2018 BMedScHons Course Guide

Bachelor of Medical Science (Honours)
M3701
Monash University, Clayton
2018 Course Guide
Copyright © Monash University 2017. 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.
Bachelor of Medical Science (Honours): 2018 FY Course Guide Clayton Page 1
Table of Contents
MED4301 and MED4302 Bachelor of Medical Science (Honours) 1

Chief Examiner & Course Convenor 1
School Coordinators 1
Course Management Committee (CMC) 2
Administration Contacts 2
BMedSc(Hons) Organisational Chart 3
Academic Overview and Requirements 5
Academic overview 6
Learning Outcomes 6
Overview of Important Dates 2017 6
What is the Honours year about? 7
Academic requirements 8
Workload requirements 8
Hurdle requirements 8
Award received on graduation 8
Honours course grading schema 8
Occupational health and safety 8
Email 8
Ethics clearance 9
Academic Integrity 9
Turnitin 10
Referencing and acknowledgement requirements 10
Resources 10
Statistics 10
Technological Requirements 10
Assignment submission 11
Special Consideration, Extensions and Penalties 11
Professional behaviour requirements 11
Returning assignments 12
Feedback to you 12
Reconciling mark discrepancies 12
Formal Request for Remark 12
Resubmission of assignments 12
Other Information 12
Don’t panic if your results are negative or non-existent! 12
Vacation 13
Policies 13
Monash University Library 13
Disability Liaison Unit 13
Your feedback to us 13
Previous student evaluations of this unit 13
Considering a PhD? 14
Assessment Guidelines and Rubrics 15
BMedSc(Hons) Assessment Deadlines 2017 16
Progress report: 17
Departmental Oral Presentation #1 21
Literature review 23
Departmental Oral Presentation # 2. 26
Minor thesis: Hurdle Requirement 28
Faculty Oral and Poster Presentations 33
Appendices 37
Appendix 1 - Immunisation, Working With Children, Police Check 38
Appendix 2 - Learning Resources 39
Appendix 3 - Guidelines for Academic Supervisors 41
Appendix 4 - Student Expectations 42
Appendix 5 – The BMedSc(Hons) Professional Behaviour Expectations and Interventions Pathway 43
Appendix 6 - BMedSc(Hons) to MBBS/PhD pathway 50
MED4301 and MED4302
Bachelor of Medical Science (Honours)
This course provides students with an opportunity to gain an in-depth understanding of an aspect of medical
science and to pursue the study of this field through research. Students will undertake research activities
supervised through a department of the faculty and complete a minor thesis.
MED4301: Medical Science Honours Research Skills Unit Synopsis
This unit aims to develop the two most common skills that are required for the communication of medical
research proposals and medical research findings. Students will develop their written communication skills by
writing a review of the literature review developing a strong justification for their aim and hypothesis. Students
will develop their oral communication skills by giving an oral presentation and answering questions on their
research proposal, early in the Honours year.
MED4302: Medical Science Honours Research Project Unit Synopsis
This unit allows students to undertake a supervised research project aimed at identifying and addressing a
gap in medical research knowledge. It is designed to give students a strong foundation in the principles and
practice of research. It will also enable students to develop a wide variety of skills including data analysis and
communication of medical and scientific ideas in oral presentations and a written thesis. Students will be able
to select from a wide range of project proposals that will enable them to pursue a specific area of interest
working with their chosen supervisor.
Mode of Delivery On campus

Workload requirements MED4301: Average weekly workload of 12 hours per week.
MED4302: Average weekly workload of 36 hours per week.
The weekly workload is comprised of private study (library searches, reading,
preparation of presentations and writing research thesis), oral presentations, and
practical research activities (eg data collection and collation, laboratory work, data
analysis and review).
Unit Relationships MED4301 Medical Science Honours Research Skills (12 points)
MED4302 Medical Science Honours Research Project (36 points)
Course and School Coordinator Contacts

Chief Examiner & Course FMNHS Contact
Convenor
Dr. Megan Wallace Director of Medical Student Research FMNHS megan.wallace@monash.edu

+61(3) 8572 2812

School Coordinators School Contact
Prof Karin Jandeleit-Dahm Central Clinical School karin.jandeleit-dahm@moansh.edu

Prof MerlinThomas merlin.thomas@monash.edu
Dr Tony White School of Clinical Sciences/ Hudson Institute anthony.white@monash.edu
Prof Allen Cheng School of Public Health & Preventive allen.cheng@monash.edu

Medicine
Prof Danny Liew
danny.liew@monash.edu
A/Prof Nor’Azim Bin Mohd Monash Malaysia nor.azim@monash.edu
Yunos
tha.kyi.kyi@monash.edu
Dr Kyi Kyi Tha
Dr Megan Wallace All Other Schools and Departments megan.wallace@monash.edu
Administrative and Support Staff Contacts

BMedSc(Hons) Central FMNHS Contact
Support Staff
Mrs Cathy Nolan-Shaw BMedSc(Hons)Office med-bmedsc-hons@monash.edu

Office of the Deputy Dean Education
Ms Kim Quince

School/Department School Contact
Support Staff
To be confirmed Central Clinical School ccs.hons@monash.edu
School of Clinical Sciences/ Hudson

Ms Pianca Schwarz bmedsci.scs@monash.edu
Institute
Ms Sharon Gurry School of Public Health & Preventive med-sphpm-honours@monash.edu
Medicine
Ms Thavamaney Vadiveloo Monash Malaysia thavamaney.vadiveloo@monash.edu
Course Management Committee (CMC)

Member Role Contact
Chair CMC
megan.wallace@monash.edu
Dr. Megan Wallace Coordinator of Medical Student Research, MNHS

BMedSc(Hons) Chief Examiner
School of Clinical Sciences and Hudson Institute

Dr. Tony White anthony.white@monash.edu
SCS BMedSc(Hons) School Coordinator
School of Public Health & Preventive Medicine

Prof. Allen Cheng allen.cheng@monash.edu
SPHPM BMedSc(Hons) School Coordinator
Prof. Danny Liew School of Public Health & Preventive Medicine danny.liew@monash.edu
SPHPM BMedSc(Hons) School Coordinator
Professor Central Clinical School
karin.jandeleit‐dahm@monash.edu
Karin Jandeleit-Dahm CCS BMedSc(Hons) School Coordinator
Prof. Merlin Thomas Central Clinical School merlin.thomas@monash.edu

CCS BMedSc(Hons) School Coordinator
Dr Chris Barton School of Primary and Allied Health Care Jan.coles@monash.edu
Ms. Jennifer Lindley Faculty MNHS jennifer.lindley@monash.edu
TBC Eastern Health Clinical School nicole.koehler@monash.edu
Prof. Shane Bullock School of Rural Health shane.bullock@monash.edu
Dr. Melanie Pritchard School of Biomedical Sciences melanie.pritchard@monash.edu

Jeffrey Cheah School of Medicine and Health
A/Prof.
Sciences, Malaysia nor.azim@monash.edu
Nor'Azim Bin Mohd Yunos
Monash Malaysia BMedSc(Hons) Coordinator
Monash University Malaysia
Dr. Kyi Kyi Tha tha.kyi.kyi@monash.edu
Bandar Sunway
TBC Monash Research Student Society Representative mrss@mumus.org
BMedSc(Hons) Organisational Chart
Management of BMedSc(Hons) students:
An overview of the management structure for BMedSc(Hons) can be found below.
Students whose Main Monash Supervisor is affiliated with: Central Clinical School (CCS), School of Clinical
Sciences (SCS), School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine (SPHPM), or Monash Malaysia (MUM), will be
managed directly by their School BMedSc(Hons) Coordinator and Administrative support staff.
Students whose Main Monash supervisor is affiliated with other Schools will be managed by the BMedSc(Hons)
Course Convenor and Central Administrator.
The BMedSc(Hons) Central Office is responsible for (in brief):
● Managing the overall BMedSc(Hons) program

● Ensuring the BMedSc(Hons) degree adheres to all Faculty and University Policies and Procedures
● Marketing the BMedSc(Hons) program to domestic and international students
● Final approval of all BMedSc(Hons) applications
● Directly managing all students whose main supervisor is not affiliated with CCS, SCS, SPHPM or MUM.
● Notifying supervisors not associated with CCS, SCS, SPHPM, MUM regarding arrangements for
Departmental Oral Presentations
● Assigning CMC examiners for the literature review and minor thesis for students/supervisors not affiliated
with CCS, SCS, SPHPM or MUM.
● Distributing the literature review and minor thesis to CMC-appointed and Supervisor-appointed Examiners
and following up with examiners to ensure that assessment reports are returned in a timely manner
● Organising the Faculty Oral and Poster presentations
● Assisting with student and supervisor queries and concerns from the entire BMedSc(Hons) cohort
● Managing all applications for Special Consideration
The School Coordinators (CCS, SCS, SPHPM, MUM) are responsible for (in brief):
● Initial assessment of BMedSc(Hons) applications from students whose main supervisor is affiliated with
their School
● Holding School-specific welcome, OHS and other inductions as appropriate
● Overseeing all students whose main supervisor is affiliated with their School and addressing queries or
concerns from students and supervisors affiliated with their School
● Notifying supervisors regarding arrangements for Departmental Oral Presentations
● Assigning the Course-Management-Committee (CMC) examiners for the literature review and minor thesis
for students/supervisors affiliated with their school
● Distributing the literature review and minor thesis to CMC-appointed and Supervisor-appointed Examiners
and following up with examiners to ensure that assessment reports are returned in a timely manner.
The School Contacts (schools other than CCS, SCS, SPHPM, MUM) are responsible for (in brief):
● Acting as a local contact for students and supervisors for all BMedSc(Hons) students/supervisors associated
with their School/Department.
● Holding site-specific welcome inductions and arranging local OHS/confidentiality/governance inductions where
appropriate.
● Assisting with arrangements for BMedSc(Hons) oral presentations if the supervisor can’t find an appropriate
forum or sufficient assessors (this may involve liaising with another school and/or with BMedSc(Hons)
Central).
● Following up with local examiners if there is a delay in receiving assessments.
● Liaising with BMedSc(Hons) Course Convenor regarding any potential issues or concerns related to
BMedSc(Hons) students and/or supervisors at their school.
Academic Overview and Requirements
Academic overview
Learning Outcomes
These course outcomes are aligned with the Australian Qualifications Framework level 8, the Bologna Cycle 1 and
Monash Graduate Attributes.
Upon successful completion of this course it is expected that graduates will be able to:
● identify, retrieve, interpret and critically review the clinical and scientific literature in their field
● demonstrate advanced knowledge and technical skills in their chosen area of research
● develop, apply, integrate and generate clinical and/or scientific knowledge to analyse challenges and to
develop effective solutions
● generate, organise, analyse and interpret clinical and/or scientific data using theoretical, experimental and
computational approaches
● communicate ideas and results effectively to diverse audiences and in a variety of written and oral formats
● demonstrate the ability to work independently to undertake a scientific literature review and to prepare
presentations
● demonstrate the ability to work collaboratively to design, develop, implement and analyse a research project
● exercise personal, professional, ethical and social responsibility as a global citizen.
Overview of Important Dates 2018

MED4301 (FY; 12 points) Dates
BMedSc(Hons) Moodle site opens February, 2018
Foundation Skills Workshop (Orientation) 2018 (19th to 23rd Feb)
Commencement at Research Placement 26th February, 2018

Progress report (Hurdle) By 12th April, 2018
Department Oral Presentation #1 (25%) By 1600 hrs, 24th April, 2018
Literature review, up to 7,500 words (75%; Hurdle) By 1600 hrs, 2nd May, 2018
MED4302 (FY; 36 points) Dates

