💬 Request a Quote, It's FREE!!!

Your review should focus on one of the classes listed below to be chosen from the link using your SHU account. We will explain the process of allocation in the introductory first session of the module.

66-710690 Molecular Pharmacology and Biotechnology Assessment Brief Task

Assessment brief Task 1

School of Biosciences and Chemistry

Module TitleMolecular Pharmacology and Biotechnology
Module Code66-710690
No of Tasks in this module, weighting

Task 1 CW (60%) weighting

Task 2 CW (40 %) weighting

Task no and Assessment TitleTask 1 Summative coursework
Individual/GroupIndividual
Format:Literature review
Word count / length (depending on task)2500 (1000 for workbook, 1500 for review)
Submission:Submission point on Blackboard, deadline 16th December 2025 (3pm).
Submission deadline and Feedback date

See module information section of module Blackboard site.
This information can also be found in my student record (MSR)

Module Learning Outcomes:

LO1 ✓ Evaluate the concepts of pharmacological properties related to a drug.
LO2 ✓ Critically review the processes involved in drug evaluation as pharmacological tools and therapeutic agents.
LO3 ✓ Evaluate the range of drug targets and related molecular processes within biological systems.
LO4 ✓ Evaluate quantitatively pharmacodynamics and pharmacotherapeutic properties of drug molecules.
LO5 ✓ Retrieve information on drugs from library resources and evaluate and critically analyse the information.
LO6 ✓ Demonstrate an in depth knowledge of cell structures and functions, and how these functions may be altered in disease.
LO7 ✓Evaluate techniques used in the study of cell biology and consider how they develop knowledge of cellular
function.

Task 1 - Description

The aim of this assessment is to undertake literature analysis outlining the current concepts of pharmacological properties related to a drug. The final review will be a concise (1500 word) review explaining the processes involved in drug evaluation as pharmacological tools and therapeutic agents.

Your review should focus on one of the classes listed below to be chosen from the link using your SHU account. We will explain the process of allocation in the introductory first session of the module. Your review should include examples and mention mechanism of action, physiological effects and chemical structure in the review text, and you should consider how pharmacological evaluation relate to your class.

Mydriatics and Cycloplegics

Glaucoma

Antiarrhythmics

Antidepressants

Anti Parkinson’s

Anticoagulants

CNS Stimulants

Antiprotozoal

Lipid-regulation

Antiepileptics

Anthelmintics

Bronchodilators

Analgesics

Antidiabetics

Corticosteroids

General Anesthetics

Male Sex hormones

Antihistamines

Antibacterials

Female sex hormones

Hypnotics

Antivirals

Antithyroid drugs

Acne and Rosacea

Antiemetics

Contraceptives

Fluids and Electrolytes

Antifungals

Genito-urinary disorders

Metabolic disorders

Laxatives

Cytotoxic drugs

Vitamins

Antispasmodic / GIT motility

Immune stimulants

Minerals

Antidiarrheal

Immune suppressants

Rheumatic Diseases

Diuretics

Anti anemic

Neuromuscular Disorders

Local Anesthetics

Nasal Decongestants

Anti inflammatory

In addition to the final review, you are also required to attach a workbook (1000 words). The workbook will scaffold the formation of the review and will be used to provide formative feedback and help you to build up a professional review to a high scientific standard. It will also demonstrate your engagement with the task and support your skills

Formative assessment:

There will be 3 support sessions – 2 of these are timetabled, and 2 will be scheduled online by the module leader and will focus on progression through the workbook.

 

TaskDateTick upon completion

Support point 1

Topic selection and brainstorming

 

 

Support point 2

Outline & Search Strategy

 

 

Support point 3

Argument Development

 

 

Support point 4

First Draft + Figure construction

 

 

Final submission

Polished and complete version of the workbook and literature review

27th of November 2025

 

Artificial Intelligence: This assessment is AI level 2 as defined on the AI scale (1-5).

