Template:Group Discussion MH

From CellBiology
Revision as of 22:56, 15 May 2011 by Z3254758 (talk | contribs) (Peer Assessment)

Peer Assessment

Peer review

Do I need to point out that these reviews are for Group 4, but this is the discussion page for Group 3?


  • Intro – Add ganglia to glossary? May be a labelled diagram showing the general anatomy of neuron, axon, ganglion, synaptic junction etc would be more illustrative and saves words.
  • History – has there been any discoveries after 1981?

What is a synaptic junction-Good use of diagrams and descriptions are clear and concise.

  • Types of synaptic junctions – Great summary at the end put into a table. How they function may be better illustrated by a video.
  • Synaptic Integration and Modulation – Brief description of what synaptic integration and modulation are at the beginning of the section may be helpful in providing the context to later contents. I assume that the content under subtitle “The action potential and summation” describes synaptic integration? “IPSPs or EPSPs” shouldn’t be abbreviated the first time they appear though I can see the full name in Glossary section.
  • Neurotransmitters – this section is greatly done! I like the combination of brief paragraphs, use of table and picture
  • Diseases Associated with Synaptic Junctions Dysfunctions – Medical jargons such as “substantia nigra”, ”lewy bodies” might be difficult for non-medical readers to understand. Add to the glossary in the end or links to external website may be helpful. Overall I think this section is too medical, it’ll be a great section for a med assignment but for cell biology I think there’s a bit too much information.
  • Current and Future Research and Developments – One or two more studies would be great; otherwise this section is well written and presented.


GROUP 4 REVIEW

  • Intro: Too short and needs overview of what is occurring on the page. Maybe add an image as well.
  • History: More images maybe and put the image to the right side maybe, wrapped by text, Does that make sense? Well written.
  • Structure: Great that you got permission but it doesn't need to be included at the top on the page. Maybe make a reference to it when you discuss the paper.
  • Function: Heading a little confusing i would consider revising grammar for these ie: 'Desmodome as (a) cellular adhesion junction' - needs the a included at least. Also you launch straight into this section so maybe add a little preamble as to allow the reader to follow your thoughts rather than jumping from topic to topic. The images here need to have the website added into their image page and the last image falls bellow this section.
  • Hemidesmosomes: the link here needs to be formatted with the title of the page.
  • Regulation: Images should really move to be wrapped on a side so as not to impede flow and they need copyright info and a link to the location they came from.
  • Disease: Images here need captions and to be wrapped in the text rather than creating lots of extra white space.
  • Current Research: Too short and needs more articles and research being done.
  • Images and video: Add ALL the images from the page into here otherwise it is a bit of a waste of space. Also format the link properly!
  • No glossary???


Group 4

  • Obviously, introduction=not done.
  • At least a picture is needed to draw attention of the reader.
  • History good.
  • Structure needs to be fixed (add pictures, ordering the text, right subheadings).
  • Function is good.
  • “Knock out” is a good idea.
  • Regulation section maybe a table is needed.
  • Diseases are presented good (just fix the design).
  • Current research not finished.
  • References need to be fixed.
  • Overall, not enough text in many parts of this group project, not enough pictures, not tables etc, therefore this research is not completed yet.


-there is a few of grammar mistakes and typos,like under the intro part "neurones are a specialised cell", under the subheading of what is a synaptic junction , first line,"between to nerve cells".

-the terms or text in images are hardly seen as the text is either fainted or too tiny and the page isnt resourceful enough to me.

Week 7

  • This is the week before the mid-session break.
  • In the lab this week we will have an opportunity to discuss any issues which are slowing progress on your project.
  • The Thursday of the week beginning 02 May will be when all projects will be open to Peer Assessment.
  • What you have on your page by Thursday of that week will be the content that others in the class will comment upon.

Week 6

  1. I see many groups now have subsection titles for their projects.
  2. Here are some searches: Pubmed search all databases junction | PLoS junction | JCB junction You can now simply put your own search term into each top window.
  3. Now's the time to get your images, movies, media etc uploaded. Biomed central | JCB | JCB Archive | PLoS. Once uploaded you can make a gallery on either your project or discussion page using <gallery>File:name here</gallery> tags with your image files listed between the tags. When you upload project images, add this text as it appears replacing # with your own Group number to the summary information [[Category:2011Project#]].
  4. Shown below are the criteria that will be used to assess your final project.

Group Assessment Criteria

  • The key points relating to the topic that your group was allocated are clearly described.
  • The choice of content, headings and sub-headings, diagrams, tables, graphs show a good understanding of the topic area.
  • Content is correctly cited and referenced.
  • 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.
  • Evidence of significant research relating to basic and applied sciences that goes beyond the formal teaching activities.
  • Relates the topics and content of the Wiki entry to learning aims of cell biology.
  • 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.
  • Evaluates own performance and that of group peers to give a rounded summary of this wiki process in terms of group effort and achievement.
  • 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.
  • Develops and edits the wiki entries in accordance with this sites wiki guidelines.


By Week 5

Each Group member has added to the discussion page:

  1. A Review Article
  2. A Historic Research Article
  3. A Current Research Article

No two students should add the same paper and there should be a link to the original article.