Difference between revisions of "Talk:2017 Group Project 3"

From Embryology
Line 54: Line 54:
  
 
Overall, this page had a finished feel because the page is so heavily packed with information, there are some sections that were not completed. There is however, a lot of information that may leave the reader feeling a bit overwhelmed. Some sections are also hard to understand and comprehend especially due to the heavy use of biotechnological jargon (ie. SMAD-dependent, SMAD-independent pathways, β-catenin). A terminology/glossary section would be extremely helpful for this issue. I'd advise using more images in "Abnormal Development" (ie. x-rays or physical observations of sufferers) to help the reader visualise such abnormalities. Referencing under images should be moved to the references section and should be referenced using the '''''< ref >'''  '''< / ref >''''' if in text. Overall, there is a lot of information, some of which is not necessarily important. I'd advise to cut down, make paragraphs more simple and straight to the point, and use images to help the reader visually understand and comprehend.
 
Overall, this page had a finished feel because the page is so heavily packed with information, there are some sections that were not completed. There is however, a lot of information that may leave the reader feeling a bit overwhelmed. Some sections are also hard to understand and comprehend especially due to the heavy use of biotechnological jargon (ie. SMAD-dependent, SMAD-independent pathways, β-catenin). A terminology/glossary section would be extremely helpful for this issue. I'd advise using more images in "Abnormal Development" (ie. x-rays or physical observations of sufferers) to help the reader visualise such abnormalities. Referencing under images should be moved to the references section and should be referenced using the '''''< ref >'''  '''< / ref >''''' if in text. Overall, there is a lot of information, some of which is not necessarily important. I'd advise to cut down, make paragraphs more simple and straight to the point, and use images to help the reader visually understand and comprehend.
 +
 +
---
 +
 +
Introduction is very good and explains a lot. Under the heading “Primary heart field and heart tube formation” – the reference at the bottom should be removed.
 +
Secondary heart field and cardiac looping: First sentence doesn’t really make sense, maybe switch it up a bit.
 +
Under current research and findings you have labelled a figure figure 1, when it is not the first figure in your wiki page, seems a little confusing. Images also don’t have appriopriate copyright info, description and referencing. Also figure 2 is placed right in the middle of the sentence, maybe put it to the right so it doesn’t interrupt reading.
 +
Information could be formatted better under the heading atrial septal defect! Maybe some subheadings for the different defects? Same goes with the ventricular septal defect, its easier to read when things are broken up. Glossary is very good!
 +
 +
All the information written on your page is very well written and easily understood.
 +
Images could be labelled better, add a figure to each of them as when you are referring to figure 1 and 2 in your writing, the images aren’t labelled so its hard to tell what image you are referring to.
 +
With references, I don’t like how there is a bunch at the end of some headings? Could be because you still need to read them but looks messy.
 +
There is an overwhelming amount of information, so good job on doing so much research but it was quite tedious to read, not sure if this much information is needed? But it is very hard to fault your wiki page so this might be a bit picky.

Revision as of 21:41, 9 October 2017

Student Projects: 1 Cerebral Cortex | 2 Kidney | 3 Heart | 4 Eye | 5 Lung | 6 Cerebellum
Student Page - here is the sample page I demonstrated with in the first labs.I remind all students that you have your own Group Forum on Moodle for your discussions, it is only accessible by members of your group.
Editing Links: Editing Basics | Images | Tables | Referencing | Journal Searches | Copyright | Font Colours | Virtual Slide Permalink | My Preferences | One Page Wiki Card | Printing | Movies | Language Translation | Student Movies | Using OpenOffice | Internet Browsers | Moodle | Navigation/Contribution | Term Link | Short URLs | 2018 Test Student


I have now added a discussion Forum for your group to Moodle. You can add your discussion here (available to everyone) or in your Moodle Group Discussion (available to only your group members).

The collapsible table below shows the assessment criteria that will be used for this group project.

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
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

"Plagiarism at UNSW is defined as using the words or ideas of others and passing them off as your own." (extract from UNSW statement on Academic Honesty and Plagiarism)

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.

