RAC 2019-10-31

Meanwhile: Add postdoc to job search

GAYITHRI a. Fit within the track: does it sound like a good design paper? b. Length of the paper: we are off by 1/2 a page. Anything that can be deleted? c. Coherence: both across the intro and the findings. How do they sound? Anything missing? Anything not needed? d. Discussion: definitely not fully fleshed out yet. Maybe you can see something that can go there that we haven’t attended to?

Intro: How comparable is debugging e-textiles to other debugging of physical computing systems? It seems like some of the same practices and forms of material intelligence (diSessa, 2000)  which make e-textiles promising would also make debugging a distinct sort of practice. 
Intro: How applicable are these practices to other non-e-textiles work? Is there intrinsic value to e-textiles, or do you see it as pedagogica, PFL?
--> Also a question for discussion.

Debugging lit: Piorkowski, 2013

IF YOU WANT MORE DESIGN RATIONALES.

PESKY DETAILS X Isomorphic to what? Intro, BG duplicate some discussion of debugging research XXX novicity

Need to characterize students' representations before analyzing them. Also, it's 
distracting to also talk about researchers' representations.

ON DESIGN One possibility in discussion: A focus on design, adding more

AMANDA

Intro a bit jumbly: Bioinformatics is needed for discovery. And there are jobs. We don’t have bioinformatics standards. We don’t have bioinformatics resources. Poor teaching, curriculum are part of why marginalized students don’t like science. If we want bioinformatics for marginalized students, we need better resources.

–> You have explained why bioinformatics is particularly hard to enact for marginalized students. But you haven’t really made the case for why we need bio By the end of the intro, I’d like to know generally where the paper is headed…