Talk:2014 Group Project 2: Difference between revisions

From Embryology
No edit summary
Line 20: Line 20:


I really like how you have selected labeled diagrams to compliment and break up the text. Each image is relevant to the topic being discussed and the small description attached really help the reader orient them selves. Overall this project is coming along nicely. Just ensure that you are making progress on all the sections. Also only include relevant references. Finally proof read and review your work before the final submission.
I really like how you have selected labeled diagrams to compliment and break up the text. Each image is relevant to the topic being discussed and the small description attached really help the reader orient them selves. Overall this project is coming along nicely. Just ensure that you are making progress on all the sections. Also only include relevant references. Finally proof read and review your work before the final submission.
----
This is an excellent introduction and gives a great expectation for the information to come later in the project. The current research models section needs to be checked for spelling and grammar. The information here is good but is also very dense and hard to follow. It would be great if you could break it up a bit with bullet points or more images or tables. This style of writing is very professional and would be perfect for a report or essay, however as a wiki page it is too hard to follow. Breaking up the information into bullet point and tables would allow you to guide the reader through a journey of renal system development.
There has clearly been a lot of research and work put into this project and that is very commendable. However on a whole, there is too much information. It’s difficult to read and grasp a wholesome understanding of the renal system when it delves too deep too quickly. One suggestion is giving a more brief explanation of the timeline of nephrogenesis, urethra, ureter and bladder development and then go into more detail in a subheading called “current research findings”.  The references under the abnormalities heading should be incorporated at the very end.





Revision as of 11:47, 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.
Group Assessment Criteria
Mark Hill.jpg
  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.
Uploading Images
Mark Hill.jpg First Read the help page Images

The following describes how to upload an image with all the information that must be associated with it.

The image must first be uploaded to the site.

  1. Open the left hand menu item “Toolbox” and click “Upload file” and a new window will open.
  2. Click the button ”Choose file” and navigate to where the image is located on your computer and double click the file.
  3. The window will now show the file name in the “Source filename” window.
  4. You can then rename the uploaded file in the “Destination filename” window.
    1. Make sure the new name accurately describes the image.
  5. Add a description of the image to the “Summary” window. Note the description must include:
    1. An image name as a section heading.
    2. Any further description of what the image shows.
    3. A subsection labeled “Reference” and under this the original image source, appropriate reference and all copyright information.
    4. Finally a template indicating that this is a student image. {{Template:Student Image}}

Images not including the above information will be deleted by the course coordinator and be considered in the student assessment process.

Students cannot delete uploaded images. Contact the course coordinator with the file address.

Referencing
Mark Hill.jpg First Read the help page Referencing

All references used in making your project page should be cited where they appear in the text or images.

In page edit mode where XXXX is the PubMed ID number use the following code.

<ref name=”PMIDXXXX”><pubmed>XXXX</pubmed></ref>

For references not listed on PubMed, and text can be inserted between <ref></ref> tags.

Where the reference list will appear make a new section and on a new line the following code. <references/>

Plagiarism
Mark Hill.jpg First Read the help page Copyright Tutorial

Currently all students originally assigned to each group are listed as equal authors/contributors to their project. If you have not contributed the content you had originally agreed to, nor participated in the group work process, then you should contact the course coordinator immediately and either discuss your contribution or request removal from the group author list. Remember that all student online contributions are recorded by date, time and the actual contributed content. A similar email reminder of this information was sent to all current students.

Please note the Universities Policy regarding Plagiarism

In particular this example:

"Claiming credit for a proportion of work contributed to a group assessment item that is greater than that actually contributed;"

Academic Misconduct carries penalties. If a student is found guilty of academic misconduct, the penalties include warnings, remedial educative action, being failed in an assignment or excluded from the University for two years.


Please also read Copyright Tutorial with regard to content that can be used in your project.

Project Analysis 24 Sep
Group 2014 project edits 24sep.png

--Mark Hill (talk) 09:57, 24 September 2014 (EST) Individual student data for each group has also been analysed.

Student 2014 project edits 24sep.png

--Mark Hill (talk) 09:57, 24 September 2014 (EST) I have masked student ID.

