Difference between revisions of "Talk:2017 Group Project 5"

From Embryology
Line 62: Line 62:
  
 
---
 
---
 +
 +
This page is really impressive when the hand drawn images caught my eye as well as the balanced text-to-images ratio. It is well organised and there was a decent flow throughout the page. It is useful that keywords were formatted to be in bold formatting to draw the attention of the readers to the main terms. The development timeline is very fascinating, it had a description as well as images. Summaries are well-informative as well as brief in some sections. Some images were reference properly and copyright approval was provided. Abnormal development was neatly organised into sections and appropriate journal articles for evidence. However, there are a few abnormalities that did not feature an image to provide more visual aid to the readers.
 +
 +
The 'Alveolus' was left in bold format while the rest were in normal format, this could be easily changed in the edit page. The hand drawn images did not provide a reference where it was based off. Also, one of the images has a very low resolution ("This image is a stylised typical developmental branching pattern over time in a lung bud."). The images should be encased in boxes and a label underneath would be neater. Laboratory results from the animal models would be useful to see. The lung histology section didn't provide any references. The movies section disrupts the flow of the sections, it might be best to place them at the bottom of the page.
 +
 +
This page seems like it is almost complete.
 +
 +
Revise the reference list. Some were left as links and the overall reference formatting was inconsistent. Some were left as APA format and some were left in another format. There was a cite error in one of the references as well.

Revision as of 00:18, 11 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 5 below are some starting places.

Respiratory Links: respiratory | Science Lecture | Lecture Movie | Med Lecture | Stage 13 | Stage 22 | upper respiratory tract | diaphragm | Histology | Postnatal | respiratory abnormalities | Respiratory Quiz | Respiratory terms | Category:Respiratory
Historic Embryology - Respiratory 
1902 The Nasal Cavities and Olfactory Structures | 1906 Lung | 1912 Upper Respiratory Tract | 1912 Respiratory | 1913 Prenatal and Neonatal Lung | 1914 Phrenic Nerve | 1918 Respiratory images | 1921 Respiratory | 1922 Chick Pulmonary Vessels | 1934 Right Fetal Lung | 1936 Early Human Lung | 1937 Terminal Air Passages | 1938 Human Histology

PubMed Searches: Lung Development | Respiratory Development

BMC Dev Biol Search: Lung Development

Recent papers

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


Peer Review

This paper is divided into logical categories however lacks an introduction to lead into the discussion of lung development. The student drawings are all good, and the developmental timeline is very informative. The images are well referenced and have the appropriate Copyright. The "Structure of Respiratory Network", "Developmental signalling processes", "Research" and "Animal models" sections of the page lack in-text citations and thus lack credibility. The references need to be fine tuned, and the formatting of images is required. Otherwise this is a very informative page.

---

Future questions and current research subheadings are incomplete. Don’t forget to add references, copyright statements and the student image template to each of the images that have been used on the wikipage. References should be used on Lung Histology to show the research that has been done. The animal models section is comprehensive but there are barely any references to show where the information was found.

Subheadings and content that have been used show a good understanding of the topic area. The team have used their own images to show their understanding. The team has used images in the ‘Developmental timeline’ table which shows comprehensive research. The images have brief descriptions below them, hence readers will be able to understand what the image is displaying. Important words in relation to the lung have been bolded. The abnormal development section is done comprehensively with references and images. References were cited properly, however there is an error on reference 20.

---

The project page is looking good. I particularly found the developmental timeline to be very informative and easy to follow. I like the fact that you have used a table here to display it along with diagrams that fit each stage, with each diagram being cited and referenced correctly. I think the diagram that is related to the histology section could be a little clearer to read as it is a little jumbled and slightly hard to distinguish everything. The section on developmental signaling processes is good, and gives the detail without making the section too long and complicated. ‘current understandings and areas of research’ has no information as of yet, it would be good to add some recent research papers with a short summary. The use of movies is helpful, but maybe consider moving them further up the page, to a more relevant section, the beginning of ‘developmental origin’ would be better. A glossary of terms would be helpful, as some of the jargon is complicated. There seems to be a citing error in the reference list that should be dealt with. Overall it is a very interesting topic and I think you have executed it well so far

---

The page is quite informative, however there are incomplete sections including the introduction and the last few topics towards the end. There is a clever use of self drawn images to avoid any copyright issues, but the lung histology image can be a bit hard to read due to the lack of contrast (the grey outline and font being a bit light to read) and the image itself is bit unclear (Is it a lateral view? cross sectional? towards the apex of the lung?). The bolding of main terms at the start of the page is a nice touch, it would work better if there was a glossary at the end of the page stating the bolded terms and their meaning. It would also be better if the rest of the page had their main terms bolded as well and added to the glossary. The movies section seemed a bit out of place and did not flow from the previous and next topics, it would be better to move them into the "developmental" topics. In the abnormal development and animal models sections, more images that correlate to each subheading would be advised to help the reader visualise the abnormalities or results instead of reading chunks of words. Such images could include x-rays, images of physical observations of sufferers, graphs and figures. Development of the lungs topics were easy to: follow, read and understand, which is extremely important. Ref 22 isn't stated properly.

