Assignment Prompt & Instructions
– a month ago
**files (2)**
– ## GuidelinesLecSigAssmnt.pdf
– ## MicrobiologySignatureInstructions.pdf
**## GuidelinesLecSigAssmnt.pdf**
1
Lecture Signature Assignment: Microbial Journal Article Review
Week 6 – Instructions and Guidelines Dr. R.Salas-Auvert
Dear Students,
This signature assignment is a vital academic exercise designed to enhance your critical
reading, scientific reasoning, and scholarly writing skills, competencies essential for your
academic advancement and professional success.
Purpose
The purpose of this assignment is to guide you in exploring how microbes are utilized as
model organisms or experimental systems in scientific research. You will analyze a peer-
reviewed primary research article and craft a structured summary that reflects your
understanding of the study’s background, methods, findings, and broader significance.
Assignment Overview
You will individually select one peer-reviewed primary research article that centers on a
microbe and its role in experimental or clinical research. This article must come from a
credible scientific journal and provide original research data. Your topic should align with
your personal academic or professional interests.
Example: If you're interested in diabetes, you might investigate the microbiome or
microbial infections prevalent in diabetic patients. What roles do specific microbes play in
disease progression, treatment response, or complications? Narrow your focus to one
microbe and its implications in that context.
Recommended Workflow
To approach this assignment methodically, consider the following steps:
1. Topic Exploration – Identify a broad condition or area of interest (e.g., metabolic
disorders, cancer, neurological disease, environmental impact, etc.).
2. Literature Search – Use reliable academic databases such as PubMed, Google
Scholar, or your university library portal to locate full-text research articles.
3. Article Selection – Choose a primary research article that focuses on one
specific microbe and includes original experimental findings.
4. Supplemental Reading – Review at least four additional scholarly sources
(research or review articles) to enhance your contextual understanding.
2
5. Concept Mapping (Optional but Recommended) – Create a visual map or
outline linking the study's key elements: background, hypothesis, methods,
findings, and implications.
Writing Guidelines
Prepare your review using APA format, and include the following three
components:
A. Title Page
Follow standard APA formatting guidelines.
B. Body (Minimum 2 full pages, double-spaced, in paragraph format)
Address the following five core questions:
1. Background – What motivated the study? What is the scientific or clinical
context?
2. Hypothesis – What was the main hypothesis or research question the study
aimed to address?
3. Methods & Results – What experimental techniques were used? What were the
major findings? Did the results support the hypothesis?
4. Significance – What is the importance of these findings? How do they contribute
to future research or applications?
5. Personal Reflection – Why did you choose this article? What made it valuable,
insightful, or compelling?
C. References Page
Include full APA citations for the primary sources of scientific information and all
supplementary sources reviewed (at least 3).
Academic Integrity Reminder
All the work submitted must be your own and properly cited. The university uses Turnitin
to monitor academic integrity. A similarity index above 30% may trigger review and impact
your grade. Ensure thorough paraphrasing and accurate citation to avoid plagiarism.
Tips for Success
➢ Do not select review articles, editorials, or news summaries. Choose original
research only.
3
➢ Use primary sources of information, no YouTube, Britannica, Cleveland Clinic,
etc
➢ Annotate your article as you read: highlight introductions, methods, results, and
conclusions.
➢ If you are unsure whether your article qualifies, consult your instructor before
writing.
➢ Begin early to allow sufficient time for reading, analysis, and thoughtful writing.
Resources for Article Access
• PubMed – https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
• WCU Library Portal – Access via your student dashboard
• Google Scholar – https://scholar.google.com
Submission Details
1. Total Points: 50
2. Deadline: Sunday by 11:59 PM (Week 6) – No extensions will be granted
3. Submission Format: Upload one file per student in PDF or DOCX format
If you have any questions or need support in selecting a suitable article, don’t hesitate
to reach out. Enjoy your journey into the remarkable world of microbial science!
[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/)
[https://scholar.google.com/](https://scholar.google.com/)
**## MicrobiologySignatureInstructions.pdf**
In this assignment, students will review a microbial journal article.
Choose one article from a primary scientific literature source that uses a microbe
as a model organism/system and write a comprehensive summary of the study that
answers the following questions:
Choose one article from a primary scientific literature source that uses a microbe
as a model organism/system.
NOTE: Many free articles may be obtained from http://www.pubmed.gov
Links to an external site.
or visit the WCU library.
Write a summary of the study that includes:
1. Why did the scientists perform the study (i.e., description of
background)?
2. What was the hypothesis (or hypotheses) under investigation?
3. What were the major results and did they support or negate the
hypothesis? Which key techniques were used to achieve these results?
