CH391L/S13/TopicGradingRubric

From OpenWetWare

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Initial Presentation)
Line 1: Line 1:
=== Initial Presentation ===
=== Initial Presentation ===
-
'''Topic Page: Text'''
+
'''Wiki Page'''
-
{| cellpadding="4"
+
 
-
|- bgcolor="lightgray"
+
* '''Introduction''' -  
-
| Points || Description
+
* '''Background for selected paper'''
-
|-
+
* '''Synthesis/Evaluation''' -  
-
| 9-10 || Text is well-written, edited, and logically organized into sections: introduction, topics, future directions, references. Length ~1000 words.
+
* '''References''' - ''At least 5 total appropriate sources cited. At least 3 of these must be primary scientific literature (not reviews or popular science articles).''
-
|-
+
* '''Images''' - '' Include at least 2 graphics.
-
| 7-8 || Text has some gaps in logic or is incomplete in minor points or is not of sufficient detail.
+
* '''iGEM connection'' - ''Describes a part or proposal from at least one past iGEM team with a link to their website.''
-
|-
+
 
-
| 4-6 || Significant formatting or grammatical errors and gaps in logic that prevent understanding. Text is significantly shorter (~600 words or less) than requirement.
+
How appropriate are the scientific papers and other sources that were chosen for discussion?''
-
|-
+
 
-
| 1-3 || Major errors and gaps in logic. Text is nearly incomprehensible or very short.
+
 
-
|-
+
* '''Sources (40 pts)''' - ''How appropriate are the scientific papers and other sources that were chosen for discussion?''
-
| 0 || Topic page not attempted.
+
**Sources should generally be comprehensive, recent, important, or classic papers. Research until you find the key paper. Do not be satisfied with just any paper.
-
|- bgcolor="lightgray"
+
**Often these will be in high profile journals (Science, Nature, PNAS for primary sources and Annual Reviews or Nature Reviews for review articles) or they might be highly cited papers, which you can check using Web of Science.
-
| 10 || Points Possible
+
* '''Content (150 pts)''' - ''Does the page summarize the important issues and points in the sources?''
-
|}
+
* '''Formatting and Organization (30 pts)''' - ''Was appropriate Wiki markup used? Were useful figures included in the page? Is the overall organization of content in the page effective?''
 +
* '''Topic updates (40 pts)''' -  ''Are there appropriate responses to comments on the Talk page? Was the topic updated in response to criticism and questions?''
 +
* '''Synthesis and evaluation (40 pts)''' - ''How well does the page synthesize the major topics discussed in the papers and evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of a technique, part, or system?''
 +
'''Presentation (200 pts)'''
 +
* '''Content  (80 pts)''' - ''Does the presentation communicate the key points of content on the web pages and add additional interesting details?''
 +
* '''Organization  (40 pts)''' - ''Does the presentation concisely communicate the key points in a logical order? Is the presenter an effective and engaging speaker?''
 +
* '''Responses to questions (40 pts)''' - ''How well does the speaker show that they have a mastery of the topic when responding to questions?''
 +
* '''Topic updates (40 pts)''' - ''Does the presenter concisely describe their important edits and the reasons for these edits to the rest of the class?''
 +
'''Total 500 pts'''
'''For topic updates, you are expected to expand the text by ~1000 words while preserving the logical flow and correcting factual points in the existing text.'''
'''For topic updates, you are expected to expand the text by ~1000 words while preserving the logical flow and correcting factual points in the existing text.'''

Revision as of 11:32, 23 January 2013

Initial Presentation

Wiki Page

  • Introduction -
  • Background for selected paper
  • Synthesis/Evaluation -
  • References - At least 5 total appropriate sources cited. At least 3 of these must be primary scientific literature (not reviews or popular science articles).
  • Images - Include at least 2 graphics.
  • 'iGEM connection - Describes a part or proposal from at least one past iGEM team with a link to their website.

How appropriate are the scientific papers and other sources that were chosen for discussion?


  • Sources (40 pts) - How appropriate are the scientific papers and other sources that were chosen for discussion?
    • Sources should generally be comprehensive, recent, important, or classic papers. Research until you find the key paper. Do not be satisfied with just any paper.
    • Often these will be in high profile journals (Science, Nature, PNAS for primary sources and Annual Reviews or Nature Reviews for review articles) or they might be highly cited papers, which you can check using Web of Science.
  • Content (150 pts) - Does the page summarize the important issues and points in the sources?
  • Formatting and Organization (30 pts) - Was appropriate Wiki markup used? Were useful figures included in the page? Is the overall organization of content in the page effective?
  • Topic updates (40 pts) - Are there appropriate responses to comments on the Talk page? Was the topic updated in response to criticism and questions?
  • Synthesis and evaluation (40 pts) - How well does the page synthesize the major topics discussed in the papers and evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of a technique, part, or system?

Presentation (200 pts)

  • Content (80 pts) - Does the presentation communicate the key points of content on the web pages and add additional interesting details?
  • Organization (40 pts) - Does the presentation concisely communicate the key points in a logical order? Is the presenter an effective and engaging speaker?
  • Responses to questions (40 pts) - How well does the speaker show that they have a mastery of the topic when responding to questions?
  • Topic updates (40 pts) - Does the presenter concisely describe their important edits and the reasons for these edits to the rest of the class?

Total 500 pts

For topic updates, you are expected to expand the text by ~1000 words while preserving the logical flow and correcting factual points in the existing text.

Topic Updates / Highlighted Paper

Class Participation

Personal tools