There are no exams in this course. Rather, each student will write her own final 25-30 page paper, on a topic of her own choosing. This paper will be analogous to a grant proposal, and will consist of a Literature review, synthesis, and proposed experimental design. Use the primary scientific literature on the topic to trace the evolution of the topic in the ecological literature. Synthesize the 'canon' and offer new own ideas on the issue. Design a study that would effectively distinguish between the competing hypotheses in the literature, and would "lay the issue to rest."
Your final papers will be subject to 'peer review': Three weeks before the final paper is due, I will assign student partners who will review papers. Partners will not review each other's papers. The reviewer takes the paper for one week. She edits the paper carefully for typos, grammatical problems, etc. She writes an outline that summarizes the logic of the paper as she understands it (if her outline departs significantly from what the writer intended, this will send a strong message to the writer). She should write a review that addresses the quality of the writing, the logic of the argument, the good points and bad points, and should encapsulate the message of the paper in a single sentence. She should make recommendations for improvements. After a week, all students get their drafts back, with comments. Students should feel free to meet with each other in person to discuss and clarify the reviews. The final draft will be due two weeks later, along with the first draft and the review. I will look over the review and evaluate it on the basis of thoroughness and thoughtfulness, and will assign a grade to the editor. This grade will constitute 15% of the final paper grade for the editor. The writer will be evaluated on the quality of her own paper, and on her responses to the editor's comments, (incorporating suggestions and corrections). If the writer has a serious objection to one of the editor's comments, she should discuss it with the editor, and/or with me. This process encourages student interaction without competition, and will expose students to the process of editing and communicating their suggestions. They also get the benefit of reading a paper in another subject as well as their own.
Paper submissions and reviews will all be done electronically. Acceptable formats are Microsoft Word, Corel WordPerfect, and HTML. First drafts should be provided to the peer reviewer as a read-only file on a virus-free diskette (check with the reviewer to determine if it should be IBM or Macintosh formatted). Embedded graphics in HTML files should be in JPEG or GIF format, and graphics files must be included on the diskette. Reviews and editing also should be done electronically. Reviewers should return their review in two new read-only files: one should contain a copy of the paper, marked-up with suggestions for improvement; the other should be the summary review. Final papers should be submitted as a fourth read-only file. HTML is the preferred format for final versions, but Word and WordPerfect are also acceptable. In addition to the final version, you must turn in the first draft, edited version, and summary review. Note that all files will have date/time stamps indicating when they were given to reviewers, returned to authors, and turned in to the instructor. Final versions, along with the associated first drafts, edited drafts, and reviews, can be turned in either on virus-free, IBM-compatible diskettes or sent in as e-mail attachments.
Each student will also present her research proposal/final paper to the class for critique near the end of the term, and final papers will be linked to the publicly accessible class web-site.
September 27: Topic approved
October 30: Bibliography assembled
November 29: First drafts due
December 6: Peer-reviews due
December 4, 6, 11: In-class presentations
December 21: Final papers due, no later than 4:00 pm