4. Why are the results significant and do they point to further/future
studies? In other words, why does this article matter and what should or
could be done next?
5. Why did you choose this particular article to review? Was it interesting,
informative, clearly written, or none of the above?
Compose your review in APA format and include:
● A title page
● Answers to the questions above in paragraph format (2 or more pages)
● A reference page with the reference for your article and any other
sources used in your review.
MICR_290_BL – Lecture Signature Assignment Rubric
Criteria Ratings Pts
[http://www.pubmed.gov/](http://www.pubmed.gov/)
[http://www.pubmed.gov/](http://www.pubmed.gov/)
This criterion is
linked to a Learning
Outcome
Why did the
scientist perform
the study (i.e.,
description of the
background)?
9.5 to >8.08 ptsExceeds ExpectationsStudent developed a
clearly written central theme or idea with a strong introduction
to the study. Student understands and communicates a grasp of
the scientific inquiry presented in the journal article.
8.08 to >6.84 ptsMeets ExpectationsStudent developed a
central theme or idea with a reasonable introduction to the
study. Student appears to grasp the scientific inquiry presented
in the journal article.
6.84 to >5.61 ptsApproaches ExpectationsStudent developed a
somewhat clear central theme or idea and introduction to the
study, although some pieces are missing. Student may grasp
some of the scientific inquiry presented in the journal article.
5.61 to >0 ptsDoes Not Meet ExpectationsStudent does not
have a central theme or idea or a strong introduction to the
study. Student has minimal or no grasp of the scientific inquiry
presented in the journal article.
9.5
pts
This criterion is
linked to a Learning
Outcome
What is the
hypothesis (or
hypotheses) under
investigation?
9.5 to >8.08 ptsExceeds ExpectationsHypothesis is clearly and
accurately identified.
8.08 to >6.84 ptsMeets ExpectationsHypothesis is fairly clear
and mostly accurately identified.
6.84 to >5.61 ptsApproaches ExpectationsHypothesis is
somewhat or almost clearly and accurately identified.
5.61 to >0 ptsDoes Not Meet ExpectationsHypothesis is not
clearly or accurately identified.
9.5
pts
This criterion is
linked to a Learning
Outcome
What were the
major techniques
and results? Did the
results support or
negate the
hypothesis/hypoth
eses?
9.5 to >8.08 ptsExceeds ExpectationsStudent states major
points clearly and supports statements with specific details and
examples.
8.08 to >6.84 ptsMeets ExpectationsStudent states most major
points clearly and supports statements with adequately specific
details and examples.
6.84 to >5.61 ptsApproaches ExpectationsStudent states some
or no major points and provides weak or no specific details and
examples.
5.61 to >0 ptsDoes Not Meet ExpectationsStudent does not
identify major points clearly or provide support with specific
details or examples.
9.5
pts
This criterion is
linked to a Learning
Outcome
Why are the results
significant and do
they point to
further/future
studies? In other
words, why does
this article matter
and what should or
could be done next?
9.5 to >8.08 ptsExceeds ExpectationsStudent links results to
relevant examples of current experiences and knowledge; uses
an organized, analytical approach, demonstrating use of critical
thinking skills.
8.08 to >6.84 ptsMeets ExpectationsStudent links some results
to relevant examples of current experiences and knowledge;
uses a somewhat organized, analytical approach, demonstrating
an adequate level of critical thinking in the process.
6.84 to >5.61 ptsApproaches ExpectationsStudent uses few or
no links of results to relevant examples of current experiences
and knowledge; uses a somewhat or little-organized, analytical
approach, demonstrating little to no critical thinking in the
process.
5.61 to >0 ptsDoes Not Meet ExpectationsStudent does not link
results to relevant examples of current experiences and
knowledge; does not use an organized, analytical approach,
demonstrating no critical thinking in the process.
9.5
pts
This criterion is
linked to a Learning
Outcome
Why did you choose
this particular
article to review?
Was it interesting,
informative, clearly
written, or none of
the above?
9.5 to >8.08 ptsExceeds ExpectationsStudent gives an opinion
of the article using personal reflection, and supports opinion
with clearly expressed, specific examples.
8.08 to >6.84 ptsMeets ExpectationsStudent gives an opinion of
the article using some personal reflection, and supports opinion
with some specific examples.
6.84 to >5.61 ptsApproaches ExpectationsStudent gives an
unclear opinion or no opinion of the article, and weakly
supports opinion with specific examples.
5.61 to >0 ptsDoes Not Meet ExpectationsStudent does not give
an opinion of the article. There is no indication of personal
reflection. Does not provide specific examples.
