8. You should:
• describe what the focal paper has found (demonstrate
clear understanding of the research area)
Value • explain why this is interesting and important (display and
5% communicate an understanding of what the paper has
contrubuted to the field)
Date due • make clear how it relates to previous empirical work and
Refer to the Unit Schedule on page 8. theory (put into appropriate context )
• identify which questions are being answered and which
Literature review presentation requirements are being raised (demonstrate critical thinking)
Attention is drawn to the following requirements/guidelines; Write simple, clear sentences. Aim for a smooth, coherent,
• Margins 2 cm step-wise flow, with one thought per sentence. Break the text
• Double spacing into sensibly sized paragraphs.
• No less than 11 point arial font
• Cover page (see page 34) Supervisor input into the literature review
– Including project title, student name and ID number, Supervisors should be involved with their students in the
department/institute, Supervisor/s of lab, word count planning of the editorial and its structure. They should advise,
and signed statement of originality but leave to the student, decisions about data interpretation,
• Title. The title has two parts: the broad subject area etc. Students should then prepare a first draft. STUDENTS
followed by a specific title (e.g. ‘Neutrophils: Regenerative MAY SUBMIT ONE DRAFT ONLY OF THE LITERATURE REVIEW
Dream or Nightmare?’). The title should be concise, EDITORIAL FOR COMMENT BY THEIR SUPERVISOR(S). The
attention-grabbing and can be snappy. supervisor can edit the copy of this first draft but only very
• Literature review broadly. Students are to keep these copies and provide them
– 1200 – 1500 words; the flow of the paper should to the Honours Coordinator if requested.
include an introductory paragrpah, the findings of the
Grammar, spelling corrections, and other typographical errors
paper, the importance of the findings in context with
are the responsibility of the student. Supervisors should NOT
the rest of the field, and what questions are addressed
CIRCULATE draft versions of the review to staff, other than
/ raised by these findings, i.e., what are the implications
the co-supervisor, for detailed comments. Supervisors and
of the paper for future studies in the field.
co-supervisors must comment on the exact same version
• References
of the review. Supervisors should never write any part of the
– Students should use the Harvard system from EndNote
review themselves. Supervisors are not permitted to edit the
for referencing
literature review draft using track changes. This is important
• By date/time on page 8: Submit 2 electronic copies to
since the review must be original work that is clearly identified
Honours_ARMI@monash.edu, as a Word and PDF file. Save
as the student’s effort and not that of the supervisor. Note
file as LastnameLRE.doc and LastnameLRE.pdf. Make sure
that the draft cannot be circulated by the student to any
file size isCriteria for assessment of literature review 3. Critical evaluation of the data
editorial Have questions which the data in the focal paper have
Assessors will receive the following questions, which are answered been identified? Have questions that have been
designed to assist them in their assessment of the literature raised by this data been identified? Have the implications
review: of the data in the focal paper been explored with reference
to impact on the field?
1. Understanding of the Topic
Is the previous work leading to the study in the focal paper 4. Presentation
clearly explained? Have key references been given? Are the ideas concisely and clearly expressed? Is the review
free of typographical and syntax errors? Are diagrams
2. Interpretation of data and conclusions / Context and tables necessary and are they clear and legible and
Have the data and conclusions of previous publications supported by suitably informative headings and captions?
been critically and intelligently analysed? Have the data Are the references cited correctly?
from the focal paper been placed in the context of this
analysis? Is the significance of the findings in the focal
paper clearly indicated?
TASK 4 – LITERATURE REVIEW EXTERNAL TOPIC: CRITERIA FOR ASSESSMENT
Grade Mark range Criteria
HI upper 90–100 An outstanding piece of work. Has total control of relevant literature and shows an
(Outstanding) excellent synthesis of factual and conceptual components. Shows outstanding insight in
contextualising the work in the focal paper with published literature. Work reflects extensive
reference to original articles. The candidate could be expected to achieve no more.
Expression, style, grammar and referencing are outstanding.
HI lower 80–89 An excellent piece of work. High level of understanding of all relevant publications with
(Excellent) excellent, relevant use of referencing and examples. Communicates clearly and effectively
using a coherent structure showing insight and perceptiveness. Is able to effectively
contextualise the work in the focal paper with published literature. Work reflects extensive
reference to original and review articles. A commendable degree of academic originality.
