Talk:2014 Group Project 5

From Embryology

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

Group Project 5 – Integumentary Development

This page looks very neat and well organised, with an introduction that explains exactly what is going to appear and be discussed on the page. The Development Overview section is very well done, with the appropriate use of subheadings and content. The use of dot points is very effective, making the page look neater. Perhaps it would be good to draw a histological diagram of the skin layers, and uploading it to the skin development section. Specialised cells or important names throughout the page could be highlighted in bold or underlined as well, to highlight important terms and make it easier to learn and remember from. The title ‘Some Recent Findings’ accurately portrays what we as students can only do, which is identify SOME of the recent findings. This section could have more than 2 recent findings however and could be further subdivided by subheadings into the different components of the integumentary system – perhaps have 2-3 research articles for each component of the system. Historic findings are well researched but some more information would be good. The ‘Abnormalities’ section is so far the best looking section as it seems it is almost completed. Perhaps a few more abnormalities would be even better.

The table of the timeline in the ‘Development Overview’ section is superbly done and the use of histological images is fantastic as it provides the anatomical information visually. When I clicked on an image however, there was no proper referencing of the image and the copyright information and student image information was not present. The images are described very well. One image has a problem and is present in red writing, so might need to remove this as something is wrong with the file and it could not be uploaded. There are no student-drawn images and I think if this group did this, it would really benefit their project and emphasise their understanding.

The ‘Some Recent Findings’ section has a purple background, which makes the page look more aesthetically pleasing and less monochrome. I like the ‘More recent papers’ box that can be expanded to reveal any more research papers related to the integumentary fetal development, in case anyone wants to have a further read- very clever.

Journal articles are correctly referenced but website references need to be improved upon- to find how to do this go to the ‘How to reference’ page. References are all over the place and need to be compiled under each heading or one main heading titled ‘References’ at the bottom of the page.

Overall, this page is looking fantastic at this point in time so keep up the great work!

This page seems to be done extremely well. It looks very visually appealing as multiple images are used, information is presented in tables, bullet points and very few slabs of text. The introduction is short and to the point. You could possibly add to this area a tiny bit of info concerning the embryonic development of this system, where it first started, then mention how you will expand on the fetal development. Otherwise it just seems way too short.

Explanation of the organs in this system is well done and concise. In the glands section, I would suggest not using dot points for the function of the vernix caseosa as it looks as though the dot points continue from those of the glands, therefore can be confusing when first looked at. Other than that, I would suggest that you make sure your referencing is correct and is used within the text.

The recent findings area is nicely done, but I still can’t help but feel the amount of text is just too much, even though the section is made better looking by making it purple (keep the colour, it looks awesome). The slab of text is just too much, so you should try and simplify it a bit. Historic findings are few but there is at least one for every organ which is good (more would be better). The abnormalities covered are done well, going into detail and providing a good image to describe what it looks like. I would suggest having at least 5 abnormalities, one for each organ discussed.

Overall, this page is very well done, with lots of images and colour used. The main thing I would suggest would be to make sure correct referencing is used. There were some paragraphs were no references were used at all. Also, all references should be at the bottom of the page, not within individual sections.

Week 5

Hey guys!! I found some research material that we can use to construct our time line!

Historic information is hard to find! I might go look at some text books in the library --Z3418340 (talk) 12:50, 27 August 2014 (EST) How is everyone else going?

--Z3417843 (talk) 12:52, 27 August 2014 (EST) Hey!! That's great! I also found some material for abnormalities. There seem to be a lot about septal defects. I'm gonna try to look up for more defects.

--Z3417843 (talk) 22:53, 30 August 2014 (EST)Woo!! Nice to see more links in the page! Rehmina and I also thought that it would be easier for marking if one of the two people in current research do timeline instead because that would make marking easier and less confusing. But that's not final, it's only a suggestion. Also, Dr. Hill gave us some tips on what to focus/include in our research such as:

  • Remodelling during the fetal period
  • Changes during ossification - haematopoietic elocution from liver to bone marrow
  • Early development of WBCs — hot topic right now!!


Hey everyone, yeah that sounds good with me..  :) so rather each person focuses on 1 of the 4 topics right? --Z3417796 (talk) 12:35, 31 August 2014 (EST)

--Z3417843 (talk) 18:36, 1 September 2014 (EST)Yep, exactly! I'm really glad that's alright with you but we can still talk about more in the lab.

--Z3417843 (talk) 12:14, 2 September 2014 (EST)Hey everyone! I just asked Dr. Hill about using review articles. He said it's alright to use review articles as long as you say that the information came from a review article when citing. We can also use images from review articles and there is no need to say that it came from a review article.

Week 6

--Z3418488 (talk) 20:19, 3 September 2014 (EST)Hey guys, I had a good talk with Mark today after the lab. Since we're doing the Cardiovascular system, it incorporates the (i) development of the heart, (ii) development of the blood vessels and (iii) the formation of red blood cells/white blood cells. But Mark said that as a group, we would be able to create and produce this web-site in a manner that we thought was appropriate. We could focus on one of the specific areas or more broadly on each area, if we chose to. But, MOST IMPORTANTLY, our project should be cohesive. What we talk about should be introduced well at the start and should be cohesive through out all of the subsections that we're working on. He really stressed the importance of us having a single, unified vision of our end product and that it should be succinct throughout it all. Im proposing that we actually decide what to focus on very soon.