9.5
pts
This criterion is
linked to a Learning
Outcome
Style/Grammar/Sp
elling/APA
Formatting
2.5 to >2.15 ptsExceeds ExpectationsThe assignment
consistently follows current APA format and is free from errors
in formatting, citation, and references. There are no
grammatical, spelling, or punctuation errors. All sources are
cited and referenced correctly.
2.15 to >1.8 ptsMeets ExpectationsThe assignment consistently
follows current APA format with only isolated and inconsistent
mistakes and/or has a few grammatical, spelling, or
punctuation errors. Most sources are cited and referenced
correctly.
1.8 to >1.5 ptsApproaches ExpectationsThe assignment does not
follow current APA format and/or has many grammatical,
spelling, or punctuation errors. Many sources are cited and
referenced incorrectly, or citations and references are missing
where needed.
1.5 to >0 ptsDoes Not Meet ExpectationsNo attempt to follow
APA format is indicated. Sources are not used and/or there is
no reference page. Mechanical errors significantly interfere
with the readability of the paper.
2.5
pts
Total Points: 50
**## MicrobiologySignatureInstructions.pdf**
In this assignment, students will review a microbial journal article.
Choose one article from a primary scientific literature source that uses a microbe
as a model organism/system and write a comprehensive summary of the study that
answers the following questions:
Choose one article from a primary scientific literature source that uses a microbe
as a model organism/system.
NOTE: Many free articles may be obtained from http://www.pubmed.gov
Links to an external site.
or visit the WCU library.
Write a summary of the study that includes:
1. Why did the scientists perform the study (i.e., description of
background)?
2. What was the hypothesis (or hypotheses) under investigation?
3. What were the major results and did they support or negate the
hypothesis? Which key techniques were used to achieve these results?
4. Why are the results significant and do they point to further/future
studies? In other words, why does this article matter and what should or
could be done next?
5. Why did you choose this particular article to review? Was it interesting,
informative, clearly written, or none of the above?
Compose your review in APA format and include:
● A title page
● Answers to the questions above in paragraph format (2 or more pages)
● A reference page with the reference for your article and any other
sources used in your review.
MICR_290_BL – Lecture Signature Assignment Rubric
Criteria Ratings Pts
[http://www.pubmed.gov/](http://www.pubmed.gov/)
[http://www.pubmed.gov/](http://www.pubmed.gov/)
This criterion is
linked to a Learning
Outcome
Why did the
scientist perform
the study (i.e.,
description of the
background)?
9.5 to >8.08 ptsExceeds ExpectationsStudent developed a
clearly written central theme or idea with a strong introduction
to the study. Student understands and communicates a grasp of
the scientific inquiry presented in the journal article.
8.08 to >6.84 ptsMeets ExpectationsStudent developed a
central theme or idea with a reasonable introduction to the
study. Student appears to grasp the scientific inquiry presented
in the journal article.
6.84 to >5.61 ptsApproaches ExpectationsStudent developed a
somewhat clear central theme or idea and introduction to the
study, although some pieces are missing. Student may grasp
some of the scientific inquiry presented in the journal article.
5.61 to >0 ptsDoes Not Meet ExpectationsStudent does not
have a central theme or idea or a strong introduction to the
study. Student has minimal or no grasp of the scientific inquiry
presented in the journal article.
9.5
pts
This criterion is
linked to a Learning
Outcome
What is the
hypothesis (or
hypotheses) under
investigation?
9.5 to >8.08 ptsExceeds ExpectationsHypothesis is clearly and
accurately identified.
8.08 to >6.84 ptsMeets ExpectationsHypothesis is fairly clear
and mostly accurately identified.
6.84 to >5.61 ptsApproaches ExpectationsHypothesis is
somewhat or almost clearly and accurately identified.
5.61 to >0 ptsDoes Not Meet ExpectationsHypothesis is not
clearly or accurately identified.
9.5
pts
This criterion is
linked to a Learning
Outcome
What were the
major techniques
and results? Did the
results support or
negate the
hypothesis/hypoth
eses?
9.5 to >8.08 ptsExceeds ExpectationsStudent states major
points clearly and supports statements with specific details and
examples.
8.08 to >6.84 ptsMeets ExpectationsStudent states most major
points clearly and supports statements with adequately specific
details and examples.
6.84 to >5.61 ptsApproaches ExpectationsStudent states some
or no major points and provides weak or no specific details and
examples.
5.61 to >0 ptsDoes Not Meet ExpectationsStudent does not
identify major points clearly or provide support with specific
details or examples.
