Posted on Friday Nov 07, 2008
I recently had been through a case where a student submitted the student's draft for my review of writing two days before a submission deadline. Since I had another more urgent task during the period, the required effort for helping improve the draft to a fine shape "forced" me to stay up the whole night till early morning 5am the submission deadline.
When I tried to recall several past submissions of this student, I found that all these submissions kept me up all night in the morning till last minute before the deadline whereas many other students' drafts were often already ready to submit the night preceding the submission deadline.
I asked myself "why would this situation happen for the student?" For this immediately past submission, in fact the student did a very good job in preparing the abstract, introduction, and approach (high level description) sections early on (for my review of ideas). But the problem is that the student submitted the draft for my review of writing late, only two days before the submission deadline. Several possible reasons may contribute to this late submission: the student might think that the student needed to finish all the sections of writing before asking peer review for writing, or the peer reviewing student needed to finish peer review of all sections of the draft before asking for my review of writing, ...
To avoid these issues (or avoid keeping me up all night till last minute before the paper submission deadline), below is a new set of advice to my students:
Please write early, ask peer review early, and ask for my review of writing early!! Here are some specific things you should do:
(1). You don't need to wait till you have a complete draft (with all sections finished) before requesting peer review. You can submit your partial draft (e.g., one or more completed sections at a time) for peer review.
(2). You don't need to wait till your peer-reviewing student finishes reviewing all the sections of your draft before requesting my review of writing. You can submit your peer-reviewed partial draft (e.g., one or more peer-reviewed sections at a time) for my review of writing. Remind you that I have a policy of being able to review your draft for writing ONLY after a peer student has finished reviewing the writing of your draft and you have fixed the issues pointed out by the peer student. But you don't need to get your peer review done before I can review your draft for the ideas described in the draft to avoid the delay on giving you feedback on the ideas in your draft.
(3). Budget your timeline to allow to ask me to review your writing for multiple iterations (instead of just one time or even 0 time iteration on any portion your writing before the submission).
Of course, it is most important for you to write early following my advice posted earlier!
Showing posts with label General. Show all posts
Showing posts with label General. Show all posts
Saturday, December 27, 2008
On writing weekly lab book entries
Posted on Sunday Oct 19, 2008
Axiom.java)
*. Empirical evaluation
Description of your task items
Expected artifacts:(here you put only the writing portions for describing the evaluation or its results, with the details of the location in CVS, e.g., the evaluation section of /papers/icsm08-soa/)
*. Paper writing
Description of your task items
Expected artifacts:(here you put only the writing portions, with the details of the location in CVS, e.g., the approach section of /papers/icsm08-soa/)
*. Misc
Other task items not falling into the three preceding categories
Your task item's description shall be detailed enough so that I can distinguish it from a previous item in previous weeks. For example, you shouldn't put the same item description like "Preparing a Journal Version of XXXX" in multiple weeks. That is, from your description, I can tell the semantic difference of your new task item from any of your previous items in previous weeks.
Note that only recognizable artifacts are tool source code and formal writing in LaTeX being put in CVS. The artifact description shall describe enough details for me to trace down to the artifacts without further asking you. If you cannot put an artifact for a task item in one of the first three categories, you shall move the task item to the "Misc" category. For example, "Explore various tools such as XXX to use in the tool development" shouldn't be put under "Tool development" since there is no artifact (tool source code) being produced by this task item. This task item shall be put under "Misc"; just like reading research papers, you should always explore various tools along the way of your actual tool development.
For the "Actual outcomes", you copy the "Planned activities" over and annotate each item with some description of the completed portion. You also need to list "Actual artifacts" after the "Expected artifacts".
If you don't produce any portion of an expected artifact, you need to put "None produced" and color that item with the red color. If you produce only partial portions of the expected artifact, color that item with the orange color.
Every week before the one-on-one meeting (if no regular one-on-one meeting arranged, then on a weekly base), a student should submit a lab book entry in our group wiki http://sites.google.com/a/
*. Planned activities
*. Actual outcomes
For the "Actual outcome" category, you basically copy the "Planned activities" from the preceding week and then annotate them with the actual outcomes.
