GROUP ONLINE PROJECT ASSESSMENT TASK


Requirement:
You will work in a group of four students to identify an online media item (such as a YouTube video, advertisement, or newspaper article) in the area of neuroscience. As a group you will prepare a wiki page detailing the neuroscientific context and evaluating the quality of information in the media item. As an individual you will provide editorial review to another group's project.


Contribution to assessment:
The group online project assessment will contribute 25% to your final mark for the course.

The mark break down is as follows:
15% for the group project, as a common mark to all group members.
5% for the project review given by you as an individual to one other group.
5% for your individual participation in the group, assessed by Dr Vickery based on your editing and comments in the wiki, and by your team mates.


Due date:
The project has several stages.
1. You must form your group, and submit your topic and work plan in the wiki by
Monday, August 12 at 10 am.
2. You must have a draft of the project ready by
Monday, September 9 at 10 am.
3. You must provide review comments on your allocated project by
Monday, September 16 at 10 am.
4. The final project must be submitted by
Monday, September 23 at 10 am.
Failure to meet a deadline will incur a penalty of 5% per day.
Projects can be submitted any time before the deadline.


How to submit:
All work will be done within wikispaces http://neurosciencefundamentals.unsw.wikispaces.net/
You will receive an email invitation to join the wiki in the first week of classes.

Topic choice is indicated by creating a new wiki page that contains
  • the Topic Title
  • the Names and Student Numbers of group members
  • a Link to the media item on the page.
A work plan including division of labour, deadlines, and evidence of a face-to-face planning meeting (minutes, or a photo) should be posted in the discussion page linked to the wiki content page.

Project draft will be the state of your wiki page at the due date. Within the constraints of the site, you have freedom over how to lay out your project.

Project review comments should be made through the discussion page linked to the wiki content. You will be assigned a group to review by Dr Vickery. Post your comments by the due date, and label them clearly as “Reviewer comments on draft project by <your name>”

Final Project will be the state of your wiki page at the due date. It should include a section indicating the alterations made in response to the reviewers' feedback.

Contact Richard.Vickery@unsw.edu.au if you have any problems.


Word limit:
2500 words, excluding tables, figures and legends, references, and appendix.


Format for project:
Create a wiki entry at http://neurosciencefundamentals.unsw.wikispaces.net/ that:
  1. introduces the online media item that you have chosen;
  2. explains the neuroscientific context of the item;
  3. analyses the quality of information in the media item;
  4. includes an appendix that details the search strategy by which you identified the supporting evidence you used in your analysis, and also spells out and justifies changes made to the draft in response to the reviewers' feedback.

1. The Introduction should briefly describe the nature of the media item that you have chosen (clinical case, research data, advertisement, documentary excerpt etc) and then explain why it is of interest.

2. The neuroscientific context is where you provide the neuroscientific background to appreciate the media item by summarising the state of current knowledge relevant to the item. Sometimes it may be necessary to focus on only one aspect of a media item in order to stay within the word limit.

3. In the analysis section you should identify the target audience of the media item, determine whether the information is pitched appropriately and in an unbiased manner, and then finally assess the quality of information in the item, especially as to whether it is in accord with accepted current understanding in neuroscience.

4. The appendix should explain your search and selection strategy for all resources that you used. It should also summarise the reviewers' comments and detail how these concerns were addressed or dismissed.


Format for the review of another project:
Put your comments in the discussion page of the topic you are reviewing.
Clearly label your comments as “Reviewer comments on draft project by <your name>”.
Feedback should be in the following format:
  1. strong points
  2. weak points
  3. general suggestions for improvement (e.g. logic, complexity, content, figures)
  4. specific suggestions for improvement (e.g. typos, grammar, labels)

A short paragraph or a few dot points is required on each of these four areas.
Try and be constructive and insightful.


Marking of Project:
Introduction: 15%; Neuroscientific Context: 50%; Analysis: 25%; Appendix: 10%.

The mark for the Introduction is based on the interest and appropriateness of the selected media item, and the rationale you provide for studying that item.

The mark for Neuroscientific Context is based on you demonstrating your ability to identify the key aspects of the media item to explore, and your ability to provide a concise and up-to-date summary of the relevant areas of neuroscience. It is acceptable to limit the scope to only one or two areas of those addressed in your media item. This section should show evidence of independent research.

The mark for Analysis is based on you demonstrating an understanding of the intention of the media item and identifying its likely target audience. You must then demonstrate an ability to critically analyse the media item for the extent to which the simplifications required to deliver the message compromise the veracity of the message.

The mark for the Appendix is based on a demonstration of your ability to use search engines, and your ability to accept and incorporate feedback.

In all aspects we are looking for clarity of thinking (logical consistency, thoroughness) and clarity of expression (clear sequencing and presentation of information).


Marking of Project Review:
You will be marked by Dr Vickery based on the:
  • timeliness
  • depth
  • quality
  • constructiveness
of the advice that you offer for the topic under review.


Marking of Contribution to Group:
All members of the group are required to demonstrate a minimum level of contribution to the project. The minimum level of participation is
  • editing the wiki on at least two occasions
  • editing the wiki over more than a one week period
  • commenting on your editing activities in the history page of the wiki (when you save changes you should document why you made the changes)
  • contributing to the discussion of the topic on the wiki discussion pages

You are required to rate your own and the other group members contributions from 0-5 and add an optional comment via a Blackboard Quiz. These marks will be confidential. Dr Vickery will also look at the wiki to determine the contribution of each individual to the group. These two components will be combined to give a mark out of 5 that counts towards your final course grade.




You are required to review the draft wiki entry of another group.
The page you have been assigned will be listed below.
Put your comments in the discussion page, and clearly label your comments as “Reviewer comments on draft project by <your name>”. The format for feedback is:
  1. strong points
  2. weak points
  3. general suggestions for improvement (e.g. logic, complexity, content, figures)
  4. specific suggestions for improvement (e.g. typos, grammar, labels)
A short paragraph, or a few dot points, on each of these four points is all that is required.
Try and be constructive and insightful.
Remember that your group will have to use the feedback you receive in finalising your draft, and comment on this in the Appendix.