9.5
pts
This criterion is
linked to a Learning
Outcome
Why are the results
significant and do
they point to
further/future
studies? In other
words, why does
this article matter
and what should or
could be done next?
9.5 to >8.08 ptsExceeds ExpectationsStudent links results to
relevant examples of current experiences and knowledge; uses
an organized, analytical approach, demonstrating use of critical
thinking skills.
8.08 to >6.84 ptsMeets ExpectationsStudent links some results
to relevant examples of current experiences and knowledge;
uses a somewhat organized, analytical approach, demonstrating
an adequate level of critical thinking in the process.
6.84 to >5.61 ptsApproaches ExpectationsStudent uses few or
no links of results to relevant examples of current experiences
and knowledge; uses a somewhat or little-organized, analytical
approach, demonstrating little to no critical thinking in the
process.
5.61 to >0 ptsDoes Not Meet ExpectationsStudent does not link
results to relevant examples of current experiences and
knowledge; does not use an organized, analytical approach,
demonstrating no critical thinking in the process.
9.5
pts
This criterion is
linked to a Learning
Outcome
Why did you choose
this particular
article to review?
Was it interesting,
informative, clearly
written, or none of
the above?
9.5 to >8.08 ptsExceeds ExpectationsStudent gives an opinion
of the article using personal reflection, and supports opinion
with clearly expressed, specific examples.
8.08 to >6.84 ptsMeets ExpectationsStudent gives an opinion of
the article using some personal reflection, and supports opinion
with some specific examples.
6.84 to >5.61 ptsApproaches ExpectationsStudent gives an
unclear opinion or no opinion of the article, and weakly
supports opinion with specific examples.
5.61 to >0 ptsDoes Not Meet ExpectationsStudent does not give
an opinion of the article. There is no indication of personal
reflection. Does not provide specific examples.
9.5
pts
This criterion is
linked to a Learning
Outcome
Style/Grammar/Sp
elling/APA
Formatting
2.5 to >2.15 ptsExceeds ExpectationsThe assignment
consistently follows current APA format and is free from errors
in formatting, citation, and references. There are no
grammatical, spelling, or punctuation errors. All sources are
cited and referenced correctly.
2.15 to >1.8 ptsMeets ExpectationsThe assignment consistently
follows current APA format with only isolated and inconsistent
mistakes and/or has a few grammatical, spelling, or
punctuation errors. Most sources are cited and referenced
correctly.
1.8 to >1.5 ptsApproaches ExpectationsThe assignment does not
follow current APA format and/or has many grammatical,
spelling, or punctuation errors. Many sources are cited and
referenced incorrectly, or citations and references are missing
where needed.
1.5 to >0 ptsDoes Not Meet ExpectationsNo attempt to follow
APA format is indicated. Sources are not used and/or there is
no reference page. Mechanical errors significantly interfere
with the readability of the paper.
2.5
pts
Total Points: 50
**## GuidelinesLecSigAssmnt.pdf**
1
Lecture Signature Assignment: Microbial Journal Article Review
Week 6 – Instructions and Guidelines Dr. R.Salas-Auvert
Dear Students,
This signature assignment is a vital academic exercise designed to enhance your critical
reading, scientific reasoning, and scholarly writing skills, competencies essential for your
academic advancement and professional success.
Purpose
The purpose of this assignment is to guide you in exploring how microbes are utilized as
model organisms or experimental systems in scientific research. You will analyze a peer-
reviewed primary research article and craft a structured summary that reflects your
understanding of the study’s background, methods, findings, and broader significance.
Assignment Overview
You will individually select one peer-reviewed primary research article that centers on a
microbe and its role in experimental or clinical research. This article must come from a
credible scientific journal and provide original research data. Your topic should align with
your personal academic or professional interests.
Example: If you're interested in diabetes, you might investigate the microbiome or
microbial infections prevalent in diabetic patients. What roles do specific microbes play in
disease progression, treatment response, or complications? Narrow your focus to one
microbe and its implications in that context.
Recommended Workflow
To approach this assignment methodically, consider the following steps:
1. Topic Exploration – Identify a broad condition or area of interest (e.g., metabolic
disorders, cancer, neurological disease, environmental impact, etc.).
2. Literature Search – Use reliable academic databases such as PubMed, Google
Scholar, or your university library portal to locate full-text research articles.
3. Article Selection – Choose a primary research article that focuses on one
specific microbe and includes original experimental findings.
4. Supplemental Reading – Review at least four additional scholarly sources
(research or review articles) to enhance your contextual understanding.
2
5. Concept Mapping (Optional but Recommended) – Create a visual map or
outline linking the study's key elements: background, hypothesis, methods,
findings, and implications.
