Topics and Learning Outcomes for the Knowledge Units, within the Knowledge Areas, explored in this course are based on the ACM/IEEE Curriculum Guidelines for Undergraduate Degree Programs in Computer Science (2013) report, a version of which is available in HTML on this website . That report associates one of three levels of mastery with each Learning Outcome. The mastery levels are defined as:
Topics and Learning Outcomes with:
The project can be done individually or in a small group (of up to 4). If you choose to work in a group, list all the group members on the proposal near the top (so that you can be put into a project group together) – only 1 copy of the proposal needs to be submitted. If your project changes after the proposal is submitted, please keep me informed (the goal of the proposal is for you to plan so that changes won’t be necessary).
You may choose what you will do for the project and that will depend on whether you are working individually or in a group. It must deal with class themes in some way, and I am open to your ideas about how you will do it. Some possibilities include:
Start with a careful and critical reading of your chosen book. Describe, analyze, and evaluate your book as well as provide evidence to support your conclusions. Identify the key arguments of the book and how well the author supports them. Some questions to consider:
An appropriate structure will include an introduction that provides: identification of the book, author, and any essential historical background needed for context; and a clear and concise evaluation of the book that includes its main argument and its strengths and weaknesses. After the introduction, provide a brief summary or overview of the book. Identify the essential arguments of the book and briefly summarize them. Next will come the evaluation and analysis that contains the bulk of your review where you explain and develop the evaluation made in the introduction. Provide evidence. Finally, conclude with a concise summation of your review.
Identify and discuss role models for your life as a computing professional. Choose 3 computing professional role models (from the present or past) and write about each one. Include a picture of each, if possible. Reflect on how they inspire you with respect to the Codes of Ethics (including https://ethics.acm.org/) that we are examining in class.
To match the rubric below, use the following headings.
Describe your topic and how it relates to class. The list of topics and learning outcomes for this semester may be of help. Choose a topic that is new to you (that you haven’t done in your blog entry). If the general topic is similar, please indicate how you will treat it differently, such as from a different perspective.
Choose the form in which you will deliver your project. Explain why you are choosing that particular deliverable and explain why it is appropriate for a group or an individual to realize it.
Provide a plan, with some milestones, for realizing your chosen deliverable. This plan may look like an outline of what you expect to include. If you are doing this with a group, make clear how each group member will participate in the final deliverable.
This assignment is worth 5 marks, according to the following rubric:
DePaul Univerity’s Center for Teaching and Learning has a useful resource describing the process of creating rubrics. Your comments about the following rubric are welcome via email
| Criterion and Weight | Exemplary | Sufficient | Developing | Needs Improvement |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Topic (1) | Topic actively engages an important issue related to class | Topic engages an important issue related to class | Topic somewhat engages an important issue related to class | Topic does not engage an important issue related to class |
| Deliverable and Rationale (2) | Intended deliverable is appropriate and imaginative. Rationale for approach is clear and well-formed | Intended deliverable is appropriate. Rationale for approach is reasonable | Intended deliverable is somewhat appropriate. Rationale for approach is mostly unclear and not well-formed | Intended deliverable is not appropriate. Rationale for approach is not clear |
| Tentative Plan (2) | Ambitious and thorough | Reasonably thorough | Somewhat thorough | Not thorough |
Blogs (short for weblogs) have become an important means of expression in the information society. Personal blog posts are discrete, often informal, diary-style commentaries written by an individual.
Prepare and submit a blog post that deals with a course-related topic that is currently, or was recently, in the news.
The list of knowledge units also includes learning outcomes associated with the topics. If it is helpful, you may consider those learning outcomes as suggestions about how to approach your topic.
Find a personal connection to the topic. You may, for example, evaluate the (consideration of) ethical and social tradeoffs in a technical decision or analyse the role of computer professionals in a global computing issue.
Identify multiple (4-8) reputable online sources to reference in support of your topic. References are to be included as hyperlinks within the post, close to the text that makes the reference. They should also be clearly included in plain text at the end of your work. Also at the end of your work, answer the following questions about each source:
From Nielsen and Morkes, here are some ways to write for the web:
Conventional guidelines include carefully organizing the information, using words and categories that make sense to the audience, using topic sentences, limiting each paragraph to one main idea, and providing the right amount of information.
Scanning can save users time. Most people are likely to approach unfamiliar Web text by trying to scan it before reading it. Elements that enhance scanning include headings, large type, bold text, highlighted text, bulleted lists, graphics, captions, and topic sentences.
Consistent with users’ desire to get information quickly is their preference for short text.
Web writing that presents news, summaries, and conclusions up front is useful and saves time. A news story written in the inverted pyramid style (in which news and conclusions are presented first, followed by details and background information), are well-received.
“The incredible thing that’s available on the Web is the ability to go deeper for more information.” However, hypertext may be distracting if a site contains “too many” links.
Nielsen also provides a list of mistakes to avoid, which include the following 3 that are most relevant to us:
A sample blog entry, that I wrote a few years ago, can be found at: https://www.itworldcanada.com/blog/wanted-defenders-of-the-public-interest/86095
Submit your blog entry as HTML, either uploaded as a file or pasted as online text. You may edit your blog entry in your “Individual Student Blog” and copy the HTML from there.
You may optionally choose to post your entry to the “Class Blog”, as evidence of participation.
The target length is 900-1000 words.
