CS382:Reviewers Notes: Difference between revisions

From Earlham CS Department
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Mclauia (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Charliep (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
== Second Pass Notes ==
* Each of the reviewers (Ian, Kay, Charlie) will review 6 units; Kay starts with What's a Model, Ian with Visualization, and Charlie Agent Based. 
* All of our comments should go in-line in the unit's wiki page using the appropriate color.  Let's not also send them an email with additional comments. 
* We should be finished reviewing the second drafts by Friday March 13th.
* Use the unit template as a guideline - 0, 1, 2 points for each top-level heading (not home, somewhat viable, seems reasonable)
* Have they addressed all comments? (Class wiki, unit wiki, emailed notes)
* Review the lab section closely, this will be the focus of the next draft.  Are the process and the outcomes specified clearly?  Materials?
* Do all the questions have answers?  CRS and quiz questions?
* Completeness check WRT the assignment page
* Is the reading section broken-down?  Are the particular sections to be read identified?
* Lecture notes: is what needs to be taught adequately outlined?  At least so the teacher knows what needs to be covered?
== First Pass Notes ==
For everyone (mostly):
For everyone (mostly):
* Make sure you have an abstract, and overview of the unit's intent and purpose
* Make sure you have an abstract, and overview of the unit's intent and purpose
Line 18: Line 31:
**is there enough, too much
**is there enough, too much
**is it at the right level
**is it at the right level
Review checklist for the second draft review:
* completeness check WRT the assignment page
***be specific about exactly which sections of material in what order should be read
***background reading for teachers?
***be specific about WHO is supposed to read this
****two categories of reading?
****three? teacher, student, reference?
****ask them to break down the readings into this framework
*lecture notes: is what needs to be taught adequately outlined? at least so the teacher knows what needs to be covered?
*scheduling is the architects' jobs

Revision as of 10:59, 10 March 2009

Second Pass Notes

  • Each of the reviewers (Ian, Kay, Charlie) will review 6 units; Kay starts with What's a Model, Ian with Visualization, and Charlie Agent Based.
  • All of our comments should go in-line in the unit's wiki page using the appropriate color. Let's not also send them an email with additional comments.
  • We should be finished reviewing the second drafts by Friday March 13th.
  • Use the unit template as a guideline - 0, 1, 2 points for each top-level heading (not home, somewhat viable, seems reasonable)
  • Have they addressed all comments? (Class wiki, unit wiki, emailed notes)
  • Review the lab section closely, this will be the focus of the next draft. Are the process and the outcomes specified clearly? Materials?
  • Do all the questions have answers? CRS and quiz questions?
  • Completeness check WRT the assignment page
  • Is the reading section broken-down? Are the particular sections to be read identified?
  • Lecture notes: is what needs to be taught adequately outlined? At least so the teacher knows what needs to be covered?

First Pass Notes

For everyone (mostly):

  • Make sure you have an abstract, and overview of the unit's intent and purpose
  • Draw up estimates of the cost of your unit for the worst case scenario (80 students)
  • Questions? Silly? Too hard?

General process for the first draft review:

  • Use copy and paste to insert comments into each unit.
  • Whenever we make a review comment on a page, add the "Reviewer" tag so that the wiki can track comments for us.
  • Charlie will take care of tracking when things are turned-in and deducting points as need be.
  • Reviewer colors - Ian = slategray, Charlie = red, Kay = blue, Dylan = green

Review checklist for the first draft review:

  • completeness check WRT the assignment page
    • is each item addressed with more than a header?
  • layout, does this show clear thinking about the presentation? will this develop
  • read background reading, make sure they make sense and are relevant
    • is it reasonable
    • is there enough, too much
    • is it at the right level