|
Page last edited by Kristian Mølhave (krmo) 23/06-2015
The Report
You will be working in an international group of about 4 students
on one of the projects.
Each group should from their work write a report with the following
goals:
•Explain the working principles of the system
under consideration.
•Provide a thorough literature review in
the field to explain state-of-art
•Based on this, suggest innovative new approaches or
improvements for future research
•If possible also include a small
experiment to get a hands-on experience with the
system and characterization techniques on a level suitable for
explaining the working principles based on a real example test, but
not exceeding more than 1-2 days work in the lab.
There are formal requirements for the report:
- Proper references to information resources - make sure you have
a nice well formatted reference list. If you use wikipedia,
generally you should quote the original reference they quote
and not wikipedia itself. If you feel grateful
for wikipedias services, then its better to acknowledge them by
giving a small donation to wikipedia or by improving some of the
entries in it.
- Hand ins will be sent to the DTU Campusnet online system by
your teachers. We must emphasize that you must not copy and paste
others text or images without credit and a reference. DTU runs
automated copy-paste checks for electronic hand-ins, so it will be
detected if you do it and at least DTU has zero tolerance for it.
Therefore:
- Use clearly marked quotations if copying any text from other
sources and provide a clear reference to the source.
- At the beginning of the report write a short clarification on
what each group member contributed with to the report:
Who wrote what?
Who did what?
- No more than 4 pages pr person in the group - there is no bonus
for just writing loooong reports :-)
Additional information can be added to an appendix, but this is not
a part of the report being assessed.
Read the peer review guide below - looking at what you will be
assessed by helps writing a good report!
After the course, the reports will be made freely available online
just as those from the 2013 workshop.
The
Presentation
Please add slide numbers to
ensure easy referencing when commenting and ask kquestions.
Guidelines for questions and peer review feedback
statement:
Each group will present and defend their proposal in turn.
Before the presentation you have to read another groups report and
prepare peer-evaluation questions for that group.
After a group
presentation, the peer review group will have 20 min to ask their
prepared scientific questions and others they find relevant based
on the presentation.
The peer evaluation group will then write a very short summary with
the most important questions and answers.
To the peer evaluation report, add a brief consideration of the
following points to provide constructive comments for improvements
and appraisal of the valuable parts :
- Do you think there
was a clear problem formulation and focus of scope?
- Did they explain the
technical background convincingly so it is understandable for you
?
- Did they make some
simple numerical estimates of the most important effects using
simple formulas?
- Do you feel you
received a fair explanation of state-of-art and was provided a
comprehensive overview of the subject?
- What was most
interesting for you in the report/presentation?
- What did you learn
most of from the report/ presentation?
- Are there any points
in the report/ presentation you do not understand?
- Was the report/
presentation scientific?
Specifically:
- Is credit or a reference provided for every image, quote etc.
from an external source?
- Do you trust the references they cite?
- Do you think they have critically considered their information
sources? (do they just quote some company selling some product, or
do they thoroughly and critically assess even peer reviewed
information not just plainly accepting what people write?)
- Did they provide an outlook and come up
with new suggestions for approaches to the problem they were trying
to solve?
- Any further comments
and feedback you may have on the report/presentation.
Then list your most important questions and their answers to the
report/presentation - those you planned to ask, but also those you
may not have had time to ask, as these are valuable feedback to the
authors telling them which parts of the work was clearly understood
and which were less clear.
The peer review statement should be short - not more than two-three
pages and handed in before the final Friday at 15.00 so we can
distribute it before the evening events.
Help to litterature
search
This page will be permanently deleted and cannot be recovered. Are you sure?
|
