BIOL1907 Molecules to Ecosystems

Personal Response Assessment

Submission details:
Submission deadline: Friday 20th October 2017 at 11.59pm
Word limit: 400 words ±10% for Part A (excluding reviewer comment and references)
500 words ±10% for Part B (excluding references)
Submission info: Part A and Part B should be submitted as one document. Put clear titles of
the top of each Part.
Save your personal response with your surname and student identifier, ie.
Thompson 284924.
Submit your assessment via Turnitin on Canvas: Login to Canvas: Assessments
button/Personal Response Assessment/Turnitin submission

This assessment is worth 15% of total unit marks (5% for Part A, 10% for Part B)

Part A: Response to Reviewer Comments

Before the work of researchers is published it undergoes rigorous reviewing by other academics.
Generally a group of researchers write a scientific report called a manuscript and submit this to a
journal. It is reviewed by about 3 anonymous academics who give detailed feedback, which is
returned to the authors. All reviewer comments are considered (and there can be a lot of them!),
the manuscript is updated to reflect the comments, and a document responding to the comments is
written. The manuscript and ‘response to reviewer comments’ are re-submitted to the journal and
the research is hopefully published.
You wrote up your research based on the seed germination experiment you undertook at home and
submitted this for review (marking). We provided you with detailed feedback of your report. Five
of these comments were highlighted and you will use these do write a response to reviewer
comments. We do not require you to update your report, just write a response to the reviewer
comments. Here’s how you do that:
1. Identify the five highlighted comments from your Scientific Report feedback
2. List the sections of the report they relate to, ie. introduction, results
3. Think about how you would use the comments to change and improve your report. What
would you add/remove, update, or do differently in the experiment if you repeated it?
 4. Reflect on the comments and make notes on how they changed your understanding of report
writing; perception of experimental design; aided your learning. See notes in Part B about
reflective writing.
5. Compile a table as follows and use your table in your assessment:

Example:
Reviewer Response to Reviewer Comment and Reflections
Comments
1. You produced I would update the results section of my report to include written text
a clear graph in relating to figure 1 as follows:
your results
‘In hatchery experiments, the expression of the gene glutathione S-
section but you
transferase was higher in selectively bred Sydney rock oysters than wild
did not describe
oysters in both controls and after exposure to increased temperature
the results fully in
(Figure 1.) ‘
the body of that
section I agree that the inclusion of text in addition to the figure assists readers
in understanding the content of the figure and the report.

2. You only In my experimental design I included one control and one exposure
included one treatment. My understanding was that I could compare the control and
control and exposure treatment in order to get my results and support my hypothesis.
replicate of the On further reading I now understand that this does not provide enough
‘treatment’ in data and evidence with which to make assumptions about the growth rate
your of Cercartetus nanus in response to food supply.
experimental
If I repeated the experiment I would use one, or maybe two controls,
design. Can you
multiple replicates.
explain why this
may be The reviewer comment made me re-think my experimental design and
problematic? undertake further investigation. I now have a better understanding about
the use of controls and multiple replicates when undertaking biological
experiments in order to be certain that the results I obtain are
representative of the species I am observing.
3.etc etc

The ‘Reviewer Comments’ above are not included as part of the word count for this assessment.
Rubric at end of document
Part B: Personal Response
We often learn better when we are interested in a subject, if we are able to identify with it, and
especially if that learning experience makes us question what we take for granted. This
questioning is reflective thinking and is our personal response to our experiences, situations or new
information. Reflection encourages us to pay attention to our thinking. In science this involves more
than just thinking about scientific concepts, it involves evaluating the process of science, questioning
why and not just how we do something. In turn, this opens us up to change, enables us to develop
as scientists and increases our learning capacity. Writing a personal response helps capture how
we react, question and deal with our experiences; this is reflective writing.

For this part of the personal response assessment you are going to write an individual
personal response to one the research presentations in your Masterclass and an associated
peer reviewed article.

What is reflective writing? How to write reflectively

Writing reflectively is about your response and This is a personal response so should be written
opinions to your experience(s) in the first person, ie. I think…

It involves responses to your thoughts and You should be:

feelings
It helps you reinforce your thinking about how Explanatory (how and why the research was
and why you learn subjects
It is not simply a description or a simple
summary of what you have experienced
It is not an essay
Descriptive (ie. what the research was)
Expressive (ie. I believe, I feel)
done)
Critical (if you wish)
Use conventional spelling, grammar and
sentence structure

You can quote from the video as long as you

It is not an evaluation use quotation marks
Features of a Personal Response:
Use these as headings for your personal response

Background
Provide a brief context about the researcher and a brief, clear and concise description about
the research discussed, and how the research in the peer reviewed article links to the content in
the video

Research and perspectives

Identify the main research themes from the presentation and associated peer review article.
Identify how the researcher address the aims of their research. Describe links between the research
and concepts within the From Molecules to Ecosystems unit.

