Difference between revisions of "CS382:Reviewers Notes"

From Earlham CS Department
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(→‎Third Pass Notes)
 
(8 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
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
+
== Third Pass Notes ==
−
**"Fuck all of that!"
+
For Reviewers:
−
*use copy and paste to insert comments, screw a numbering system
+
* Protected namespace for reviewers called "Grading"
−
*whenever we make a review comment on a page, add "Reviewer" tag or whatever so that the wiki versioning does the work for us
+
* Grading page will be a matrix with the left column being the unit template outline, followed by an integer value from 0-3 for each unit for each item on the template
−
*Charlie will take care of who is late etc
+
** 0: Nothing?
−
*reviewers will each take "some color"
+
** 1: Minimal effort
 +
** 2: It's coming along...
 +
** 3: Good stuff
 +
* If the value is less than 3 for any part of a unit, comments will be written below for that section/subsection for that unit
 +
* Calendar test: Ian
 +
* Syllabus: Charlie
 +
** Copy-editing: Kay and Ian
 +
* TA tasks: pending labs' completion
 +
* (Realistic deadline: end of May)
 +
* Lab requirements should (theoretically) be in each unit.
 +
* Catalog description: [https://wiki.cs.earlham.edu/index.php/CS382:Structure-deliverables already written]?
  
−
GRADING
+
== Second Pass Notes ==
−
*completeness check
+
* 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 - <font color=darkmagenta>Ian = darkmagenta</font>, <font color=red>Charlie = red</font>, <font color=blue>Kay = blue</font>, Dylan = green
 +
 
 +
Review checklist for the first draft review:
 +
* 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 48:
 
**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
 
−
***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
 

Latest revision as of 10:51, 21 April 2009

Third Pass Notes

For Reviewers:

  • Protected namespace for reviewers called "Grading"
  • Grading page will be a matrix with the left column being the unit template outline, followed by an integer value from 0-3 for each unit for each item on the template
    • 0: Nothing?
    • 1: Minimal effort
    • 2: It's coming along...
    • 3: Good stuff
  • If the value is less than 3 for any part of a unit, comments will be written below for that section/subsection for that unit
  • Calendar test: Ian
  • Syllabus: Charlie
    • Copy-editing: Kay and Ian
  • TA tasks: pending labs' completion
  • (Realistic deadline: end of May)
  • Lab requirements should (theoretically) be in each unit.
  • Catalog description: already written?

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 = darkmagenta, 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
Retrieved from "https://wiki.cs.earlham.edu/index.php?title=CS382:Reviewers_Notes&oldid=9180"