Department Oral Presentation #2 (5%) By 1600 hrs, 19th September, 2018
Minor thesis. Up to 15,000 words (80%) By 1600 hrs, 3rd October, 2018
Faculty Oral and Poster Moodle Submissions By 1600 hrs, 22nd October, 2018
Faculty Oral Presentation: Thesis (7.5%) 24th and 25th October, 2018
Faculty Scientific Poster Presentation: Thesis (7.5%) 24th and 25th October, 2018
What is the Honours year about?
The Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences has a primary role in teaching clinical and biomedical
sciences. However, many of the staff within the Faculty are very actively involved in research programs which are
funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NH&MRC), the Australian Research Council (ARC)
and other sources. Students also have the opportunity to undertake Honours projects at affiliated institutes such as
the Hudson Institute of Medical Research, Alfred Medical Research and Education Precinct (AMREP), Victorian
Institute of Forensic Science and the Monash Centre for Accident Research. The Bachelor of Medical Science
(Honours) program within the Faculty is devoted almost entirely to the research project that you have chosen. We
have kept assessments to a minimum so that your major focus (about 60% of total assessment) will be on your
chosen research project.
The Honours year is a challenging one and will be one year that you will remember for the rest of your lives. Your
dedication and patience will truly be tested. Even the best-designed experiments can be unpredictable. One bad
reagent or contaminant can lead to weeks or months of frustration. However, this is all a part of research. The
important thing is to learn about the rational approach, scientific methods, experiment design, data collection and
analysis and, most of all, trouble-shooting. Maybe you will be touched by the Prince of Serendipity and accidentally
discover something very important. Some of the most significant discoveries such as the discovery of penicillin
have been the result of serendipity. Be curious. Even though some may think of yourself as a ‘mere’ Honours
student, you may find something very exciting and important, which could launch a new career for you.
At this stage, you will have selected a supervisor and an area of research. Your project should be defined before
you start your Honours year. Be warned that the Honours year will go faster than you think and it is useful to
generate a time line with your supervisor. Make good use of your supervisor. If you are not sure, ask. Your
supervisor is there to give guidance, especially at critical times in your research. But also remember that your
supervisors are very busy people, so make sure that you know when their busy times are and when they will be
away, and plan to show them drafts of your assessment items well in advance of the deadline, so that they have
time to give you feedback.
Due to the increasing competition for PhD scholarships at Monash University, (and indeed throughout the
University system in Australia and Malaysia), an H1 result is essential if you wish to apply for a scholarship to
continue into a PhD. Even an H1 is not a guarantee of scholarship success. Clearly therefore, if you want to
continue directly into a PhD program it is important that you achieve a high score within the H1 grade.
Despite perceptions to the contrary, an H2A grade is still a very good result and it will not preclude most students
from achieving their career aims. It may just mean that you have to work a little harder to reach those aims. PhD
scholarships are possible, but if students achieve an H2A they will usually need to obtain a first author publication
to achieve H1 equivalence and be eligible to apply for a scholarship. Further information on the criteria for judging
H1 equivalent status can be obtained from the Monash Graduate Education Website
https://www.monash.edu/graduate-research
Academic requirements
Workload requirements
Average weekly workload of 48 hours per week (MED4301 and MED4302) comprised of private study (library
searches, reading, preparation of presentations and writing research thesis), oral presentations, and practical
research activities (eg data collection and collation, laboratory work, data analysis and review).
Hurdle requirements
Progress Report
Literature Review
Thesis
Award received on graduation

The Bachelor of Medical Science (Honours)
Be sure to apply to graduate within a year of being eligible - whether you plan to attend a ceremony or not.
For graduation purposes both Monash MBBS and Monash BMedSc(Hons) courses have a stitched arrangement
with Monash Graduations to enable students to graduate with both awards at the same ceremony.
Students who only complete BMedSc(Hons) (ie who are not Monash MBBS students, or who have already
graduated from Monash MBBS, are reminded to apply to graduate by the relevant deadline.
See http://www.monash.edu/graduations
Honours course grading schema

Ref: http://policy.monash.edu.au/policy-bank/academic/education/assessment/grading-scale-policy.html
Mark Course grade award
80+ HI
70-79 HIIA
60-69 HIIB
50-59 HIII
Less than 50 N
Occupational health and safety

It is legally required for all students to attend Occupational Health and Safety training at the site/s where they
work. Laboratory work should not commence until after this session. A list of policies and other OHS information
can be found on the following website http://www.adm.monash.edu.au/ohse/documents/
Email
Always use your Monash student email account for any correspondence with the University.
Ethics clearance
Students are to determine with their supervisor if Ethics approval for their project has been authorised prior to
commencing it. All research involving animals or humans requires formal Ethics exemption or approval. As
agents of Monash, any project requiring Ethics approval or Ethics exemption must pass through the University
Ethics committee as well as any relevant Hospital or other Institute ethics committee. Monash University will
generally approve projects already assessed and approved at hospital level. In addition, Monash University has
reciprocal recognition agreements with both Southern Health and Bayside Human Research Ethics
Committees, simplifying processes for projects involving these institutions.
We urge students to submit Ethics applications for authorisation or exemption early, as this process can
prove lengthy.
For further information, see http://www.monash.edu.au/researchoffice/ethics.php
Academic Integrity
Conduct which will infringe copyright
Examples of conduct which will infringe copyright if undertaken without the permission of the copyright
owner and where no relevant copyright exception applies include but are not limited to:
● downloading academic papers and articles from sites that bypass publisher paywalls eg: Sci-
Hub
● downloading a film, MP3 recordings, or software from the internet using University internet
access or computers;
● uploading audio files, video files, software or commercial photographs, to a University website
and making these available to the public;
● providing on a University website, links to other websites that directly offer copyright infringing
material or direct users to copyright infringing material, including audio files such as MP3
recordings, video files, software or commercial photographs;
● sending copyright material, including audio files, such as MP3 recordings, video files,
commercial photographs or software, to another person using University e-mail;
● storing copyright material, including audio files, such as MP3 recordings, video files,
commercial photographs or software, on University computers or servers.
Copyright infringement could apply to any file format, including, but not limited to MP3.
ref:http://www.policy.monash.edu/policy-bank/management/its/it-fac-by-students-procedures.html
Plagiarism, Cheating and Collusion

The University policy on assessment; plagiarism, cheating and collusion can be found below. In
accordance with University policy, Turnitin software is routinely used to test work for plagiarism.
http://policy.monash.edu.au/policy-bank/academic/education/conduct/plagiarism-policy.html
http://www.med.monash.edu.au/current/plagiarism.html
http://www.policy.monash.edu.au/policy-bank/academic/education/conduct/student-academicintegrity-
policy.html
Turnitin
Submission of your literature review and thesis via Moodle will automatically send your assessment items to
Turnitin. There will be no opportunity to check turnitin matches prior to submission for assessment.
Turnitin is used through Moodle; a comprehensive set of training and support resources is available at
http://www.vle.monash.edu/faqs/faqvlestudent/faq-turnitin.html. Further information is available from Appendix 3 of
this Guide.
Referencing and acknowledgement requirements

● Students must acknowledge their Monash-linked Supervisor(s), Department and/or School in every
presentation and it is expected that any publication that arises from the Honours year, will include both of
their Supervisors as authors on the publication. Other people who have assisted with the project should also
be acknowledged.
● Students may choose the referencing system they wish to use, but the system must be one of those in
regular use in biomedical journals. We recommend Vancouver style. If in doubt, consult your supervisor.
● EndNote training is conducted by University library staff. The software, assistance and a self-learning tool
are available at http://www.lib.monash.edu.au/endnote/
● To build your skills in citing and referencing, and using different referencing styles, see the online tutorial
Academic Integrity: Demystifying Citing and Referencing at www.lib.monash.edu.au/tutorials/citing/
Resources
Supervisors are responsible for all costs of the research performed during the BMedSc(Hons) year. Supervisors
are also responsible for the costs of producing the poster for the Faculty Scientific Poster Presentation. Funds are
not available from the BMedSc(Hons) office for supporting those activities.
Statistics
An online research methods module is available in Moodle for students to work through at their own pace.
However, depending on the project, other statistical tests may be required, that are not described in that Module.
The student/supervisor should contact a collaborating statistician during the planning of the project rather than at
the end of it. Many of the MNHS Schools now have a statistician who can provide advice to staff and students
(contact your School Coordinator for details). However, there may be costs for their time, their workload is large
and they may not be available at short notice, so please discuss requirements with your supervisor and if
appropriate with the statistician, early in the year. Other statistical short courses offerings are fragmented
throughout the University and associated hospital environments. The student may:
1. attend any statistical course authorised and paid for by the Supervisor. All charges accrued from the
training are met by the research placement and so Supervisor authorisation must be sought before
enrolment.
2. refer to the options available in My Development
https://monash.csod.com/LMS/catalog/Welcome.aspx?tab_page_id=-67&tab_id=-1
3. install GraphPad Prism 5, statistical analysis software, on their computer. This is freely available to all
Monash students while enrolled in the Faculty of Medicine, Nursing & Health Science (see Software
catalogue above).
Technological Requirements
Students are required to:
1. Check Moodle weekly
2. Submit all work for assessment via Moodle, as per guidelines in this book
3. Use Microsoft PowerPoint or .pdf files for all submissions, as per guidelines in the unit guides.
Assignment submission
No hard copy submissions are accepted.
Please submit your work via the Moodle site for your course, which you can access via links in the my.monash
portal.
Please keep a copy of tasks completed for your records.
Your submissions must be named as follows:

Family name_First name_Student ID_assessment item.pdf/pps or ppt
(e.g. Smith_John_123456_lit review.pdf)
Submissions may not exceed 10 megabytes (MB) in size and must be submitted in:
● Portable Document Format (.PDF) for the Literature Review and thesis
● Powerpoint Show (.pps) for the Faculty Presentation and in
● Powerpoint (ppt) for the Scientific Poster
Submissions not formatted this way will be returned to students with a request for resubmission and late penalties
may apply.
Special Consideration, Extensions and Penalties

Special Consideration to obtain an extension is only awarded in exceptional circumstances:
Students who experience hardship throughout the year are advised to apply for Special Consideration.
The Special Consideration application form is at http://www.monash.edu.au/exams/special-consideration.html All
assessment items for BMedSc(Hons) are considered “In Semester” tasks and must be supported by certification
from the relevant authority.
Applications for special consideration must be submitted to the Course Administrator, BMedSc (Hons) at med-
bmedsc-hons@monash.edu , prior to the final assessment due date.
Religious issues that may impact on a student’s ability to meet deadlines throughout the year should be identified
ahead of time. A statutory declaration or note from a religious leader will need to accompany any application citing
religious grounds for Special Consideration applications.
Late submissions without an extension will incur a penalty of 5% per day, in accordance with Faculty Honours
Guidelines.
Submissions over the word limit will incur a penalty of 5% of the maximum available mark. No word number
penalty applies to work less than the word limit however, the depth of detail must still reflect that required of an
Honours thesis.
Professional behaviour requirements

The BMedSc(Hons) Professional behavior expectations and interventions pathway is published in Appendix 5. The
Faculty intervention pathways are published at and http://www.med.monash.edu.au/intranet/student-admin/student-
admin.html
Students must also comply with the Faculty Professional Behaviour policy published at
http://www.med.monash.edu.au/policies/docs/professional_behaviour_procedure.doc. This document must also be
read in conjunction with the University Academic regulations, in particular Section 6.2.2.
http://www.monash.edu.au/legal/legislation/statutes/statute6-2-exclusion-for-unsatisfactory-progress-or-inability-to-
progress.pdf
Students who not comply with the policies may face disciplinary action or be removed from their placement.
Students may seek advice about these matters from a student counselor, academic staff and/or the student union.
Returning assignments
Submitted student work will not be returned, feedback is returned via the assessors marking sheets. Please refer to
the “Feedback to you” section.
Feedback to you
Feedback to you is specified on assessment sheets and will be uploaded to Moodle for you to access. Students are
expected to download these assessment sheets and email them to their supervisors. Please pay close attention to
the feedback provided and discuss it with your supervisors to help you improve future presentations and
submissions. After the official release of marks to students, your overall Honours mark will be released to
supervisors, upon their request.
Reconciling mark discrepancies

Where a difference of >15% occurs between assessors, assessors will be asked to review their mark in light of the
other assessors comments. If, after review, the assessors marks remain discrepant by >15%, a third assessor will
be sought. The final mark will be the average mark from the three assessors. All three assessors reports will be
returned to the student.
Formal Request for Remark