Reflection
Describe what interested you and why; what you liked/disliked about the researcher and research;
how the experience may have changed your perceptions of what you thought the research was
about or how it linked to a concept in the Unit; did the experience aid your learning?; did you find
anything confusing?; describe how the research might be linked to society (ie. industry, the
environment); were there any omissions in the interview?

Instructions:
1. Attend the Masterclasses and listen to all the research presentations. The presentations
cover a wide range of research topics and disciplines within Biology. You will not be able to do
your Personal Response from the presentations on 24th October as this is past the deadline for the
assessment.

2. Pick the ONE presentation that appeals to you and that you are interested in. Watch the
recording of this (on Canvas) a few times taking notes or making a mind-map using the guidelines
above for the features of a personal response to assist you.

3. Open Canvas and click on the ‘Schedule’ tab at the bottom of the homepage. Locate the
Masterclass Details table. Alongside each presenters name you will find a peer reviewed article
relating to their research. You must pick an article that relates to the presentation you have chosen.
Read the article from an interest point of view, you are not critically reviewing it, you are reading
it so you understand what research the researcher does and how this may help your understanding
of concepts in this Unit. To assist you, whilst reading make notes using the guidelines above for the
features of a personal response.

4. Combine your notes on the presentation and peer reviewed article to write your Personal
Response. Use the headings provided above in your assessment if you wish and don’t forget to
label this part of the assessment as Part B.
Example:
The example below is an excerpt of a Personal Response assessment by a student at UTS. It is
based on an interview about research (so doesn’t include an associated article). The student has
written a concise introduction, a clear description of the research that the interviewee conducts,
and what their own thoughts were about the research. It does not include any links to the research
and concepts in the Unit of Study or reflections about what or how the interview and research
have helped/altered/consolidated the students own learning experience. Based on the rubric
(below), this assessment would receive a credit.

Ian Wolf interviews Associate Prof Peter Ralph, Executive director of C3 (Climate Change Cluster)
at UTS. They discuss issues with respect to global climate change and the impact of pollution.
Peter talks about the effects of how the increasing temperatures will alter the formation of
Antarctic ice which inevitably will cascade right along a food web and also the effect this
increasing temperature will affect the symbiosis between coral’s and their algae partners.

The first topic discussed is the departments’ involvements with understanding the impacts
that climate change will have on the Polar Regions. From these elevated temperatures there
could be a reduction in the formation of ice which is the surface area that species of algae grow.
He emphasises that this, in combination with increased light and increased overall temp will
reduce the population of algae, which will have a domino effect right through the Antarctic food
webs. He concludes this section of the interview with the following statement;

“You change the ice, you change the whole ecosystem...”

Next Ian asks Peter about the effect climate change is having on coral species. Peter
explains how the increased average global temperature can ‘bleach’ corals. This term is a single
phrase explanation based on the visual aspect on what is occurring between the coral (animal)
and its mutually symbiotic partner, the algae. He explains that basically the photosynthesis of the
algae is altered and the coral rejects the algae, but he follows up on this by stating;

“the biochemistry of why the photo-systems break down... is not an immediately apparent
explanation”

He then goes on to give a more in depth explanation on what the cause might be. He
emphasises that photosynthesis is quite a robust system and is not the main focus of the study but
it is the way the organism and the plant interact when the average temperature rises. He ends
this section by stressing that the best solution for reducing coral bleaching is to purely reduce the
amount of CO2 emissions.

