User talk:Tes94/Benchmark IV: Discussion

From BIOL 300 Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Student Comments

-Need to add a discussion of your work in the context of outside literature.
-The wiki section formatting seems a bit off. Looking at the formatting used in some of the example discussions could be helpful.
-Some clarification of your discussion of the discrepancies in number of trials would be helpful. I had to reread the section several time to fully understand it.
--Michael Hasson (talk) 20:33, 26 April 2017 (EDT)

-It is hard to separate the limitations and discrepancies in your middle section. I would either separate the two so that they are different sections, or make it more apparent where the switch is.

-Cut out the pre-comma phrase in your last section on Further research, as it is unnecessary and complicated.

--James Mcginnity (talk) 09:56, 27 April 2017 (EDT)

-Typo: should be "by" instead of "my":

The results from this model reflect the work done my Moran and colleagues on a competitive guided search theory.

-Overall good, but elaborate more on the conclusions you can draw from your results. For example, right after this sentence:

Our results as discussed above support our hypothesis by showing that the chance of the target becoming synchronized decreases with increased number of POs and saliency (Figures 10 and 13), and thus more attempts must be taken in order to synchronize the target (Figures 12 and 15).

maybe add a few more sentences going more in detail and explaining what you are concluding.

-In your further research section, be more specific/ descriptive about how the parameters can be analyzed/changed and what that may show (when you say "analyze the effect of those parameters on the results of the model and thus reaction time.")

--Uma Mahajan (talk) 12:40, 27 April 2017 (EDT)

Instructor Comments

  • Benchmark submitted on time?
    • Yes
  • Rubric submitted on time?
    • Yes
  • How well does the model support the original hypothesis?
    • Very good
  • Support for hypothesis and assumptions from other data in the literature?
    • OK, given that the paper is so new!
  • Limitations of results?
    • Very good
  • Discrepancies and how they affect conclusions?
    • Very good
  • Relationship to other work in the field?
    • Not addressed. You need to include a summary of related research, complete with several references.
  • Discussion of future work
    • Good

On the whole, this is a good Discussion benchmark. Your writing is very clear. You could make it into a very good Discussion by adding a nice discussion of the other work in the field, which is a required part of the assignment.

--Jeffrey Gill (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2017 (EDT)