  • Individual students will know how much work you have been doing to date.
  • I will be contacting those student on 5 edits or below.

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
  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.

Peer Reviews

Really good introduction! It clearly outlines what is in the page. Most key points were done really well except 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”. The developmental timeline would’ve been better if it was in a table, has an image showing the major steps in development, and is within the development section of the page. Regarding the development section, very detailed and informative. It clearly outlines the development of the renal system in the fetal stage. Dividing this section into the different organs is a very smart decision. It makes it a lot less confusing to the reader. Maybe try to breakdown some of the information and use dot points. There are lots of images to give the readers a visual of the developmental process. Also, the images have captions, which is great.

Great job on the current research section. The articles chosen for current research is highly relevant to the topic and to the project. This section is written concisely and very detailed. The image really helps to understand the findings of the research. The same can be said to the abnormalities section. Each disease was written concisely and is very informative. The images really help in terms of understanding the clinical manifestation/s of each disease. Try to find information on current treatments and/or management techniques for each disease.

Looking at the images included, all of them seems to be properly uploaded except for the “Kidney ascent.jpg”. It is missing its copyright information. From what I know, images from textbooks normally can’t be used because of copyright. Other than that, all the images are relevant and function as an aid to understanding what each section is about. In regards of citation and references, everything looks good. Each section was well-researched and properly cited. Great job on organising most of your references at the bottom of the page. The page looks very clean. In summary, focus on getting the historic findings section done and just minor fixes on images. Well done!


In this review I will attempt to highlight the strengths of your project and identify some areas for improvement, in light of the criteria provided.

I believe the developmental timeline is a great way to summarise the major events at each stage in fetal development and serves as a simple introduction to the project. However I think it would be best if you presented this information in a tabulated format, and include a little more detail. For instance “Week 8 – Mature kidney is formed” could also mention some structures features seen at this stage, hallmarks that allows us to recognise a mature kidney.

I think the current research section delves into a number in interesting areas, mentioning studies on the treatment of congenital renal abnormalities. However, I think that there needs to be additional discussion on the molecular signalling that drives the underlying process of renal development in the fetus.

The abnormalities associated with renal development in the feral period have been well researched and the information provided is well structured. However this section seems incomplete. I see a number of additional links to interesting scholarly articles. I think you should discuss some more abnormalities at the stages of early and late fetal development. I also suggest including images to supper the text.

There is has been little information added on the historic findings. I suggest looking at text books in the library or searching the UNSW database to find information for this vital section.

I really like how you have selected labeled diagrams to compliment and break up the text. Each image is relevant to the topic being discussed and the small description attached really help the reader orient them selves. Overall this project is coming along nicely. Just ensure that you are making progress on all the sections. Also only include relevant references. Finally proof read and review your work before the final submission.


This is an excellent introduction and gives a great expectation for the information to come later in the project. The current research models section needs to be checked for spelling and grammar. The information here is good but is also very dense and hard to follow. It would be great if you could break it up a bit with bullet points or more images or tables. This style of writing is very professional and would be perfect for a report or essay, however as a wiki page it is too hard to follow. Breaking up the information into bullet point and tables would allow you to guide the reader through a journey of renal system development.

There has clearly been a lot of research and work put into this project and that is very commendable. However on a whole, there is too much information. It’s difficult to read and grasp a wholesome understanding of the renal system when it delves too deep too quickly. One suggestion is giving a more brief explanation of the timeline of nephrogenesis, urethra, ureter and bladder development and then go into more detail in a subheading called “current research findings”. The references under the abnormalities heading should be incorporated at the very end.