Writing Guidelines
Prepare your review using APA format, and include the following three
components:
A. Title Page
Follow standard APA formatting guidelines.
B. Body (Minimum 2 full pages, double-spaced, in paragraph format)
Address the following five core questions:
1. Background – What motivated the study? What is the scientific or clinical
context?
2. Hypothesis – What was the main hypothesis or research question the study
aimed to address?
3. Methods & Results – What experimental techniques were used? What were the
major findings? Did the results support the hypothesis?
4. Significance – What is the importance of these findings? How do they contribute
to future research or applications?
5. Personal Reflection – Why did you choose this article? What made it valuable,
insightful, or compelling?
C. References Page
Include full APA citations for the primary sources of scientific information and all
supplementary sources reviewed (at least 3).
Academic Integrity Reminder
All the work submitted must be your own and properly cited. The university uses Turnitin
to monitor academic integrity. A similarity index above 30% may trigger review and impact
your grade. Ensure thorough paraphrasing and accurate citation to avoid plagiarism.
Tips for Success
➢ Do not select review articles, editorials, or news summaries. Choose original
research only.
3
➢ Use primary sources of information, no YouTube, Britannica, Cleveland Clinic,
etc
➢ Annotate your article as you read: highlight introductions, methods, results, and
conclusions.
➢ If you are unsure whether your article qualifies, consult your instructor before
writing.
➢ Begin early to allow sufficient time for reading, analysis, and thoughtful writing.
Resources for Article Access
• PubMed – https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
• WCU Library Portal – Access via your student dashboard
• Google Scholar – https://scholar.google.com
Submission Details
1. Total Points: 50
2. Deadline: Sunday by 11:59 PM (Week 6) – No extensions will be granted
3. Submission Format: Upload one file per student in PDF or DOCX format
If you have any questions or need support in selecting a suitable article, don’t hesitate
to reach out. Enjoy your journey into the remarkable world of microbial science!
[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/)
[https://scholar.google.com/](https://scholar.google.com/)
**## MicrobiologySignatureInstructions.pdf**
In this assignment, students will review a microbial journal article.
Choose one article from a primary scientific literature source that uses a microbe
as a model organism/system and write a comprehensive summary of the study that
answers the following questions:
Choose one article from a primary scientific literature source that uses a microbe
as a model organism/system.
NOTE: Many free articles may be obtained from http://www.pubmed.gov
Links to an external site.
or visit the WCU library.
Write a summary of the study that includes:
1. Why did the scientists perform the study (i.e., description of
background)?
2. What was the hypothesis (or hypotheses) under investigation?
3. What were the major results and did they support or negate the
hypothesis? Which key techniques were used to achieve these results?
4. Why are the results significant and do they point to further/future
studies? In other words, why does this article matter and what should or
could be done next?
5. Why did you choose this particular article to review? Was it interesting,
informative, clearly written, or none of the above?
Compose your review in APA format and include:
● A title page
● Answers to the questions above in paragraph format (2 or more pages)
● A reference page with the reference for your article and any other
sources used in your review.
MICR_290_BL – Lecture Signature Assignment Rubric
Criteria Ratings Pts
[http://www.pubmed.gov/](http://www.pubmed.gov/)
[http://www.pubmed.gov/](http://www.pubmed.gov/)
This criterion is
linked to a Learning
Outcome
Why did the
scientist perform
the study (i.e.,
description of the
background)?
9.5 to >8.08 ptsExceeds ExpectationsStudent developed a
clearly written central theme or idea with a strong introduction
to the study. Student understands and communicates a grasp of
the scientific inquiry presented in the journal article.
8.08 to >6.84 ptsMeets ExpectationsStudent developed a
central theme or idea with a reasonable introduction to the
study. Student appears to grasp the scientific inquiry presented
in the journal article.
6.84 to >5.61 ptsApproaches ExpectationsStudent developed a
somewhat clear central theme or idea and introduction to the
study, although some pieces are missing. Student may grasp
some of the scientific inquiry presented in the journal article.
5.61 to >0 ptsDoes Not Meet ExpectationsStudent does not
have a central theme or idea or a strong introduction to the
study. Student has minimal or no grasp of the scientific inquiry
presented in the journal article.
9.5
pts
This criterion is
linked to a Learning
Outcome
What is the
hypothesis (or
hypotheses) under
investigation?
9.5 to >8.08 ptsExceeds ExpectationsHypothesis is clearly and
accurately identified.
8.08 to >6.84 ptsMeets ExpectationsHypothesis is fairly clear
and mostly accurately identified.
6.84 to >5.61 ptsApproaches ExpectationsHypothesis is
somewhat or almost clearly and accurately identified.
