Talk:2014 Group Project 8: Difference between revisions
Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
Overall, this group has done very well and just needs to add more information for certain headings, as well as organise the page a bit better in neater headings and subheadings. Pictures should be added, as well as graphs, tables and own student-drawn images. | Overall, this group has done very well and just needs to add more information for certain headings, as well as organise the page a bit better in neater headings and subheadings. Pictures should be added, as well as graphs, tables and own student-drawn images. | ||
===4=== | |||
Overall the Group project page seems to be set out quite well with its headings and sub headings. Just needs a bit more info for some of the sub headings particularly from ‘second trimester muscular development’ onwards and a few formatting adjustments. The use of timelines, tables and dot points might help in those sections. The content provided is written well and in a detailed manner, which is still understood. There is a significant amount of research presented and this is seen through the in text citations and then further identified in the reference list. A good use of referencing is seen supporting the content info provided. The content uses examples of past and current research to help develop and establish ideas that are presented well. The abnormalities section on ‘Duchenne muscular dystrophy’ is described really well, maybe other abnormalities could also be added later. | |||
To improve the page some suggestions include the use of diagrams and images, would help to add a bit more vibrancy to the page. Images and drawings are a great way to help in understanding the content. They are also a great way to make the content clearer especially if there are a number of processes involved in the development. Some of the longer paragraphs of content may also be formatted into dot points just to avoid lengthy paragraphs of info. It might also be useful to include some of the headings mentioned on the assessment page (identify current research models and findings, historic findings etc.). | |||
Finally, the page so far is done well however it will need a little bit more work to be completely finished. Try to just gather as much info as you can to ensure you have enough content and then add images and any other visual aids later. Keep up the good work and good luck . | |||
==3== | ==3== |
Revision as of 09:42, 14 October 2014
This is the discussion page for your project.
- Use this page to discuss online the project with your group members.
- Paste useful resources here.
- Remember to use your signature button to identify who you are when adding content here.
- The following collapsed tables provide starting points for students during project work, you also have tutorials built into practical classes and practice exercises for individual assessmet items.
|
|
|
Project Analysis 24 Sep |
---|
--Mark Hill (talk) 09:57, 24 September 2014 (EST) Individual student data for each group has also been analysed. |
--Mark Hill (talk) 09:57, 24 September 2014 (EST) I have masked student ID.
|
2014 Student Projects: Group 1 | Group 2 | Group 3 | Group 4 | Group 5 | Group 6 | Group 7 | Group 8
--Mark Hill (talk) 17:54, 31 October 2014 (EST) These student projects have now been finalised and undergoing final assessment.
Group Assessment Criteria |
---|
|
Peer Reviews
1
Let me start by saying that the “Muscle Gains” section is funny but obviously very irrelevant to the project. Looking at the contents of this page, there seem to be a lot of focus on the development and very little on the other sections. The development section is well-researched and great job on the in-text citations! Some parts look a bit bulky though so maybe try to break some of them down into bulletpoints if possible. A timeline of development is also very helpful in this project.
On abnormalities, very concise and detailed. Try to write about 3-4 abnormalities and find information on how they’re treated or managed presently. As for historic findings, there is a section on the Wikipage that has old books on embryology. It’s under the “Explore” tab and you’ll see “Historic embryo”. Those books have a lot of information regarding that section. Don’t forget to write about current findings as well. Another thing, try to use images since these really help with understanding the content of the page. Overall, a lot of work has to be done before the due date. I do understand why because there are only two people in this group. Goodluck and I wish you the best in finishing this project!
2
Group Project 8 – Musculoskeletal Development
The key points of musculoskeletal development appear as headings however there is still much that needs to be clearly discussed beneath each of these points. The main headings are good and specific but some are way too specific and should be under much larger headings, for example, 1.2-1.9 could be subheadings that come under the heading ‘System Development’. ‘Background embryonic development’ is useful to understand but perhaps it is better to not have so much detail, or summarise it in a table. The ‘Abnormalities’ heading is done well, with one disease listed (Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy). It might be better to have more than one abnormality listed and clearly described as well. I particularly like the use of statistics and genetic references. It seems most of the key points relating to system development have been clearly described, but some tidying up in terms of editing needs to be done.
Also, more work needs to be done on historic findings, current research, models and findings. Once all the research parts are completed, the timeline can be correctly constructed. Also like the idea of putting a timeline and the heading shows that this is intended. More subheadings could be used to make the page look more organised and pleasing to the eye.
There are also no graphs or tables as well as pictures. A table could be used to make the timeline or highlight the differences between the second, third trimesters and neonatal periods of fetal muscular development. Maybe the initial heading of the page should be changed to ‘Muscular Fetal Development’ to indicate that muscular development is actually being covered instead of both muscular and skeletal. There also isn’t much information regarding limb fetal development, so maybe it would be good to go through that on a deeper level.
It could also help to have images loaded onto the page or to draw flow diagrams to assist in the description of how the muscles develop in the fetal period. For example, upload an image showing the difference between slow twitch and fast twitch muscle fibres or draw a flow chart to show better understanding of the molecular and cellular regulation of fetal myogenesis.
References need to be in one larger section at the end under the heading ‘References’, not two and scattered throughout as is seen. The major section of references appears to be referenced correctly and in-cite references are done very well. There are also many references which are good and show that this group has thoroughly researched their topic.