RENAL SYSTEM

Introduction Background Timeline of development - everyone will research first to get general idea of when,what and how long it will develop. Divide this area up from there. Development of Actual system - all organs and parts that contribute to it (will be divided up later) Abnormalities

ACTUAL RESEARCH FIRST, THEN DIVIDE. SEE HOW MUCH INFO AND PARTS THERE IS FIRST

ANNOUNCEMENTS

http://www.ehd.org/science_main.php?level=a&submit3.x=73&submit3.y=21&s18=on&ops=&re=on&L1=1&L2=0 have a look at this web site, good time line --Z3463310 (talk) 10:50, 26 August 2014 (EST)

Looks good. There wont be much we can say for all the individual events that occur since all of it is up to the 8th week, but it'll give us a good starting point. We can say 'such and such has been formed during the embryo period' and we can move on from there. I also found the following site which gives a nice intro into the components of the renal system and some general info on each part. Thought we might be able to incorporate a bit of it, talk about what the system/organ does, then follow on how it develops. Use it as a bit of a guide to how we could do our own. http://www.myvmc.com/anatomy/urinary-system-renal-system/ --Z3465654 (talk) 13:48, 24 August 2014 (EST)

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fpediatrics.med.unc.edu%2Feducation%2Fcurrent-residents%2Frotation-information%2Fnephrology%2Ffiles-1%2FNephrogenesis.ppt this web site goes into quite a lot of detail regarding how the renal system develops.

I think in terms of dividing the work:

  • 1- urine formation (week 11~12) & amniotic sac
  • 2- kidneys descending from where they developed to adult anatomical positions (week 9)
  • 3- development of trigone of the bladder and allantois
  • 4- structures that arise from the Metanephric mesoderm
  • 5- structures that arise from the Ureteric bud
  • 6- abnormalities (developmental and genetic)
  • 7- introduction
  • 8- timeline of events in development

I've thought of 8 topics we can divide the work into, so lets choose 2 each? I preferably want to do abnormalities and urine formation (number 1 and 6), is that ok? we need this sorted out for our lab homework thing for this week. please reply asap. --Z3463310 (talk) 10:50, 26 August 2014 (EST)

On the actual project page when you expand the bit at the top there are 5 bullet point but the first one is just to come up with our title, shall we divide our project into those 4 different headings?: Review that system development during the fetal period. Identify current research models and finding. Identify historic findings. Identify abnormalities that can occur in this system during the fetal period


Hey guys, i have now gone and updated the page and added sub-headings as suggested by above, please feel free to add or delete anything you seem unfit for the page. As for the online assessment due tomorrow, i agree that 2 each is appropriate although the timeline will be very long and would be unfair if one person to do the whole thing... We should probably divide the timetable based on weeks and then assign who wants to do what. Although i thought we agreed that i would do the abnormalities as discussed in the last lab...? i have already started to do some research on the topic....

Here is a basic summary of some of the development structures in the renal system, as well as their abnormalities https://web.duke.edu/anatomy/embryology/urogenital/urogenital.html

--Z3465141 (talk) 16:52, 26 August 2014 (EST)


Ill look at 4 and 5 if that is alright with everyone (structures that arise from the Metanephric mesoderm and the Ureteric bud), I think we need to also write a bit about Historic findings and current research models --Z5030311 (talk) 17:24, 26 August 2014 (EST)


I can do the descending of the kidneys and the development of the bladder (2 and 3) if everyone is fine with that --Z3465654 (talk) 18:39, 26 August 2014 (EST)

Uh I guess that leaves 1 & 8 then, since no one wants to do the timeline xD It doesnt look too hard so i dont mind doing timeline :) so whoever only took 1 topic, can you please do the intro as well please? Also im not 100% on the topics, but it'll have to do for now. add as we go i guess. --Z3463310 (talk) 20:26, 26 August 2014 (EST)

yeah no worries, there will most likely be changes to the topics, or at least the headings. It's only set out the way it is now just so we can have a general layout, have some idea what to research. I also dont think we'll end up sticking to the subheading we chose, as there is a lot of stuff that will cross over to other topics. I think we said that the timeline would be one of the last things we would do yeah? cause after we research all the organs and stuff as it develops, it would be easier to determine when it all develops as well, so we could just stick all that info together at the end. --Z3465654 (talk) 21:04, 26 August 2014 (EST)

--Z3463310 (talk) 12:53, 27 August 2014 (EST)

  • kidney(nephrogenesis0 - Sam
  • ureter - Bahar
  • urethra & fetal urination - Emily
  • bladder - Rachel
  • intro - Emily
  • historic findings - Emily
  • abnormalities - Bahar
  • current models - Rachel
  • developmental timeline (everyone)


HOW IS EVERYONE GOING WITH THEIR PART???? www.lab.anhb.uwa.edu.au/hsd212/.../KidneyDevelopmentPrint.ppt --> this powerpoint gives a good general intro to renal development btw if anyone wants to see?

