Talk:2016 Group Project 5: Difference between revisions

From Embryology
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 65: Line 65:
This project appears to be extremely well done and is definitely one of the strongest. Most of the criticisms are regarding the formatting of the page and making it more interactive for the reader. All in all this is very well researched project!  
This project appears to be extremely well done and is definitely one of the strongest. Most of the criticisms are regarding the formatting of the page and making it more interactive for the reader. All in all this is very well researched project!  


===Group 5 Peer Assessment===
Positive aspects of the project and improvements:
Upon reviewing the page, it is evident that there has been a lot of research put in this project. Initially, there is evidence of a range of headings and subheadings which allowed the navigation from one aspect of the project to another extremely easy. This allowed me to confirm that the project is about T-box genes and their signalling. Secondly, it was excellent to see a range of images, tables and graphs as they provided visual aids to learn more about the topic and in general made it easier to accumulate information. Also it was good to see that these tables and images were correctly cited and referenced at the end which meant that there was no breach of copyright laws.
Also, throughout the project there was sufficient amount of information in each subheading which meant that the reader gained all relevant information pertaining to the section that they are reading. It was also great to see a range of abnormalities being added to the project. This meant that you have went above and beyond the scope of the assessment and researched that extra bit to provide additional information about the signalling pathway and complications arising from any mutations. This meant that you successfully satisfied criteria 5 and thus a more rounded project. 
Negative aspects of the project and improvements:
This project certainly contains a range of positives but there were minimal negatives that can easily be amended in order to achieve a very high mark. I noticed that there was more than 1 image being used from Wikipedia and the criterion clearly says that a maximum of 1 was allowed. This is not a big deal but just in case there is harsh marking and penalties, it is advised to replace the additional image with another image. In addition, it would be useful to add a glossary of all the terms that one may find confusing such as “homologues”, “heterozygous”, “homology”, “notochord” etc. This in turn will provide the reader with enough information to understand the context of the project and in turn keep them engaged.
Another negative aspect of the project was that the subheading “Ancient origins and evolution of the T-box gene family” randomly appearing nearing the end of the project. This looked a bit out of place and not flowing with the rest of the passage. To correct this it would be advised to add this to the start of the page with the “Origin of the T-box genes” section just so the information clearly flows from one topic to another without creating confusion. Overall, this project is coming along quite nicely. It is evident that a lot of research has been put into constructing a coherent and succinct project but also have the visual cues to back up the main aspects. To maximise marks, it is recommended to reflect on the feedback and correct the minor mistakes.





Revision as of 03:37, 7 October 2016

Group Assessment Criteria  
Mark Hill.jpg Science Student Projects
  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.
More Information on Assessment Criteria | Science Student Projects
Signalling: 1 Wnt | 2 Notch | 3 FGF Receptor | 4 Hedgehog | 5 T-box | 6 TGF-Beta
Here are some starting places for the topic. Can be patterning, differentiation, etc. as long as a developmental signal process/pathway.

Peer Review



Group 5:

Positive aspects of the project and suggested improvements:

Upon reviewing this page, it is clear that group 5 has provided numerous headings and subheadings related to Tbx-genes ranging from origins of the genes, their function in embryonic development, abnormalities, history and animal models (criteria 1 and 6). In doing so, the group has also ventured to provide an in-depth explanation of each subheading. Take for example the subheading named, “limb development”, the authors have provided an in-depth description into the role of T-box transcription factors in limb development whilst utilising a diagram to reinforce this description (criteria 2). It also appears that in-text citations have been correctly used to reference the sources of data in most cases (criteria 3). The authors have utilised diagrams and a table to describe various components of the T-box gene ranging from the different types of T-box genes to its mechanisms in embryonic development (criteria 4). The extensive use of diagrams allows the audience to develop a holistic understanding of the various subheadings included, as these diagrams convey the description provided in a visual manner (criteria 5). It is also evident that the group has conducted research into animal models and evolution of the T-box gene, thus demonstrating that the group has investigated areas of research beyond formal teaching activities (criteria 5).