This interview is very informative and also quite easy to follow. Ian did well in directing the
interview in a certain direction and also in following up on whatever Peter had to say, simplifying
if necessary. What could have been discussed was how the other ecosystems would react to the
issues mentioned, i.e. how coral bleaching would affect terrestrial ecosystems as it is known that
almost all ecosystems affect each other in some way. This information is partially a re-affirmation
of knowledge I have already gained from the degree I am enrolled in and knowledge perused
by personal interest. Pursuing post graduate studies with Peter and C3 is something I am quite
interested in.
Rubrics:
Part A – Response to Reviewer Comments
Criteria (what you have Pass Credit Distinction High Distinction
to produce)
Response to reviewer Identifies some of the Identifies most of the Identifies all five Demonstrates a
comments: (no more than comments from reviewers comments from reviewer comments, or comprehensive
200 words) and conveys some changes reviewers and conveys clearly and concisely understanding of the
2 marks to be made, but without most of the changes to conveys all changes to be concepts involved in
clarity be made, but not made to their scientific writing a scientific report
Identify the comments from concisely and with report and by clearly and
reviewer and the changes weaknesses in structure concisely identifying all
required, and provide a five reviewer comments,
clear and concise and gives a precise
description of what description of what
changes you would make changes should be made
to your report, or the the their scientific report
experiment for each of the in response to these
five reviewer comments comments.
(0.25-0.5) (0.5-1) (1-1.5) (1.5-2)
Reflection of reviewer A brief reflection of A thorough reflection to Demonstrates a thorough Demonstrates a thorough
comments: reviewer comments reviewer comments reflection of reviewer reflection of reviewer
(no more than 200 words) describing how the describing how the comments. States clearly comments. Describes
2 marks comments enhanced the comments enhanced the and concisely what their clearly and concisely
scientific report, or changed scientific report, and perceptions were, how what their perceptions
Describe how the reviewer perceptions of writing a changed perceptions of this process has changed were about the
comments improved your report, or aided writing a report, or their perceptions and comments, how this
scientific report; how the understanding of aided understanding of how the reviewer process has changed
comments may have experimental design or experimental design comments improved their their perceptions and
changed your perceptions learning experience and learning experience scientific report aided their learning, and
of writing or report; how how the comments
the comments aided your improved their scientific
understanding of report.
experimental design, or
your learning experience
(0.25-0.5) (0.5-1) (1-1.5) (1.5-2)

Communicates clearly Grammar, spelling and Attention has been paid to ensure correct grammar, spelling and sentence
using scientific sentence structure was structure are correctly formatted. Any additional references used are correctly
conventions: good, or, references are cited in-text and reference list created
1 mark correctly cited, but some
errors were made
Correct grammar, spelling
and sentence structure

Any references used are

correctly cited (0.5) (0.5-1)

Word count is within

±10% of stated limits
Part B – Personal Response to Research Interviews
Criteria (what you have Pass Credit Distinction High Distinction
to produce)
Background: Introduces researcher and Description introduces Clearly and concisely Clearly and concisely
(no more than 50 words) conveys a message about researcher in context to conveys who the conveys who the
1 mark the research from the their research both from researcher is and their researcher is and their
presentation and article but the presentation and research theme both from research theme both
provide a brief context without clarity and article but not concisely the perspective of the from the perspective of
about the researcher and conclusion and with weaknesses in presentation and the presentation and
a brief, clear and concise structure associated article associated article and
description about the draws the reader’s
research discussed, and interest
how the research in the (0.25) (0.5) (0.75)
peer reviewed article (1)
linked
Research and Clearly demonstrates an Clearly demonstrates a Demonstrates a Demonstrates a
perspectives: understanding of the sound understanding of comprehensive comprehensive
(150 - 200 words) research these that the the themes of the understanding of the understanding of the
3 marks researcher discussed but research from the video themes from both the themes from both the
did not associate these and links these concisely presentation and presentation and
Identify the main research with either the unit of to the associated article. associated article and associated article and
themes in the presentation study or to industry/ States how researcher how the researcher how the researcher
and associated peer society/the environment addresses the aims of undertakes their undertakes their
review article. Identify their study. Did not research. Clearly links research. Clearly links
how the researcher concisely describe the these themes to concepts these themes to concepts
address the aims of their links between the within the unit of study within the unit of study.
research. Describe links research and In addition, shows an
between the research and industry/society/the appreciation of how the
concepts within the From environment or the unit research relates to either
Molecules to Ecosystems of study industry, society or the
unit. Describe links natural environment.
between the research and
industry/society/the
environment. (1-1.5) (2-2.5) (2.5-3)
(1.5-2)
Reflection: A brief personal response A thorough personal Demonstrates a thorough Demonstrates a thorough
(250-300 words) describing interests to, and response describing personal response to the personal response to the
5 marks likes/dislikes to the themes interests to, and presentation, article and video, article and themes
discussed in the likes/dislikes to the themes of the research. of the research.
Describe what interested presentation and research themes States clearly and Describes clearly and
you and why; what you associated article. discussed by the concisely what their concisely what their
liked/disliked about the research and in the perceptions were, how perceptions were, how
researcher or research; associated article this process has changed this process has changed
how the experience may their perceptions their perceptions. In
have changed your addition, states whether
perceptions; did the and what ways the
experience aid your experience has aided
learning their learning
(2-3) (3-4)
(2) (4-5)

Communicates clearly Grammar, spelling and Attention has been paid to ensure correct grammar, spelling and sentence
using scientific sentence structure was structure in addition to quotes used from the video interview are correctly
conventions: good, and quotes were formatted. Personal response has also been correctly cited with the associated
1 mark correctly placed in peer review article
quotation marks, or,
Correct grammar, spelling personal response was
and sentence structure correctly cited

Any quotes used are

correctly in quotation
marks (0.5) (0.5-1)

Word count for each

section is within ±10% of
stated limits