About the Discussion Page

This should be considered as the "other side" of the project page. It is an area where you can:

  1. Assemble resources.
  2. Add useful links.
  3. Discuss your project with team members. (Please do not use student names on any page on this Wiki)
  4. Paste your Peer Assessments. (Added anonymously, do not identify yourself)


Suggested Starting Places

Mark Hill (talk) 10:15, 14 August 2017 (AEST) OK Group 3 below are some starting places.

Cardiovascular Links: cardiovascular | Heart Tutorial | Lecture - Early Vascular | Lecture - Heart | Movies | 2016 Cardiac Review | heart | coronary circulation | heart valve | heart rate | Circulation | blood | blood vessel | blood vessel histology | heart histology | Lymphatic | ductus venosus | spleen | Stage 22 | cardiovascular abnormalities | OMIM | 2012 ECHO Meeting | Category:Cardiovascular
Historic Embryology - Cardiovascular 
1902 Vena cava inferior | 1905 Brain Blood Vessels | 1909 Cervical Veins | 1909 Dorsal aorta and umbilical veins | 1912 Heart | 1912 Human Heart | 1914 Earliest Blood-Vessels | 1915 Congenital Cardiac Disease | 1915 Dura Venous Sinuses | 1916 Blood cell origin | 1916 Pars Membranacea Septi | 1919 Lower Limb Arteries | 1921 Human Brain Vascular | 1921 Spleen | 1922 Aortic-Arch System | 1922 Pig Forelimb Arteries | 1922 Chicken Pulmonary | 1923 Head Subcutaneous Plexus | 1923 Ductus Venosus | 1925 Venous Development | 1927 Stage 11 Heart | 1928 Heart Blood Flow | 1935 Aorta | 1935 Venous valves | 1938 Pars Membranacea Septi | 1938 Foramen Ovale | 1939 Atrio-Ventricular Valves | 1940 Vena cava inferior | 1940 Early Hematopoiesis | 1941 Blood Formation | 1942 Truncus and Conus Partitioning | Ziegler Heart Models | 1951 Heart Movie | 1954 Week 9 Heart | 1957 Cranial venous system | 1959 Brain Arterial Anastomoses | Historic Embryology Papers | 2012 ECHO Meeting | 2016 Cardiac Review | Historic Disclaimer

PubMed Searches: Heart Development | Cardiac Development

BMC Dev Biol Search: Heart Development

Recent papers

<pubmed limit=5>Heart+Development</pubmed>

Group Topic Intro

Peer Review

Peer review group 3

  • The project contained both developmental origin, timeline, signalling processes, current research and findings, animals model and abnormal development sections. The project therefore has all the sections which were a requirement for the project.
  • Overall, I think the project was good. It was well written, easy to understand as a student, the sections correlated well and the context was good. I especially liked the signalling section, even though some context is missing. I think the idea of of addition a treatment part to project is a good but I could not find it in the project. As mentioned some context is missing in the notch pathway, sonic hedgehog and retinoic acid sections.
  • The project has a good introduction. You have a clear idea of what you are about the read, which is nice.
  • The layout could be a lot better, I think the picture location could be adjusted. In the developmental origin part, the pictures make the section look very confusing. Some of the subheadings, like the abnormal development is pushed to side by the pictures, so when you scroll down the project you miss it.
  • In general, the pictures miss their caption, sources and number. Therefore, you do not know which picture there is referred to when you are reading the project. I miss some more pictures in the developmental sections.
  • In the developmental origin section I think the last sentence is very long. You get so much information in one sentence that you sometimes forget what you just read.
  • The timeline is easy to read and understand. Could contain some key discoveries.
  • Thought the glossary of terms is a nice addition to the project.
  • Overall the referencing is good, but in some sections like primary heart field and heart tube formation, the referencing is missing. In some parts the articles/or links is at the bottom of the section, which makes it a little confusing.
  • I don’t feel like the primary heart field and heart tube formation correlates very well with the secondary heart field and cardiac looping section. When I start reading the latter I feel like om starting on something completely new instead of continuing reading on the heart developing. I get the feeling I am reading two different persons work, and some work should be put into these sections to make it feel more fluent.