Improvements which may be made to this page would be to include a timeline regarding the history of the T-box family, as this will display the information in a much more organised and appealing manner. Another improvement which may be made would be to include a YouTube video to introduce the signalling process in development, such as in cardiac and limb development for example. In order to make the wikipage interactive, a further improvement which may be made would be to include a set of multiple choice questions at the end of the page which ask questions about the content covered.

Negative aspects of the project and suggested improvements:

Alongside the various positive aspects of this project, there are few negative aspects. A negative aspect identified includes the use of images from Wikipedia pages more than once. It was stated that only one Wikipedia page was allowed to be included as a source. Therefore a suggestion would be to obtain images and data from research articles rather than from Wikipedia pages, as research articles are often a more reliable source of data. It was also noticed that images were not utilised to describe different abnormalities associated with the TBX gene, hence a possible improvement would be to include images depicting such abnormalities. These images may make this section of the page more appealing and engaging to audiences.

It was also noticed that the image titled “Evolution of the T box gene family”, was incorrectly referenced. Therefore, it is suggested that the authors of the project ensure that the original author of the image are correctly referenced to ensure that copyright laws are not breached. The final negative aspect of the project was that the “Ancient origins and evolution of the T-box gene family” subheading appeared out of place in the page. Therefore a possible improvement would be to include evolution of the T-box gene under the “Origins of the T-box gene” subheading at the beginning of the page as this will create a sense of consistency in the page.

Group 5

First of all, well done on making significant progress on your project! You have addressed all aspects of the pathway involving T-Box genes through subdivision into various headings and subheadings. I particularly liked how there was an inclusion of the specific T-Box gene affected in each of the abnormalities in the subheading itself. The only suggestion I would make is to combine the ‘Ancient origins and evolution of the T-Box gene family’ section with the origins of the ‘T-Box genes’ section to provide a more coherent description of the history of these pathway. You could even form a table to create a timeline of events. In addition, I think it would be beneficial to include the ‘What does T-Box mean?’ as an introduction to the ‘origins of the T-box genes’ section as there is overlap between these sections.

The use of a table to describe the main T-box genes was helpful in providing a brief overview of the components of the pathway and their influence in embryological development. In addition, the link between T-Box genes and embryonic development has been explored considerably. In saying this, greater attention to detail must be paid to explaining abbreviations to aid one’s understanding of the concepts being discussed. For example, what is NKX2-5, Shh and OFT? Though you’ve explained that RA stands for retinoic acid in the ‘Organisms used in animal models for T-Box’ section, this same explanation is not provided in the ‘Limb development’ section where you have discussed that ‘RA and Shh both induced Tbx2’. These small changes will significantly improve the quality of your work.

The inclusion of abnormalities provides great insight into the role of T-Box genes in development. In saying this, though you have explored the effect of the mutation of these genes in animal models, more information is required to explain the effect of these mutations in humans and how they come about. Furthermore, under the heading of ‘Animal models’ there has been discussion mainly of the ‘brachyury gene’ which seems unrelated to animal models due to the lack of a proper introduction. I found the following section (organisms used in animal models for T-Box) to be a better introduction to the topic of animal models. In addition, there has been mention of a number of animal models ‘Drosophila, Xenopus, zebrafish, avians, and mice’ yet only marsupials and amphioxus has been discussed. This could be potentially misleading to readers.

Overall, a fantastic effort has been made. Not only have you touched upon nearly every section of the project, but have included some excellent diagrams and tables which aid understanding of this pathway. In saying this, it is noted that two Wikipedia images have been used though it has been suggested that only one of the images utilised can be from Wikipedia. All information provided was also appropriately referenced and cited. In addition, I think it would be useful to utilise the discussion page to encourage interaction between group members as it allows individuals to provide feedback and suggestions. Hope this helps!

