Talk:2014 Group Project 7

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

1

Good introduction but I would move what happens in the embryonic development to the “development” section. Also, don’t forget any references and in-text citations for this section. Maybe add more on what the page is about and what the readers should be expecting. Nonetheless, it gives a good background of the key organs in this system. The diagram for the timeline of development is quite complex. Try to explain what is happening in this diagram within the “development” section. For example, maybe try to have the same headings (cell multiplication, cell migration, etc.) as the diagram for the “development” subheadings. Or, if you’re willing, make a timeline of your own. At least, you can make a simpler diagram where only relevant information is included. Good job on the “Visible Anatomical Details” table.

On current findings, good choice on research articles. They’re very relevant to the topic and to the project as well. Maybe try to add some images if possible. Also, try to add some dates or anything to show how recent these studies are. There is a bit of imbalance in terms of the amount of content for each study but nonetheless, this section was written well. Good job! As for “abnormalities”, this section was done well. Each disease was written with lots of detail but very concisely. I do suggest adding more images that show the clinical manifestation of each disease. Also, don’t just focus on the manifestations of each defects. Try to look for current treatments or techniques on managing the abnormality. Also, maybe look for more references.

On historic findings, where is it? 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”.

I’ve check all the images and there are no issues with them in terms of copyright. I can see that you tried to add captions to each photo, which is good but you can format the image in a way so that the caption is framed with the photo. Check out the [Image Formatting] guide to do this. Overall, this page is very detailed and written very well. Just try to edit the page and make it look cleaner.

2

This project page is very nicely organised with the group clearly specifying what aspect of neural development they are covering, being the CNS. The use of headings and subheadings is done very neatly, however sections 1.1-1.5 could be subheadings for the larger title ‘system development’. The key points have been clearly described but there is no referencing throughout the ‘Introduction’, ‘Brain development’ and ‘Abnormalities’ sections. Most key points have at least some information on them which is good for this stage of the project; however some of the headings without could use some more work.

The choice of content is highly appropriate and the use of diagrams and pictures help show the groups understanding of the project thus far. I particularly like the use of subheadings in this project as they make the page look neater and organised. The image showing the timeline of fetal neural development is good however perhaps it would be better to draw or make a timeline on the computer in order to show better understanding of the time course of fetal development. Most images that have been uploaded are also well referenced and when clicking onto them, it takes the reader to a page that has more information related to the image. The table to describe anatomical details is also done well and is important that such a key point is mentioned seeing as this is an anatomy course.

I also really like how the ‘Current research, models and findings’ section is split into ‘Current research’ and ‘Future Research’, however it seems future research needs to be further looked into. The ‘Abnormalities’ section is done very well, with multiple abnormalities listed with images used to show each one. The bolding of several key words is seen and is helpful in showing understanding of some of the key points. There are also no historic findings so try and find some information on that.

Referencing is correctly done with most references being in one main section at the end, and ordered correctly. In-cite referencing is also done correctly. All images are correctly referenced with copyright information present and the student image template. I also like the way the current research findings sources have been referenced with the use of dot points assisting learning by not just presenting to the reader as a blob of information.

Overall, well done group 7! Keep up the great work!

3

The content looks well organized. The introduction could use a bit of work; it does a good job of introducing the CNS, but it should also mention all the other sections this page will cover regarding the topic. You might want to get rid of the using bold for brain and spinal cord, it just makes it look a little weird. Otherwise, a good embryonic developmental background is provided, it’s a good way to set the stage for when fetal development will commence from.

The information is organized well, no chunky slabs of texts. But the use of dot points is a bit extensive; almost every section of the page has dot points or makes up the complete majority of the info presented. You might want to present some of it in paragraph form e.g. the abnormalities part, as that section can still be kept quite short and not be packed with text. As long as you mention what it is, how you get it/how it forms, some statistics and use a picture, the section can be still visually appealing. The images are captioned ok, but there is a better way of doing it. In the command to input the image, continue the command with: |thumb|’whatever you want to write’], and the section in the apostrophes will be the caption under the picture (go into edit mode on another project page for a better idea, I might not have explained well).

The use of the table is well done, makes all that info easily presentable, though I see the meninges development still needs to be done. The current research models and findings looks kind of messy with just the referenced PubMed article there. It might look better if you had the article name written in bold and a couple sentences underneath each to describe what the article was trying to achieve, like what has been done under current research. A couple pictures may be included to make it all more visually appealing and colourful.

