2010 Lab 6

Laboratory Notice - Mark Hill

This online lab page will contain the content required when attending the practical. Currently this page is only a template and will be updated before the practical (this notice removed when completed).

Introduction

This laboratory will studies head and neural crest development. Note that neural crest will mainly focus on the head region.

Human Head Development

Firstly, examine the external appearance of the human head at each stage of embryonic development starting at Carnegie stage 11 at the beginning of Week 4.

Buccopharyngeal Membrane

Identify: position of the stomodeum and the buccopharyngeal membrane.

These images of the Stage 11 embryo show the breakdown of the buccopharyngeal membrane, lying at the floor of the stomodeum.

• 

  Low power ventral view of the Buccopharyngeal Membrane

• 

  Higher power ventrolateral view of the Buccopharyngeal Membrane

• 

  Close up view of the degenerating Buccopharyngeal Membrane

The identify changes in overall size, pharyngeal arch changes, appearance of external head features, position of these feature (relative to the adult position).

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | About Carnegie Stages

Group Project

Group Projects (20% of your final mark). It is now week 7 and the project is due for peer assessment in the week following the mid-semester break.

Peer Assessment

The Peer assessment process will evaluate only what is on the Project page before Lab 7 (16th September) and this should be as close to the final format that you intend to submit for the course coordinator assessment later this semester. The peer assessment process that all students will participate in as part of their ongoing individual assessment (20% of your final mark).

Briefly, each student will need to assess all other projects (not your own) and add comments to the appropriate Project talk page, using the same assessment criteria that the assessor will use as outlined in the first Laboratory and reproduced below. These comments will need to be signed and should be balanced in their critical assessment.

Your feedback will be used for each group to update their project before the final course coordinator assessment. Your own comments are up to you. Your assessment should be objective, avoid inappropriate terms (not "gushing" not "damning").

If you are having trouble getting started here are some examples:

• Did you learn something about that prenatal diagnostic technique
• Was it overall clearly structured and organised
• Was it missing something
• Was there too much of one particular concept
• Did it lack a "scientific" feel suitable for an undergraduate university level student.
• If possible include an example of what you found good or bad about the project.

Finally and most importantly include a section "What would improve this project....".

When you have completed each assessment you should add a copy of your comments for each to your own student page for my assessment. All peer assessments must be completed before the following weeks Lab (23rd September). I remind you that you are supposed to be working on these projects in your own time and the time I make available within the labs is for project tutorial and co-ordination only.

Group Assessment Criteria

1. The key points relating to the topic that your group allocated are clearly described.
2. The choice of content, headings and sub-headings, diagrams, tables, graphs show a good understanding of the topic area.
3. Content is correctly cited and referenced.
4. The wiki has an element of teaching at a peer level using the student's own innovative diagrams, tables or figures and/or using interesting examples or explanations.
5. Evidence of significant research relating to basic and applied sciences that goes beyond the formal teaching activities.
6. Relates the topic and content of the Wiki entry to learning aims of embryology.
7. Clearly reflects on editing/feedback from group peers and articulates how the Wiki could be improved (or not) based on peer comments/feedback. Demonstrates an ability to review own work when criticised in an open edited wiki format. Reflects on what was learned from the process of editing a peer's wiki.
8. Evaluates own performance and that of group peers to give a rounded summary of this wiki process in terms of group effort and achievement.
9. The content of the wiki should demonstrate to the reader that your group has researched adequately on this topic and covered the key areas necessary to inform your peers in their learning.
10. Develops and edits the wiki entries in accordance with the above guidelines.