AI assessment statement: You are permitted to use generative AI tools to aid in shaping your assessment for example for brainstorming, generating ideas, and structuring/quality of your work. However, the final submission should not include any content directly generated by GenAI. This level encourages you to explore and refine your own ideas while developing your own critical and analytical skills.

Application:

  1. Collaborative brainstorming: Students working in groups on a problem-based learning activity may use AI to propose potential solutions, which are then refined through discussion and debate.
  2. Structuring reports: AI can suggest a flow or format for a laboratory report (e.g., abstract, introduction, results, discussion), but all final content must be the student's original work.
  3. Grammar and syntax correction: Students can use AI tools to identify and correct language errors in a dissertation draft, ensuring clarity without altering the content.

Student Disclosure Statement: You must acknowledge the use of AI in your work by including the below student disclosure statement in your submission.
I acknowledge the use of <insert AI system(s) > to < briefly explain how the AI tool was used
>. No content generated by AI technologies has been presented as my work. I have kept the chat history and will provide these on request. I acknowledge the use of AI tools without disclosure is academic misconduct.

Workbook formatting instructions:

Support point 1:

1.Topic selection and brainstorming

Objective: Define a focused topic and research question. Activities:

  • Mind map of potential topics using PowerPoint. We will cover how to generate a mind map in the module sessions.
  • Reflection: “Why is this topic of interest?”
  • Short paragraph justifying topic and finalised research question. Use scientific evidence
  • Generate a simple descriptive title to the literature review

Mind map: (Class activity and you can sketch it by hand, please check the appendix for tips and tricks)
What is interesting or noteworthy about the topic? (50 words)

Scientific justification of the selected topic (Please highlight the magnitude of the problem and provide scientific evidence on why this topic is important. Also, indicate how your selected topic fills a gap in literature) (100 words)

Title of the literature review (12 words)

Support point 2: Outline & Search Strategy

2.Building an outline

Objective: Organise the literature review logically.

Activities:

Explore the data bases such as Google scholar, PubMed, Scopus, etc, find a literature review that relates to your topic and read carefully to start collating scientific knowledge about the topic. This literature review will only give you an idea how literature reviews are structured.
*Do not copy and paste from the literature reviews this is considered as plagiarism and will lead to academic misconduct consequences.

Data base used

Title of the literature review

APA7 citation

Your own structure ideas inspired from the literature review (remember it has to be authentic your own and not AI generated

    

We will cover APA7 style in the support sessions.
Tentative structure of literature review: Include subheadings.

3.Search Strategy & Database Skills

Objective: Develop independent search skills and curation of sources. Activities: Generate a table containing:

  • Search Log Template: record search terms, databases used, filters applied, results found.
  • Evaluating Sources: table to compare sources on credibility, and relevance,
  • Reflection: “What worked/didn’t in my search process?”
  • Submission: 5 key scholarly articles with rationales.

 

Search keywords

Database (Scopus, PubMed, Google scholar, etc)

Filter applied (example: review article, clinical trial, etc) or the date of the

# papers identified

How relevant and credible the paper (Relevance refers to how closely the study relates to your specific research topic, mechanism, or question.

Credibility refers to the trustworthiness of the source— based on factors like peer review, journal quality, author

 

 

 

publication. Language

 

reputation, and clarity of methods.)

1.     
2.     
3.     
4     
5.     

Short reflection on how you found the database search (50 words)

Support point 3: Argument Development

Argument development:

To develop an argument, you need to
First, define the core question or problem of the selected topic:

When you read an article/s, you need to answer the following questions:
What research question is this study answering? What methods did they use?
What were the key findings?
How do these findings relate to my question?

Article

Title

APA7 referencing

What research question is this study answering?

What methods did they use?

What were the key findings?

How do these findings relate to my question?

1.      
2.      
3.      
4.      
5.      

Short paragraph to interpret the studies by addressing the questions below?

