Difference between revisions of "Talk:2016 Group 6 Project"

From CellBiology
Line 1: Line 1:
====Suggestions for subtopic====
 
 
z5105710: T Regulatory Cells: I
 
 
z3465531: T Regulatory Cells would be good. Red Blood Cell, Neutrophil, Eosinophil, Basophil, or Monocyte/Macrophage would be great because they always seem to be relevant to our studies. I'l be happy to go with whatever the group decides.
 
 
z5018866: I am more than happy to do T regulatory cells, as it would be great to do a topic that someone has a particular interest in. If there isn't enough on t reg cells alone we could maybe do T cells as a whole and z5105710 you could potentially focus on your interest of t reg cells.
 
 
z3329177: I'm happy with the topic, because there are many of articles about t-cells that we can access. For the T-Regulatory cells, i think that it is interesting topic, but i will need to learn more about it to be honest.
 
 
====Reminders====
 
Do not cite a review article has having findings. "As reviewed by" is more appropriate terminology.
 
 
At least 1 image on the page should be a student drawn image (e.g flow diagram, power point slide of the cell structure).
 
 
Remember to give all uploaded content an appropriate name.
 
 
Any time that you see nomenclature in an article that is not the current nomenclature (eg. MSDS instead of SDS), that means the article is old and should not be used.
 
 
Avoid add unnecessary detail explaining biological processes that not directly related to the topic (e.g. the description of translation in Group 1 2015)
 
 
It might be a good idea to add "additional information" collapsible boxes (as in Group 3 2015)
 
  
 
====Week 4====
 
====Week 4====
Line 69: Line 47:
  
 
Gamma delta T cells -
 
Gamma delta T cells -
 +
 +
====Suggestions for subtopic====
 +
 +
z5105710: T Regulatory Cells: I
 +
 +
z3465531: T Regulatory Cells would be good. Red Blood Cell, Neutrophil, Eosinophil, Basophil, or Monocyte/Macrophage would be great because they always seem to be relevant to our studies. I'l be happy to go with whatever the group decides.
 +
 +
z5018866: I am more than happy to do T regulatory cells, as it would be great to do a topic that someone has a particular interest in. If there isn't enough on t reg cells alone we could maybe do T cells as a whole and z5105710 you could potentially focus on your interest of t reg cells.
 +
 +
z3329177: I'm happy with the topic, because there are many of articles about t-cells that we can access. For the T-Regulatory cells, i think that it is interesting topic, but i will need to learn more about it to be honest.
 +
 +
====Reminders====
 +
Do not cite a review article has having findings. "As reviewed by" is more appropriate terminology.
 +
 +
At least 1 image on the page should be a student drawn image (e.g flow diagram, power point slide of the cell structure).
 +
 +
Remember to give all uploaded content an appropriate name.
 +
 +
Any time that you see nomenclature in an article that is not the current nomenclature (eg. MSDS instead of SDS), that means the article is old and should not be used.
 +
 +
Avoid add unnecessary detail explaining biological processes that not directly related to the topic (e.g. the description of translation in Group 1 2015)
 +
 +
It might be a good idea to add "additional information" collapsible boxes (as in Group 3 2015)
  
 
{{2016 Project discussion}}
 
{{2016 Project discussion}}
  
 
[[2016_Group_6_Project|Group 6]]: [[User:Z5018866]] | [[User:Z3329177]] | [[User:Z3465531]] | [[User:Z5105710]]
 
[[2016_Group_6_Project|Group 6]]: [[User:Z5018866]] | [[User:Z3329177]] | [[User:Z3465531]] | [[User:Z5105710]]

Revision as of 14:45, 24 March 2016

Week 4

Z3465531 (talk) 15:41, 24 March 2016 (AEDT) Hi Everyone, I apologize again that I will not be able to meet tomorrow to discuss the outline. I am definitely available by phone or skype after 5 pm or perhaps for I could step away for 15 minutes during work if you shoot me a message. I have looked at the feedback for the other projects that were done in 2015, and I think we should be have an outline that looks something like the following:

-Banner Heading (as in Group 1 2015)

-Introduction (as in Group 1 2015, or with timeline graphic as in group 4 with internal referencing, or video as in group 5, careful with citing though) Be sure to cite textbook if used

-History (Emphasizing research techniques)

-Types of T Lymphocytes

-Structure (as in Group 1 2015)

-Function

-Malfunction of T-lymphcyes – investigation of T-Lymphocyte malfunction as a causative agent of disease

-Current Research – (Possibly switched in order with clinical significance, we’ll see how it feels, good example Group 5 2015 with collapsible tables) -

-Clinical Significance (as in Group 3 2015)

-Future Directions (Possibly unify this with the conclusion? Plenty of examples)

-Conclusion (closing section)

-Glossary (as in Group 1 2015)

What does everyone think?


Division of Topics:

Helper - z3329177

Cytotoxic -

Memory - z3465531

Suppressor - z5105710

Natural killer

Mucosal associated invariant

Gamma delta T cells -

Suggestions for subtopic

z5105710: T Regulatory Cells: I

z3465531: T Regulatory Cells would be good. Red Blood Cell, Neutrophil, Eosinophil, Basophil, or Monocyte/Macrophage would be great because they always seem to be relevant to our studies. I'l be happy to go with whatever the group decides.

z5018866: I am more than happy to do T regulatory cells, as it would be great to do a topic that someone has a particular interest in. If there isn't enough on t reg cells alone we could maybe do T cells as a whole and z5105710 you could potentially focus on your interest of t reg cells.

z3329177: I'm happy with the topic, because there are many of articles about t-cells that we can access. For the T-Regulatory cells, i think that it is interesting topic, but i will need to learn more about it to be honest.

Reminders

Do not cite a review article has having findings. "As reviewed by" is more appropriate terminology.

At least 1 image on the page should be a student drawn image (e.g flow diagram, power point slide of the cell structure).

Remember to give all uploaded content an appropriate name.

Any time that you see nomenclature in an article that is not the current nomenclature (eg. MSDS instead of SDS), that means the article is old and should not be used.

Avoid add unnecessary detail explaining biological processes that not directly related to the topic (e.g. the description of translation in Group 1 2015)

It might be a good idea to add "additional information" collapsible boxes (as in Group 3 2015)


2016 Projects: Group 1 | Group 2 | Group 3 | Group 4 | Group 5 | Group 6 | Group 7
Group Projects - Blood Cell Biology - Updated 21 April  
This year's main topic is Blood Cell Biology. Each group should discuss with group members the specific sub-topic that will be covered by their project.

Here is a list of some of the cell types (Structure and Function)

PuMed citations PuMed Central citations PuMed Central note
Note - that while full publications are available online at PuMed Central, not all these publications allow reuse. You should still always identify the copyright statement within the actual article that allows reuse. Many research labs that receive government grants are required to make their published research available on PMC, this does not mean that the publicly available copy content can be used in your projects.

Remember - No easily identifiable statement usually means that you cannot reuse.


Examples from Megakaryocyte references on PubMed Central

Embryology - content cannot be reused but a useful resource about cell development.

Histology - images these can be reused in your projects.

Group Assessment Criteria  

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 cell biology.
  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.

Group 6: User:Z5018866 | User:Z3329177 | User:Z3465531 | User:Z5105710