Home Up Modules Timetable Assignments Sign-Up


Grad Studies   PhD Seminars Colloquium 2002
News Handbook-MEd Resources Colloquium 2003
81-503   PhD Handbook WebCT
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 must 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 a critical evaluator for three presentations ( critique the presentations) scheduled at various times.  This leads to three formal critiques overall for which you are responsible.
The three 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 about seven 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 and the presenter as e-mail attachments. The instructors will grade the critiques..

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