Group 5 Critical Assessment

Well done on constructing a thorough Wiki page on the topic of T-box Genes and their Signalling! Viewing the page it is evident numerous headings and subheadings have been provided to accommodate for the large amount of information gathered. Starting off with the introduction I like how you have included a section on what T’-box exactly means, however the information provided in this section talks about the history significantly, hence to turn this into a positive I would suggest adding a table or timeline outlining the major events and discoveries in the past to present this information in a complete, meaningful way. This issue is also seen with the section ‘Origins of the T-box genes’ where major discoveries are highlighted and in which year they occurred. This information can also merge with the history timeline/table.

Within the ‘What does T-box mean?’ section you have also added information on which animal studies were undertaken for the discoveries. To avoid spreading of information and causing confusion for the reader, you could either construct a table to show which animal study was completed in which year, and what discovery it led to as 3 columns, or bring this information down to the section ‘Animal Models’. In saying that, you have attempted to utilize a table and the table works very well with the topic of the different T-box genes, and would prove great help for the viewer.

It is great to see T-box genes and Signalling has been explored further in the field of embryonic development. Extensive information is provided with good use of in- text citations, allowing the reader to navigate to relevant articles. The ability to navigate could be further improved by providing an accessible link to the ‘Abnormalities’ section in a case where you are directing the reader to the section for further information, instead of plain text. Beneath each section for e.g. ‘Limb Development’ Pubmed links have been provided to relevant articles, which is a fantastic idea, however the links have no indication whatsoever of what the article is about. You could add a sentence each next to the links briefly stating what the article is exploring in relation to limb development.

Overall with a few more images, possibly some interactive components such as clips, and a knowledge testing short exam or quiz this Wiki page will stand out. Remember to ensure your information flows well by placing it within appropriate sections!

Group 5 Peer Assessment

It is quite clear that what has been provided in your wiki page is extensive and well researched. The inclusion of tables summarizing the different T-box genes although extensive, is very concise and easy to read. I feel that this table really links all the elements of your page together, where you have included its function and related it to embryological development and abnormalities which you go on later to elaborate in other sections. I feel this really complements the introduction and gives a good feel for what’s to come in the rest of the page. The addition of what the term T-box means also is a nice touch, giving context and some history regarding the name.

Your origins section of T-box is quite well outlined, but as mentioned in your page, having a timeline with critical points of discovery with regards to the genes would probably be more beneficial as it would be a lot easier to read a see the time points as a whole. That being said, having the timeline alongside your outline would probably work well, as your outline can serve to elaborate on the timeline. With regards to your subheadings, it seems to they are quite extensive and cover practically all the key components of the T-box genes, and it is also good to see that there is a glossary subheading in place. Content wise there seems to be limited to no issues, but with regards to abbreviations, I have found that the usage hasn’t always been after the fact of providing the full name first. For example, bone morphogenic protein’s abbreviation is used consistently throughout the first part of the wiki page, but it is only described by its full name and then abbreviation later on. This is something you should check out and fix by either adding the full name the first time the abbreviation is used, or adding all these terms to the glossary.

With regards to the pictures they all seem to compliment the sections well and are quite plentiful. That being said though the picture in the “Marsupial forelimb development” does not appear to have the copyright information regarding to its usage, and referencing does not appear to be in full. This is also the same for the picture under the subheading “Organisms used in animal models for T-box”. Other than that the referencing is perfectly fine within the text.

Overall this project is really good and without any major flaws when it comes to the content. A few touch ups here and there with regards to my suggestion above, and your project should be good to go along as the quality is kept at this level.