---

This page is very informative, the headings and subheadings were highly appropriate and made the development process much easier to follow. There is a relevant amount of background information under "Lung Anatomy, Histology and Vasculature". Although most sections were cited correctly, some areas were missing references, such as "Structure of Respiratory Network", and "Lung Anatomy and Histology" . A good amount of images were used (images were very well drawn and easy to understand) and they were accompanied with relevant information. Perhaps you could add in more images in the Abnormal development section? I enjoyed reading the table of "Developmental Timeline" as it was very easy to understand and had appropriate images. Future questions and Glossary were left blank and would be very useful if they were done but I assume that they would be completed with time. Overall, the page seems to have a good amount of information on it so far, well done.

--

This wiki page is very informative and a good read! When reading I noticed that the images don’t have a figure number, although this isn’t necessary, it can make it easy to refer to figures in text and therefore explain them better. For the heading lung histology, you can add proper dot points by adding an asterix before the information, this will make your page present better. Both headings future questions and current research need to be finished as they are incomplete. Using self drawn pictures makes your page easy to follow and understand, this is a great feature of your page. Copyright information is added well for the most part, however I found some images under the heading “Developmental signaling processes” which didn’t have any copyright information or an appropriate description, also make sure the student template is added at the end of every image description. I particularly enjoyed the timeline, it is very well written and is easy to understand. Good job on the project thus far.

---

A good page going through a lot of the main steps required for the project page, but the page needs a lot of references.

  • The Lung Anatomy, Histology, and Cardiovasculature sections give a good and short understanding of the lungs. The Histology part could need a better layout using the wiki-formatting. All the sections need references! There are almost no references in these sections. I like the big introduction to the lungs, but I am not sure how much it has to do with the embryonic development – especially the Histology part. The self-drawn pictures support the learning when reading, but they are a bit weak in colors. I must click on the figure and then zoom to read and see details of the figures. It would be nice if you can see details at the same time reading the project page. Maybe you should draw the pictures with a more colorful pen.
  • The developmental timeline is really detailed and has a lot of pictures to support the understanding. The images have the right information.
  • The Conducting System section has two pictures that need more information on the picture page – like copyright information. You can look on the image tutorial how do give a picture page proper information or look through some of the other sections on your group project.
  • Alveolus: the functional unit: This section explains a study about overweight in pregnancy, but does not give the reference of the study. It is important to tell the reader where you found this study.
  • Developmental signaling processes section gives a good, short description. Easy to read and understand. But both pictures are missing detailed information – also copyright information. You also mention “a recent study” without giving a reference to the study.
  • Current understandings and areas of research section is missing the context.
  • Animal Models section has a good context and a good setup but could use a brief introduction to what you are going to talk about. Maybe also a figure could be nice to support the reading. You also mention Bmp as a key pathway but does not explain much about it. Since it is mentioned in the short introduction, then the reader would expect that there will be more information about that specific pathway.
  • Abnormal Development is a really good section. It has a lot of references, is easy to read and understand, has the right information on the pictures, beautiful layout. I like that it gives a short understanding of the different abnormalities.

---

This page is really impressive when the hand drawn images caught my eye as well as the balanced text-to-images ratio. It is well organised and there was a decent flow throughout the page. It is useful that keywords were formatted to be in bold formatting to draw the attention of the readers to the main terms. The development timeline is very fascinating, it had a description as well as images. Summaries are well-informative as well as brief in some sections. Some images were reference properly and copyright approval was provided. Abnormal development was neatly organised into sections and appropriate journal articles for evidence. However, there are a few abnormalities that did not feature an image to provide more visual aid to the readers.

The 'Alveolus' was left in bold format while the rest were in normal format, this could be easily changed in the edit page. The hand drawn images did not provide a reference where it was based off. Also, one of the images has a very low resolution ("This image is a stylised typical developmental branching pattern over time in a lung bud."). The images should be encased in boxes and a label underneath would be neater. Laboratory results from the animal models would be useful to see. The lung histology section didn't provide any references. The movies section disrupts the flow of the sections, it might be best to place them at the bottom of the page.

This page seems like it is almost complete.

Revise the reference list. Some were left as links and the overall reference formatting was inconsistent. Some were left as APA format and some were left in another format. There was a cite error in one of the references as well.