5.61 to >0 ptsDoes Not Meet ExpectationsHypothesis is not
clearly or accurately identified.
9.5
pts
This criterion is
linked to a Learning
Outcome
What were the
major techniques
and results? Did the
results support or
negate the
hypothesis/hypoth
eses?
9.5 to >8.08 ptsExceeds ExpectationsStudent states major
points clearly and supports statements with specific details and
examples.
8.08 to >6.84 ptsMeets ExpectationsStudent states most major
points clearly and supports statements with adequately specific
details and examples.
6.84 to >5.61 ptsApproaches ExpectationsStudent states some
or no major points and provides weak or no specific details and
examples.
5.61 to >0 ptsDoes Not Meet ExpectationsStudent does not
identify major points clearly or provide support with specific
details or examples.
9.5
pts
This criterion is
linked to a Learning
Outcome
Why are the results
significant and do
they point to
further/future
studies? In other
words, why does
this article matter
and what should or
could be done next?
9.5 to >8.08 ptsExceeds ExpectationsStudent links results to
relevant examples of current experiences and knowledge; uses
an organized, analytical approach, demonstrating use of critical
thinking skills.
8.08 to >6.84 ptsMeets ExpectationsStudent links some results
to relevant examples of current experiences and knowledge;
uses a somewhat organized, analytical approach, demonstrating
an adequate level of critical thinking in the process.
6.84 to >5.61 ptsApproaches ExpectationsStudent uses few or
no links of results to relevant examples of current experiences
and knowledge; uses a somewhat or little-organized, analytical
approach, demonstrating little to no critical thinking in the
process.
5.61 to >0 ptsDoes Not Meet ExpectationsStudent does not link
results to relevant examples of current experiences and
knowledge; does not use an organized, analytical approach,
demonstrating no critical thinking in the process.
9.5
pts
This criterion is
linked to a Learning
Outcome
Why did you choose
this particular
article to review?
Was it interesting,
informative, clearly
written, or none of
the above?
9.5 to >8.08 ptsExceeds ExpectationsStudent gives an opinion
of the article using personal reflection, and supports opinion
with clearly expressed, specific examples.
8.08 to >6.84 ptsMeets ExpectationsStudent gives an opinion of
the article using some personal reflection, and supports opinion
with some specific examples.
6.84 to >5.61 ptsApproaches ExpectationsStudent gives an
unclear opinion or no opinion of the article, and weakly
supports opinion with specific examples.
5.61 to >0 ptsDoes Not Meet ExpectationsStudent does not give
an opinion of the article. There is no indication of personal
reflection. Does not provide specific examples.
9.5
pts
This criterion is
linked to a Learning
Outcome
Style/Grammar/Sp
elling/APA
Formatting
2.5 to >2.15 ptsExceeds ExpectationsThe assignment
consistently follows current APA format and is free from errors
in formatting, citation, and references. There are no
grammatical, spelling, or punctuation errors. All sources are
cited and referenced correctly.
2.15 to >1.8 ptsMeets ExpectationsThe assignment consistently
follows current APA format with only isolated and inconsistent
mistakes and/or has a few grammatical, spelling, or
punctuation errors. Most sources are cited and referenced
correctly.
1.8 to >1.5 ptsApproaches ExpectationsThe assignment does not
follow current APA format and/or has many grammatical,
spelling, or punctuation errors. Many sources are cited and
referenced incorrectly, or citations and references are missing
where needed.
1.5 to >0 ptsDoes Not Meet ExpectationsNo attempt to follow
APA format is indicated. Sources are not used and/or there is
no reference page. Mechanical errors significantly interfere
with the readability of the paper.
2.5
pts
Total Points: 50
**## GuidelinesLecSigAssmnt.pdf**
1
Lecture Signature Assignment: Microbial Journal Article Review
Week 6 – Instructions and Guidelines Dr. R.Salas-Auvert
Dear Students,
This signature assignment is a vital academic exercise designed to enhance your critical
reading, scientific reasoning, and scholarly writing skills, competencies essential for your
academic advancement and professional success.
Purpose
The purpose of this assignment is to guide you in exploring how microbes are utilized as
model organisms or experimental systems in scientific research. You will analyze a peer-
reviewed primary research article and craft a structured summary that reflects your
understanding of the study’s background, methods, findings, and broader significance.
Assignment Overview
You will individually select one peer-reviewed primary research article that centers on a
microbe and its role in experimental or clinical research. This article must come from a
credible scientific journal and provide original research data. Your topic should align with
your personal academic or professional interests.