--Z3418488 (talk) 20:19, 3 September 2014 (EST) I'd particularly like to just focus on the development of the heart? Maybe incorporate the formation of blood cells if the research in the other areas is interesting and notable?


--Z3418488 (talk) 20:24, 3 September 2014 (EST)In regards to the use of the textbook, we are allowed to use the information from it if we cite it properly, but he really want us to be using articles (and even Review articles) to discuss our information.

I agree, the heart should remain our focus, but of course other aspects such as blood vessel formation/ blood cells would naturally fall into it as well- maybe just a brief mention wherever appropriate? --Z3417796 (talk) 21:22, 3 September 2014 (EST)

Week 7

--Z3417843 (talk) 21:05, 8 September 2014 (EST) Hmm. I agree. Let's try and focus on the heart for now and see how we go? And if time permits, maybe we will be able to include the development of blood vessels and blood cells. Sorry I didn't reply so soon, kinda busy week for me haha!

--Z3418488 (talk) 00:24, 10 September 2014 (EST)Ok that sounds really good and reasonable! I'd be happy to follow that plan. And yeah, same! Very busy week for me as well! But yeah, I think lets just focus and refine our research to just the development of the heart at the moment

--Z3418488 (talk) 00:40, 10 September 2014 (EST)Hey guys, Im having difficulty knowing whether the use of an article is fine or not?! If it says "Full-free-text" does that mean we're allowed to incoporate it? Because a lot of the copyright information, is very brief. Thanks heaps, if you guys know an answer haha

--Z3418488 (talk) 00:55, 10 September 2014 (EST)Ok, never mind.. I find out the answer haha. If it says "Open-Access" or "Full-free-text" it is only free to read online and may/may not be allowed for re-use. You'; have to read carefully or apply for permission lol. I guess i'll just be sticking to mainly the Public Library of Science (PLoS), Biomed central (BMC) and Springer Open... which we are pretty much able to use, with the right referencing and acknowledgement. I read this on the 'Copy rights' page on this wiki. http://php.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php?title=Help:Copyright_Tutorial. Can someone verify or correct me if i'm wrong haha?

--Z3417843 (talk) 11:56, 10 September 2014 (EST) I thought copyright only applied on images and not on content. It would be really difficult to write a report when the most papers have copyright. We can ask Dr. Hill in the lab just to confirm.

Week 8

--Z3417796 (talk) 12:56, 17 September 2014 (EST) Hey guys, so Carl and I had a talk with Dr. Hill and he has agreed to allow us to change topics from Cardio to Integumentary. To finalise the change all members have to personally email him saying we all agree to the topic change. Carl and I have started thinking about our approach to the topic and we think we should have a main focus on skin and smaller sub-topics on hair, nails, glands and teeth. Each members role just remains the same and any problems we will all still help eachother :)

Week 9

--Z3417796 (talk) 12:46, 22 September 2014 (EST)Hey guys, I've added some headings for our new page just to get a start, we've got alot to catch up on, I guess we still have to talk about it as a group for the overall layout, we should all start adding some content soon.

--Z3417843 (talk) 12:41, 23 September 2014 (EST) Thank you for fixing it! Yeah, we have a lot to do but that's okay. Midsem break is next week and hopefully we can get most of the bulk done before week 10.

Midsem Break

--Z3417843 (talk) 23:24, 29 September 2014 (EST) Just wanted to let you guys know that Dr. Hill gave us some tips on what to look at a few weeks back. He mentioned "vernix caseosa and fetal hair." Here's a wikipedia link to vernix caseosa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernix_caseosa) just to give you guys an idea on what it is. I'm aiming to finish before the end of the week so that I could help anyone with their parts. Anyway, I hope everyone's having a good break!

  • Great overview given in the introduction. Maybe look to replacing the words "this page" to something else to avoid repetition
  • I'm really liking how everything has been simplified into dot points and tables where relevant. Don't forget to include relevant references all throughout though, to justify all that you've included in each section
  • I can't express how much I love your first table. Great work!
  • Proofread so that you don't repeat the same things in your table though. You mention "in a study" numerous times but there's no indication to which studies they are
  • I'm sure Mark would be thinking this same thing, but look to getting different references outside of this Embryology website, maybe from textbooks or otherwise for preliminary information on development
  • The "recent findings" section looks nicely formatted but just a bit wordy. Maybe think of dividing the text up with bullet points or images
  • Really liking your "historic findings" section! Great research
  • Maybe think of re-creating some of the simpler pictures by drawing them yourselves. That way you're not using too many pictures from this Embryology website, Mark warned our group about this point
  • Great choices for the "abnormalities" section. Traumatising at first, but very well-researched and presented
Retrieved from ‘https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php?title=Talk:2014_Group_Project_5&oldid=149075’
Powered by MediaWiki