For each category, you need to organize your items in the following subcategories:
*. Tool development
Description of your task items
Expected artifacts: (here you put only specific tool components, with the details of the location in CVS, e.g., the genAxim method of /toolsrc/jias/jias/axioms/
*. Empirical evaluation
Description of your task items
Expected artifacts:(here you put only the writing portions for describing the evaluation or its results, with the details of the location in CVS, e.g., the evaluation section of /papers/icsm08-soa/)
*. Paper writing
Description of your task items
Expected artifacts:(here you put only the writing portions, with the details of the location in CVS, e.g., the approach section of /papers/icsm08-soa/)
*. Misc
Other task items not falling into the three preceding categories
Your task item's description shall be detailed enough so that I can distinguish it from a previous item in previous weeks. For example, you shouldn't put the same item description like "Preparing a Journal Version of XXXX" in multiple weeks. That is, from your description, I can tell the semantic difference of your new task item from any of your previous items in previous weeks.
Note that only recognizable artifacts are tool source code and formal writing in LaTeX being put in CVS. The artifact description shall describe enough details for me to trace down to the artifacts without further asking you. If you cannot put an artifact for a task item in one of the first three categories, you shall move the task item to the "Misc" category. For example, "Explore various tools such as XXX to use in the tool development" shouldn't be put under "Tool development" since there is no artifact (tool source code) being produced by this task item. This task item shall be put under "Misc"; just like reading research papers, you should always explore various tools along the way of your actual tool development.
For the "Actual outcomes", you copy the "Planned activities" over and annotate each item with some description of the completed portion. You also need to list "Actual artifacts" after the "Expected artifacts".
If you don't produce any portion of an expected artifact, you need to put "None produced" and color that item with the red color. If you produce only partial portions of the expected artifact, color that item with the orange color.
Party for NCSU software engineering people
Can we learn from Dr. "House" in doing research?
Posted on Saturday Oct 13, 2007
I enjoy watching Fox's House TV series.
I find the problem sovling skills and creative thinking there to be inspiring for us in doing research.:)
I enjoy watching how Dr. House advises his "students". I hope to learn the good poritions of his advising styles.:)
"DR. GREGORY HOUSE (Hugh Laurie) is devoid of bedside manner and wouldn?t even talk to his patients if he could get away with it. Dealing with his own constant physical pain, he uses a cane that seems to punctuate his acerbic, brutally honest demeanor. While his behavior can border on antisocial, House is a brilliant diagnostician whose unconventional thinking and flawless instincts afford him a great deal of respect. An infectious disease specialist, he thrives on the challenge of solving medical puzzles in order to save lives.
For the past three seasons, House has shepherded an elite team of young experts who helped him unravel diagnostic mysteries. In addition, he has a good friend and confidant in oncology specialist DR. JAMES WILSON (Robert Sean Leonard). There?s some volatile chemistry between House and DR. LISA CUDDY (Lisa Edelstein), the Dean of Medicine and hospital administrator; the two are in constant conflict over House?s duties and unconventional behavior, but even she would admit that his brilliance is worth the trouble.
In the Season Three finale, the set-in-his-ways House was confronted with a series of major changes to his team. Neurologist DR. ERIC FOREMAN (Omar Epps) left Princeton Plainsboro because he didn?t want to turn into House; House randomly fired old-money intensivist DR. ROBERT CHASE (Jesse Spencer), claiming he learned everything he?s going to learn in the past three years, or nothing at all; and immunologist DR. ALLISON CAMERON (Jennifer Morrison) resigned, knowing House will be completely unaffected by her decision.
As Season Four opens, House is without a team to contribute to the perplexing medical cases he undertakes, and Cuddy and Wilson are adamant that he recruit new fellowship candidates. After 40 applicants applied for the newly vacated spots on his team, a group of five doctors -- played by Olivia Wilde, Kal Penn, Peter Jacobson, Anne Dudek and Edi Gathegi -- have emerged as finalists vying for the coveted and hotly contested openings."