These procedures outline the process, and responsibilities for remarking of a piece of student assessment.
Students should note that re-marking can result in an increase or decrease in final result.
Students have a two week period from the release of result for an individual assessment item,
during which they are expected to raise any queries about their mark, and may make a formal request
for a re-mark. It is the students responsibility to check the result upon return of an assessment item.
Prior to requesting a re-mark, the student is required to have discussed the corrected piece of work with the Chief
Examiner. If the student is still dissatisfied, the student may then proceed directly
with a request for a remark.
Re-mark requests must be made in writing within the specified two week period to the Chief Examiner. The request
must outline the specific grounds for a remark. Re-mark requests must include the corrected work and an identical
“clean” copy.
The Chief Examiner may reject any request considered to be lacking in substance or a justifiable reason. If the re-
mark request is granted, an independent marker will be assigned to mark the “clean” copy of the work.
Resubmission of assignments
Honours candidates are not permitted to repeat any Honours component units for which they have received a fail
mark and grade. Supplementary assessment is not available for any component of the MNHS Honours Program.
Students who do not pass all required component units for the MNHS Honours program will not be awarded an
Honours Degree. In such cases all students will receive an academic statement of their results.
Other Information
Don’t panic if your results are negative or non-existent!
Don’t panic. While it is obviously easier on your self-esteem and your thesis to be able to report on an excellent set
of data, not infrequently, for reasons not of your own making, well-conceived and executed studies produce
negative or non-results despite your best efforts. If you find yourself in this situation, it is important that you provide
a convincing discussion of why the results were negative or non-existent and detail your efforts to overcome the
problems encountered (obviously, lack of diligence or care is not a good defence). Give a logical appraisal of how
the protocols and experimental approach may be changed in the future study to achieve a result or your original
aims. Remember, it is still possible to achieve high results with negative or non-data.
Vacation
The Bachelor of Medical Science (Honours) Course Management Committee allows each student two weeks of
vacation during the research year. However, the dates should be negotiated with your supervisor.
Policies
Monash has educational policies, procedures and guidelines, which are designed to ensure that staff and students
are aware of the University’s academic standards, and to provide advice on how they might uphold them. You can
find Monash’s Education Policies at: www.policy.monash.edu.au/policy-bank/academic/education/index.html
Key educational policies include:
● Plagiarism;
● Faculty Professional Behaviour;
● Assessment in Coursework Programs;
● Special Consideration;
● Grading Scale;
● Discipline: Student Policy;
● Academic Calendar and Semesters;
● Orientation and Transition; and
● Academic and Administrative Complaints and Grievances Policy.
Monash University Library

The Monash University Library provides a range of services, resources and programs that enable you to save time
and be more effective in your learning and research. Go to www.lib.monash.edu.au or the library tab in
http://my.monash.edu.au/ portal for more information.
Disability Liaison Unit

Students who have a disability or medical condition are welcome to contact the Disability Liaison Unit to discuss
academic support services. Disability Liaison Officers (DLOs) visit all Victorian campuses on a regular basis.
● Website: www.monash.edu/equity-diversity/disability/index.html
● Telephone: 03 9905 5704 to book an appointment with a DLO; Email: dlu@monash.edu
● Drop In: Equity and Diversity Centre, Level 1, Building 55, Clayton Campus.
Your feedback to us
Monash is committed to excellence in education and regularly seeks feedback from students, employers and staff.
One of the key formal ways students have to provide feedback is through the Student Evaluation of Teaching and
Units (SETU) survey. The University’s student evaluation policy requires that every unit is evaluated each year.
Students are strongly encouraged to complete the surveys. The feedback is anonymous and provides the Faculty
with evidence of aspects that students are satisfied and areas for improvement.
For more information on the Monash University educational strategy,
see: http://www.monash.edu.au/about/monash-directions/and on student evaluations,
see: www.policy.monash.edu/policy-bank/academic/education/quality/student-evaluation-policy.html
Previous student evaluations of this unit
Student feedback has highlighted the following strength(s) in this unit: “To students considering a BMedSci, I would
recommend you go for it! It is a challenging but very rewarding year. You get so much out of it from research skills
to networking, public speaking, publications, more opportunities and a degree!” (p42, 2015 MRSS Yearbook). “An
in-depth research experience revolutionised the way I think about what it means to “know” and how we use and
create “evidence” (P26 2015 MRSS Yearbook) Student feedback has also informed improvements to this unit,
including:
● The dissemination of grades during the academic year as a response to student requests for such.
● Alteration of the submission dates for the Departmental oral presentations so that they do not coincide with
the submission dates for the Literature Review and Minor Thesis.
● The publication of an annual student Yearbook
● Attendance by the Unit Coordinator at student information evenings scheduled and managed by the
student association
● Most importantly, we have developed an online research methods module
If you wish to view how previous students rated this unit, please go to:
https://emuapps.monash.edu.au/unitevaluations/index.jsp
Considering a PhD?
If you are considering articulating from the BMedSc(Hons) to PhD, refer to Appendix 6 and contact Dr.. Megan
Wallace further information.
Assessment Guidelines and Rubrics
BMedSc(Hons) Assessment Deadlines FY 2018
Deadline Task Responsibility
MED4301 Medical Science Honours Research Skills (12 point)
April 12th Progress Report Supervisor to have met and discussed academic progress with
2018 student. Student to submit Progress Report via Moodle, by due
date.
April 24th Departmental Presentation #1 Each School will advise Supervisors and Students whether the
2018 School, Department, or Supervisor are responsible for
[No later arranging the Oral Presentation and the examination panel. A
than this total of 3 independent examiners not involved with student
date] research must be appointed as assessors. Copy of Assessment
sheet available in this Unit Guide or from the Course or School
Administrator.
School, Department or Supervisor to forward completed
assessment sheets to the School or Course Administrator and
copy to student by due date.
May 2nd Literature Review Submission Date Student to submit via Moodle:
2018 Assessor #1 is nominated by Supervisor in CMC-Supervision
Agreement,
Assessor #2 is appointed by CMC from pool of current
Supervisors.
May Literature Review Examiners to submit report to relevant school administrator within
2018 Assessment Return Date 2 weeks of receiving the report to mark
MED4302 Medical Science Honours Research Project (36 points)
September Departmental Oral Each School will advise Supervisors and Students whether the
19th Presentation #2 School, Department, or Supervisor are responsible for
2018 arranging the Oral Presentation and the examination panel.
[No later A total of 3 non-conflicted examiners must be appointed as
than this assessors. A copy of the assessment sheet is available in the
date] Unit Guide or from Course Administrator.
School, Department or Supervisor to forward completed
assessment sheets to the Course or School Administrator and
copy to student by the due date.
October 3rd Minor Thesis Submission Student to submit via Moodle: Assessor #1 as nominated by
2018 Supervisor in CMC-Supervision Agreement, Assessor #2
appointed by CMC from pool of current Supervisors.
October 24th Faculty Oral Presentation Student 5 minute oral presentation.

& 25th Unit Convenor to nominate a total of 3 non-conflicted examiners
2018 from the pool of Supervisors and Faculty Staff. All supervisors are
encouraged to attend.
Examiners to provide report at end of presentation.
October 24th Faculty Poster Presentation Unit Convenor to nominate a total of 3 non-conflicted examiners
& 25th from the pool of Supervisors and Faculty Staff. All supervisors are
encouraged to attend.
2018
Examiners to provide report at end of presentation.
November Thesis Assessment Return Date Examiners to submit repot to relevant school administrator within
2018 2 weeks of receiving the report to mark.
The Supervisor must notify the candidate of absences longer than one week. An acting Supervisor
must be nominated and the CMC advised if the period of absence is longer than three weeks.
Progress report:
Progress report:
Hurdle requirement for MED4301
Topic: Progress report

Mode: Submission via Moodle
Enquiries: Email: med-bmedsc-hons@monash.edu
No return date. No feedback to you. No resubmission permitted
Instructions
The completed report must be read by the Supervisor and discussed with the student before submission to
Moodle.
Submit a completed and signed copy of the report to via Moodle
Progress report (Hurdle requirement for MED4301)
Please upload a completed and scanned copy of the report to Moodle by 4pm on 4/10/2017
Section A: To be completed by student

Family name:

Given
name(s):
School and
ID No: Department:

Thesis title:
YES / NO
If “yes”, please upload to Moodle, evidence of approval of MONASH UNIVERSITY ethics for this project,
Has Monash and evidence that you are listed on the ethics. If ethics approval is not required, please upload your letter
University of exemption to Moodle. A letter of exemption can be obtained from the Monash University Ethics Office.
ethics approval
for the study
been obtained? If Monash University Ethics has not yet been obtained, please provide the actual or the anticipated date of
submission to the ethics committee. dd/mm/yy

Please briefly describe any research training you have undertaken and your progress on your project to date.
Assessment components
1. Please provide the scheduled date for the first Departmental Oral Presentation.
2. What progress have you made writing the Literature Review?
Please summarise below if any difficulties have been experienced. For example:
• Supervisory
• Lack of equipment/resources
• Technical
• Personal
Section B: To be completed by main supervisor

Main (Monash University) supervisor Associate supervisor

Title: Title:

Name: Name:
Contact details: Contact details:
Name of student:
If Monash University Ethics has not yet been obtained, please provide the anticipated
date of approval by the ethics committee. dd/mm/yy
Monash University ethics If Monash University and/or other Institution ethics have not been obtained within 2
approval MUST be obtained for months of student commencement (end April for Feb commencement; end September
all projects involving Monash
University staff and students. for July commencement or end January for November commencement) the delay should
be discussed with the BMedSc(Hons) School Coordinator or Convenor and if necessary
alternative project arrangements put in place.

Average amount of weekly contact with supervisor?

Is the student’s overall performance satisfactory? (please tick)
Yes ☐ No ☐
Has the student kept diligent records of any research performed to date? Yes ☐ No ☐ (please tick)

Is the student anticipated to complete the work in the required time? (please tick)
Yes ☐ No ☐

Please comment on the work completed thus far, in terms of progress writing the literature review and research skill
training.
Have any difficulties been encountered that could influence successful completion of the project within the
Honours timeframe?
If so, please outline the nature of the issue and include an estimated date below, by which time you will change
the direction of the project, should the issue(s) become insurmountable.
Has the student demonstrated any particular strengths or weaknesses? If so, have they been drawn to the
student’s attention and if weaknesses were identified has any agreed action been taken?
BMedSc(Hons) Professional Behaviours Assessment – Appraisal
Refer to Appendix 1 for Guidelines
Not
Significant Minor Consistent Exemplary
Date:________________________ concerns concerns achievement achievement
applicable /
observed
Ethical Practices
Honesty / Integrity ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Maintains discretion / confidentiality ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Uses ethical reasoning ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Responsibility & Reliability
Appearance (eg appropriate attire) ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Fulfils commitments (eg attendance,
punctuality, task completion, timely ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
response to communication)
Engagement in learning opportunities ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Interactions & Relationships
Uses appropriate language ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Respect for:
Participants ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Peers ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Supervisor ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Health care &/or research staff ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Approach to teamwork
(co-operation, collegiality) ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Self Appraisal
Reflects upon own skills / performance ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Accepts and responds to feedback ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Regulation
Complies with NH&MRC & University
research governance policies, protocols ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
and guidelines
Global Rating:
☐ NOT ACCEPTABLE ☐ MEETS EXPECTATIONS ☐ EXCEEDS EXPECTATIONS
Comments:
Signatures

of student and supervisor
This report has been read by and discussed with the student. We declare that the information supplied in this report is complete,
true and correct in every particular.

Signature of main/
principal supervisor: Date:

Signature of student: Date:
Student to submit Progress Report via Moodle by the deadline outlined in the Unit Guide / Moodle
Departmental Oral Presentation #1
(25% of the 12 point MED4301 unit)
Topic: Overview of the Proposed Research Project