Expression, style, grammar and referencing are excellent.
H2A upper 75–79 A good piece of work. Shows a firm grasp of majority of the relevant literature. Argues well
(Good) and effectively and is able to criticise and evaluate material. Evidence of fairly extensive
background reading beyond the review articles. Presents the focal paper in context of
published literature. Sustained argument throughout. Well structured and shows good
evidence of wider background reading. Expression, style, grammar and referencing are
good.
H2A lower 70–74 A competent piece of work, which shows reasonable understanding of the material and
(Satisfactory) presents it satisfactorily with appropriate examples and referencing. Structure is apparent
and there is a coherent (though possibly weak) argument with adequate conclusion.
Presents the focal paper in context of some of the published literature. Evaluative/critical/
analytical skills present but not highly developed. Presents the focal paper in context
of some of the published literature. No obvious weaknesses except a lack of originality.
Expression, style, grammar and referencing are moderately good.
H2B 60–69 An adequate piece of work, which shows some structure, relevant use of examples
(Pass) and evidence of background reading. Some limited referencing. Limited evidence of
independent thought and the development of substantiated arguments. Conclusions
not well developed. Evaluative/critical /analytical skills present but not highly developed.
Expression, style, grammar and referencing are adequate. Partially successful in presenting
the focal paper in context of some of the published literature. No obvious weaknesses
except a lack of originality.
H3 50–59 Argument obscure, weak or unbalanced. Only partially relevant. Have major content
(Borderline/ omissions. Some understanding, reflection, structure and referencing. Partially successful
weak) attempt to use relevant examples and facts. Some reading. Poor contextualising of
focal paper with published literature. Conclusions weak. Expression, style, grammar and
referencing limited.
F (Fail/ 0–49 Weak. Lacking evidence of preparation, evaluation or reflective skills. Largely irrelevant. Little
Unsatisfactory) or no understanding. Hardly any, or no, evidence of reading or organisation. No ability to
present the focal paper in context with published literature. Expression, style, grammar and
referencing very poor.
16Assessment Task 5 – Poster Presentation on Assessment Task 6 – Thesis
Project Topic Details of task
Details of task The Honours thesis is the culmination of all the work that
All students will prepare a poster on their Honours project to you have done during the year in your research project.
be presented at the Student Symposium to be held in August It is one of three avenues in the course that provides you
and to be assessed by a panel of ~4 judges. The Director’s with an opportunity to display and discuss your research
Award for Best Poster will be awarded at the end of the achievements.
Symposium. Honours students should achieve, in quality and quantity, a
high standard of work that is publishable in a reputable, peer-
Value reviewed journal. Flick through a previous Honours thesis to
5% get a clear idea of what is expected in terms of content and
presentation.
Date due
Refer to the Unit Schedule on page 8. Value
50% / 60% See relevant scoring matrix on page 5.
Poster Presentation Requirements
Posters should be produced in Powerpoint and be of the Due date
AO (841mm x 1189mm) and MUST NOT include additional Refer to the Unit Schedule on page 8.
material (e.g. videos on iPad). The orientation of your poster
should be PORTRAIT. All laboratories are familiar with this Thesis presentation requirements
method of presentation, and you should ask your supervisor/s • Margins 2 cm
for examples of posters that group members have recently • Double spacing
presented at conferences. Your poster must be submitted • No less than 11 point arial font
one week before the poster presentation, failure to do so • The main text (Introduction, Methods, Results and
will leave you liable to incurring late penalties. Discussion) should be no more than 15,000
Submit your poster as a PDF file. Save as Lastname_Poster.pdf • words or approximately 50 A4 pages.
to Honours_ARMI@monash.edu. • The word/page limit does not include tables, figures,
diagrams and the accompanying legends, or title page,
ARMI will print the posters for you.
confirmation, acknowledgments, bibliography and
Poster should include appendices
• Thesis can end up being around 90 pages depending on
Title the number of diagrams etc.
Candidate’s name and student ID • Submit 2 electronic copies on a clearly labelled USB drive
General introduction as a Word and PDF file. Save file as LastnameTHESIS.doc
Hypotheses and Aims and LastnameTHESIS.pdf.
