CH391L/S13/TopicGradingRubric

From OpenWetWare

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Initial Presentation)
Line 1: Line 1:
=== Initial Presentation ===
=== Initial Presentation ===
-
'''Wiki Page'''
+
Possible values for these assignments intentionally add up to more than the total number of possible points. Topics and effective approaches to researching and presenting them will be different, so this gives you multiple routes to get full credit by excelling at some aspects of the assignment and neglecting others to some extent.
-
* '''Introduction''' -
+
'''Wiki Page (12 total pts)'''
-
* '''Background for selected paper'''
+
* '''Introduction (1 pt)''' - ''Give a general introduction to the topic. What is the big-picture motivation for studying this topic?
-
* '''Synthesis/Evaluation''' -  
+
* '''Content (3 pts)''' - ''Describe the history or experiments specifically leading to the highlighted paper.
-
* '''References''' - ''At least 5 total appropriate sources cited. At least 3 of these must be primary scientific literature (not reviews or popular science articles).''
+
* '''Background (1 pts)''' - ''Describe the history or experiments specifically leading to the highlighted paper.  
-
* '''Images''' - '' Include at least 2 graphics.
+
* '''Highlighted paper (1 pt)''' - ''Describe the major results selected paper''
-
* '''iGEM connection'' - ''Describes a part or proposal from at least one past iGEM team with a link to their website.''
+
* '''Summary/Future Directions (2 pts)''' - '''Evaluate the overall implications of the studies you cite. Compare/contrast the merits of different experimental approaches or studies. Describe the implications of the research for society. Speculate about the future directions of the field. Make connections to other topics.'''
-
 
+
* '''References (2 pts)''' - ''Cite at least 5 total sources in References section of the page. At least 3 of these must be from the primary literature (The highlighted paper can count for 1 of these 3). Additional references may be review articles, popular science articles, or web pages (if the web pages have significant related content).
-
How appropriate are the scientific papers and other sources that were chosen for discussion?''
+
* '''Images (1 pt)''' - ''Include at least 2 graphics on the Wiki page. These may be drawn from papers or the web at large, but be sure they have appropriate usage rights for re-posting. For potential extra credit they may be original images that you produce.''
-
 
+
* '''iGEM connection (1 pt)'' - ''Describes a part or proposal from at least one past iGEM team with a link to their website.''
-
 
+
'''Presentation (8 total pts)'''
-
* '''Sources (40 pts)''' - ''How appropriate are the scientific papers and other sources that were chosen for discussion?''
+
* '''Organization (2 pt)''' - ''''
-
**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.
+
* '''Background for selected paper (1 pt)''' - ''''
-
**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.
+
* '''Time Management (1 pt)''' - ''Include at least 2 graphics''
-
* '''Content (150 pts)''' - ''Does the page summarize the important issues and points in the sources?''
+
* '''Multimedia'''
-
* '''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?''
+
* '''Responses to questions (2 pts)''' - ''How well does the speaker show that they have a mastery of the topic when responding to questions?''
-
* '''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.'''
-
=== Topic Updates / Highlighted Paper ===
+
=== Topic Updates ===
=== Class Participation ===
=== Class Participation ===

Revision as of 13:18, 23 January 2013

Initial Presentation

Possible values for these assignments intentionally add up to more than the total number of possible points. Topics and effective approaches to researching and presenting them will be different, so this gives you multiple routes to get full credit by excelling at some aspects of the assignment and neglecting others to some extent.

Wiki Page (12 total pts)

  • Introduction (1 pt) - Give a general introduction to the topic. What is the big-picture motivation for studying this topic?
  • Content (3 pts) - Describe the history or experiments specifically leading to the highlighted paper.
  • Background (1 pts) - Describe the history or experiments specifically leading to the highlighted paper.
  • Highlighted paper (1 pt) - Describe the major results selected paper
  • Summary/Future Directions (2 pts) - Evaluate the overall implications of the studies you cite. Compare/contrast the merits of different experimental approaches or studies. Describe the implications of the research for society. Speculate about the future directions of the field. Make connections to other topics.
  • References (2 pts) - Cite at least 5 total sources in References section of the page. At least 3 of these must be from the primary literature (The highlighted paper can count for 1 of these 3). Additional references may be review articles, popular science articles, or web pages (if the web pages have significant related content).
  • Images (1 pt) - Include at least 2 graphics on the Wiki page. These may be drawn from papers or the web at large, but be sure they have appropriate usage rights for re-posting. For potential extra credit they may be original images that you produce.
  • 'iGEM connection (1 pt) - Describes a part or proposal from at least one past iGEM team with a link to their website.

Presentation (8 total pts)

  • Organization (2 pt) - '
  • Background for selected paper (1 pt) - '
  • Time Management (1 pt) - Include at least 2 graphics
  • Multimedia
  • Responses to questions (2 pts) - How well does the speaker show that they have a mastery of the topic when responding to questions?

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

Class Participation

Personal tools