Overall, this group has done very well and just needs to add more information for certain headings, as well as organise the page a bit better in neater headings and subheadings. Pictures should be added, as well as graphs, tables and own student-drawn images.
4
Overall the Group project page seems to be set out quite well with its headings and sub headings. Just needs a bit more info for some of the sub headings particularly from ‘second trimester muscular development’ onwards and a few formatting adjustments. The use of timelines, tables and dot points might help in those sections. The content provided is written well and in a detailed manner, which is still understood. There is a significant amount of research presented and this is seen through the in text citations and then further identified in the reference list. A good use of referencing is seen supporting the content info provided. The content uses examples of past and current research to help develop and establish ideas that are presented well. The abnormalities section on ‘Duchenne muscular dystrophy’ is described really well, maybe other abnormalities could also be added later.
To improve the page some suggestions include the use of diagrams and images, would help to add a bit more vibrancy to the page. Images and drawings are a great way to help in understanding the content. They are also a great way to make the content clearer especially if there are a number of processes involved in the development. Some of the longer paragraphs of content may also be formatted into dot points just to avoid lengthy paragraphs of info. It might also be useful to include some of the headings mentioned on the assessment page (identify current research models and findings, historic findings etc.). Finally, the page so far is done well however it will need a little bit more work to be completely finished. Try to just gather as much info as you can to ensure you have enough content and then add images and any other visual aids later. Keep up the good work and good luck .
3
This page needs a lot of work; there are sections with little to no information, while others have just slabs of text, some of which have no references. Of those that have info presented, the topic is well covered with the large amount of content. You should use some dot points for some areas where you have a lot of info. You also need to use some images!! They will help to alleviate the slabs of content you have and add some colour to the page. Make sure you caption and reference them correctly, and add the correct copyright info.
Overall, there isn’t much I can say except add content, reference is correctly both in text and at the bottom of the page, and images and use some dot points and/or tables; don’t write everything in large slabs of text. Also, maybe get rid of that 'Muscle Gains' section, unless you actually plan to write something relevant in there haha. Otherwise, Good luck!
Week 5
--Z3418989 (talk) 22:34, 26 August 2014 (EST) Hi guys After discussing in lab last week we tried to divide the categories and work as following;
- skeletal and cartilaginous development - Joel
- muscular development - Gowtem
- overall skeletal and muscular arrangement macroscopically - Danny
What do you guys think about addressing these topics as well
- Historical findings
- Abnormalities
- New findings
--Z3418779 (talk) 12:44, 27 August 2014 (EST) Great idea m8 Danny can probably also do abnormalities, remember to post any articles of particular relevance to New/historical findings. To complete after main content assembled
--Z3418779 (talk) 01:02, 28 August 2014 (EST) I would suggest that we narrow down the topic to focusing on the appendicular musculoskeletal system, so that;
- To make work load more managable
- To avoid the multiple highly specialised and irregular muscles/bones of the head
- The muscles I would suggest to include in are all muscles which have attachments to the appendicular skeleton including axioappendicular muscles (petoralis major, pectoralis minor, subclavious, serratus anterior, Latissimus Dorsi, Traps, levator scap, rhomboid major and minor.
- Joints and tendons are included in the musculoskeletal system, we should about wether we want to have a section for them.
--Z3418779 (talk) 09:05, 31 August 2014 (EST)
Hi guys just posted the topics of abnormalities of muscle and skeletal system im gonna talk bout and references of relevant articles to the topics. Sorry for being late btw
--Z3418779 (talk) 14:57, 9 September 2014 (EST) Disregard the rest of the stuff I said in earlier discussions, I believe that to make it significantly easier we just do muscular system. I will Reformat everything to make it make sense.
--Z3418989 (talk) 01:51, 10 September 2014 (EST) Yeah completely agree, I think focusing on the muscular system would be much easier than doing both. Appendicular muscles sounds good - so muscles of limbs. Could divide it into upper and lower limbs. May have to talk about bone/cartilage a bit to describe how the muscle forms around it. Maybe how developing of muscles in embryonic development is important and eventually affects origin and insertions and actions of muscles when fully developed.
--Z3418779 (talk) 12:56, 17 September 2014 (EST) This link shows a very good description of myogenesis; http://books.google.com.au/books?id=1ZRCMRXbbwoC&pg=PA38&lpg=PA38&dq=primary+secondary+myofibers&source=bl&ots=RSRcVVe5xr&sig=eDJBF_3qkYzA8WSin1tnbzT2xYY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=OegYVL_UHpOB8gWMxoDYAw&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false
--Z3418989 (talk) 12:27, 20 September 2014 (EST) Ill add a bit more on embryonic muscle development guys
--Z3418779 (talk) 22:30, 6 October 2014 (EST) Here are some article which would probably be helpful Nrk2b-mediated NAD+ production regulates cell adhesion and is required for muscle morphogenesis in vivo: Nrk2b and NAD+ in muscle morphogenesis Coexpression of two distinct muscle acetylcholine receptor a-subunits during development
At the moment I have a general structure for tendon development and abnormalities will add to wiki tommorrow.
the good indepth morphogenesis studies focus on gluteus maxximus, extrenal urethra spincter, tensor veli palatini very little are done of the other muscles, so will try to apply the conclusions from these studies to related skeltal muscles