Experimental Design and Methods • One thermally bound copy of your thesis will be provided
Outcomes & Conclusion to you
The thesis should contain the following sections:
TASK 5 – POSTER: CRITERIA FOR ASSESSMENT
• A title page (Including name (check spelling of name – a
Criteria Mark classic error zone), supervisors, title of project, address, date,
course and course code). Word count
Appearance – use of illustrative material,
• Table of contents
1 clear easy to read text, flow of /20 • Declaration. A signed confirmation of the originality of
information and presentation of data the work and a clear indication of any significant practical
Content – relevance of data presented input into the research by others
2 / discussed in context, impact of /50 • Acknowledgments
research • Summary/Abstract (2 pages)
Presentation and answering of questions at • Introduction (literature review, aims and hypothesis tested)
3 /30 • Materials and Methods
the poster
• Results
Total /100 • Discussion
• Conclusions and Future Directions
• Bibliography
• Appendices
For more information about preparing your thesis refer to the
Guide to Effective Thesis Writing on page 28.
17Thesis assessment rubric
Each thesis will be reviewed and assessed by a minimum
of two examiners. The Honours coordinator will distribute
the theses to examiners the day after the submission date.
Examiners will send their written reports to the Honours
coordinator within two weeks. The Honours coordinator will
make every effort to distribute these comments to the student
before the thesis defence session.
Assessment is based on the following criteria:
• Clear understanding of the research topic and the relevant
background literature;
• Logical sequence of experiments from which a set of
appropriate conclusions are drawn;
• Demonstrated skills in and understanding of experimental
planning and design, experimental procedures and
equipment used in the project;
• Placement of the findings of the research project into an
accurate and appropriate scientific context;
• A thesis that is well prepared and organised, and presented
clearly and concisely.
Supervisor input into the thesis preparation
Supervisors should be involved with their students in the
planning of the thesis. Students and supervisors should plan
together the layout of the thesis, the disposition of figures,
etc. They should advise, but leave to the student, decisions
about data interpretation, etc. Students should then prepare
a first draft. STUDENTS MAY SUBMIT ONE DRAFT ONLY OF
THE THESIS FOR COMMENT BY THEIR SUPERVISOR(S). The
supervisor can edit the copy of this first draft but only very
broadly. Students are to keep these copies and provide them
to the Honours Coorindator if requested.
Grammar, spelling corrections, and other typographical errors
are the responsibility of the student. Supervisors should NOT
CIRCULATE draft versions of the thesis to staff, other than the
co-supervisor, for detailed comments. Supervisors and co-
supervisors must comment on the exact same version of the
thesis. Supervisors should never write any part of the thesis
themselves. Supervisors are not permitted to edit the thesis
draft using track changes. This is important since the thesis
must be original work that is clearly identified as the student’s
effort and not that of the supervisor. Note that the draft cannot
be circulated by the student to any other staff members,
postdoctoral fellows, research assistants or to postgraduate
students. Note that supervisors and co-supervisors will not be
examiners of a thesis written by their own students.
18TASK 6 – THESIS: CRITERIA FOR ASSESSMENT
Comments (this section to be returned to the student)
Use an additional page if necessary
PLEASE PROVIDE A MARK IN EACH COLUMN
Background, Methods Findings / Results Discussions and Organisation Total Score
review of the Conclusions and Presentation
literature and
rationale for the
study
(20) (10) (20) (40) (10) (out of 100)
Background, review of the literature and rationale for the study – Marked out of 20
Criteria: Is the research problem clearly explained and in context?
H1 upper (90–100) H1 lower (80–89) H2A (70–79) H2B (60–69) H3 (50–59) Fail (≤ 50)
An outstanding An excellent piece A very good piece Background not Much of the basic The work is
piece of work. of work. of work. well focussed or information is poorly written.
Demonstrates a concise, and it lacks missing. There is a
Demonstrates Demonstrates a
comprehensive completeness and complete lack
a high-level of firm grasp of the Links between
understanding depth. of structure
understanding majority of the aims and literature
of the relevant and no logical
of the relevant relevant literature. are missing.
literature and argument.
literature. The The background
an outstanding
concepts are is generally clear
synthesis of
well linked. The but could have
the factual and
background is included greater
conceptual
focussed, clear and depth, detail,
components. The
detailed. context and
background is
perspective.
focussed, clear,
detailed and
concise.