Reading papers - 5 line summaries!
Posted on Thursday Oct 11, 2007 by ACHARYA, MITHUN
Dr. Xie maintains a very nice bibliography on Mining Software Engineering. We read lot of papers, but with time, tend to forget them. How about having a 5 line summary for each of the paper we read as a part of literature survey? I actually maintain a document which does exactly this and find it very useful. So next time I forget whats in a paper, I go to my document and look for the 5 line summary, and I immediately know what the paper talks about. I dont need to read the paper again. Another useful side-effect of this exercise is when you write related work for any of your papers or thesis. In conferences, when you talk to other researchers, they usually ask - "Have you seen paper X? How is your work different from paper Y?" and its bad not to know some really relevant related work!
Most well written papers, can be read in about 15-30 mins and summarized in about 5 lines. In my field, most papers have a motivating example after introduction. For a well written paper, a reader should get the idea of the whole paper when he completes reading the Example section! So the way I read a paper is - read abstract, look at the conclusion, then read introduction (very fast), and then the example section. This process takes about 15 mins. Then I skim through the framework, implementation, and evaluation details. I spend further time on the paper, only on need basis. Then I summarize the whole paper in about 5 lines! During early years of PhD, it might be beneficial to read the whole paper to learn the art of writing papers... but after getting a hang of writing papers, quick paper reading will be a useful skill!
Dr. Xie maintains a very nice bibliography on Mining Software Engineering. We read lot of papers, but with time, tend to forget them. How about having a 5 line summary for each of the paper we read as a part of literature survey? I actually maintain a document which does exactly this and find it very useful. So next time I forget whats in a paper, I go to my document and look for the 5 line summary, and I immediately know what the paper talks about. I dont need to read the paper again. Another useful side-effect of this exercise is when you write related work for any of your papers or thesis. In conferences, when you talk to other researchers, they usually ask - "Have you seen paper X? How is your work different from paper Y?" and its bad not to know some really relevant related work!
Most well written papers, can be read in about 15-30 mins and summarized in about 5 lines. In my field, most papers have a motivating example after introduction. For a well written paper, a reader should get the idea of the whole paper when he completes reading the Example section! So the way I read a paper is - read abstract, look at the conclusion, then read introduction (very fast), and then the example section. This process takes about 15 mins. Then I skim through the framework, implementation, and evaluation details. I spend further time on the paper, only on need basis. Then I summarize the whole paper in about 5 lines! During early years of PhD, it might be beneficial to read the whole paper to learn the art of writing papers... but after getting a hang of writing papers, quick paper reading will be a useful skill!
Promoting Research Group Spirit and Peer Student Support
Posted on Saturday Oct 06, 2007
Earlier I didn't emphasize much on research group spirit. Recently I realized its importance and tried some measures to promote research group spirit.
I found that UIUC's Prof. Jiawei Han's several measures in his data mining research group could be valuable to borrow. I borrowed them recently in my group.
1. Allow students to volunteer to take on some services in the group. In the past, I (as the advisor) took on most of the services in the group including maintaining the group web pages, coordinating the group meetings, etc. Then students might feel like being managed without feeling to own the research group. In addition, I am too busy in doing these types of things and the students don't learn how to organize things or manage things: an important skill in their future career.
In the research group, early this semester I asked students to volunteer to take on various roles in the group:
*. Group Webmaster (news, group Web page, pictures, etc)
*. Group meeting coordinator
*. Server system administrator
*. Industry/visitor coordinator
*. Conference and journal review coordinator
*. Research proposal coordinator
*. Social activity coordinator
I found this mechanism works pretty well. For example, recently when a visitor from industry gave a guest lecture in my course when I was out of town, I asked the industry/visitor coordinator to organize student meetings with the visitor by introducing our research and doing demo; the whole process was organized by the coordinator with help from other students. The process went well and the students can also improve their independent skills: when the advisor is not around (in the future after they graduate, their advisor won't be around!), they can still successfully carry out things.