Due Date and Venue: This presentation can be held any time prior to the deadline stipulated in the
Unit Guide, Course Guide and Moodle. Each School will advise Supervisors
and Students whether the School, Department, or Supervisor are responsible
for arranging the date and venue for the Oral Presentation and, if the supervisor
or Department arranges the seminar, to whom the grading sheets should be
returned to.
Feedback: As determined above, either the School /Department or Supervisor should
email the populated grading sheets from all Assessors to the nominated email
address. The administrator will then de-identify the assessor report and return
them to the student within 1 week via Moodle
Resubmission: Not permitted
Format
The time allocation for each student is 10 minutes for the oral presentation, plus 5-minutes of question time. The
time limits should be strictly adhered to. Presentations will be held on a date advised by the School, Department or
Supervisor, ensuring that the summative results of your presentation are returned to the School or Course
Administrator by the due date.
This presentation should include: a brief outline of the relevant background to the proposed research project, a
statement of research question(s) or hypothesis to be tested, the specific aims of the research project, an outline of
the experimental design and proposed methodology (including information on the statistical or other tests you
expect to use, as appropriate) and a brief indication of the expected outcomes of the project. Generally results are
not presented at this time, even if data has already been obtained, unless the outcomes of pilot studies are
required to justify the experimental design.
The following is a suggested, (not prescriptive) guideline, to help students and supervisors plan the talk. There is
no absolute time prescription for the individual components of the presentation as the structure and emphasis on
each section will be influenced by the nature of the project. However, the presentation should strictly adhere to the
overall 10-minute timeframe.
• Review of literature/rationale for the project (~5 minutes)
• Aims and hypotheses (~1 minute)
• Research plan and methods (including statistical analysis for quantitative projects) (~3 minutes)
• Expected outcomes and significance (~1 minute)
Nomination of Assessors, Assessment Rubric and Assessment Sheet
The Course Convenor or School Coordinator will advise Supervisors and Students whether the School,
Department, or Supervisor are responsible for arranging the assessment panel. Three-to-five non-conflicted
assessors (who are not involved in the research project or related to, or in a relationship with, the student or
supervisor) will be nominated to grade the Departmental presentation. The assessors may be clinicians, clinician-
scientists, scientists or other academic staff, from any University. The Supervisor should attend the presentation to
provide formative feedback to the student while the other assessors will provide summative feedback.
Each assessor should fill in a separate Departmental oral presentation assessment sheet. The assessors will use
the Department Oral Presentation #1 assessment sheet, a copy of which is on the following page. Students and
administrators can download a copy of the assessment sheet from Moodle for distribution to the assessors prior to
the presentation. Following the presentation, the student should seek formative feedback on their performance
from the Supervisor(s) and others in the research group.
Assessment Sheets should be returned to the nominated BMedSc(Hons) administrator for de-identification.
Administrators will then return de-identified assessment sheets to students via Moodle. Students should forward
copies of the Assessment Sheets to their supervisor and discuss any comments for improvement.
Department Oral Presentation 1, Assessment sheet
Student name:
Seminar title:
The percentages listed below represent the standards for each grade within the Monash Honours Grading Schema.
Score 90-100% 80-89% 70-79% 60-69% 50-59% < 50%
Hons standard H1 Upper H1 Lower HIIA HIIB HIII N
Outstanding Excellent Very Good Good Satisfactory Fail
Background and justification for the project Score /10 Responses during questions Score /10
(circle) (circle)
Outstanding:
9 or 10 Correct, intelligent, thoughtful & concise 9 or 10
Focussed, logical, well-linked, clear justification
Excellent:
8 Questions answered correctly & clearly 8
Logical, linked, clear justification
Justification provided, but links or focus could be
7 Most questions answered 7
improved
Poorly focussed, poorly justified 6 Mostly answered but with unfocused responses 6
Background doesn’t justify aims ≤ 5 ….. Unsure responses or unable to answer questions ≤ 5…..
Allocated score Allocated score
Clarity of hypothesis/research question and aims Score /5 Communication (speaking and AV aids) Score /5
Concise & clear. 5 Excellent presentation: engaging and clear 5
Aims & hypothesis/research question well-linked Slides are clear and appealing
4 Presentation and slides clear, but could be more 4
Aims and hypothesis/research question clear
engaging or engaging but slides cluttered/unclear
Aims and hypothesis/research question ≤ 3 ….. Presentation difficult to follow ≤ 3…..
complicated, appear unrelated, or not provided Slides often cluttered or missing key information
Description of the proposed methodology Score /10 Overall
Score
Concise, appropriately detailed & clearly explained 9 or 10 Background and justification / 10
Detailed & clearly explained 8 Aims and Hypotheses / 5
Generally clear but lacks some detail/justification 7 Proposed methodology / 10
Lacks detail, poorly explained and poorly justified 6 Responses to questions / 10
Methods not linked to aims/hypothesis or not ≤ 5 ….. / 5

Communication
provided
Allocated score Total /40
Overall Comments
Date:
Examiner’s name (please print):
Contact phone number:
Examiner’s signature:
Submit assessors reports to the email address nominated by the BMedSc(Hons) Office or by your School
Coordinator/Administrator, immediately after the presentation
Literature review: (Hurdle; 75% of the 12 point MED4301 unit)
Topic: Literature review

Hurdle: Students must obtain a pass mark to pass the unit.
Due Date: By 1600 hrs AEST on the date listed in the Unit Guide, Course Guide & Moodle
Submission: Moodle, PDF, fewer than 10MB
Feedback: Within 6 weeks of submission, via Moodle
Resubmission: Not allowed.
The review should introduce the topic of your research project with an overview of published work that relates to
the project. Published work should be critically appraised in developing the rationale for your project. At the end
of your literature review you should include your hypothesis or research question(s) and aim(s) and also include
a brief research project outline (no more than 3 pages). The research project outline should consist of a brief
overview of the experimental design and the proposed methods for your research project.
Format
Use 11 point Arial font, with 1.5 line spacing. Text in figure legends/tables can be single line spacing. Alternative
fonts can be used within figures as long as all text remains legible when viewed at 100%.
Submit in pdf format, no larger than 10 megabytes.
The literature review should contain the following sections:
1. Cover page containing: Project title, student name and ID number, supervisor(s) name,
department/institute and word count).
2. Table of contents, list of abbreviations and where applicable, list of figures and tables
3. Declaration: eg. “I declare that the work presented here is my own work and contains no material previously
published or written by another person, except where due reference has been made in the text. The material
has not previously submitted for the award of any other degree or diploma”. The declaration should also list
all persons contributing to the work and specify the nature of the contribution.
4. Body of the Literature Review with appropriate usage of headings and subheadings
5. Hypothesis(es) or Research Question(s) and Aim(s) of your research project
6. Research Project Outline: This should be no more than two pages and should include an
overview and justification of the project design and a brief overview of the proposed methods.
7. References: Students may choose the referencing system they wish to use, but the system must be one of
those in regular use in biomedical journals. We recommend Vancouver style. If in doubt, consult your
supervisor.
Absolute maximum length of the review: 7,500 words. The limit excludes:
o the cover page and declaration
o table of contents, list of abbreviations, list of figures, list of tables, appendices.
o figures, figure legends, tables
o hypothesis(es) or research question(s), and aim(s)
o the 3-page research project outline.
o list of references
NB. All headings and in-text citations ARE included in the word count.
Note: The literature review can be submitted in the format of a systematic review, but it MUST clearly link to the
hypothesis or research question and aims and contain sufficient background information to justify the
hypothesis/research question/aims and it must include a clear description of the search strategy used.
Literature Review Assessment Rubric
Normal text below, refers to the criteria for the “Comprehension and synthesis of the literature and links to the hypothesis/research question
and aim(s)” section
Text in italics below refers to the criteria for the “Layout, presentation, visual aids and referencing” section.
Grade Mark Criteria
Range
H1 Upper 90‐100 An outstanding piece of work. The student demonstrates that they have a comprehensive understanding of
(Outstanding) the relevant literature and shows an outstanding synthesis of factual and conceptual components. The
background is focussed, clear and detailed, but concise. Where appropriate, strengths, weaknesses and
discrepancies in the literature are highlighted and explained. Work contains extensive and appropriate
reference to original articles.
Hypothesis(es), or Research Question, and aim(s) are clearly stated. There is a clear link between the aim(s)
of the study and the literature.
Extremely well‐structured, logical layout with headings and subheadings to emphasize ideas. Outstanding
quality of visual aids. Negligible typographical and grammatical errors.
References are cited correctly in the text and correctly formatted in the reference list.
Marks above 90 should only be awarded if you consider the submission likely to be among the top 10% of all
submissions for the cohort
H1 Lower 80‐89 An excellent piece of work. The student demonstrates a very high‐level of understanding of the relevant
(Excellent) literature. The background is focussed, clear, detailed and concise. All concepts are very well‐linked. Where
appropriate, discrepancies in the literature are highlighted and explained. Work contains extensive and
appropriate reference to original articles.
Hypothesis(es) or Research Question, and aim(s) are clearly stated. There is a clear link between the aim(s) of
the study and the literature.
Logical layout with headings and subheadings to emphasize ideas. Excellent quality of visual aids (figures,
tables, graphs). Very few typographical and grammatical errors.
References are cited correctly in the text and correctly formatted in the reference list.
H2A 70‐79 A good piece of work. The student shows a firm grasp of the majority of the relevant literature. Evidence of
(Good) fairly extensive background reading with appropriate reference to original articles.
Hypothesis(es) or Research Question, and aim(s) are clearly stated. There is a clear link between the aim(s) of
the study and the literature.
Acceptable layout with headings and good quality visual aids. Some typographical and grammatical errors.
In‐text citations mostly correct and generally correctly formatted in the reference list
H2B 60‐69 A superficial piece of work. The background not well‐focussed or concise, and it lacks completeness and
(Satisfactory) depth. Links between aim and literature are not strong.
Hypothesis or Research Question does not match well with the aim or methods to be used.
Layout and general presentation lacks structure. Reasonable use of visual aids. Typographical and
grammatical errors are common.
In‐text citations mostly correct and generally correctly formatted in the reference list.
H3 50‐59 A poor piece of work. Much of the basic information is missing.
(Weak)
Links between aims and literature are missing.
Hypothesis or research question poorly described, poorly justified and do not match with aims or methods.
Layout and general presentation makes it cumbersome and difficult to read. Abundant typographical,
grammatical, citation and referencing errors.
N < 50 The work is very poorly written. There is a complete lack of structure and no logical argument. Coverage of
(Fail) the literature is inadequate with little information and no critical review. Serious misunderstanding of key
concepts and issues.
No aim, or hypothesis / research question provided.
Literature review is poorly organised and difficult to read. Very poor grammar and spelling. Figures badly
presented and difficult to understand.
Little citation and inaccurate referencing. References primarily refer to review articles
BMedSc(Hons) Literature Review Assessment sheet
Student name:
Thesis title:
Feedback to the student
Comprehension and synthesis of the literature and links to the hypothesis/research question and 90 marks
aim(s).
Justify the mark using terminology from the rubric and include suggestions for improvement.
/ 90
Layout, presentation, visual aids and referencing

Justify the mark using terminology from the rubric and include suggestions for improvement.
/ 10
*Marks above 90 should only be awarded if you consider the submission likely to be among the top 10% of
all submissions for the cohort.
Total /100
Comments on the research project outline.

Please comment on the research project outline in regard to research design and feasibility (including within the confines
of an Honours year). No marks are assigned to this portion.
Is the report within the word limit? (7,500 words) Y/N

Please do not deduct any marks for exceeding the word limit. .If you advise that the report was not within the word limit our
office will double check the word count and if necessary deduct 5% of the maximum available marks.
Submit assessment report to the email address nominated by the BMedSc(Hons) Office or by your School
Coordinator/Administrator, within two weeks of receiving the report
Examiner’s name (please print): Date:
Examiner’s signature: Contact phone number:

Examiner’s email address:
Departmental Oral Presentation # 2.
Topic: Summary of your research project.

Due Date and Venue: This presentation can be held any time prior to the deadline stipulated in the Unit
Guide, Course Guide and Moodle. Each School will advise Supervisors and Students
whether the School, Department, or Supervisor are responsible for arranging the date
and venue for the Oral Presentation and, if the supervisor or Department arranges the
seminar, to whom the grading sheets should be returned to.
Submission: As determined above, either the School /Department or Supervisor should email the
populated grading sheets from all Assessors to the nominated email address. The
administrator will then de-identify the assessor report and return them to the student.
Feedback to you: Within 1 week via Moodle
Resubmission: Not permitted
Format
The time allocation for each student is 10 minutes for the oral presentation, plus 5-minutes of question time. The
time limits should be strictly adhered to. Presentations will be held on a date advised by the School, Department or
Supervisor, ensuring that the summative results of your presentation are returned to the School or Course
Administrator by the due date.
This presentation should summarise the most important aspects of your project. Take note of the feedback
received from your first oral presentation when preparing this talk and consider the feedback from both orals when
writing your thesis and preparing for the Faculty Oral and Poster Presentations.
The following is a suggested, (not prescriptive) guideline, to help students and supervisors plan the talk. There is
no absolute time prescription for the individual components of the presentation as the structure and emphasis on
each section will be influenced by the nature of the project. However, the presentation should strictly adhere to the
overall 10-minute timeframe.
1. Review of the background and rationale for the project (~3 minutes)
2. Hypotheses or Research Question(s) and Aims (~1 minute)
3. Methodology (including statistical analysis for quantitative projects) (~1-2 minutes)
4. Results, research findings (~3-4 minutes)
5. Conclusion and significance (~1 minute). Future directions can also be included.
Nomination of Assessors, Assessment Rubric and Assessment Sheet