Criteria: Are the strengths and weaknesses and discrepancies in the literature clearly explained and reference made to original articles?
H1 upper (90+) H1 lower (80-89) H2A (70-79) H2B (60-69) H3 (50-59) Fail (≤ 50)
Where appropriate, Where appropriate, Contains Referencing is limited Referencing Coverage of
strengths, discrepancies appropriate with limited evidence is limited with the literature
weaknesses and in the literature reference to of background limited evidence is inadequate
discrepancies are highlighted original articles. reading of background with little
in the literature and explained. reading information and
are highlighted Contains extensive no critical review.
and explained. and appropriate Serious mis-
Contains extensive reference to understanding
and appropriate original articles. of key concepts
reference to and issues.
original articles. References
primarily to
review articles.
Criteria: Are the aims of the student’s experimental program explained clearly and simply?
H1 upper (90+) H1 lower (80-89) H2A (70-79) H2B (60-69) H3 (50-59) Fail (≤ 50)
Hypothesis (or Hypothesis (or Hypothesis (or Clear links between Hypothesis (or Aim/hypothesis
research question) research question) research question) aim and literature research question) (or research
and aim(s) are and aim(s) are and aim(s) are sometimes included. poorly described, question) not
clearly stated. clearly stated. clearly stated. Hypothesis (or poorly justified, provided or not
There is a clear link There is a clear link There is a clear link research question) and do not match clear.
between the aim(s) between the aim(s) between the aim(s) does not match well with aims or
of the study and of the study and of the study and with the aims or methods.
the literature. the literature. the literature. methods to be used.
19Methods – Marked out of 10
Criteria: Are research methods clearly explained and well justified, including statistical methods?
H1 upper (90+) H1 lower (80-89) H2A (70-79) H2B (60-69) H3 (50-59) Fail (≤ 50)
Sophisticated Excellent Clear description The description of the Description of Knowledge
understanding of understanding of of the methods methods and analyses research design, of research
research design research design and analysis. are superficial. methods and methods is
and methods. The and methods. The Minor details are analysis is unclear lacking and the
No, justification for
design is rigorous design is good missing. No, or and lacks major description of
the research design
and methods and the methods little justification, details, including research design
and/or methodology,
explained with explained very for the research for statistical and methods,
including statistical
outstanding clarity clearly and with design and/or methods. including
methods.
and detail. A sufficient detail to methodology, statistical
strong justification allow replication including statistical methods is
is provided for of the study. A methods. inadequate.
the research justification is
design and/or provided for
methodology, the research
including statistical design and/or
methods. methodology,
including statistical
methods.
Criteria: For Qualitative and mixed method theses: is there sufficient information about qualitative methods, when employed?
H1 upper (90+) H1 lower (80-89) H2A (70-79) H2B (60-69) H3 (50-59) Fail (≤ 50)
For qualitative and For qualitative and For qualitative and For qualitative and For qualitative and For qualitative
mixed methods mixed methods mixed methods mixed methods mixed methods and mixed
theses: theses: theses: theses: theses: methods theses:
– an explanation – an explanation – the justification – methods are – it would be – it would be
of how of how of methods is described briefly difficult to impossible
categories categories described but but justification of replicate much for others to
and themes and themes the justification how the methods of the study. replicate the
were derived were derived of how the inform each study.
and checked and checked methods inform other is poorly
and how the and how the each other is conceptualised or
qualitative and qualitative and simplistic. missing.
quantitative quantitative
methods used methods used
were formulated were formulated
to inform each to inform each
other. other.
– a critical
reflection of
the role of the
researcher is
included.
Findings / Results – Marked out of 20
Criteria: Are the data / research findings presented in a clear, logical way? Is the data presented relevant, intelligible and accurate?
H1 upper (90+) H1 lower (80-89) H2A (70-79) H2B (60-69) H3 (50-59) Fail (≤ 50)
Outstanding Excellent Clear presentation Data selection not Data reporting Weak, lacking
presentation of presentation of of results. described and data brief and poorly evidence of
data or research data or research reported very briefly. constructed. preparation
findings. Only findings. and evaluation
relevant findings and significant
Relevant data
are presented. The concerns about
is presented.
selection of the accuracy.
