SIO 217A ROAST assignmentROAST: Peer Review as a Learning and Assessment Tool in Graduate EducationBasic concept of the ROAST exercise:Constructivist learning theory and inquiry-based educational practice stress the parallelsbetween learning and research. Although peer review has long been a central feature ofthe working lives of research scientists, it has rarely found its way into the classroom.Motivated by this thought, an imaginary journal, Reviews of Atmospheric Science Topics(ROAST), has been integrated into a graduate-level course in atmosphericthermodynamics. The instructor acts as editor of ROAST. Students in the class aredivided into teams and assigned topics on which to write survey papers and give in-classpresentations, using the text, the Internet, the library, and other resources. The assignedtopics range over the subject matter of the course. The submitted survey papers are sentby the ROAST editor to other members of the class, acting as anonymous reviewers. Justas in the case of real research journals, the editor asks the authors to respond to criticismsof reviewers and then sends the revised papers back to the reviewers. Each student isthus a researcher and co-author of one paper as well as an anonymous reviewer of theothers. ROAST has proven to be not only a useful means of fostering learning, but also anatural and effective assessment tool. The peer review mechanism allows the studentauthors to address the defects in their papers, and hence in their learning, as pointed outnot by an authority figure or an examination but by their own peers. As an important sidebenefit, the students gain experience with the peer review process itself and come toappreciate its strengths and weaknesses in evaluating scientific papers.Assignment for Fall 2005:Today we will divide into three teams (Groups A, B, C). This issue of ROAST isdevoted to the subject “the climate system.”The topics and starting points for research in Curry and Webster (C&W) are:Group A: Recent Advances in Quantifying Direct Aerosol Forcings between IPCC 2001and 2007. C&W 5.1-5.2, 8.1Group B: Recent Advances in Quantifying Indirect/Cloud Aerosol Forcings betweenIPCC 2001 and 2007. C&W 5.1-5.2, 8.1Group C: Recent Advances in Quantifying Cloud Forcings between IPCC 2001 and2007. C&W 8.3-8.6These starting points are exactly that: starting points. Note that the title of each report is"Recent Advances in…" Do not simply summarize and paraphrase the text and the IPCCreport. Instead, use the Internet, go to the library, check research journals, talk toscientists, and try to bring your knowledge of the subject up to date.This year’s ROAST project will be in two parts. The first part will be written and willask each group to address the question:1) What new research has caused the mean and uncertainties in this forcing tochange?The second part will be written and oral and will address the question:2) What is responsible for the remaining uncertainty in quantifying this forcing?For each part, each team will email a single pdf-format file including all text, figures, andreferences for the written report to the class and the instructors (suggested length: 3 to 4pages) surveying the assigned topic. The report should be in the style of a formalscientific paper, suitable for publication, with an abstract, introduction, main text,conclusions, references, figures, etc. Try to follow approximately the format of Journalof Climate. However, this paper should be a review article understandable by scientistswho are non-specialists. The reports will be handed out for review on the same day theyare handed in. Written reviews will be due by email to the editor. Earlier submissionbefore the deadline is fine. They will be redacted (reviewer's identifying informationremoved) and returned to authors by email. Each team will give a 25-minute, in-class,oral presentation. Each member of the team should give part of the presentation. Pleaseprepare and use a Powerpoint presentation or other visual aids.The proposed due dates for these parts are given below:Part (1) manuscript due to editor: Oct 30Part (1) review comments due to editor: Nov 6Oral presentations: Nov 15 at 4:00-5:20pm (location TBA)Part (2) manuscript (including revised part (1) and responses to first review) due toeditor: Nov 20Review comments due to editor: Nov 27Final revised version and responses to review due to editor: Dec 4The final assignment is for the teams that wrote the reports. Revised reports and writtenresponses to all comments by the reviewer and editor are due to the editor on Dec 4.Grades will be based on oral presentations, review comments, responses to review, andthe final revised manuscript.For the final exam, all students are responsible for knowing the material in all the
View Full Document
Unlocking...