GIRLS are we going to keep the whole assignment as apa referencing or as harvard? --Z3463310 (talk) 01:36, 22 September 2014 (EST)

umm i guess APA since thats the actual formal type of referencing. or you can just try and structure it the way its auto generated when you type in pubmed links haha. im gonna try and put some more content up about the kidneys in a couple days and a drawing or two. ill get some historic findings done as well.--Z3465654 (talk) 21:16, 23 September 2014 (EST)

hey guys, sorry i havent been putting anything up recently. i moved in to my new place over the weekend but the internet isnt up yet so i havent been able to upload anything. i dont know how much longer until its up, so ill be coming to uni just to use the internet (its where i am now lol). so when did the majority of our content have to be up by? was it friday or sunday? i cant remember. --Z3465654 (talk) 12:48, 1 October 2014 (EST)

i found this really good article. it mainly focuses on the kidneys but there are a couple of lines here and there where it mentions some facts about the rest of the renal system. thought u guys might wanna take a look. i dont know whether full access to the article is normal or whether i only managed it because im using the uni library internet, but if u cant access it just let me know and ill send u the article (i downloaded it haha). --Z3465654 (talk) 14:15, 1 October 2014 (EST) oh i also just found this book, it has A LOT of info about the embryology of the renal system, though half the chapters seem to be focused towards abnormalities and defects of the organs http://books.google.com.au/books?id=IKexq6xCRmIC&pg=PA542&lpg=PA542&dq=rotation+of+fetal+kidney&source=bl&ots=0O-4VfybHS&sig=3VeDlTrB9HnJsdYQLP66IKNGPDU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=1ocrVPuiIoKUoQSyroEQ&ved=0CCoQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=rotation%20of%20fetal%20kidney&f=false --Z3465654 (talk) 15:10, 1 October 2014 (EST)


Hey Girls hows the "break" going? :) i was wondering how many abnormalities we should have? 3/4? Also, is it just me or can we not access some of the journals that are free on Pubmed for e.g. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11458035 ?? --Z3465141 (talk) 19:20, 1 October 2014 (EST)

Sorry this is way too late but I think 3/4 abnormalities sound good and for references I have just been doing the automated way of the references --Z5030311 (talk) 23:07, 7 October 2014 (EST)

Also at the moment I have done 2 research models, do you think that is enough or shall I do another one? --Z5030311 (talk) 00:01, 8 October 2014 (EST)


  • Great introduction! Your entire page's contents was introduced well and simple. I'm just wondering if you'd have to include more references to further justify some of the aspects you've mentioned in your explanation of the renal system development
  • I noticed the historic findings have been left untouched. This section is in my opinion the trickiest because of the difficulty in finding information out there. My suggestions are to go onto pubmed and use key words like "Renal system development: a historical perspective" and then work from there. You can also adjust years to look at earlier papers from the 1920s and onwards. Also use Mark's historical textbooks on this website as a starting point, it's helpful too to see how ideas in fetal development have changed over the years
  • I like how the timeline overview has been simplified. Maybe think of tabulating the findings? You can get the template for doing that off any other group project that has tables by copy and pasting, then just editing in what you need
  • I wouldn't add that first like under "Current research models" but if you wanted to do that, maybe think of rewording it. An example could be: "Animal models are ideal to work with when researching renal system development due to their short gestation periods, making the identification of mutations much quicker." Although what you've said about ethics is technically true, the ethics of working with animal models are still lengthy considerations and the fact that our pages are accessed to the public, maybe something like ethics don't need to be mentioned
  • Include the years of when the current research findings were discovered. Otherwise, good work on this section. Just proofread over it to fix minor errors
  • Great images used throughout
  • Maybe think of having some sections more concise rather than wordy by including dot points