Presentation of
data or findings
data/findings is
presented, are
arranged logically
described.
and is intelligible
and accurate.
20Findings / Results – Marked out of 20
Criteria: Are tables and figures well used, intelligible and accurate and are figures presented with stand-alone legends?
H1 upper (90+) H1 lower (80-89) H2A (70-79) H2B (60-69) H3 (50-59) Fail (≤ 50)
Presentation of Excellent usage Data selection and Presentation of Missing details in Poor
data/findings is of tables, graphs, reporting logical figures and tables is figures / tables; presentation
always arranged figures (where but lacks important adequate but figures absence of stand- of figures and
logically and is appropriate) detail in the text and tables are unable alone legends figures lack
always intelligible with stand-alone and/or in tables to be read alone and inconsistent adequate
and accurate. legends. and figures. without reference to presentation explanation
Sophisticated text of data (e.g.
usage of significant figures)
tables, figures,
graphs (where
appropriate), to
present important
findings, with
stand-alone
legends.
Criteria: Does the text bring the salient points to the attention of the reader?
H1 upper (90+) H1 lower (80-89) H2A (70-79) H2B (60-69) H3 (50-59) Fail (≤ 50)
Any concerns Any concerns If relevant, No discussion of Confusion or errors The description
about the about the credibility of data credibility issues. in findings present. of the findings
credibility of credibility of raised but detail in the text is
findings are raised. findings are raised not included. poor and not
eg respondent eg respondent clear to the
validation, co- validation, co- reader.
coding, poor coding, poor
quality samples/ quality reagents,
reagents, equipment
equipment malfunction etc.
malfunction etc. Contradictory data
Contradictory data is highlighted.
is highlighted.
Discussion and Conclusions – Marked out of 40
Criteria: Has the student demonstrated an ability to think critically about their own work?
H1 upper (90+) H1 lower (80-89) H2A (70-79) H2B (60-69) H3 (50-59) Fail (≤ 50)
Outstanding Excellent ability to Discussion clear Interpretation of Discussion is No evidence of
ability to critically critically appraise and logical. findings is adequate superficial and interpretation of
appraise his/ his/her own but limited. There does not extend the findings or
Most major
her own work. work. Strong is little integration beyond results critical thinking.
findings discussed.
Comprehensive understanding of of the findings with to show an Major gaps or
understanding of the importance Evidence of a other literature in understanding of inaccuracies are
the importance of the findings in critical approach the field. Alternative how their work present.
of the findings the context of the and general explanations lack has extended
in relation to the literature in the understanding of insight and critical the field. There
literature in the field. Alternative the contribution thinking. may be a major
field without explanations of the study misalignment
overstating its that show critical to existing between data and
contribution. thinking and are knowledge. conclusions.
Alternative within the bounds
explanations that of possibility have
show insight, been described.
critical thinking
and are within
the bounds of
possibility have
been described.
21Discussion and Conclusions – Marked out of 40 continued
Criteria: Have limitations and future directions, as well as the role and transferability of research findings been explored?
H1 upper (90+) H1 lower (80-89) H2A (70-79) H2B (60-69) H3 (50-59) Fail (≤ 50)
Limitations, future The main Conclusions Few or no limitations No limitations No limitations
directions and limitations, future supported by the or future directions and/or no future and no future
implications directions and data are appropriate identified. directions. directions
(including implications are but only contain described.
transferability to discussed. limited implications
other research for the future.
areas/populations) The limitations
are comprehensive. of the study may
Speculations are not have been
comprehensive comprehensively
but not excessive. described.
Criteria: Does the conclusion concisely and accurately summarise the key findings and their significance?
H1 upper (90+) H1 lower (80-89) H2A (70-79) H2B (60-69) H3 (50-59) Fail (≤ 50)
The conclusion The conclusion Conclusions Conclusions are Conclusions are No conclusion
concisely and concisely and are concisely relevant but lacking in overextended provided or
accurately accurately and accurately comprehensiveness. and somewhat irrelevant to
summarises the summarises the summarised but The significance of speculative or the findings.
key findings and key findings and only a general findings is not fully significance of
their significance their significance. understanding of appreciated. findings is not fully
the significance of appreciated
study findings.
