Wednesday, October 31, 2007

Project Poster Deliverables(starts 11/19)

1. Making sense to yourself – Visually organize your ideas, key concepts or sources. Metaphorically and literally, piecing together the puzzle that is your project. This is a formal analysis and organization of your project, to the best of your abilities.
2. Making sense to others – clearly represent and communicate your work to your peers and me.
3. Soliciting feedback – this is your opportunity to pose questions to your peers and me (2) and receive written feedback on improving your work.

>You’ll get 2-3min to briefly introduce your topic to the class (projector optional, must be prep’d before class time if you choose to use it.)
>You’ll be standing by your poster, providing more detailed descriptions to rotating groups of your peers. They will have a form to fill out to provide detailed feedback to your project, as well as answer the questions you posed.

Your poster should be able to answer these questions at a glance:
>What's your research question?
>What are the core ideas, concepts, or issues associated w/ the question?
>Who are the key authors/works supporting those core concepts?
>What connections or relationships, if any, exist between the main question and the core ideas, or between the core ideas?

Monday, October 29, 2007

this weds

The social networking grp did not get the full hr on monday, so they'll have a few more min at the start of the class to use. Everything else as usual, I need to see the grps going next week either before or after class. A note on Q & A's, you need to manage them, however you choose to. Either take them during the session, or ask audience to hold a particular, or all questions till the end, main thing is that it should be managed in some form (facilitation).

For the audience

Everyone present in class, need to respond to the following (notecards will be available, write legibly):
Your name, today's grp,

3 sentence constructive criticism: "..."

On a scale of 1 to 7 (1-poor, 2-fair, 3-passable, 4-works, 5-good, 6-excellent, 7-superb), indicate to what degree you agree with each statement.

a) Substance of the material: "The topic was cohesive, substantial, with good breadth and depth in the coverage."
b) Clarity and delivery: "I got the points they were communicating."
c) Interest/coolness/intrigue factor: "They opened my eyes on this topic area. I honestly did want to hear what they have to say vs. the urge to check my email."
d) Discussion: "The discussion was informative, and they handled questions well."
e) "I learned a great deal from this session on the topic."

*How to give good constructive criticism*
The sandwich rule, be very very specific on the points, and sincere,

>Opening compliment - "The case examples meshed exceedingly well with the points on the real concern for privacy and exploitation."
>Specific critique - "The relationship between personal expectations to privacy vs. the existing legislation on the area was unclear. The transitioning between the major points was a bit confusing, it may have been due to the number of technical terms that I'm not familiar with."
>Closing, positive statement - "I'm impressed with how well the questions were handled, especially in connecting relevant data in addressing the questions on the recent court cases."

*How not to give constructive criticism*
"Good job on the presentation. You guys should have been more prepared. Slides look pretty."
"Interesting case examples. You lost me half way through the session. I liked the last part."