SIGF Next steps

SIGF Next steps From Rich’s statement

Structure: 

  1. Challenge commonly-held misconception.
  2. Get specific, put the reader in the position of experiencing the potential of the research. 
  3. Zoom out; explain the conceptual framework driving your work. 
  4. Again staying very concrete, explain the trajectory of proposed research
  5. Explain why you are uniquely qualified to do this work. 
  6. Explain why Stanford is the right place for this research. 

How might I benefit from this example? 

  1. My proposal would be stronger if it got concrete faster. I like how my proposal starts off situating me; perhaps a second paragraph could explain the urgency of my work. (What I saw coming in that hints at the importance of this)
  2. Probably I spend too much time thinking about Learning Sciences. Get to the point. (Perhaps methodology section should go?)
  3. Shall I get more concrete about the outcomes I’d like to have? (I was planning to put these in the end, but maybe they cold go in the middle somewhere…)
  4. Shall I engage with popular misconceptions about learning and language?

Feedback from Katie

  1. Compress the Learning Sciences part, make it consumable to non-Learning Sciences people. “A long list; doesn’t mark a clear path to your argument”

  2. Misunderstanding of Michell’s purpose here. 

  3. Definitely understands when we have arrived at the thesis. 

  4. What do the AI results indicate? What do they mean?

  5. CS doctoral work will be about MS/HS needs to come earlier. 

  6. Your argument needs more  “X, which is important because…” to drive the need for this research home.

  7. Cut it down to just a few theoretical constructs.

How might I benefit from this feedback?

  1. If I added a concrete example at the beginning, I could return to it over and over, showing what I might do with it. 
  2. Scope my project to middle- and high-school CS students earlier, probably in the “making it concrete” paragraph. 
  3. Perhaps I focus just on indexicality and erasure. Which examples would be most valuable for these? 

Other notes for revision

  1. My work is in the tradition of Wittegnstein’s later work. 

What I need from Paulo’s letter