Home Up Modules Timetable Assignments Sign-Up


Colloquium HOME  
WebCT Discussion
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