DOCTORAL COURSE UNIT DESCRIPTION
Course unit title |
Scientific direction Scientific code |
Faculty |
Department (s) |
|
Microbiology |
Biology N010 |
Life Sciences Centre |
Institute of Biosciences |
|
Mode of studies |
Number of credits |
Mode of studies |
Number of credits |
|
Lectures |
0 |
Consultations |
3 |
|
Self-studies |
7 |
Seminars |
0 |
|
Aims of course |
|
|
Main topics |
|
|
Main literature |
||
Journals: Nature Reviews Microbiology, Nature Microbiology, Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews, Annual Review of Microbiology, FEMS Microbiology Reviews, Current Opinion in Microbiology, Trends in Microbiology, Microbial genomics, Environmental Microbiology, FEMS Microbiology Ecology, Anaerobe, International Journal of Medical Microbiology ir kt. J. Willey, L. Sherwood, C.J. Woolverton, 2017. Prescott‘s Microbiology, 10 Ed. G.J.Tortora, B.R. Funke, C.L. Case, 2018. Microbiology. An introduction, 13 Ed. |
||
Assessment strategy |
Assessment criteria |
|
Oral presentation |
For the presentation, the PhD student prepares a 30-40 minute presentation detailing the topic analysed. The presentation must be based on publications from the last 5 years. Grading: 10: Excellent knowledge and skills. The presentation is comprehensive and detailed; the presenter is able to discuss the topic and analyse the issues well. 9: Very good knowledge and skills. The presentation is comprehensive and detailed; the speaker is not always able to discuss the topic presented and analyse the issues. 8: Good knowledge and skills. The presentation contains minor errors; the presenter is not always able to discuss the topic presented and analyse the issues. 7: Moderate knowledge and skills. The presentation contains substantial errors; the presenter is not always able to discuss the topic presented and analyse the issues. 6: Satisfactory knowledge and skills. The presentation is full of fundamental errors; the speaker is not always able to discuss the topic presented and analyse the issues. 5: Weak knowledge and skills that still meet the minimum requirements. The presentation is full of errors; the speaker's ability to discuss the topic presented and analyse the issues is weak. 0-4: The minimum requirements are not met. |
Coordinator(s): Name, surname |
Scientific degree |
|
Renata Gudiukaitė |
dr. |
|
Alisa Gricajeva |
dr. |
|
Audrius Gegeckas |
dr. |
Approved by the Council of Graduate School of Life Sceinces Center No 600000-…-… on the …. of …… 2021 |
Chairperson dr. Daiva Baltriukienė |