|
Colloquium HOME |
|
| |
| |
| WebCT Discussion |
 |
|
 |
|
| Assignments: |
1. Distance
Presentation (40%)
|
On-line
but Colloquium-Style Presentation (Examples
include--Postings in the form of (1) Web Pages, (2) Links to
Personal Web Pages, (3) E-Mail Attachment of a Paper, (4) PowerPoint
Attachment, (5) Video via Mail, (6) CD with Relevant Files via Mail,
(7) Video Conference set up by Participant, (8) Poster,
(9) Creative Alternative... and so on.) The presentation could rely upon a single
format or any combination of formats that facilitate communication.
|
| The content should be related to the development of your dissertation proposal.
We do realize, however, that the valid dissertation proposal is developed
in collaboration with your dissertation committee. |
|
| 2. Critical Adjudicator (40%) |
|
|
|
| On-line
Colloquium-Style Critic (Responsible to function as part of
a four-member panel (twice) to critique the presentations scheduled
for a particular week, and to lead the on-line discussion threads,
chats, etc., for that week. Since there are typically two
presenters each week the critic will be preparing two critiques when
a "critical panel" member. This leads to four critiques overall for
which you are responsible. |
| The four critiques/reports are
submitted to the instructors, for evaluation purposes. Each report
would be submitted to the relevant presenter as well. (Ideally the
critiques would be less than 10
pages each--say 2000 words maximum). Aim for quality not quantity. |
|
| 3. On-line
Participant (20%) |
|
On-line Colloquium-Style Participant (Quantity and
quality of on-line discussion, questioning, suggestions, etc. in
discussion threads, e-mail, chat rooms, postings, attachments, etc.
|
| Assigned readings may also be
required to address emerging knowledge gaps, and/or to facilitate
high-quality, on-line discussion. |
|
|
|
| |
|
Guidelines for Critics:
In preparing the approximately 7-page (2000 words
maximum) critique for each presenter you should draw on: (1) your own
expertise with respect to the topic, research design and research
issues, (2) the relevant information presented by others in the
discussion threads, (3) earlier discussions that may have introduced
relevant information, and (4) additional references or resources that
you use when constructing your critique.
The critique should be constructive—pointing to
both the positive and negative elements in the presentation. It should
alert the researcher to potential problems, flag real problems, and
suggest possible alternative considerations and resources.
The critiques are NOT posted on the Web Site. They
are sent to the instructors as an e-mail attachment. The instructors
will grade the critiques, remove the critic’s name and then forward the
“blind review” (i.e., each critique) to the relevant presenters for
their use.
The critiques would be due two-weeks after the week
the presenter presents his or her colloquium. |
|
Typical Reviewer
Considerations: (e.g.,
CJE uses these criteria)
Scholarship - Is the author's work accurate and thorough?
Originality - Is the work distinctive?
Timeliness - Is the work current?
Lucidity - Is the author clear in what s/he is trying to say?
Methodology - Is the design of the study appropriate?
Lit Review
Adequacy of references
Appeal - Does the work invite a wide readership?
References - relate directly to presentation
Style - uses new APA style guide |
|
Other possible considerations:
Data collection procedures
Data reduction procedures
Discussion and interpretation of findings |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