Overall, this was done well. You have a good amount of information, just try not to present it all in dot points. Make sure all your info is referenced in text, will all references displayed at the bottom of the page. Another note, try to organise your pictures in different areas of the page as well, as they are all currently on the left hand side.

4

This group page shows a good amount of work completed however there are quite a few sections that clearly still need some more info. A good introduction to the neural development and a accurate description of what will be covered. Although it seems to be missing the in text citations. The section on ‘development during fetal period’ is presented clearly and structured really well. The info is not too overwhelming and the use of dot points for this section is great as neural development is quite complex. There’s a good identification of images and the use of in text citations. The brain development section is written really well with enough detail and it’s nice to see a table for the timeline of changes during each week. It does however seem to be a bit short, maybe that’s because it’s all in dot point form. It would be useful if the ‘brain, spinal cord and meninges development’ were combined under one heading, this might be a better way to structure it. Otherwise just keep each section separate but format the info into paragraph form. In the ‘current research’ section a thorough amount of info was provided. It seems as though it hasn’t been finished and more info will be added later that will be great. The abnormalities content is sufficient and well organised. Just consider using more in text citations in this section, add some more images and complete all the sub headings.

Finally a good effort in this project page, it is structured well and the info provided is easy to understand. However it needs some more research and content to fill all the sub headings in order for it to be finished. Some suggestions that may be considered include; having all the references under one main heading at the end of the page. The use of more in text citations in some of the paragraphs throughout the whole page would be effective. There is an adequately amount of images already shown, so maybe the use of videos or drawings would also be good especially in the abnormalities section and current research. The key is to focus on filing the info and then just making a few adjustments in terms of formatting. Otherwise the page is set out well , just needs a little more work. The page will look really great once completed. Good luck ☺

5

This page is organized well, all the headings and subheadings are thought through. Although, I’m unsure while the sections brain and spinal cord are in bold? The development during fetal period image lacks the necessary “student template” at the bottom of the description summary and I was unable to open the link http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/pubs/acute/images/p44.gif. Otherwise, all the other images uploaded on the page look really good and are referenced correctly.

The table under the section brain development is very brief, and expansions on the content will allow for a better understanding of the content. Adding images to appear after the table will also add to the appearance of the page and give it a cleaner look.

The spinal cord and menegies development have been left untouched and the current research models have no content, just pubmed references. I understand the current research models are probably the hardest part of the assignment, but the content appears to be quite good, the formatting of the section could be improved by following the structure Mark uses. You could look at the other group projects as examples.

In regards to referencing, there are no in-text citations for the first two subheadings. I would also like to recommend just adding a final list of references at the bottom of the page, as it looks much neater.

The abnormalities section is done well. But try to minimise the use of dot points as this section lacks any structured paragraphs. It use of images are great, although there is an image that appear to have been removed and as a result, there is a broken link.

Overall, great job so far!

6

This is a really good project so far. The introduction is really well done and I especially like that you have included a diagrams in it. The brain development is good, however I’m not completely sure about the dot points. It would look better if they were not there.

Well done with the images that you have got there they all appear to be well described and referenced when you click on them. Only problem with the images is that there is a lack of them. It appears that there is an imbalance between written information and images tipping in favor of the information. I think it would be a good idea to add some more images to elicit more excitement in the page. Student images are a good idea as they highlight that it is a student project and make it more interesting for the viewer.

The current research models and findings shouldn’t be left like it is at the moment. You will need to go into more detail and reference properly. While on referencing it is important that you put all your references at the bottom of the page. You only have 20 at the bottom at the moment and it is clear that you have used many more than twenty. Also you need to add in text citations so that we know exactly where you have got your information from.

The current research part is good with plenty of information, but again look at adding more images to make it a bit more interesting. There are obviously some parts that you need to finish off which I’m sure your aware of.

Overall it is a really good project with the potential to be excellent because of the amount of effort you have put into the research. Just make sure you change your references so that they are all down the bottom and have in text citations, add more images and maybe student images as well to make your page more presentable. Very well done so far and good luck with finishing the project off.

--Z3418981 (talk) 14:21, 16 August 2014 (EST) Hey everyone,

What's everyone's ideas about doing the neural system for our project? there are lots of interesting Neurologic deficits that we could talk about!!!

--Z3419587 (talk) 23:25, 16 August 2014 (EST) That's a good idea. Neural system is a complex structure and it should be fun to work on it! Any other ideas?