Example: If you're interested in diabetes, you might investigate the microbiome or
microbial infections prevalent in diabetic patients. What roles do specific microbes play in
disease progression, treatment response, or complications? Narrow your focus to one
microbe and its implications in that context.
Recommended Workflow
To approach this assignment methodically, consider the following steps:
1. Topic Exploration – Identify a broad condition or area of interest (e.g., metabolic
disorders, cancer, neurological disease, environmental impact, etc.).
2. Literature Search – Use reliable academic databases such as PubMed, Google
Scholar, or your university library portal to locate full-text research articles.
3. Article Selection – Choose a primary research article that focuses on one
specific microbe and includes original experimental findings.
4. Supplemental Reading – Review at least four additional scholarly sources
(research or review articles) to enhance your contextual understanding.
2
5. Concept Mapping (Optional but Recommended) – Create a visual map or
outline linking the study's key elements: background, hypothesis, methods,
findings, and implications.
Writing Guidelines
Prepare your review using APA format, and include the following three
components:
A. Title Page
Follow standard APA formatting guidelines.
B. Body (Minimum 2 full pages, double-spaced, in paragraph format)
Address the following five core questions:
1. Background – What motivated the study? What is the scientific or clinical
context?
2. Hypothesis – What was the main hypothesis or research question the study
aimed to address?
3. Methods & Results – What experimental techniques were used? What were the
major findings? Did the results support the hypothesis?
4. Significance – What is the importance of these findings? How do they contribute
to future research or applications?
5. Personal Reflection – Why did you choose this article? What made it valuable,
insightful, or compelling?
C. References Page
Include full APA citations for the primary sources of scientific information and all
supplementary sources reviewed (at least 3).
Academic Integrity Reminder
All the work submitted must be your own and properly cited. The university uses Turnitin
to monitor academic integrity. A similarity index above 30% may trigger review and impact
your grade. Ensure thorough paraphrasing and accurate citation to avoid plagiarism.
Tips for Success
➢ Do not select review articles, editorials, or news summaries. Choose original
research only.
3
➢ Use primary sources of information, no YouTube, Britannica, Cleveland Clinic,
etc
➢ Annotate your article as you read: highlight introductions, methods, results, and
conclusions.
➢ If you are unsure whether your article qualifies, consult your instructor before
writing.
➢ Begin early to allow sufficient time for reading, analysis, and thoughtful writing.
Resources for Article Access
• PubMed – https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
• WCU Library Portal – Access via your student dashboard
• Google Scholar – https://scholar.google.com
Submission Details
1. Total Points: 50
2. Deadline: Sunday by 11:59 PM (Week 6) – No extensions will be granted
3. Submission Format: Upload one file per student in PDF or DOCX format
If you have any questions or need support in selecting a suitable article, don’t hesitate
to reach out. Enjoy your journey into the remarkable world of microbial science!
[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/)
[https://scholar.google.com/](https://scholar.google.com/)
**## MicrobiologySignatureInstructions.pdf**
In this assignment, students will review a microbial journal article.
Choose one article from a primary scientific literature source that uses a microbe
as a model organism/system and write a comprehensive summary of the study that
answers the following questions:
Choose one article from a primary scientific literature source that uses a microbe
as a model organism/system.
NOTE: Many free articles may be obtained from http://www.pubmed.gov
Links to an external site.
or visit the WCU library.
Write a summary of the study that includes:
1. Why did the scientists perform the study (i.e., description of
background)?
2. What was the hypothesis (or hypotheses) under investigation?
3. What were the major results and did they support or negate the
hypothesis? Which key techniques were used to achieve these results?
4. Why are the results significant and do they point to further/future
studies? In other words, why does this article matter and what should or
could be done next?
5. Why did you choose this particular article to review? Was it interesting,
informative, clearly written, or none of the above?
Compose your review in APA format and include:
● A title page
● Answers to the questions above in paragraph format (2 or more pages)
● A reference page with the reference for your article and any other
sources used in your review.
MICR_290_BL – Lecture Signature Assignment Rubric
Criteria Ratings Pts
[http://www.pubmed.gov/](http://www.pubmed.gov/)
[http://www.pubmed.gov/](http://www.pubmed.gov/)
This criterion is
linked to a Learning
Outcome
Why did the
scientist perform
the study (i.e.,
description of the
background)?
9.5 to >8.08 ptsExceeds ExpectationsStudent developed a
clearly written central theme or idea with a strong introduction
to the study. Student understands and communicates a grasp of
the scientific inquiry presented in the journal article.
8.08 to >6.84 ptsMeets ExpectationsStudent developed a
central theme or idea with a reasonable introduction to the
study. Student appears to grasp the scientific inquiry presented
in the journal article.