But I still need to figure out a way to encourage students to send emails in our group mailing list, whose emails are primarily sent by myself.
2. Acknowledge and honor those students who made great achievements in research so that these students can feel being recognized and other students can learn from these students and try to catch up. Jiawei Han's group honors the best-performing students each semester after students submit their research performance summary for the semester. Recently our research group also held voting among students (each one vote) and myself (with two votes, as suggested by one student, saying that my judgment would be more comprehensive). In the end, we voted one golden award winner and two silver award winner (with the same number of votes).
3. Besides borrowing Jiawei Han's measures, I also tried to promote peer support among the students in the group. Earlier the whole group activities centered around me, including reviewing their paper drafts, giving feedback on their research, etc. I would hope to set up a peer support system so that students can help each other and learn from doing so. Since some time ago I encouraged students to do proof reading each other's papers, and help each other. I will think of more other measures in promoting peer support.
4. As a routine practice in many research groups, asking students to present their own work or other related work by other researchers is quite valuable. Earlier I used the group meeting time slots to go round-table debriefing and I found it not that worthwhile in spending time. Nowadays, instead, in each group meeting, each student makes a presentation and then other students and I give feedback either on the content or presentation skills. Again, in this way, the group meetings shift from being dominated or driven by myself to being managed by students themselves.
I will think of more other measures in promoting peer support and group spirit. If you have any comments, you are welcome to discuss here.
Earlier I didn't emphasize much on research group spirit. Recently I realized its importance and tried some measures to promote research group spirit.
I found that UIUC's Prof. Jiawei Han's several measures in his data mining research group could be valuable to borrow. I borrowed them recently in my group.
1. Allow students to volunteer to take on some services in the group. In the past, I (as the advisor) took on most of the services in the group including maintaining the group web pages, coordinating the group meetings, etc. Then students might feel like being managed without feeling to own the research group. In addition, I am too busy in doing these types of things and the students don't learn how to organize things or manage things: an important skill in their future career.
In the research group, early this semester I asked students to volunteer to take on various roles in the group:
*. Group Webmaster (news, group Web page, pictures, etc)
*. Group meeting coordinator
*. Server system administrator
*. Industry/visitor coordinator
*. Conference and journal review coordinator
*. Research proposal coordinator
*. Social activity coordinator
I found this mechanism works pretty well. For example, recently when a visitor from industry gave a guest lecture in my course when I was out of town, I asked the industry/visitor coordinator to organize student meetings with the visitor by introducing our research and doing demo; the whole process was organized by the coordinator with help from other students. The process went well and the students can also improve their independent skills: when the advisor is not around (in the future after they graduate, their advisor won't be around!), they can still successfully carry out things.
But I still need to figure out a way to encourage students to send emails in our group mailing list, whose emails are primarily sent by myself.
2. Acknowledge and honor those students who made great achievements in research so that these students can feel being recognized and other students can learn from these students and try to catch up. Jiawei Han's group honors the best-performing students each semester after students submit their research performance summary for the semester. Recently our research group also held voting among students (each one vote) and myself (with two votes, as suggested by one student, saying that my judgment would be more comprehensive). In the end, we voted one golden award winner and two silver award winner (with the same number of votes).
3. Besides borrowing Jiawei Han's measures, I also tried to promote peer support among the students in the group. Earlier the whole group activities centered around me, including reviewing their paper drafts, giving feedback on their research, etc. I would hope to set up a peer support system so that students can help each other and learn from doing so. Since some time ago I encouraged students to do proof reading each other's papers, and help each other. I will think of more other measures in promoting peer support.
4. As a routine practice in many research groups, asking students to present their own work or other related work by other researchers is quite valuable. Earlier I used the group meeting time slots to go round-table debriefing and I found it not that worthwhile in spending time. Nowadays, instead, in each group meeting, each student makes a presentation and then other students and I give feedback either on the content or presentation skills. Again, in this way, the group meetings shift from being dominated or driven by myself to being managed by students themselves.
I will think of more other measures in promoting peer support and group spirit. If you have any comments, you are welcome to discuss here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)