Difference between revisions of "User talk:Cazinge"
From LMU BioDB 2017
(→Week 1 Feedback: Signing talk page) |
Kdahlquist (talk | contribs) (added week 2 feedback) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | == Week 2 Feedback == | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Your turned in most of your assignment on time, but your template was added late. You also made one small edit past the deadline on your shared journal entry. You were also missing the link from your User page to the [[Week 2]] assignment. Please add these links to your template if you have not done so already. | ||
| + | * You wrote something in the summary field for 4 of 8 saves (50%) in the period of review; since you had only received the feedback about frequency after you submitted this assignment, I am expecting that this number will be improving in subsequent weeks. | ||
| + | ** As we discussed in class, you obviously cannot go back to fix this; we will be looking for improvement as the semester goes on. Missing a summary field here and there because you clicked "Save" too fast, is not a big deal. We aim to approach 100%, but anything above 90% is in the acceptable range. | ||
| + | * However, the number of total saves to your Week 2 journal entry is quite small (5). We are encouraging you to save your work in smaller "chunks"; a range of 10-20 saves is what would have been expected for this assignment. | ||
| + | * Your complementary DNA sequence was correct. | ||
| + | * Your translations were correct. | ||
| + | * Your determination of which frames contained ORFs was correct. | ||
| + | * We do not use 5' and 3' to mark the ends of protein sequences. Instead, we use N-ter and C-ter. | ||
| + | * I did not find any electronic lab notebook for this assignment. In this case, the lab notebook would have explained how you arrived at your answers to the questions posed in the exercise. Please be sure to keep your electronic lab notebook for future assignments. | ||
| + | * The technical language in articles from the primary literature is definitely a hurdle for students (and even for faculty from a different field), but keep with it. Like with other fields of endeavor, it is good to take a look at the primary source. I can go over splicing with you and the alpha helix/beta sheet structures of proteins. I have some 3D models in my office that may be helpful. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ''— [[User:Kdahlquist|Kdahlquist]] ([[User talk:Kdahlquist|talk]]) 12:03, 20 September 2017 (PDT)'' | ||
| + | |||
== Week 1 Feedback == | == Week 1 Feedback == | ||
Revision as of 19:03, 20 September 2017
Week 2 Feedback
- Your turned in most of your assignment on time, but your template was added late. You also made one small edit past the deadline on your shared journal entry. You were also missing the link from your User page to the Week 2 assignment. Please add these links to your template if you have not done so already.
- You wrote something in the summary field for 4 of 8 saves (50%) in the period of review; since you had only received the feedback about frequency after you submitted this assignment, I am expecting that this number will be improving in subsequent weeks.
- As we discussed in class, you obviously cannot go back to fix this; we will be looking for improvement as the semester goes on. Missing a summary field here and there because you clicked "Save" too fast, is not a big deal. We aim to approach 100%, but anything above 90% is in the acceptable range.
- However, the number of total saves to your Week 2 journal entry is quite small (5). We are encouraging you to save your work in smaller "chunks"; a range of 10-20 saves is what would have been expected for this assignment.
- Your complementary DNA sequence was correct.
- Your translations were correct.
- Your determination of which frames contained ORFs was correct.
- We do not use 5' and 3' to mark the ends of protein sequences. Instead, we use N-ter and C-ter.
- I did not find any electronic lab notebook for this assignment. In this case, the lab notebook would have explained how you arrived at your answers to the questions posed in the exercise. Please be sure to keep your electronic lab notebook for future assignments.
- The technical language in articles from the primary literature is definitely a hurdle for students (and even for faculty from a different field), but keep with it. Like with other fields of endeavor, it is good to take a look at the primary source. I can go over splicing with you and the alpha helix/beta sheet structures of proteins. I have some 3D models in my office that may be helpful.
— Kdahlquist (talk) 12:03, 20 September 2017 (PDT)
Week 1 Feedback
- Thank you for completing the assignment on time.
- You completed all of the required content and skills except for the following list. You have the opportunity to make up the points you have lost on this assignment by completing the changes requested by the Week 3 journal deadline.
- Please include Biological Databases and any other courses you are taking this semester in your list of upper division courses. Completed!
- Please make an explicit statement about your career interests and goals. Completed!
- You wrote something in the summary field for 7 of 11 saves, or 64%. We would like to see this approach 100%. Will do!
- Please create a new wiki page (your Week 2 or Week 3 individual journal page will now fulfill this requirement). Completed!
- You uploaded a file and linked to it on your page, but did not use the correct syntax so that a visitor to you page can click the link to download the file. Instead of using [[File:filename | visible label]], please use [[Media:filename | visible label]]. Completed!
- You included a category on your page, but we would prefer you to use the category “Journal Entry” instead of “User Page”. Please make this change. Completed!
- You did not create or invoke a template on your page. Please see the instructions on the Week 1 assignment and let us know if you have questions on how to implement this. Completed!
- I answered your question on my User talk page.
— Kdahlquist (talk) 13:33, 12 September 2017 (PDT)’’
