Evaluation of project

Setting up my own server was only a partial solution. While, on the one hand, it empowered students by allowing them to publish their work on the Internet (if they chose to do so), it did, on the other hand, give me a panoptic sense of control. Since students could not use File Transfer (FTP) to post their work on my server (but had to submit disks so that I could transfer the files), they were not in control of their work. Although I was willing to post as often as they needed, they felt constrained and unable to revise as often as they would like. Having control of the server, I could also see how often projects were visited and by whom. (The server gives the IP address of those who visit.)

I know at this point that I should be evaluating the student project, explaining what works and what does not (the standard comment that instructors dutifully write at the end of every student paper). Yet I find myself unable to do so. During the course, I emailed the student a set of comments, now lost, that were probably useless: the standard start with a pep-talk before hitting with the problems. I should explain that the hypertext contains many interesting insights and juxtapositions, but it is in desperate need of revision. The arguments need to be fortified and brought to a point. The evidence needs to be bolstered and deployed with a better sense of tactical advantage. The writer needs to take a more definite stand and defend it. In short, the writer needs to censor the loose ends and fragments, leaks and excess.

Is the student a male or female?