The Course Convenor or the School Coordinator will advise Supervisors and Students whether the School,
Department, or Supervisor are responsible for arranging the assessment panel. Three-to-five non-conflicted
assessors (who are not involved in the research project or related to, or in a relationship with, the student or
supervisor) will be nominated to grade the Departmental presentation. The assessors may be clinicians, clinician-
scientists, scientists or other academic staff from any University. The Supervisor should be present during the
presentation to provide formative feedback to the student while the other assessors will provide summative
feedback.
Each assessor should fill in a separate departmental oral presentation assessment sheet. The assessors will use
the Department Oral Presentation #2 assessment sheet, a copy of which is on the following page. Students and
administrators can download a copy of the assessment sheet from Moodle for distribution to the assessors prior to
the presentation. Following the presentation, the student should seek formative feedback on their performance
from the Supervisor(s) and others in the research group.
Assessment sheets should be returned to the nominated BMedSc(Hons) administrator for de-identification.
Administrators will then return de-identified assessment sheets to students via Moodle. Students should forward
copies of the Assessment Sheets to their supervisor and discuss any comments for improvement.
Department Oral Presentation 2, assessment sheet
Student name:
Seminar title:
The percentages listed below represent the standards for each grade within the Monash Honours Grading Schema.
Score 90-100% 80-89% 70-79% 60-69% 50-59% < 50%
Hons standard H1 Upper H1 Lower HIIA HIIB HIII N
Outstanding Excellent Very Good Good Satisfactory Fail
Background, justification, aims and hypothesis / Score /10 Communication (speaking and AV aids) Score /10
research question (circle)
Outstanding: Outstanding clarity of speech & engages
9.. or.. 10 9.. or 10..
Focussed, logical, well-linked, clear justification audience. Slides clear, appealing and uncluttered
Excellent: Excellent speaking style
8 8
Logical, linked, clear justification Slides clear and engaging
Justification provided, but not well-linked/focussed 7 Oral presentation and slides mostly clear 7
Either the speaking style or slide structure
Poorly focussed, poorly justified 6 6
difficult to follow (eg too cluttered)
Background doesn’t justify aims or Speech read entirely from notes
hypothesis/research question ≤ 5… Slides too cluttered and missing key information ≤ 5..
Description of the methodology Score /10 Responses during questions Score /10
Outstanding clarity of methodology 9.. or.. 10 Correct, intelligent, thoughtful & concise 9.. or.. 10
Detailed & clearly explained 8 Questions answered correctly & clearly 8
Generally clear but lacks some detail or justification 7 Most questions answered 7
Poorly explained and poorly justified 6 Unfocused responses but questions answered 6
Not linked to aims/hypothesis or not provided ≤ 5… Unsure responses or unable to answer ≤ 5…

Results/Findings and Conclusion Score /10 Overall
Score
Outstanding presentations of data/findings
9.. or.. 10 Background, justification and aims /10
Conclusions and future directions are insightful
Excellent presentation of data/findings
8 Description of the methodology /10
Conclusions reflect findings
Data/findings presented but not well explained
7 Findings and conclusion /10
Conclusion clear
Findings lack detail and are poorly explained.
6 Communication /10
Conclusion may be lacking
Questionable data/findings
Questionable, or no, conclusion ≤ 5… Responses to questions /10
Allocated score Total /50
Overall Comments
Date:
Examiner’s name (please print):
Examiner’s signature:
Submit assessors reports to the email address nominated by the BMedSc(Hons) Office or by your School
Coordinator/Administrator, immediately after the presentation
Minor thesis: Hurdle Requirement
Topic: Thesis
Hurdle: Students must obtain a pass mark to pass the unit.
Due Date: By 1600 hrs AEST on the date listed in the Unit Guide, Course Guide & Moodle
Submission: Moodle, PDF, fewer than 10MB
Feedback: Within 6 weeks of submission, via Moodle
Resubmission: Not allowed.
Students are advised to start writing their thesis at least one month before the submission date. The literature
review submitted earlier in the year should be updated will likely need to be shortened to comply with the rules for
the length of the thesis. You are advised to discuss the format of your thesis and the proposed content with your
supervisors prior to writing. It is also important that you let your supervisors read and comment on each section of
the thesis and provide feedback, not only on content but also on format. Ensure that drafts of your thesis are given
to your supervisors, allowing sufficient time to comment on your drafts, prior to submission. Supervisors should not
circulate draft versions of the thesis to staff, other than co-supervisors, for detailed comments. Supervisors should
not write any part of the thesis themselves. The thesis must, in the end, be a piece of original work clearly identified
as being written by the student.
Format
Use 11 point Arial font, with 1.5 line spacing. Text in figure legends/tables can be single line spacing. Alternative
fonts can be used within figures as long as all text remains legible when viewed at 100%.
Submit in pdf format, no larger than 10 megabytes. The thesis should contain the following sections:
• A title page (project title, student name and ID, Department or Institute name, supervisors names [including
titles] and word count of the thesis).
• Table of contents
• Declaration: eg. “I declare that the work presented here is my own work and contains no material previously
published or written by another person, except where due reference has been made in the text. The material has
not been previously submitted for the award of any other degree or diploma. The background of this thesis is
predominantly comprised of the literature review previously submitted for assessment as part of the current course.
This literature review has been updated to incorporate more recent evidence as well as feedback from examiners.”
The declaration should also list all persons contributing to the work and specify the nature of the contribution.
• Acknowledgments
• List of abbreviations and list of figures and tables where applicable
• Abstract (500 words maximum).
• Literature Review
• Hypothesis (or Research Questions) and Aims
• Materials and Methodology: including a statement regarding ethical approval of the research project
• Results / Findings
• Discussion and Conclusion
• References
• Appendices (only if critical to the thesis (eg example of a patient questionnaire, if used).
Word Limit: The absolute maximum length of the thesis is 15,000 words. The limit excludes:
o title page, table of contents, acknowledgements, lists of abbreviations, figures, tables
o the abstract
o tables, figures and the accompanying legends and appendices
o list of references
NB. All headings and in-text citations ARE included in the body text word count.
The submission of the honours thesis by publication is not permitted. If a thesis by publication is submitted, the
work will be returned to students for resubmission in the correct format and late submission penalties will apply.
If publications from the thesis have already arisen by the time of thesis submission, they should be listed in the
Declarations section.
BMedSc(Hons) thesis assessment rubric
Section H1 Upper H1 Lower H2A H2B H3 Fail
(90‐100) (80‐89) (70‐79) (60‐69) (50‐59) (< 50)
Background, An outstanding piece of work. An excellent piece of work. A good piece of work. Superficial. Poor. Very poor.
review of the Demonstrates a comprehensive Demonstrates a high‐level of Demonstrates a firm grasp of Background not well Much of the There is a complete
literature and understanding of the relevant understanding of the relevant the majority of the relevant focussed or concise. basic lack of structure and
literature and an outstanding literature. The concepts are literature. The background is It lacks completeness information is no logical argument.
rationale for
synthesis of the factual and well linked. The background is generally clear but could and depth. missing. Coverage of the
the study
conceptual components. The focussed, clear and detailed. have included greater depth, Links between literature is
background is focussed, clear, detail, context and Referencing is limited aims and inadequate with little
detailed and concise. Where appropriate, perspective. with limited evidence literature are information and no
discrepancies in the literature of background missing. critical review.
Where appropriate, strengths, are highlighted and explained. Acceptable number of reading Serious
Marked out weaknesses and discrepancies in Contains extensive and references to original articles, Hypothesis or misunderstanding of
of 20 the literature are highlighted and appropriate reference to but more, or more The links between Research key concepts and
explained. Contains extensive original articles. appropriate, references could aim and literature Question, issues.
and appropriate reference to have been included. sometimes included. poorly
original articles. Hypothesis or Research described, References primarily
Question, and aim(s) are clearly Hypothesis or Research Hypothesis or poorly justified, review articles.
Hypothesis/research question, stated. There is a clear link Question, and aim(s) are Research Question and do not
and aim(s) are clearly stated. between the aim(s) of the clearly stated. There is a clear does not match well match with Aims & hypothesis or
There is a clear link between the study and the literature. link between the aim(s) of with the aims or aim(s) &/or research question not
aim(s) of the study and the the study and the literature. methods to be used. methods. provided or not clear.
literature.
Methods The design and methods are Excellent and clear explanation Clear description of the Superficial Description of Knowledge of
explained with outstanding of the design and the methods methods and analysis. Minor description of the research research methods is
clarity and detail. A strong with sufficient detail to allow details are missing. No, or methods and design, lacking and the
justification is provided for the replication of the study. A little justification, for the analyses. methods and description of

research design and/or justification is provided for the research design and/or No, justification for analysis is research design and

methodology. research design and/or methodology. the research design unclear and methods is
Marked out methodology. and/or methodology. lacks major inadequate.
of 10 For qualitative and mixed For qualitative and mixed details.
methods theses: For qualitative and mixed methods theses: For qualitative and It would be
‐ an explanation of how methods theses: ‐ the justification of methods mixed methods It would be impossible for others
categories and themes were ‐ an explanation of how is described but the theses: difficult to to replicate the study
derived and checked and how categories and themes were justification of how the ‐ methods are replicate much based upon the
Copyright © Monash University 2017. 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.
the qualitative and quantitative derived and checked and how methods inform each other is described briefly but of the study. details provided.
methods used were formulated the qualitative and quantitative simplistic. justification of how
to inform each other. methods used were formulated the methods inform
‐ a critical reflection of the role of to inform each other. each other is poorly
the researcher is included. conceptualised or
missing.
Findings / Outstanding presentation of data Excellent presentation of data Clear presentation of results. Superficial selection, Data reporting Weak, lacking
Results or research findings. or research findings. Data selection and reporting description and brief and poorly evidence of
Only relevant findings are Relevant data is presented. logical but lacks important presentation of data. constructed. preparation and
presented. The selection of the Presentation of data/findings is detail in the text and/or in evaluation and

data or findings presented, are arranged logically and is tables and figures. No discussion of Confusion or significant concerns

described. Presentation of intelligible and accurate. credibility issues. errors in about accuracy.
Marked out data/findings is always arranged Excellent usage of tables, If relevant, credibility of data findings
of 20 logically and is always intelligible graphs, figures (where raised but detail not present. Poor presentation of
and accurate. Sophisticated appropriate) with stand‐alone included. figures and figures
usage of tables, figures, graphs legends and very few labelling lack adequate
(where appropriate), to present errors. explanation
important findings, with stand‐
alone legends and no labelling Any concerns about the The description of the
errors. credibility of findings are raised findings in the text is
eg respondent validation, co‐ poor and not clear to
Any concerns about the coding, poor quality reagents, the reader.
credibility of findings are raised. equipment malfunction etc.
eg respondent validation, co‐ Contradictory data is
coding, poor quality highlighted.
samples/reagents, equipment
malfunction etc.
Contradictory data is highlighted.
Discussion Outstanding ability to critically Excellent ability to critically Discussion clear and logical. Interpretation of Discussion is Inadequate:
and appraise his/her own work. appraise his/her own work. Most major findings findings is superficial. poor. No evidence of
Conclusions Comprehensive understanding of Strong understanding of the discussed. There is little It does not interpretation of the
the importance of the findings in importance of the findings in Evidence of a critical integration of the extend beyond findings or critical

relation to the literature in the the context of the literature in approach and general findings with other results to show thinking. Major gaps

field without overstating its the field. Alternative understanding of the literature in the field. an or inaccuracies are
contribution. Alternative explanations that show critical contribution of the study to Alternative understanding present.
explanations that show insight, thinking and are within the existing knowledge. explanations lack of how their
Marked out critical thinking and are within bounds of possibility have been insight and critical work has No conclusion
of 40 the bounds of possibility have described. The limitations of the study thinking. extended the provided or irrelevant
School Department.
been described. are adequately described but field. to findings.
The main limitations, future could be have been clearer or Few or no limitations
Limitations, future directions and directions and implications are more detailed. There may or future directions No limitations No limitations and no
implications (including discussed. only be a limited description identified. and/or no future directions
transferability to other research of future directions. future described.
areas/populations) are The conclusion concisely and Conclusions are directions.
comprehensive. Speculations are accurately summarises the key Conclusions are supported by relevant but lacking
comprehensive but not findings and their significance. the data. in There may be a
excessive. comprehensiveness. major
misalignment
The conclusion concisely and between data
accurately summarises the key and
findings and their significance conclusions.

