COMP 504 Fall 2015	Communications Assignments General Guidelines

The following are evaluation criteria that apply to ALL communications assignments:

• Answering the Question -- Does the discussion directly and completely address the question put forth by the assignment?
• Specificity -- Is the discussion being specific and focussed or is it vague and overly generalized?
• Clarity -- Is the presented discussion explained in a manner that is easily understood or is it confusing or poorly worded?
• Completeness --  Are the presented issues completely covered by the presented discussion or are there holes and/or gaps in material or important parts of the discussion that are missing?
• References -- Are proper references provided for facts, ideas, concepts, etc that are either not original to the author or would not be obvious to the reader?

Examples of software code are NOT acceptible as "real world" examples!

Remember you are bound by the Rice Honor Code for all assignments.   Amongst other things, this means

• You may not copy any discussions from another student for the current assignment though you may reference a discussion from a previous assignment.
• While you are free to discuss the issues with your classmates, any submitted work must be the sole product of you and your partner(s), if any.  
• All ideas, concepts and facts from outside sources must be properly acknowledged and referenced, e.g. explicitly identified plus with a hyperlink to the original source.

Suggestions:

• Longer != Better  -- Short, concise and specific is always better than long, vague and confusing.    Most discussions should be between 1/2 to 1 page long, though some may be longer.
• Ask for help!    -- If you are having trouble with coming up with the right wording or are not sure how to approach the question, ask your fellow classmates and the staff!

Recommended!   Here's a great article on learning how to spot fallscies in arguments:  http://www.fromquarkstoquasars.com/heres-fallacy-handy-guide-bad-arguments/  (Local copy of logical fallacies poster -- See https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ for easier reading of the individual fallacies.) (The "Red Flags of Quackery" poster is from the sci-ence.org site -- the somewhat NSFW video is most entertaining even if you disagree with it!)      [Disclaimer:  This post is strictly for information, entertainment and to stimulate discussions on the topics.  In no way is this posting a statement advocating that students are expected to believe in or follow the opinions expressed in the linked materials.   My apologies in advance to anyone offended by the less-than-politically-correct presentations of some the authors' opinions.  My hope is for everyone to simply take these materials in thought-provoking fun.]

Peer Review Guidelines

Peer reviews are ALWAYS due within 48 hours after the assignment to be reviewed was due. 

Fundamentally, the purpose of the peer review is to provide feedback on the assignment criteria above.   Each team is assigned to review 2-3 submissions from the previous assignment.   Peer reviews should be done as a team.  

A peer review should include feedback, positive or negative, on ALL 5 criteria above.

Comments can be placed anywhere in the text and all comments should

• Be in the assigned color.
• Be prefaced with the team's netid's, e.g. "[netid1, netid2]"  or if only the comment is only from one of the team members, just "[netid]"

The following should be part of any peer  review:

• Praise for any parts that are well done.  Be specific!  Simply saying "Good job!" is not helpful.  Instead, say something more like, "The part on [...] was very helpful and clear because of the way that you [...]"
• Be specific in your comments.  Simply saying something vague like  "Looks good" is NOT acceptible!
• Helpful suggestions for improvement.  Once again, be specific.   Don't just say "That was confusing!"  It is much more helpful to say something akin to "The part on [...] was [confusing/misleading/difficult to understand] because of where you said [...] was [incorrect because of/missing a description of/etc] this reason [...]"

At the bottom of every peer review, the each peer review team should give a score from 0-20 pts for the review, based on the following guidelines:

• 18 pts - 20 pts :  one or two minor issues
• 16 pts - 18 pts :   one or two major issues
• 14 pts - 16 pts :  three or four major issues
• 12 pts - 14 pts : five to six major issues
• 8 pts - 12 pts : an unacceptible review because of too many problems
• 1 pt - 8 pts : for submitting something that is clearly an attempt of some sort
• 0 pts : for a submission is or is effectively missing

It is left to the reviewers' discretion as to what constitutes a "major" vs. "minor" issue -- something that should be well clarified by the feedback comments.

The final communications assignment score will be calculated by averaging the peer review scores with a staff-assigned score.

Peer reviews of the previous Communications assignment are due at the same time as the current Communications assignment!

© 2015 by Stephen Wong