--Z3374116 (talk) 23:51, 19 August 2014 (EST) I talked to Yas before, sorry couldnt respond faster haha. Agree that Neural system would be interesting to research :p

Do you guys have facebook as well? It might be an additional way to communicate

--Z3422484 (talk) I also agree on this topic being quite interesting as well --Z3418981

--Z3418981 (talk) 10:54, 25 August 2014 (EST) hey guys it's yas! so we each need to choose one of the following: Review the neural system development during the fetal period. Identify current research models and finding. Identify historic findings. Identify abnormalities that can occur in this system during fetal period.

--Z3419587 (talk) 21:07, 25 August 2014 (EST) Thanks! This is vivian. Can I do "the review of the neural system development during the fetal period"? Or if anyone wants to do this section?

--Z3374116 (talk) 12:07, 26 August 2014 (EST) Hey guys, Can i do historic findings for fetal neutral system development :) - Sean


--Z3419587 (talk) 17:47, 26 August 2014 (EST)I have put some subtitles to give a brief structure to our webpage, feel free to change them if you want!


--Z3418981 (talk) 17:51, 26 August 2014 (EST) sure and I'll do the abnormalities - Yas

--Z3419587 (talk) 18:25, 26 August 2014 (EST) hey Yas, see if this helps. <pubmed>25007063</pubmed>

--Z3418981 (talk) 21:14, 26 August 2014 (EST) Thanks Vivian!! the article is very helpful! and the page looks really good too :)

--Z3374116 (talk) 20:18, 26 August 2014 (EST) Hey guys, I think the last entry from my section will help alot in the Development section for our project :) - Sean

<pubmed>17848161</pubmed>

--Z3419587 (talk) 23:14, 26 August 2014 (EST) That's true! thanks Sean :) - vivian

--Z3422484--Z3422484 (talk) 12:50, 27 August 2014 (EST) Hey guys, this is a useful article for the abnormalities area

<pubmed>24664314</pubmed>

--Z3374116 (talk) 23:55, 1 September 2014 (EST) nice one :D How are you guys going with your sections?

--Z3374116 (talk) 12:58, 17 September 2014 (EST) <pubmed>10226791</pubmed> maybe for development

--Z3374116 (talk) 21:12, 20 September 2014 (EST) http://www.ehd.org/cache/pdf/fd7e47f291dded855c38ffb3418fbdc8/timeline.pdf

something which might help us figure out a timeline structure

--Z3374116 (talk) 11:56, 24 September 2014 (EST) http://discovery.lifemapsc.com/library/review-of-medical-embryology A textbook which has great information on the development of the CNS during the fetal period

--Z3422484 (talk) 11:35, 8 October 2014 (EST) Hey guys i will be adding a few extra research articles to the current research tab

--Z3422484 (talk) 11:35, 8 October 2014 (EST) Also is there anything else anyone needs help on as well?

--Z3422484 (talk) 12:09, 8 October 2014 (EST) Forgot to mention that I'll also be adding spinal cord abnormalities

For Historial Research and Findings <pubmed>19339620</pubmed> <pubmed>8005032</pubmed> <pubmed>9311417</pubmed> <pubmed>17848161</pubmed> <pubmed>12768653</pubmed> <pubmed>17060425</pubmed> <pubmed>21042938</pubmed> for brain de


abnormalities <pubmed>12454899</pubmed> <pubmed>25007063</pubmed> <pubmed>16530991</pubmed> <pubmed>7504639</pubmed> <pubmed>19651588</pubmed> <pubmed>25135350</pubmed> <pubmed>25128525</pubmed> <pubmed>24397701</pubmed>


  • Good start on the introduction. Maybe have it used to explicitly state what your entire page will be covering rather than just a background on what the CNS is.
  • You're missing references for the huge chunks of information in the introduction section
  • The image of the timeline of development seems overly complex and I can't tell if you've explained it. If it's not relevant, maybe just come up with your own concise table of what happens during the course of development
  • Maybe think of re-creating some simpler images by hand and uploading them. That way you can choose to focus on what you actually need from the image to show what you're explaining
  • Include the years of when your current findings were discovered
  • For the "abnormalities" section, as there are many, maybe the amount of detail you've included for the first couple of ones isn't needed, but of course, use your own discretion to how much is relevant. Otherwise, the bullet points are a good way to simplify information
  • Collate all your references in the bottom from all the separate sections