Organisation Outstanding structure and logical Excellent structure and logical Acceptable layout with Layout and general Layout and Thesis is very poorly
and layout with headings and layout with headings and headings and good quality presentation of thesis general organised and
presentation subheadings to emphasise ideas. subheadings to emphasise visual aids. is lacking structure. presentation of difficult to read.
Outstanding quality of visual aids ideas. Visual aids are of thesis makes it

throughout (figures, tables, Excellent quality of visual aids Some typographical and little benefit. cumbersome Very poor grammar
Marked out
graphs) with stand‐alone legends (figures, tables, graphs). grammatical errors. and difficult to and spelling. Figures
of 10 and no labelling errors. Typographical and read or follow. (if present) are poorly
Very few typographical and References are mostly cited grammatical errors presented.
Negligible typographical and grammatical errors. correctly in the text and are common. Numerous
grammatical errors. generally correctly formatted typographical, Little citation or
References are cited correctly in the reference list. References are grammatical, consistent inaccurate
References are cited correctly in in the text and correctly mostly cited correctly citation and referencing.
the text and correctly formatted formatted in the reference list. in the text and referencing
in the reference list. generally correctly errors.
formatted in the
reference list.
School Department.
BMedSc(Hons) Thesis Assessment Report
(80% of the 36 point unit MED4302)
Student name:
Title of thesis:
Please provide a mark in each row

1. Introduction, background statement of the problem 20 marks
Please provide feedback to the student here. Justify your mark using terminology from the rubric.
2. Methodology 10 marks
3. Findings / Results 20 marks

4. Discussion and Conclusion 40 marks

5. Organisation and Presentation 10 marks

Total numerical mark /100

Is the thesis within the word limit? 15,000 words. Y/N
Please do not deduct any marks for exceeding the word limit. If you advise that the report was not within the word limit our
office will double check the word count and if necessary deduct 5% of the maximum available marks.
Submit assessment report to the email address nominated by the BMedSc(Hons) Office or by your School
Coordinator/Administrator, within two weeks of receiving the report
Examiner’s name (please print): Date:
Examiner’s signature: Contact phone number:

Examiner’s email address:
Faculty Oral and Poster Presentations
(The oral and poster presentations are each worth 7.5% of the 36 point MED4302 unit)
Topic: The Faculty Oral and Poster presentations are held 2-3 weeks after thesis submission and held
either on a single day or on two consecutive days,
Submission Date: By 1600 hrs AEST on the date listed in the Unit Guide, Course Guide & Moodle.
Late submissions will not be accepted.
Submission Format-Oral. Upload the final version of your oral presentation in PowerPoint Show
(pps.) format to Moodle (10 MB).
Submission Format-Poster: Upload a copy of your Poster to Moodle in pdf format.(10 MB). A hard
copy must be used on the presentation date.
Presentation Date and Venue: TBA.

Presentation Format Oral: Oral presentations will be pre-loaded at the venue from the file uploaded
to Moodle.
Presentation Format Poster: Please bring a hard-copy of your poster with you to the presentation.
Feedback: Within three weeks of presentation, via Moodle.

Resubmission: Not allowed
Description
This two-part assessment task provides research students with an opportunity to present a compelling five-
minute oral presentation and a ten-minute scientific poster presentation on their thesis topic to an intelligent, but
non-specialist audience. The two presentations will be held either on the same or subsequent days. There will be
2-4 examiners per oral presentation and two examiners for each poster presentation.
Attendance at the entire Faculty Oral/Poster event is mandatory unless

previously excused by the Chief Examiner.
Faculty Oral Presentation Guidelines
Oral presentations must be submitted by 4pm on the date specified in the Unit Guide, Course Guide and Moodle
(usually two days before the actual presentation). The presentation that you submit will be uploaded in advance
in the lecture theatre on the day of the presentation.
The submitted file must be in .pps format and less than 10 MB in size.
The Faculty Oral Presentation is an exercise in clear and concise academic and research communication skills.
Students must identify the key points about their research project that will enable a non-specialist audience to
understand the background, methods, key results and take-home conclusions from their Honours year. There will
be no time for questions from the audience, so the talk must be exceptionally clear.
● Time-keeping will be strictly enforced.
● As a rule of thumb, allow approximately one slide per minute for the oral presentation.
● Be very selective in what you choose to present. There is not usually sufficient time to present all of the
research findings from the Honours year.
● Speaking quickly or trying to present too much information will prevent you communicating effectively
during your presentations.
● This is a communication exercise NOT a discipline-specific scientific meeting. What does the audience
need to know to understand your presentation?
● Supervisors, collaborators, your School and Monash University must be acknowledged in all
presentations.
● Late submission or late or non-attendance means your work will not be accepted.
Faculty Poster Presentation Guidelines

Bring a hard copy of the poster to your poster presentation.
Your supervisor is responsible for the cost of printing the poster
The file that you submit to Moodle must be in .pdf format and less than 10 MB in size. The uploaded version of
the poster is for Faculty records only. The BMedSc(Hons) office may select posters as examples for future
students. If your poster is selected for such a purpose, we will ask you and your supervisors for permission.
Posters are a common form of scientific communication at medical and scientific conferences. There is rarely
enough time to read a poster, so the poster must be eye-catching with minimal writing, to encourage passers-by
to stop at the poster. The presenter must then quickly guide the examiner through the poster, amid the
distractions of noise and movement from other people. Examiners will introduce themselves and ask you to take
them through your poster. Posters are a more conversational format than an oral presentation and your
assessors are likely to interrupt you to ask questions. Plan to explain the key points within 3-5 minutes to allow
enough time for the examiners to ask you questions and to fill in their assessment sheet, within the 10 minutes
allotted to each poster.
• Format 90 x 120 cm (35.4 x 47.2 inches) (portrait or landscape).
• Poster ID requirements: Title, student name, supervisor(s) and collaborators names, Departments and
Institutes. Funding bodies should be acknowledged
• Monash University poster templates can be downloaded from Moodle.
• If you are using a non-Monash University template, you MUST acknowledge Monash University and include
a Monash University logo (available on Moodle).
• Be very selective in the information you choose to present
• Make the poster eye-catching with minimal text.
• Posters must remain up for the full duration of the poster session.
• The following link has some guidance for poster presentations:
http://www.monash.edu.au/lls/llonline/writing/science/8.xml
Faculty Oral Presentation Assessment Sheet
(7.5% of the 36 point unit MED4302)
Student name:
Oral title:
Assessment Criteria
Clear and concise
H1 Upper: H1 Lower: H2A: H2B: H3: N:
summary and linking Fail
Outstanding Excellent Good Satisfactory Weak
statements for the below 9 OR 10 8 7 6 5 ≤ 4
four sections

Background, hypothesis or
research question and
aims

Overview of Experimental
Design and Methods

Results / Findings

Conclusion and
implications

Communication:
Clarity of speech
Audience engagement
Visual quality of slides
Total Numerical Mark (out of 50)
Comments:

Date:
• Examiner’s name (please print):
• Examiner’s signature:
Faculty Poster Assessment Sheet
(7.5% of the 36 point unit MED4302)
Student name:
Poster title:
Assessment Criteria
Category H1 Upper: H1 Lower: H2A: H2B: H3: N:
Outstanding Excellent Good Satisfactory Weak Fail
9 OR 10 8 7 6 5 ≤ 4
Visual Layout of the Poster
Clear and concise
summary of:
● Background/aims
● Research design &
methods
● Most pertinent findings
● Conclusion/implications
Good balance between
text and figures

Verbal presentation of the
poster:
Did they quickly and
clearly articulate the key
points on their poster?
Were they enthusiastic
about the project?

Answering Questions:
Did the student answer
your questions clearly,
concisely and with insight?

Total Numerical Mark (out of 30)
Comments:

Appendices
Appendix 1
- Immunisation, Working With Children, Police Check
Please note your supervisor is responsible for your research year, please check with your
Supervisor if you will be in contact with hospital patients during your research placement as you
will be required to provide Working with Children, Police Checks and are compliant with the
immunisation requirements.
Immunisation
http://www.med.monash.edu.au/current/immunisation/
If you are undertaking clinical placements within a Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences course, you
must comply with procedures to minimise the risk of cross-infection of communicable diseases during your course
of training.
Compliance with these procedures can take time, so once you have accepted a place in the course, we
recommend that you start the process in readiness for clinical placements.
http://www.med.monash.edu.au/current/immunisation/immunisation-staff-flowchart.pdf
Working with Children and Police Check

http://www.med.monash.edu.au/enrolments/additional-enrolment-tasks.html
Appendix 2
- Learning Resources
The following lists of texts, articles and training resources are available through the Monash Library.
Research design texts

● Hulley, S.B. et al (2007) Designing clinical research, Walters Kluwer Health, Philadelphia USA.
● Polgar, S. & Thomas, S.A. (2008) Introduction to research in the health sciences, Churchill
Livingstone Elsevier, Philadelphia, PA.
Introductory statistics
An online research methods module has been developed and the link is available in Moodle. Specific projects may require advanced
statistics, in which case please discuss the project early in the design phase with a statistician. Many Schools have now employed a
statistician, but there may be costs for using their time and they are often extremely busy and may not be available to help at the end of a
project if the time has not been negotiated in advance.
● Altman, D. (2008). Practical Statistics For Medical Research. 2nd ed.: Taylor & Francis.
● Bland, M. (2000). An Introduction to Medical Statistics. 3rd ed.: Oxford University Press.
● Dawson, B. & Trapp, R.G. (2004) Basic and Clinical Biostatistics, 3rd Edition (International Edition) Lange
Medical Books/McGraw-Hill.
● Norman GR & Streiner DL. (1994) Biostatistics, The Bare Essentials. Mosby More advanced statistics texts
● Tabachnick, B. G. and L. S. Fidell (2007). Using multivariate statistics. 5th ed. Boston:Pearson Education.
● Wang, D. and A. Bakhai, (Eds.) (2006). Clinical Trials: A Practical Guide to Design, Analysis,and Reporting.
London, Remedica.
Canadian Medical Association Journal series on basic statistics

● Guyatt, G., Jaeschke, R., Heddle, N., Cook, D., Shannon, H., & Walter, S. (1995). Basic statistics for clinicians: 1.
Hypothesis testing [Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't. Review]. CMAJ Canadian Medical Association Journal,
152(1), 27-32.
● Guyatt, G., Jaeschke, R., Heddle, N., Cook, D., Shannon, H., & Walter, S. (1995). Basic statistics for clinicians: 2. Interpreting
study results: confidence intervals. [Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't]. CMAJ Canadian Medical Association Journal, 152(2),
169-173.
● Jaeschke, R., Guyatt, G., Shannon, H., Walter, S., Cook, D., & Heddle, N. (1995). Basic statistics for clinicians: 3. Assessing
the effects of treatment: measures of association. [erratum appears in Can Med Assoc J 1995 Mar 15;152(6):813]. [Research
Support, Non-U. S. Gov't]. CMAJ Canadian Medical Association Journal, 152(3), 351-357.
● Guyatt, G., Walter, S., Shannon, H., Cook, D., Jaeschke, R., & Heddle, N. (1995). Basic 34
● Guyatt, G., Walter, S., Shannon, H., Cook, D., Jaeschke, R., & Heddle, N. (1995). Basic statistics for clinicians: 4. Correlation
and regression. [Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't]. CMAJ Canadian Medical Association Journal, 152(4), 497-504.
Qualitative and mixed methods research

● Creswell JW. (2009) Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
Approaches (3rd Ed).
● Kitto SC, Chesters J, Grbich C. (2008) Quality in qualitative research. MJA.;188(4):243-6.
● Miles MB, Huberman AM. (1994) Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook (2nd ed). 2nd ed.Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.
● Pope C, Mays N. (1995) Reaching the parts the other methods cannot reach: an introduction to qualitative methods in health
and health services research. BMJ; 3(11):42-5.
● Rice, P.L. & Ezzy, D. (2001) Qualitative research methods ; A health focus. Oxford University Press, South Melbourne,
Australia.
● Yin RK. (2003) Case study research: design and methods. 3 ed. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Monash Library Unit Reading List (if applicable to the unit)

http://readinglists.lib.monash/index.html
Appendix 3
- Guidelines for Academic Supervisors
The following is an excerpt from the Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences Honours Guidelines:
http://www.med.monash.edu.au/policies/hon-programs-research-project-minor-thesis-guidelines/
Each Honours student will have a primary supervisor for their research year. The aim of supervision is to guide and
inspire the student through the design and conduct of an appropriate thesis and to train the student in the ability to
analyse, synthesise and evaluate critically the literature relevant to the topic in their area of specialisation, so that
the student can carry out original research.
The role of the supervisor is to:
● Provide academic guidance concerning the nature and practice of research;

