CS382:Reviewers Notes

From Earlham CS Department
Revision as of 09:50, 25 February 2009 by Charliep (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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