  • Do these studies show the same findings, or contrasting findings?
  • Have they taken the same approach or different approach?
  • Are there any gaps in any of the studies or contradictions? Points to take:
  • Support your claim by referring to study A or B for example
  • Acknowledge the counterpoints
  • Show the synthesis by for example saying “Collectively these findings suggest ………”

Hint: Argument Paragraph Template

  • Topic sentence – the main idea or claim.
  • Synthesis of evidence – bring in 2–3 studies that support the idea.
  • Critical commentary – explain why this matters or how studies compare.
  • Transition or implication – lead to next idea or state relevance.

Argument development (200 words)

Submission point 4

5. Draft of the literature review

Objective: Write the literature review in coherent parts.

Activities:

Consider sentence starters & transitional phrases, we will look at examples in the support sessions.

First Draft Section Template: background > section 1 > section 2, etc.

Checklist: Evidence of workbook engagement, The title, introduction, attempted 2 sections related to the topic.
Submission: First draft of 1–2 sections for feedback.

  • Figure development

Figures are important to summarise a concept and visuals to important concepts that needs highlight in the lit review
Generate a figure using Biorender or PPT, draw.io/ and mind the graph, but before that you need to skitch the concept this can be hand drawn and does not need to be polished.
Hand drawn figure: Take a picture with your mobile phone and paste it in the box below

Polished figure: Copy and paste here

Are you thinking of adapting or adopting a figure from a published work? Please paste below and cite the origin

Rember all figures should be referenced in the relevant text and well cited and referenced if they are adapted or adopted

Final submission point

Refining and Proof reading:

Objective: Revise writing with attention to clarity and criticality. Activities:

  • Revision Checklist: cohesion, criticality, transitions, clarity.
  • Proofreading: Send the literature review to Studiosity.
  • What feedback did you get and how did you respond to it?
  • Reflection Prompt: “What have I improved? What do I still find challenging?”

Please paste Studiosity feedback and your response to the feedback (200 words)

Final reflection: Please comment on what skills you have developed and what was your main struggle during the process of developing the literature review. (200 words)

Final Literature Review & Process Portfolio

Objective: Submit a polished review with the workbook.

The final document must be submitted to the final submission point. It should contain the workbook and the literature review in one document.

The literature review (1500 words): 

Contains:

  • Title
  • Introduction
  • Body with subtitles
  • Conclusion
  • Final checklist:
  • Complete workbook
  • Final formatting checklist (APA 7 referencing).
  • Word limit for the lit review (1500 ±10% words):
  • AI-Use Declaration Form: students sign a statement of independent work.

Assessment Marking criteria:

Your assignment will be graded using the University Grade descriptor which can be found within the assessment area of the module BlackBoard site, and is attached at the end of this document.

Eg You are also provided with a marking grid for this coursework which explains the expectations for each grade - you should use it when developing your coursework. This will be explained further in the coursework briefing session.

Assessment Support:

Support will take place through the support sessions outlined above.

If you are struggling with personal matters and/or illness please contact Hallam Help for support.

Academic Conduct: Academic misconduct is any action, attempted action or omission that may result in you gaining an unfair advantage over other students in an assessment, where there is evidence to demonstrate that your actions or behaviour arose from an intention to deceive the marker. It is a breach of the Code of Academic Conduct and as such will be investigated under the Academic Conduct Regulation. It is a serious matter and has the potential to result in a number of sanctions which could impact on your ability to progress academically. Further information on misconduct can be found by typing “Academic Misconduct” into the search tab in Blackboard.