● Facilitate the student’s access to the relevant literature and support development of their critical appraisal skills;
● Assist the student to understand the rationale behind the development of the research project;
● Instruct the student in the appropriate experimental techniques, where appropriate;
● Assist the student in the planning of experimental protocols and provide guidance on statistical analyses, where
appropriate;
● Assist the student in the critical analysis and interpretation of experimental data;
● Make the student aware of any compulsory ethics clearance and/or health and safety requirements;
● Make the student aware of relevant university and faculty policies and procedures;
● Make the student aware of facilities and resources available to students, in particular the services offered by the
library; and
● Assist the student to develop oral and written communication skills.
In particular,
● Prior to the commencement of any thesis, the supervisor/committee must establish that the proposed research
component is appropriate in scope, and is feasible in terms of time, facilities, equipment, technical and resource
requirements.
● At the commencement of candidature, the supervisor must meet and discuss with the candidate their mutual
expectations and establish an approved program of study including clearly identified objectives for the research
component; as well as discussing relevant ethical and safety requirements, intellectual property issues, and at this
point should establish frequency of communication.
● The supervisor must provide regular and systematic feedback to students
The supervisor should meet with students under his/her supervision at least once every fortnight for fulltime
students and once a month for part time students to discuss their thesis and work through any problems associated
with it. The supervisor should also provide feedback on at least one draft but no more than two drafts of the thesis.
Upon request, the student’s overall Honours mark will be released to the supervisor after the official release of
marks to students. Individual assessment marks and feedback should be disclosed from the student to the
supervisor.
Appendix 4
- Student Expectations
The following is an excerpt from the Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences Honours Guidelines:
http://www.med.monash.edu.au/policies/hon-programs-research-project-minor-thesis-guidelines/
Prior to applying for candidature and the commencement of semester, students are required to discuss potential
research topics with appropriate school staff. In consultation with the Course Coordinator, the applicant should
identify areas of interest and, after discussion with an appropriate potential supervisor, nominate a suitable topic for
research in their application.
Students should be made aware, and accept, from the start that their level of success is their responsibility. The
supervisor is responsible for suggesting, guiding, advising, assisting, and providing constructive criticism.
Students have a right to receive:

● An appropriate work environment, including desk space, storage facilities, lab space (where required), and access
to IT and library resources and services (for honours students only);
● Adequate supervision. They should meet with their supervisor at least once every fortnight for full time students
and once a month for part time students to discuss the topic and work through any problems associated with it;
● Constructive and critical assessment of work submitted. In particular students have a right to know when a
supervisor considers progress as inadequate or standards of work as being below that generally expected;
● Constructive written feedback on at least one draft but no more than two drafts of the thesis;
● Individual marks for all assigned assessment tasks, and all relevant information on the overall assessment
requirements and standards required.
On the other hand, it is the responsibility of the student to:
● Dedicate to Honours, thesis or project studies an average of 48 hours (full time students)
● Attend the School/Department induction session;
● Play an informed part in planning the research project within the time limits identified by the school/department;
● Establish agreed methods of working and a schedule of meetings with the supervisor;
● Keep the supervisor informed of any difficulties and problems being experienced and take an active role in seeking
solutions;
● Maintain the progress of work in accordance with the stages and timelines determined by the particular pattern of
enrolment;
● Participate in the opportunities offered by the school/department which may include attendance at and
presentations in non-assessable research seminars;
● Be familiar with and comply with all requirements relating to ethical conduct, intellectual property, privacy, and
occupational health and safety procedures;
● Conform to the faculty’s administrative requirements for enrolment, leave of absence, re-enrolment and extensions;
● Understand and comply with relevant university and faculty policies and procedures, including those on:
● Special consideration
● Plagiarism
● Conflict of interest
● Acceptable use of information technology facilities by students; and
● Accept responsibility for preparing an Honours, Minor Thesis or Research Project for examination.
Appendix 5 – The BMedSc(Hons) Professional Behaviour
Expectations and Interventions Pathway
APPENDIX 1: BMedSc(Hons) Program Professional Behaviours (Full Year)
Adapted from Lindley, J., Year 4 MBBS Assessment Professionalism Proposal, September 2009
New Faculty Professional Behaviour Intervention Procedures at:

http://www.med.monash.edu.au/policies/docs/professional_behaviour_procedure_v2.doc have led to a re-focus upon
assessment approaches and instruments across BMedSc(Hons) research program placements. Professional Behaviours is an
area that has been identified as requiring consideration not only for the BMedSc(Hons) but also across the entire medical
degree. In addition, this area is a focus of consideration at the Course Management Committee (CMC) level.
The significance of this issue is also reflected in the literature. Organisations and accrediting bodies such as the UK General
Medical Council and the Australian Medical Council have developed guidelines encompassing professional behaviours. These
publications provided a comprehensive consideration of the parameters that relate to concepts of professionalism within the
practice of medicine and associated research. In addition, a number of authors have provided approaches to the rating and
recording professional behaviours for medical research students.
The approaches outlined in the articles reviewed articulate a number of elements of professional behaviours which can be
categorised into four broad areas
● Ethical practices
● Reliability and responsibility
● Interactions and relationships
● Self-appraisal
The challenge lies in devising a process and protocol instrument for the BMedSc(Hons) that is appropriate for the various levels
of the medical student candidates and which is feasible in terms of implementation. This BMedSc(Hons) Program Professional
Behaviours instrument, provided, includes a number of elements for each of these broad categories that would provide some
evidence for self and CMC evaluation of professional behaviour.
Rather than attempting to include all possible parameters that may provide evidence of professional behaviours, the instrument
focuses upon those elements that are relevant to BMedSc(Hons) and that lend themselves to appraisal in the context of
research placements. The domains and elements outlined in the rating instrument can be aligned with elements of professional
behaviours identified in Faculty documents. The instrument mirrors the design of the mini-CEX and uses a four point rating
scale which indicates if a candidate requires further monitoring (some concerns) or follow up action (significant concerns).
Theoretically a student receiving a rating below the acceptable level in their mid-year report could remediate and improve their
rating to the required level of performance before the end of the year.
Acknowledgement: Jennifer Lindley. Year 4 MBBS Assessment Professionalism Proposal. 2009

References:
General Medical Council and Medical Schools Council UK (2009) Medical students; professional values and fitness to practice
Australian Medical Council (2009) Good Medical Practice: A Code of Conduct for Doctors in Australia
University of Toronto Standards of Professional Behaviour accessed at
http://www.governingcouncil.utoronto.ca/policies/medstu.htm
Cruess, Richard et al (2006) The Professionalism Mini-Evaluation Exercise: A Preliminary Investigation Academic Medicine
81:10 Supplement 74-78
Jon Veloski, J et al (2005) Measuring Professionalism: A Review of Studies with Instruments Reported in the Literature between
1982 and 2002 Academic Medicine 80:4, 366-370
Parker, Malcolm (2006) Assessing professionalism: theory and practice Medical Teacher,28:5, 399-403
Topps, D et al (2009) The One Minute Mentor: A Pilot Study Assessing Medical Students’ and Residents’ Professional
Behaviours through Recordings of Clinical Preceptors’ Immediate Feedback Education for Health 22:1 available from
http://education for health.net/
Table 1 - BMedSc(Hons) Professional Behaviours Descriptors
Students should discuss these areas with supervisors or academic staff if they require any further clarification or explanation.
ETHICAL Honesty / Integrity Consistently truthful and dependable. Uses information or resources appropriately (e.g. computers at placement or in
PRACTICES library, personal information about peers).
Maintains discretion / Keeps patient information confidential. Complies with legal requirements regarding privacy. Respectful and discrete in
confidentiality relation to professional boundaries.
Uses ethical reasoning Considers the impact of decisions on the well-being of others, respects the rights and needs of others, treats others fairly
and reasonably, and recognises conflicts of interest. Considers unintended consequences of decisions.
RESPONSIBILITY Appearance Consistently maintains personal tidiness, dress and hygiene. Dress should be appropriate to the research environment
& RELIABILITY (eg appropriate attire, hygiene) including the type of work, occupational health and safety requirements, and standards for the placement setting eg
protective clothing in laboratories, scrubs in theatre, business shirt/blouse and trousers/slacks/skirts onwards. Clothing
should be clean, and comfortable enough to work in but not inappropriately revealing.
Fulfils commitments Student should attend the placement for 36 hours per week. If unable to attend students should notify the appropriate
(eg attendance, punctuality, task staff as stated in their student guide (e.g. Site Administrator, Supervisor). Tasks should be completed by the specified
completion) time and date, and assignments by the due date. The requirements of the Attendance Policy must be met. Student must
be ensure that they maintain current contact details including phone numbers and use the Monash student e-mail for e-
mail correspondence.
Engagement in learning Attends sessions outlined in placement table/ laboratory meetings/ unit guide. Completes required work according to
opportunities (as listed in Guides) schedule. Actively participates in placement tasks and activities supporting placement.
Communication Timely responsiveness to email and phone communication from supervisors.

INTERACTIONS & Uses appropriate language Abusive or otherwise derogatory language including swearing is not tolerated under any circumstances. Language
RELATIONSHIPS should be comprehensible, audible and suitable for the task/situation/activity (e.g. using formal medical language in
research presentations, avoid jargon).
Displays appropriate non-verbal Tone of voice, facial expressions, eye contact, gestures, body posture / proximity to other people must not convey lack of
communication respect or judgment (eg angry or aggressive tone, arms crossed and turning away, sharp pointed motions to a person).
School Department.
Respect for: Participants Shows consideration for individuals including cultural and social background. Acknowledges the rights and
Peers responsibilities of others. Recognizes the roles and expertise of members of the placement team. Accepts direction
Supervisor from supervisors, and gives feedback in a manner that is constructive and respectful.
Health care staff
Approach to teamwork Works with others co-operatively. Displays team work skills such as listening, communicating ideas, contributing to
(co-operation, collegiality) completion of work, encouraging others, acknowledging the efforts of others sharing knowledge and skills.
SELF APPRAISAL Reflects upon own skills / Articulates own strengths, acknowledges own limitations, considers /devises strategies and self-advocates for
performance improvement.
Accepts and responds to Discusses feedback and engages with strategies or suggestion for improvement. Does not respond aggressively or
feedback dismiss feedback provided.
Takes responsibility for own Seeks and accepts appropriate professional help for physical and / or mental health issues.
health
REGULATION Knowledge and practice of Familiarisation and compliance with NH&MRC and University governance guidelines, procedures and policies for the
research regulations and ethical conduct of research, published at http://www.policy.monash.edu.au/policy-bank/academic/research/
guidelines
School Department.
Process
IMPORTANT NOTE: The professional behaviours register is a faculty register, so behaviour in one degree carries
over to another. So if a student comes into the BMedSc(Hons) at Level 1 on the register, and needs further
support, they would go to Level 2, and would go back to MBBS at Level 2 on the register.
The following steps apply when dealing with students who:
1. are identified as having issues related to professional behaviour, and
2. those issues are assessed as suitable@ to be dealt with, and to continue to be dealt with, under the
Professional Behaviour Intervention Procedures:
Reporting Concerns regarding a student’s Professional Behaviour should be reported to the Academic Convenor,
Concerns through the Supervisor or School/Departmental Research Representatives, where applicable.
Investigating On receipt of a report an independent academic investigates the concerns. This may involve interviewing
concerns the student, the person making the report and other persons with relevant information related to the
concerns. Normally the concerns would be investigated by the Academic Convenor, but in the event of the
Supervisor or and/or School/Departmental Research Representatives making the report, they should
discuss with the Academic Convenor to identify the most appropriate person to investigate the concerns.
Notice of On completion of an investigation, a student who is found to have demonstrated unsatisfactory professional
Meeting behaviour will be invited, by the responsible academic, to attend a Professional Behaviour Support
Meeting. Notice of the meeting should be sent no less than one week prior to the meeting. The student
should be provided with the opportunity to be accompanied to the meeting by a support person. This
person may assist the student but may not act as an advocate. Notice of the presence of a support person
must be provided to the academic staff member calling the meeting at least 24 hours prior to the meeting.
Prior to the Prior to a Professional Behaviour Support meeting, the responsible academic is expected to:
meeting ● identify and document specific issues related to Professional Behaviour that need to be addressed by
the student
● check the Professional Behaviour Register kept by the Director Academic Programs to ascertain if
previous incidents have been recorded.
Professional At the Professional Behaviour Support Meeting, the responsible academic, will:
Behaviour ● make explicit the concerns that staff have regarding the professional behaviour(s) that are considered
Support unsatisfactory
Meeting* ● seek from the student their explanation as to why this occurrence has happened, which the student
may elect to provide at that meeting or a subsequent meeting after they have further time to consider
the concerns put to them at the meeting
● help the student identify causes (academic or other) affecting their ability to demonstrate
unsatisfactory professional behaviour
● assist the student to identify strategies and actions, where appropriate, to change their professional
behaviour
● explain to the student the consequences of their failure to change professional behaviour
● assess the student’s willingness to change behaviour
● provide the student with written information regarding support services that are available on Monash
campuses relevant to the causes of behaviour
● explain the next step if there is a failure to improve
● refer the student to a specific service or person for further support or advice
● where agreement is reached, the student will be invited to sign and date a statement of issues agreed
upon, targets, goals and an action plan, otherwise the student will be provided with a written record of
the discussion and details of what is required of them to address the concerns about their
professional behaviour.
● schedule an appropriate time to review student progress against the action plan/requirements.
Given the extensive aims of the Professional Behaviour Support Meeting, it may be that it consists of 2
meetings to allow the student additional time to consider their response and then address the matters
arising from that response. Where possible the meetings should be held not more than 1 week apart.
Academic units will keep attendance and records of conversations of the Professional Behaviour Support
Meeting.
Supervisors should notify the course coordinator and register the student on the Professional Behaviour
Register kept by the Director Academic Programs.
If a student refused to attend an initial Professional Behaviour Support meeting, the matter is immediately
referred to the Academic Convenor who will discuss next actions with the Supervisor and/or
School/Departmental Research Representatives then move to Step 3.
At the follow Student performance has improved: no further action