This assignment is worth 16 marks, according to the following rubric:
DePaul Univerity’s Center for Teaching and Learning has a useful resource describing the process of creating rubrics. Your comments about the following rubric are welcome via email
| Criterion and Weight | Exemplary | Sufficient | Developing | Needs Improvement |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intellectual Engagement with Key Theme-Related Concepts (4) | Demonstrates engagement with the important issues raised through readings and/or class activities | Makes some reference to issues raised through readings and/or class activities | Makes little reference to issues raised through readings and/or class activities | Makes no reference to issues raised through readings and/or class activities |
| Personal Response to Key Theme-Related Concepts (4) | Extensive evidence of a personal response to the issues raised in the readings/activities, and demonstrates your growth | Some evidence of a personal response to the issues/concepts raised in the readings/activities | Little evidence of a personal response to the issues/concepts raised in the readings/activities | No personal response is made to the issues/concepts raised in the readings/activities |
| Critical Evaluation of Online Sources (4) | All questions answered thoroughly | All questions answered | Questions answered somewhat thoroughly | Few questions answered |
| Engaged Writing for the Web (4) | Shows a good command of Standard English. No problems for your audience. Blog entry uses recommended style | Demonstrates evidence of correct spelling, grammar, and punctuation. Audience will have little trouble reading your blog. Recommended style is mostly used | Shows some evidence of correct spelling, grammar, and punctuation. Audience will have some trouble reading your blog. Recommended style used occasionally | Incorrect grammar and spelling are apparent throughout, making it difficult for others to follow. Recommended style not followed |
Critique the blog entry that immediately follows your own blog entry. If yours is the last blog entry 48 hours after submissions are due, you will critique the first entry in the blog. Use the rubric from the Blog Entry assignment when writing your critique.
This assignment is worth 4 marks, according to the following rubric:
DePaul Univerity’s Center for Teaching and Learning has a useful resource describing the process of creating rubrics. Your comments about the following rubric are welcome via email
| Criterion and Weight | Exemplary | Sufficient | Developing | Needs Improvement |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Evaluation according to rubric (1) | Thorough, honest, and constructive evaluation | Honest and constructive evaluation | Insufficient effort put into evaluation | Evaluation not evident |
| Critique (3) | Provides a substantial assessment of the entry, including the strength of the position taken by the author and the quality of the references used | Assessment is reasonably thorough and well-presented | Assessment is uneven. Although it may add something new, there are parts needing further development | Lacking substance |
This is a group assignment and you have been assigned to a group, somewhat randomly, with either 4 or 5 members. You may communicate with your group using the Web Within-Group Discussion Forum. You are not required to use this forum for the whole assignment, but it may help to get you in touch with your fellow group members.
“An interface is humane if it is responsive to human needs and considerate of human frailties.”
As a group, you will assess the humaneness of the Department of Computer Science website in the context of the newly updated University of Regina website. Do this by testing the website content as described in this NN/group article by Hoa Loranger and this NN/group article by Kara Pernice (more focused on intranets)
Look everywhere on the site, as organized by the main links on the CS Home page. Each of the main links has additional content organized in the left-hand navigation menu. The main links are:
Consider these questions:
After your group members have explored the content on the website, create a summary report organized according to the main navigation structure of the site detailed above. You may use the headings below to organize your report either by each main link or as a whole .
In-depth exploration of pages on the website.
Meaningful questions considered thoroughly.
Summary of what your group found.
Your ideas about how the website could be redesigned to make it more attractive and relevant and more humane to students and other visitors.
This assignment is worth 10 marks, according to the following rubric:
DePaul Univerity’s Center for Teaching and Learning has a useful resource describing the process of creating rubrics. Your comments about the following rubric are welcome via email
| Criterion and Weight | Exemplary | Sufficient | Developing | Needs Improvement |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Exploration (3) | Thorough | Somewhat thorough | Somewhat superficial | Not at all thorough |
| Content Testing (3) | Questions are answered thoroughly and with specificity | Questions are answered somewhat thoroughly and with specificity | Answers are not thorough and somewhat vague | Answers are not thorough nor specific |
| Observations (2) | Report clearly consolidates observations from all group members | Report consolidates observations from all group members | Report consolidates observations from some group members | Observations not consolidated |
| Recommendations (2) | Clear recommendations about content | Clear recommendations about most of the content | Recommendations about some of the content | Recommendations not clear |
This is either an INDIVIDUAL or a GROUP assignment. It can be done individually or with others.
Your project can involve (for example): a book review, a wikipedia entry, researching smaller assessment/why questions, discussion of contributing to an open source project (on github, for example), writing some code to test an idea, and so forth.
As a reminder, your project must deal with class themes in some way. It is important to realize the project that you proposed (changes from the proposal, if necessary, are permitted) and connect it our discussions this semester. Your ideas about those connections are important.
Upload your finished product (as a pdf or as a link) to UR Courses.
This assignment is worth 20 marks, according to the following rubric:
DePaul Univerity’s Center for Teaching and Learning has a useful resource describing the process of creating rubrics. Your comments about the following rubric are welcome via email
| Criterion and Weight | Exemplary | Sufficient | Developing | Needs Improvement |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Topic (4) | Actively engages an important issue related to class | Engages an important issue related to class | Somewhat engages an important issue related to class | Does not engage an important issue related to class |
| Deliverable (4) | Deliverable is used appropriately and imaginatively | Deliverable is used appropriately | Deliverable is used somewhat appropriately | Deliverable is not used appropriately |
| Realization (4) | Realization of approach is clear and well-formed | Realization of approach is reasonable | Realization of approach is mostly unclear and not well-formed | Realization of approach is not clear |
| Connections to Class Discussions (4) | Thoroughly connected | Reasonably thoroughly connected | Somewhat connected | Not connected |
| Completed Plan (4) | Ambitious and thorough | Reasonably thorough | Somewhat thorough | Not thorough |