CS295J/Assignments.11: Difference between revisions
< CS295J
Jenna Zeigen (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Jenna Zeigen (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
* be prepared to have the group critique your revised response in class Tuesday | * be prepared to have the group critique your revised response in class Tuesday | ||
* by Monday noon add at least three papers to the literature page. The three should be relevant to a reviewer response. They might help establish a point that wasn't clear to the reviewers, provide evidence that some risky part is feasible, or be a basis for some additional preliminary work that could be added to the proposal. Summarize this relevance in the comments for each of the three papers. | * by Monday noon add at least three papers to the literature page. The three should be relevant to a reviewer response. They might help establish a point that wasn't clear to the reviewers, provide evidence that some risky part is feasible, or be a basis for some additional preliminary work that could be added to the proposal. Summarize this relevance in the comments for each of the three papers. | ||
* by Tuesday class select one of the three to own and put on the [[CS295J/Literature to read for class 4.11]] | * by Tuesday class select one of the three to own and put on the [[CS295J/Literature to read for class 4.11|Literature to read for class 4]] | ||
* by Thursday class be prepared to spend 1-2 minutes reminding us about the paper you own and explaining the relationship to a revised proposal. | * by Thursday class be prepared to spend 1-2 minutes reminding us about the paper you own and explaining the relationship to a revised proposal. | ||
* by Thursday class read and be prepared to discuss all of the readings | * by Thursday class read and be prepared to discuss all of the readings | ||
Revision as of 18:21, 26 September 2011
Assignment 3 (out 23 sep 2011, several due dates through 29 sep 2011)
- pair up with someone in class and critique each others draft reviewer response
- revise your draft reviewer response to address the critique, which might include issues of clarity, appropriateness of a technique, significance, risk, etc.
- be prepared to have the group critique your revised response in class Tuesday
- by Monday noon add at least three papers to the literature page. The three should be relevant to a reviewer response. They might help establish a point that wasn't clear to the reviewers, provide evidence that some risky part is feasible, or be a basis for some additional preliminary work that could be added to the proposal. Summarize this relevance in the comments for each of the three papers.
- by Tuesday class select one of the three to own and put on the Literature to read for class 4
- by Thursday class be prepared to spend 1-2 minutes reminding us about the paper you own and explaining the relationship to a revised proposal.
- by Thursday class read and be prepared to discuss all of the readings
Assignment 2 (out 15 sep 2011, several due dates through 22 sep 2011)
- find readings that develop some of the areas we read about in the first group of papers
- by Monday noon add new readings to big literature page. If you've got a tentative summary evaluation, go ahead and add it. It's ok to edit folks' summary evaluations, but try to make the result more accurate or precise without losing information.
- by Tuesday class finish with tentative summary evaluations of your new readings and also "own" at least one as-relevant-as-possible reading as yours. Put into Literature to read for week 3
- by Thursday class -- author a summary description, less than 250 words, in the wiki of how the reading you own relates to our project. Be prepared to describe, in two (2!) minutes, how your reading relates to the project. Also be prepared for everyone in class to discuss your description. You may bring notes for yourself, but no slides. The wiki page for your reading will be displayed while you talk.
- by Thursday class -- read and be prepared to discuss all of the other readings (for an appropriate definition of "read")
- by Thursday class read proposal and pre-proposal reviews, identify a significant criticism, and draft a short response. Make it short enough that you can write it on the board during class. Please add to Response to Reviewers
Assignment 1 (out 8 sep 2011, several due dates through 15 sep 2011)
- spend 10 hours adding to any part of the wiki you think is relevant
- read both Research proposal before proposals.
- by Monday noon add new readings. If you've got a tentative summary evaluation, go ahead and add it. It's ok to edit folks summary evaluations, but try to make the result more accurate or precise without losing information.
- by Tuesday class finish with tentative summary evaluations of your new readings and also identify at least one as-relevant-as-possible reading as yours. This can be one of the new readings you added or something someone else doesn't own. Put your name on that entry in the reading list as the "owner" so that there are no duplicates.
- by Wednesday 5pm -- select 2 additional relevant readings that are owned and that you will read by class Thursday and be prepared to discuss. Put your name as a "discussant" in the reading list; there should be a max of two discussants per reading.
- by Thursday class -- author a summary description, less than 250 words, in the wiki of how the reading you own relates to our project. Be prepared to describe, in two (2!) minutes, how your reading relates to the project. Also be prepared for everyone in class to discuss your description. You may bring notes for yourself, but no slides. The wiki page for your reading will be displayed while you talk.
- by Thursday class -- read and be prepared to discuss the other two readings you choose.
- Let me know if you have any kind of problems. You should be spending right around 8-10 hours each week -- if that's a problem, let's talk.
- The How Tos page has some tips. Edit or add as you find others.