up meeting* Student performance has not improved: move to STEP 2
Step 2* The matter is referred by the Supervisor or respective School/Departmental Research Representatives to
Counselling the Academic Convenor
Meeting
The Academic Convenor and Supervisor or School/Departmental Research Representatives are expected
to:
● Identify and document the specific issues related to Professional Behaviour that need to be
addressed by the student
● Invite the student to a Counselling Meeting. The Counselling Meeting will follow the same steps and
be conducted in the same manner as a Professional Behaviour Supporting Meeting, including with
respect to notice of meeting and presence of a support person.
● At the Counselling Meeting the Chair will:
● ask the student for an explanation regarding why the action plan/required behaviours have not been
observed
● in consultation with the student set further target behaviours, achievable goals and an action plan to
improve the student’s performance
● where agreement is reached, the student will be invited to sign and date a statement of issues agreed
upon, targets, goals and an action plan, otherwise the student will be provided with a written record of
the discussion and what is required of them to address the ongoing concerns about their professional
behaviour
● schedule an appropriate time to review student progress against the action plan/requirements
● explain the next step if there is a failure to improve.
If a student refused to attend the Counselling meeting them move to Step 3.
At the follow Student performance has improved to a satisfactory level: no further action
up meeting*
Student performance has not improved to a satisfactory level: move to STEP 3
Student and course administrators to be notified.
If the matter is moved to Step 3 the student must be informed, in writing, of the specific Professional
Behaviour/s of ongoing concern and provided an opportunity to respond in writing in 5 working days.
Where a Supervisor or School/Departmental Research Representatives believe the student’s performance
Step 3* has not improved according to the remedial action plan or otherwise, or there has been an initial
improvement and then a relapse into professional behaviour of concern, they are to report the matter
directly to the Deputy Dean (Education) or nominee.
The Deputy Dean will refer the case to a Professional Behaviour Review Panel.
● This is an independent panel consisting of an academic from another discipline with knowledge of
professional behaviour, a nominated professional from the student’s discipline with no knowledge of
the student and a student from a health professions course but not of the student’s discipline
In reviewing the case, the Panel will review all available evidence, including any notes related to
Professional Behaviour. These may include the Professional Behaviour Support and/or Counselling
Meetings, any response or correspondence from a person making a report about the student or the student
concerned, and may choose to interview the any of those persons and Unit Coordinators and Academic
Convenor. It is expected that the Panel will seek to interview the student.
After review of the case, the Professional Behaviour Review Panel may:
● Dismiss the case
● Recommend that the Professional Behaviour support actions/requirements continue
● Recommend to the Board of Examiners that the student not pass the Unit.
@
For example matters falling under Statute 4.1 Discipline will not be dealt with under these procedures
# Where a placement has been terminated on the basis of a student’s poor professional behaviour and
investigation by the faculty finds the termination was justified the student will enter this process at Step 3.
Students dissatisfied with a decision made under these procedures may lodge a Grievance under the Academic and
Administrative Complaints and Grievances Policy.
Professional Conduct Domains

The conduct domains in Table 1 describe the domains of professional behaviour. These are informed by the
document Investigating Student Fitness to Practice Policies and Procedures within Australian Universities,
prepared by the Centre for Medical and Health Sciences Education on behalf of the Fitness to Practice Working
Party July 2008.
Record keeping
All documentation associated with the case must be kept and securely stored. Copies of documentation must be
forwarded to the Director Academic Programs for entering on the Professional Behaviour register, which may be
accessed as provided here. The faculty register includes the following information for each student whose name is
included in the register:
1. the student’s name,
2. the date on which the student was first registered,
3. if a condition has been imposed on the student’s enrolment,
4. details of the condition.
Send copies of all student correspondence to the student’s file. This file may be accessed by any person
performing functions under these Procedures, Monash University Statute 6.2 – Exclusion for Unsatisfactory
Progress or Inability to Progress, Monash University Statute 4.1 – Discipline and Monash University Statute 6.3 –
Exclusion for Health Reasons.
Referenced documents (locations)

Template reporting form to record inappropriate Professional Behaviour activities
Template letter to students (found on the staff intranet):

● Letter template - Professional Behaviour Support Meeting Schools/Departments
● Letter template - Counselling Meeting Schools/Departments
● Letter template - Professional Behaviour Review Panel
● Letter template - Notice of Decision
Statute 6.2 – Exclusion for Unsatisfactory Progress or Inability to Progress.
Records Management Procedure: http://www.adm.monash.edu.au/records-archives/

Academic and Administrative Complaints and Grievances Policy: http://policy.monash.edu.au/policy-
bank/academic/education/management/complaints-grievance-policy.html.
Professional Behaviour Register
Original written report of Incident posted within 72 hours
Monash Incident Report – all sections - http://www.monash.edu.au/ohs/topics/hazards-incidents.html
Figure 1: Pathway for BMedSc(Hons) Professional Behaviours flag
Prepared by Kristin Lo for the Department of Physiotherapy- extracts Clinical Educator Guide 2011
Criminal act or
Breach of University notified Immediate
serious breach of
appropriate student
University / Health of intention where withdrawal from the
conduct / behaviour
Service policy able research placement
Observation 1st flag 2nd flag 3rd flag
Supervisor is responsible for Documented Documented Documented

discussing the following with Warning by University / Warning by University / Warning by University /
the student Academic Convenor, co-signed Academic Convenor, co-signed Academic Convenor co-signed
by student & Supervisor by student & Supervisor by student & Supervisor
University notified. University notified. University notified.

1. Formally & explicitly
Documented warning inserted Documented warning Documented warning
discuss observed behaviour
in student file inserted in student file inserted in student file
with student
(Unit Coordinator) (Academic Convenor) (Academic Convenor)
Academic Convenor
2. Clarifies verbally what invites student to attend FTP Matter referred to
Matter referred to
is the required behaviour with support meeting. Deputy Dean
Student to complete written
Academic Convenor
student Education
reflection task
Note: Supervisors have the ability to withdraw students at any

time from research placement.
Students may be required to participate in a meeting between
Intervention
student, Academic Convenor, Supervisor and/or eg: education
Faculty Committee
School/Departmental Research Representatives to clarify
School Department.
Appendix 6 - BMedSc(Hons) to MBBS/PhD pathway
An approved pathway exists for BMedSc(Hons) students to continue their research studies within a PhD,
intermitting their MBBS as per the following:
● BMedSc(Hons) student completes Honours and receives H1 (80+). Note that results will not be available to
students prior to the release dates https://www.monash.edu/exams/results/dates‐access.
● Although Honours results will not yet be known, students intending to apply for the MBBS/PhD pathway
(with their supervisor’s support), must apply for PhD candidature and scholarship by 31 October (closing
date) via the online application form. Please note that scholarships are awarded on a competitive basis and
are not guaranteed.
● Upon enrolment in the PhD, BMedSc(Hons) completion is changed to “Transfer to other course” and the
MBBS is intermitted.
● As the BMedSc(Hons) is not awarded/conferred, students can use the results of their Honours research
towards their PhD.
● The PhD must be commenced the semester following the BMedSc(Hons) completion.
● The BMedSc(Hons) to MBBS/PhD pathway can only be undertaken prior to year 5 of MBBS.
● In general, students will be enrolled in the PhD for 3 years full‐time following BMedSc(Hons), returning to the
MBBS following PhD thesis submission.
● Overall candidature duration is not officially shortened however, milestones are ‘accelerated’ as per the
Graduate Research Progress Management Procedures: http://policy.monash.edu/policy‐
bank/academic/research/mrgs/grad‐research‐progress‐management‐procedures.html.
Milestone MBBS‐PhD
Confirmation No later than 6 months
Progress Review 12‐18 months (but no less than 9 months after Confirmation)
Final Review No later than 6 months prior to the enrolment end date
● Students are required to complete all program requirements of their specified PhD Doctoral program:
http://www.med.monash.edu.au/research/graduate‐research‐support/doctoral‐training‐programs/.
● Course codes and fees are the same as for regular MBBS and PhD.
● The MBBS must be completed within 10 years from commencement including intermission, however,
exceptions can be applied for with compelling or compassionate reasons.
● Please note that Centrelink support (if applicable) may be affected if you enrol in the PhD. Students are
advised to contact Centrelink for further advice.
● Further details regarding the PhD can be found in the Monash Graduate Education Handbook for Doctoral
Degrees https://www.monash.edu/graduate‐research/faqs‐and‐resources/content.
As advised by: Dr Jennifer Scott 12.05.2016

2018 BMedScHons Course Guide

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

2018 BMedScHons Course Guide

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Bachelor of Medical Science (Honours)

2018 Course Guide

MED4301 and MED4302 Bachelor of Medical Science (Honours) 1

Mode of Delivery On campus

Dr. Megan Wallace Director of Medical Student Research FMNHS megan.wallace@monash.edu

Prof Karin Jandeleit-Dahm Central Clinical School karin.jandeleit-dahm@moansh.edu

Dr Tony White School of Clinical Sciences/ Hudson Institute anthony.white@monash.edu

Prof Allen Cheng School of Public Health & Preventive allen.cheng@monash.edu

Administrative and Support Staff Contacts

Mrs Cathy Nolan-Shaw BMedSc(Hons)Office med-bmedsc-hons@monash.edu

To be confirmed Central Clinical School ccs.hons@monash.edu

School of Clinical Sciences/ Hudson

School of Clinical Sciences and Hudson Institute

School of Public Health & Preventive Medicine

Prof. Merlin Thomas Central Clinical School merlin.thomas@monash.edu

Ms. Jennifer Lindley Faculty MNHS jennifer.lindley@monash.edu

TBC Eastern Health Clinical School nicole.koehler@monash.edu

Prof. Shane Bullock School of Rural Health shane.bullock@monash.edu

Dr. Melanie Pritchard School of Biomedical Sciences melanie.pritchard@monash.edu

An overview of the management structure for BMedSc(Hons) can be found below.

● Managing the overall BMedSc(Hons) program

Overview of Important Dates 2018

BMedSc(Hons) Moodle site opens February, 2018

Foundation Skills Workshop (Orientation) 2018 (19th to 23rd Feb)

Commencement at Research Placement 26th February, 2018

MED4302 (FY; 36 points) Dates

Award received on graduation

Honours course grading schema

Mark Course grade award

Occupational health and safety

Plagiarism, Cheating and Collusion

Referencing and acknowledgement requirements

Please keep a copy of tasks completed for your records.

Your submissions must be named as follows:

Special Consideration, Extensions and Penalties

Professional behaviour requirements

Reconciling mark discrepancies

Formal Request for Remark

Monash University Library

Disability Liaison Unit

MED4301 Medical Science Honours Research Skills (12 point)

MED4302 Medical Science Honours Research Project (36 points)

October 24th Faculty Oral Presentation Student 5 minute oral presentation.

Topic: Progress report

Submit a completed and signed copy of the report to via Moodle

Topic: Overview of the Proposed Research Project

Detailed & clearly explained 8 Aims and Hypotheses / 5

Generally clear but lacks some detail/justification 7 Proposed methodology / 10

Lacks detail, poorly explained and poorly justified 6 Responses to questions / 10

Methods not linked to aims/hypothesis or not ≤ 5 ….. / 5

Topic: Literature review

Feedback to the student

Layout, presentation, visual aids and referencing

Comments on the research project outline.

Is the report within the word limit? (7,500 words) Y/N

Examiner’s name (please print): Date:

Examiner’s signature: Contact phone number:

Topic: Summary of your research project.

Nomination of Assessors, Assessment Rubric and Assessment Sheet

Detailed & clearly explained 8 Questions answered correctly & clearly 8

Not linked to aims/hypothesis or not provided ≤ 5… Unsure responses or unable to answer ≤ 5…

Please provide a mark in each row

3. Findings / Results 20 marks

4. Discussion and Conclusion 40 marks