From Embryology

Hannelore Coerts

Mark Hill (talk) 15:42, 6 November 2018 (AEDT) These peer assessments are useful feedback. My main comment would be that they are extremely brief (compared to other student feedback) and the critical assessment terminology is very vague (maybe, lot of relevant, not too much, not too little). You should attempt to be a little more descriptive in your feedback and provide specific examples to support your argument.

Peer Assessment

Group 1 :

  • maybe add a more introduction
  • try to use the 'official' subheadings instead of making the titles bold
  • the hand drawn pictures are really good and helpful
  • lot of relevant information
  • anatomy is very clearly explained
  • very extensive information on animal models and current disease
  • maybe add a bit more info on the diseases

Group 2: -

Group 3:

  • good amount of referencing (not too much, not too little)
  • maybe a few too many subheadings, which makes it a bit chaotic
  • good images and image captions
  • I really enjoyed reading about the diseases

Group 4: own group project

Group 5:

  • very readable and easy to follow
  • helpful timeline
  • image captions might be a bit too extensive
  • interesting and good explanation on signaling pathways and transcription factors
  • maybe not enough focus on anatomical/physiological development, the focus is really on molecular and cellular concepts and pathways