Molecular Pharmacology and Biotechnology (66-7106G0-AF)

Class

Descriptor

Mark range

%

General Characteristics

 

Distinction

 

Exceptional Distinction

 

93 - 100

 

96

Exceptional breadth and depth of knowledge and understanding evidenced by own independent insight and critical awareness of relevant literature and concepts at the forefront of the discipline; evidence of extensive and appropriate independent inquiry operating with advanced concepts, methods and techniques to solve problems in unfamiliar contexts; Cogent arguments and explanations are consistently provided using a range of media demonstrating an ability to communicate effectively in a variety of formats using a sophisticated level of the English language in an eloquent and professional manner to both technical and non-technical audiences; a sustained academic approach to all aspects of the tasks is evidenced; academic work extends boundaries of the disciplines and is beyond expectation of the level and may achieve publishable or commercial standard.

 

Distinction

High Distinction

85 - 92

89

Excellent knowledge and understanding evidenced by some clear independent insight and critical awareness of relevant concepts some of which are at the forefront of the discipline; evidence of appropriate independent inquiry operating with core concepts, methods and techniques to solve complex problems in mostly familiar contexts; Arguments and explanations are provided that is well-supported by the literature and in some cases uses a range of media demonstrating an ability to communicate effectively in a limited number of formats using own style that is suited to both technical and non-technical audiences; a sustained academic approach to most aspects of the tasks is evidenced; one or more aspects of the academic work is beyond the prescribed range and evidences a competent understanding of all of the relevant taught content.

 

Mid Distinction

78 - 84

81

 

 

Low Distinction

70 - 77

74

 

 

 

 

Merit

High Merit

67 - 69

68

Very good knowledge and understanding is evidenced as the student is typically able to independently relate taught facts/concepts together some of which are at the forefront of the discipline; evidence of some competent independent inquiry operating with core concepts, methods and techniques to solve familiar problems; Arguments and explanations are provided that are typically supported by the literature and in some cases may challenge some received wisdoms; competently uses all taught media and communication methods to communicate effectively in a familiar settings; an academically rigorous approach applied to some aspects of the tasks is evidenced; some beyond the prescribed range, may rely on set sources to advance work/direct arguments; demonstrates autonomy in approach to learning.

 

Mid Merit

64 - 66

65

 

 

Low Merit

60 - 63

62

 

Pass

High Pass

57 - 59

58

Satisfactory knowledge and understanding of the area of study balanced towards the descriptive rather than critical or analytical and mostly confined to concepts that are not at the forefront of the discipline; evidence of some independent reading and research to advance work and inform arguments and approaches; Arguments and explanations are limited in range and depth although some are adequately supported by the literature albeit descriptively rather than critically; competently uses at least one taught media and communication method to communicate appropriately in familiar settings; although the approach applied to some aspects of the tasks may lack academic rigour, there are some clear areas of competence within the prescribed range. Relies on set sources to advance work/direct arguments and communicated in a way which shows clarity but structure may not always be coherent.

 

Mid Pass

54 - 56

55

 

 

Low Pass

50 - 53

50

 

Fail

Borderline Fail

40 - 49

45

Knowledge and understanding is insufficient as the student only evidences an understanding of small subset of the taught concepts and techniques; fails to make sufficient links between known concepts and facts to adequately solve relevant aspects of the brief/problem; little ability to independently select and evaluate reading/research with almost total reliance on set sources and unsubstantiated arguments/methods; communication/presentation may be competent in places but fails to demonstrate structure, clarity and/or focus; inability to adequately define problems and make reasoned judgements; the general approach to tasks lacks rigor and competence.

 

Mid Fail

30 - 39

35

 

 

Low Fail

20 - 29

25

 

 

 

Very Low Fail

 

6-19

 

10

Knowledge and understanding is highly insufficient as the student is unable to evidence any meaningful understanding of taught concepts or methods; very limited evidence of reading and research to advance work; inadequate technical and practical skills as the student is unable to use and apply such skills to address problems or make judgements; limited or lack of understanding of the boundaries of the discipline and does not question received wisdom; approach to learning lacks autonomy and approach to tasks is not sustained; inability to communicate coherently

Zero

Zero

0-5

0

Work not submitted, work of no merit, penalty in some misco

WhatsApp