---

Don’t forget to remove the hyperlinks that are under ‘Heart’ at the beginning of the page. Remove student numbers from the page. Add a brief description under images so that readers will understand what the image is showing. Remember to move references that are written in some sections to the ‘References’ subheading. The Notch Pathway is incomplete.

Subheadings and content that have been used show a good understanding of the topic area. The use of a table for the ‘Development Timeline’ shows the teams innovativeness. The use of simple sentences in the table allows readers to understand content simply. References have been done well, they are cited properly. The team have used their own images to show their understanding of the heart. The images that they have used have been properly cited: there are references, copyright statements and the Student Image template. Thorough description of abnormal development, animal models and current research which shows the comprehensive research that was done for the heart. The use of Glossary of Terms is helpful to readers who may not understand what some terms are.

---

Use of headings and subheadings break this complex developmental process in to understandable, clear sections. The images chosen to reinforce the material are appropriate and I particularly like that time has been taken to draw a number of these. There does seem to be an awful lot of information, and I wonder if this can be cut down at all. For example there is the section on signaling during development, which is a more complex section to understand. This is greatly helped by the diagrams but I can see that there are additional headings that are yet to have information added. It might be an idea to pick a few signaling pathways that occur and really perfect those. I think it has the potential to become very confusing to the reader otherwise. It is very useful to the reader that you have included a glossary of terms, however I wonder if it may be more effective if this table is placed at the beginning of the page, or as a link at the top that can be opened up, so as the reader can familirise themselves with the terms prior to reading the page. The page appears to be referenced extensively throughout and appropriately. Good job

---

Overall, this page has a good structure and was enjoyable to read. The headings and subheadings were clear and made it easier to understand the development process of the Heart. Perhaps it would be better to include relevant background information of the heart before jumping into the developmental process straightaway. There is a good amount of images (and well-drawn images) accompanying the text which aided in understanding the content, however some were not labelled with their appropriate descriptions. Most parts were cited correctly and properly, however some areas weren't cited at all such as "Current Research and Findings and "Cardiac Stem Cells". Also, some references were not done properly, check the "Primary Heart Field and Heart Tube Formation" section. Some sections were left blank, however I assume they will be completed over time. Glossary of terms was clever and made the content easier to understand (the heart is quite complicated to understand). Well done overall.

---

Overall, this page had a finished feel because the page is so heavily packed with information, there are some sections that were not completed. There is however, a lot of information that may leave the reader feeling a bit overwhelmed. Some sections are also hard to understand and comprehend especially due to the heavy use of biotechnological jargon (ie. SMAD-dependent, SMAD-independent pathways, β-catenin). A terminology/glossary section would be extremely helpful for this issue. I'd advise using more images in "Abnormal Development" (ie. x-rays or physical observations of sufferers) to help the reader visualise such abnormalities. Referencing under images should be moved to the references section and should be referenced using the < ref > < / ref > if in text. Overall, there is a lot of information, some of which is not necessarily important. I'd advise to cut down, make paragraphs more simple and straight to the point, and use images to help the reader visually understand and comprehend.

---

Introduction is very good and explains a lot. Under the heading “Primary heart field and heart tube formation” – the reference at the bottom should be removed. Secondary heart field and cardiac looping: First sentence doesn’t really make sense, maybe switch it up a bit. Under current research and findings you have labelled a figure figure 1, when it is not the first figure in your wiki page, seems a little confusing. Images also don’t have appriopriate copyright info, description and referencing. Also figure 2 is placed right in the middle of the sentence, maybe put it to the right so it doesn’t interrupt reading. Information could be formatted better under the heading atrial septal defect! Maybe some subheadings for the different defects? Same goes with the ventricular septal defect, its easier to read when things are broken up. Glossary is very good!

All the information written on your page is very well written and easily understood. Images could be labelled better, add a figure to each of them as when you are referring to figure 1 and 2 in your writing, the images aren’t labelled so its hard to tell what image you are referring to. With references, I don’t like how there is a bunch at the end of some headings? Could be because you still need to read them but looks messy. There is an overwhelming amount of information, so good job on doing so much research but it was quite tedious to read, not sure if this much information is needed? But it is very hard to fault your wiki page so this might be a bit picky.