Group 5 – T-Box

First impressions alone it is extremely clear that Group 5 has thoroughly researched this topic have tried hard to include many diagrams and tables to help separate their information up in order to more successfully convey the information across to the reader. Positive aspects of this project include the well-defined subheadings, making the navigation through the page very easy. The introduction is informative and introduces the following subheadings of the project well. The inclusion of what does T-Box mean is also interesting, setting you apart from the other projects. One of the best aspects of the project would have to be the summary table of the main T-box genes, which includes its main expression sites, its function and abnormalities relevant to the specific gene. You have made a note to include a timeline for the history of the T-Box gene, which I think would be successful in summarizing the scientific advances since its discovery, and also help to break up paragraphs of writing. The project appears to be referenced correctly using in-text citations, only query is whether the links to the PMID articles say in the bottom of cardiac and limb development are references or just articles in which you haven’t written on yet and will be referenced appropriately when you do later. The inclusion of a glossary is also a good idea just to help define and explain some of the more difficult terms mentioned.

As for negative aspects of the project, there wasn’t too many. Like for every project, in terms of making it more interactive it might be a good idea to include a YouTube video or animation of the signaling pathway or its role in a specific developmental process, as well as your own hand-drawn image just to fulfill the necessary criteria of this assignment. Furthermore, with some of the smaller images that don’t go the full width of the page, it might be a nice idea to align them to the right as a thumbnail next to their relevant text, so readers see them whilst reading about it. Also remember to make a reference the image you have chosen in your text to emphasise its importance to what you are actually talking about. Although the subheading “good places to look” might just be something for you guys while researching, I think that you could utilize this by including various links with more information on the relevant topics of which you have discussed. This would help to make you page more interactive as well.

This project appears to be extremely well done and is definitely one of the strongest. Most of the criticisms are regarding the formatting of the page and making it more interactive for the reader. All in all this is very well researched project!


Group 5 Peer Assessment

Positive aspects of the project and improvements:

Upon reviewing the page, it is evident that there has been a lot of research put in this project. Initially, there is evidence of a range of headings and subheadings which allowed the navigation from one aspect of the project to another extremely easy. This allowed me to confirm that the project is about T-box genes and their signalling. Secondly, it was excellent to see a range of images, tables and graphs as they provided visual aids to learn more about the topic and in general made it easier to accumulate information. Also it was good to see that these tables and images were correctly cited and referenced at the end which meant that there was no breach of copyright laws.

Also, throughout the project there was sufficient amount of information in each subheading which meant that the reader gained all relevant information pertaining to the section that they are reading. It was also great to see a range of abnormalities being added to the project. This meant that you have went above and beyond the scope of the assessment and researched that extra bit to provide additional information about the signalling pathway and complications arising from any mutations. This meant that you successfully satisfied criteria 5 and thus a more rounded project.

Negative aspects of the project and improvements:

This project certainly contains a range of positives but there were minimal negatives that can easily be amended in order to achieve a very high mark. I noticed that there was more than 1 image being used from Wikipedia and the criterion clearly says that a maximum of 1 was allowed. This is not a big deal but just in case there is harsh marking and penalties, it is advised to replace the additional image with another image. In addition, it would be useful to add a glossary of all the terms that one may find confusing such as “homologues”, “heterozygous”, “homology”, “notochord” etc. This in turn will provide the reader with enough information to understand the context of the project and in turn keep them engaged.

Another negative aspect of the project was that the subheading “Ancient origins and evolution of the T-box gene family” randomly appearing nearing the end of the project. This looked a bit out of place and not flowing with the rest of the passage. To correct this it would be advised to add this to the start of the page with the “Origin of the T-box genes” section just so the information clearly flows from one topic to another without creating confusion. Overall, this project is coming along quite nicely. It is evident that a lot of research has been put into constructing a coherent and succinct project but also have the visual cues to back up the main aspects. To maximise marks, it is recommended to reflect on the feedback and correct the minor mistakes.


Some searches to get us started: T-box tbx

Z5020373 (talk) 14:44, 26 August 2016 (AEST) PMID 25294936 - a relatively recent article that provides background info on the T-box gene family PMID 16285859

Z3516832 (talk) 14:52, 26 August 2016 (AEST) http://www.columbia.edu/itc/hs/medical/humandev/2007/HD15/HD15.pdf

Z5020373 (talk) 11:32, 16 September 2016 (AEST) Does anyone know how to draw up a table on the page? Thanks.