CS382:Reviewers Notes: Difference between revisions

From Earlham CS Department
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← Older editNewer edit →
Mclauia (talk | contribs)
nsGradingDEL, nsGradingRW, nsGrading_TalkDE, nsGrading_TalkRW
110 edits
No edit summary
Charliep (talk | contribs)
Bureaucrats, nsAppliedGroupsD, nsAppliedGroupsR, nsAppliedGroups_, nsCS382DEL, nsCS382RW, nsCS382_TalkDEL, nsCS382_TalkRW, nsDepartmentDEL, nsDepartmentRW, nsDepartment_Tal, nsFundingDEL, nsFundingRW, nsFunding_TalkDE, nsFunding_TalkRW, nsGradingDEL, nsGradingRW, nsGrading_TalkDE, nsGrading_TalkRW, Administrators
1,991 edits
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
*ready for review: reviewers go in, make comments, add a custom reviewer tag, then when the time comes for them to make revisions, we can compare the latest reviewed version with the latest version
General process for the first draft review:
**"Fuck all of that!"
* Use copy and paste to insert comments into each unit.
*use copy and paste to insert comments, screw a numbering system
* Whenever we make a review comment on a page, add the "Reviewer" tag so that the wiki can track comments for us.
*whenever we make a review comment on a page, add "Reviewer" tag or whatever so that the wiki versioning does the work for us
* Charlie will take care of tracking when things are turned-in and deducting points as need be.
*Charlie will take care of who is late etc
* Reviewer colors - Ian = slategray, Charlie = red, Kay = ?
*reviewers will each take "some color"


GRADING
Review checklist for the first draft review:
*completeness check
* completeness check WRT the assignment page
**is each item addressed with more than a header?
**is each item addressed with more than a header?
*layout, does this show clear thinking about the presentation? will this develop  
*layout, does this show clear thinking about the presentation? will this develop  
Line 14: Line 13:
**is there enough, too much
**is there enough, too much
**is it at the right level
**is it at the right level
**FOR RELEASE 2
 
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
***be specific about exactly which sections of material in what order should be read
***background reading for teachers?
***background reading for teachers?

Revision as of 13:50, 25 February 2009

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 = ?

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

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
Retrieved from "https://wiki.cs.earlham.edu/index.php?title=CS382:Reviewers_Notes&oldid=7936"