代做PERFORMING IN EXTREME ENVIRONMENTS代写Processing

PERFORMING IN EXTREME ENVIRONMENTS

Hypoxic-Hyperoxic Performance – Abstract and Discussion Coursework

Assessment due date: Monday 11^th November, 13:00.

Assessment submission window: Monday 4^th November – Monday 11^th November (closes at 13:00)

- Late submissions will receive a 5% deduction for each day it is late.

Assessment weighting: This assignment will count 50% towards your final mark.

Assessment requirements:

You are required to:

1. Read/attend/watch the hypoxic-hyperoxic performance practical class material

2. Write a structured 300-word abstract using the data collected during your week 4 practical class and the statistical analysis completed during your week 5 lecture.

3. Write a 1000-word discussion reporting the key findings and critically evaluating how these findings relate to the relevant literature.

4. Submit cover page, including AI use statement.

Word limit

Abstract: 300 words total.

Discussion: 1000 words total, including in-text citations but excluding the reference list.

Assessment Guidance

Please refer to the marking rubric at the end of this document for more detailed information on mark allocation and format of how your feedback will be provided.

Abstract

Your abstract should:

Have a background statement that highlights the rationale for the study. You should also incorporate an aim/hypothesis in this section.

Have a methods section that briefly outlines the methods used in the experiment.

Report the key data (e.g., Means ±SD) and include statistical analysis (e.g., p-values). In Week 5’s lecture we will complete the statistical analysis together in class and these data will be made available to you.

Have a concluding statement that summaries the key findings from the experiment.

Note: No references are required in your abstract.

Discussion

Your discussion should:

Outline the key findings from the experiment (opening overview paragraph).

Demonstrate analytical and critical thinking by:

Evaluating each key finding and contrast/compare with key relevant literature.

Including a “perspective” section that considers the application of the key findings.

Considering the experimental limitations

Include a conclusion that summaries the balance of evidence presented.

Reference relevant studies included in the recommended reading list (as a minimum).

References

You should use the Harvard referencing system for this assignment. Information on referencing is available here.

Reading list

We expect you to engage in your own independent research on this topic but below we have provided some references to get you started (also in the Resource List and Pre-practical material):

- Deb et al. (2018). Quantifying the effects of acute hypoxic exposure on exercise performance and capacity: A systematic review and meta-regression. European Journal of Sport Science, 18:2, 243-256, DOI: 10.1080/17461391.2017.1410233.

- Cardinale & Ekblom (2018). Hyperoxia for performance and training, Journal of Sports Sciences, 36:13, 1515-1522, DOI: 10.1080/02640414.2017.1398893.

Assessment Support

Your lectures in Weeks 4 and 5, as well as your practical lab class in Week 4 will be key formative opportunities.

- Week 4 (Tuesday): We will discuss the background, rationale, aim and hypothesis for the experiment.

- Week 4: We will collect the data during the 'Hypoxic-hyperoxic performance' practical (you will be timetabled to attend one of four 3-hour practical classes during this week).

- Week 5 (Monday): We will analyse the data and also discuss key elements to help inform. your abstract and discussion coursework.

- Week 5 (Tuesday and Friday): We will work through a formative abstract and discussion exercise.

Mark return deadline and feedback opportunities:

- Your marks and feedback will be released on the 3^rd of December 2024 (15 working days following submission date).

- In Week 11, the Tuesday lecture on the 3^rd of December will be a general feedback session.

- There will also be a drop-in session (details to be announced later in the term). This session will be an opportunity for you to ask any questions you may have relating to your feedback.

Plagiarism

Please ensure that you understand what constitutes plagiarism and collusion and the consequences of either. If you are unsure please see the following advice on the University intranet here.

Generative AI

Please ensure that you understand what constitutes an appropriate and ethical use of generative AI for this assignment. The Level of AI use permitted in this assignment is at Level 2:

Marking and feedback rubrics

The rubric below outlines the marking criteria and mark boundaries the assessors will use to rate your coursework –  note that there are 3 specific criteria for the discussion section (compared to 1 for the abstract).

	Outstanding (>80%)	Excellent (70 - 79%)	Good (60 - 69% )	Sound (50 - 59%)	Adequate to poor (<50%)
Abstract	Concisely reports all key scientific information from the experiment and draws an insightful and accurate conclusion. Approaching publishable standards.	Concisely reports key scientific information from the experiment and draws an accurate conclusion.	Correctly reports most of the key scientific information from the experiment and draws an appropriate conclusion.	Reports some of the key scientific information from the experiment correctly and draws an adequate, mostly accurate conclusion.	Reports some of the scientific information from the experiment correctly and draws a mostly accurate conclusion.
Discussion: Key findings	Concisely and accurately reports the key findings from the experiment. Drawing insightful and original insights for the data.	Clearly and accurately reports all the key findings from the experiment.	Accurately reports the key findings from the experiment.	Accurately reports most of the key findings from the experiment. Some minor inaccuracies reported.	Some of the key findings from the experiment are reported. Some inaccuracies reported.
Discussion: Critical analysis	Insightful, concise, and mechanistic evaluation of all the key findings. Exceptional understanding of relevant literature that is clearly linked to key findings. Exceptional consideration of how key findings can be applied. Original and insightful consideration of experimental limitations. Approaching publishable standards.	Strong mechanistic evaluation of all/most key findings. Strong critical insight and depth of engagement with the key findings and the relevant literature. Excellent consideration of how key findings can be applied. Excellent consideration of experimental limitations.	Critical understanding of key findings and good engagement with relevant literature demonstrated. Generally appropriate mechanistic detail provided to support argument. Some consideration of how key findings can be applied. Good consideration of experimental limitations.	Clear knowledge and understanding of experimental findings presented. Generally sound engagement with relevant literature. One or two minor inaccuracies. Some/Limited consideration of how key finding can be applied. Some consideration of experimental limitations.	Generally reliable and accurate understanding of experimental findings presented but at a textbook level. Some/limited evidence of appropriate critical analysis of key studies. Some inaccuracies reported. Limited/no consideration of how key finding can be applied. Limited consideration of experimental limitations.
Discussion: Conclusion	Exceptional conclusion that concisely summaries the balance of evidence presented within the discussion.	Excellent conclusion that summaries the balance of evidence presented within the discussion.	A good conclusion that summaries the key points raised in the discussion.	An adequate, mostly accurate conclusion. Most of the key points are summarised.	A mostly accurate conclusion. Some new information introduced that was not covered in general discussion.
Referencing	Highly relevant studies cited from the recommended reference list and beyond.	Highly relevant studies cited, including studies from the recommended reference list.	Relevant studies cited, including from the recommended reference list.	A limited number of relevant studies cited.	Irrelevant studies cited.
Use of language / clarity of expression	Concise and skilful use of language that clearly communicates meaning to readers.	Skilful use of language that clearly communicates meaning to readers.	Good use of language that overall conveys meaning to readers.	Sound use of language though some errors in structure/language. Awkward sentence structure and poor or absent transitions in places reduces readability of the work.	Problems with the use of language and structure. Serious flaws in sentence structure and absent transitions that makes difficult to understand meaning.