6.84 to >5.61 ptsApproaches ExpectationsStudent developed a
somewhat clear central theme or idea and introduction to the
study, although some pieces are missing. Student may grasp
some of the scientific inquiry presented in the journal article.
5.61 to >0 ptsDoes Not Meet ExpectationsStudent does not
have a central theme or idea or a strong introduction to the
study. Student has minimal or no grasp of the scientific inquiry
presented in the journal article.
9.5
pts
This criterion is
linked to a Learning
Outcome
What is the
hypothesis (or
hypotheses) under
investigation?
9.5 to >8.08 ptsExceeds ExpectationsHypothesis is clearly and
accurately identified.
8.08 to >6.84 ptsMeets ExpectationsHypothesis is fairly clear
and mostly accurately identified.
6.84 to >5.61 ptsApproaches ExpectationsHypothesis is
somewhat or almost clearly and accurately identified.
5.61 to >0 ptsDoes Not Meet ExpectationsHypothesis is not
clearly or accurately identified.
9.5
pts
This criterion is
linked to a Learning
Outcome
What were the
major techniques
and results? Did the
results support or
negate the
hypothesis/hypoth
eses?
9.5 to >8.08 ptsExceeds ExpectationsStudent states major
points clearly and supports statements with specific details and
examples.
8.08 to >6.84 ptsMeets ExpectationsStudent states most major
points clearly and supports statements with adequately specific
details and examples.
6.84 to >5.61 ptsApproaches ExpectationsStudent states some
or no major points and provides weak or no specific details and
examples.
5.61 to >0 ptsDoes Not Meet ExpectationsStudent does not
identify major points clearly or provide support with specific
details or examples.
9.5
pts
This criterion is
linked to a Learning
Outcome
Why are the results
significant and do
they point to
further/future
studies? In other
words, why does
this article matter
and what should or
could be done next?
9.5 to >8.08 ptsExceeds ExpectationsStudent links results to
relevant examples of current experiences and knowledge; uses
an organized, analytical approach, demonstrating use of critical
thinking skills.
8.08 to >6.84 ptsMeets ExpectationsStudent links some results
to relevant examples of current experiences and knowledge;
uses a somewhat organized, analytical approach, demonstrating
an adequate level of critical thinking in the process.
6.84 to >5.61 ptsApproaches ExpectationsStudent uses few or
no links of results to relevant examples of current experiences
and knowledge; uses a somewhat or little-organized, analytical
approach, demonstrating little to no critical thinking in the
process.
5.61 to >0 ptsDoes Not Meet ExpectationsStudent does not link
results to relevant examples of current experiences and
knowledge; does not use an organized, analytical approach,
demonstrating no critical thinking in the process.
9.5
pts
This criterion is
linked to a Learning
Outcome
Why did you choose
this particular
article to review?
Was it interesting,
informative, clearly
written, or none of
the above?
9.5 to >8.08 ptsExceeds ExpectationsStudent gives an opinion
of the article using personal reflection, and supports opinion
with clearly expressed, specific examples.
8.08 to >6.84 ptsMeets ExpectationsStudent gives an opinion of
the article using some personal reflection, and supports opinion
with some specific examples.
6.84 to >5.61 ptsApproaches ExpectationsStudent gives an
unclear opinion or no opinion of the article, and weakly
supports opinion with specific examples.
5.61 to >0 ptsDoes Not Meet ExpectationsStudent does not give
an opinion of the article. There is no indication of personal
reflection. Does not provide specific examples.
9.5
pts
This criterion is
linked to a Learning
Outcome
Style/Grammar/Sp
elling/APA
Formatting
2.5 to >2.15 ptsExceeds ExpectationsThe assignment
consistently follows current APA format and is free from errors
in formatting, citation, and references. There are no
grammatical, spelling, or punctuation errors. All sources are
cited and referenced correctly.
2.15 to >1.8 ptsMeets ExpectationsThe assignment consistently
follows current APA format with only isolated and inconsistent
mistakes and/or has a few grammatical, spelling, or
punctuation errors. Most sources are cited and referenced
correctly.
1.8 to >1.5 ptsApproaches ExpectationsThe assignment does not
follow current APA format and/or has many grammatical,
spelling, or punctuation errors. Many sources are cited and
referenced incorrectly, or citations and references are missing
where needed.
1.5 to >0 ptsDoes Not Meet ExpectationsNo attempt to follow
APA format is indicated. Sources are not used and/or there is
no reference page. Mechanical errors significantly interfere
with the readability of the paper.
2.5
pts
Total Points: 50