Organisation and presentation – Marked out of 10
Criteria: Has thought been given to layout and general presentation (within the constraints of guidelines)?
H1 upper (90+) H1 lower (80-89) H2A (70-79) H2B (60-69) H3 (50-59) Fail (≤ 50)
Outstanding Logical layout Acceptable layout Layout and general Layout and general Thesis is
structure and with headings and with headings and presentation of thesis presentation of very poorly
logical layout with subheadings to good quality visual is lacking structure. thesis makes it organised and
headings and emphasize ideas. aids. Visual aids are of little cumbersome and difficult to read.
subheadings to benefit. difficult to read or
emphasize ideas. follow.
Criteria: Quality of the figures and other visual aids.
H1 upper (90+) H1 lower (80-89) H2A (70-79) H2B (60-69) H3 (50-59) Fail (≤ 50)
Outstanding Excellent quality of Good quality of Visual aids are Visual aids contain Figures (if
quality of visual visual aids (figures, visual aids (figures adequately presented errors and no present)
aids throughout tables, graphs) tables and graphs) but some labelling stand-alone are poorly
(figures, tables, with stand-alone with stand-alone and other errors legends presented.
graphs) with stand- legends, no legends
alone legends and labelling errors.
no labelling errors.
Criteria: Are there typographical or grammatical errors?
H1 upper (90+) H1 lower (80-89) H2A (70-79) H2B (60-69) H3 (50-59) Fail (≤ 50)
Negligible Very few Some Typographical and Frequent Very poor
typographical and typographical and typographical and grammatical errors typographical, grammar and
grammatical errors. grammatical errors. grammatical errors. are common. grammatical, spelling.
citation
Criteria: Is the reference list or bibliography appropriately presented?
H1 upper (90+) H1 lower (80-89) H2A (70-79) H2B (60-69) H3 (50-59) Fail (≤ 50)
References are References are References are References are mostly Frequent Little citation
cited correctly cited correctly mostly cited cited correctly in the referencing errors. or consistent
in the text and in the text and correctly in the text and generally inaccurate
correctly formatted correctly formatted text and generally correctly formatted in referencing.
in the reference list. in the reference list. correctly formatted the reference list.
22 in the reference list.Assessment Task 7 – Seminar 2 The results and discussion sections are obviously the most
important components of this seminar. Clarity is essential
Details of task but the way in which this part of the seminar is presented
Each student will be asked to provide a one page abstract. may vary between students, depending upon the plan and
outcomes of the project. For some projects with a series of
Value sequential experiments, it may be appropriate to present the
10% / 7.5% See relevant scoring matrix on page 5. results of each experiment or group of experiments and then
discuss these results before moving to the next experiment(s).
Date due For other projects, it may be more relevant to describe all
Refer to the Unit Schedule on page 8. of the results and then interpret them in a single discussion
section. Ensure that your results have been appropriately
Abstract presentation requirements analysed and are clearly displayed and interpreted. Where
• Margins 2 cm possible avoid repetition. Be prepared to explain and, if
• Double spacing necessary, defend your statistical analysis of the data.
• No less than 11 point arial font
• The abstract should state the Student’s name, Title and Interpretation of your data is a critical part of the seminar. You
Supervisor/s’ name (do not place this information in need to clearly indicate to the audience the meaning of your
heading or footer) results, what advance (if any) the data has provided in the field
• The body of the abstract should include: of your research, whether you have been able to prove the
– Background hypothesis you were testing and to what extent you achieved
– Hypothesis the original aims of the research. The seminar should conclude
– Aim/s with a very brief summary of the findings (conclusions).
– Results
– Conclusions Seminar time allocations
– Implications. There is no absolute time prescription for the various
• Maximum one page including references components of your seminar. Clearly, the structure and
• Submit 2 electronic copies to Honours_ARMI@monash. outcome of each research project will to some extent
edu, as a Word and PDF file. Save file as LastnameS2.doc influence the structure and emphasis of each seminar.
and LastnameS2.pdf. Make sure file size isYou can also read
