This is an upper-level graduate course. Our expectations, therefore, are that students are self-motivated and wish to apply knowledge and practice gained in this course to professional development. To that end, we have absolutely no interest in your ability to memorize and regurgitate material, or to reproduce output from statistical packages; instead we place a premium on your ability to synthesize material and think critically about the appropriateness of applications.
Grading breakdown
Student proposal/ project including proposals and peer reviews- 70%
Proposals and draft reports 15%
Peer reviews 15%
Final report and presentation 40%
Weekly Assignments- 30%
Proposal/ Project:
Students will develop a proposal for solving a wildlife/fisheries conservation problem using methods in this course.
The first phase of the problem will be the development of a proposal outlining the conservation problems, the experimental situation, and the methods used to collect data. In some cases no data may be available; in those cases data will be simulated under assumptions and design specified by the student team.
The proposal will be assigned for peer review to another student. This will be a double-blind review, meaning that the identifies of authors and reviewers will not be made known to the other party (obviously, I will know them).
You will be graded both on your ability to write a sound proposal, and your skill at critically evaluating those of others.
In the second phase you will respond to the peer review comments with appropriate modifications, or rebuttals of the comments, which will then be evaluated by me (in my role as 'editor').
In the third phase, you will complete the analysis of the problem and prepare, in journal manuscript format, a complete description of methods, results, and interpretation (including relevant management/ conservation implications). This will again be submitted for peer review (either the original reviewer or a newly assigned one). As with the proposal phase, grading will be based both on your author and reviewer roles.
You will respond to peer review and "editor" comments, make appropriate revisions, re-submit a final manuscript, and make an oral presentation during the last week of class.
You will be graded on your ability to appropriately synthesize results and incorporate or rebut criticism, as well as your ability to critically but fairly and accurately evaluate the works of other.
Review exercises
Upload your solutions as 1 or more R scripts (*.R extension text file) via ELC. Grading will be based on timely completion of regular (at least weekly) exercises applying course principles to problem solving. These will be graded for completion (did you at least attempt all parts of the assignment), and will not be accepted for full credit after the due date without a legitimate (e.g., medical) excuse. Time allowing, we will try to provide feedback on your assignments via ELC but mainly leave it to you to do a self-check. After exercises are due we will provide worked solutions, to which students can compare their own work. Students should then contact the instructor(s) regarding any difficulties encountered in the assignment or for additional guidance.
Grades are based on % of assignments completed (we will convert these to numbers of assignments once that's determined).