CCD HISTORY 101 Discussion Grading

How Discussions are Graded

Quantity

The first and easy dividing point is quantity. If you are not posting three messages a week, then you automatically get a D or an F for the week's discussion grade. Three a week really is a minimum. Really.

Timely

Do not wait till the last minute. Even though you need not post daily, I do not want messages stacking up at 3 minutes to midnight on Fridays - that does not make for good online conversation. So I look at how quickly you respond to other's messages.

Quality

Next comes quality of the messages. Some messages have no real content but merely further the conversation. These are the messages that say "yes, I agree" or "thanks for your interesting post." These are important because they keep our discussion conversational in tone, so I take note of them, but they don't carry much weight. If this is the only kind of message you post, you will need to improve.

Messages posted in the Student Lounge don't count toward the minimum. Here is where you can talk about current events, or tell everyone that there's an interesting show on TV coming up that has to do with our course in some way. It's the on-line equivalent of having a conversation out in the hall. But it's not doing history.

Messages that do count are those that show that you are doing the reading and that you are understanding what you are reading. These messages can be questions, replies to questions, or comments and observations (and replies to same).

Yes, a question can still show that you are doing the reading. The better thought-out the question is, the more highly I regard it. Best are questions that give evidence that you have looked around in the available material and the question is placed in that context. But "what in the world were they thinking?" is still an honest question and still counts.

Answering someone else's question is good. It is always better that your answer cite sources than merely state an opinion without substantiation. Also good are posts that interpret what you are reading--these are the comment and observations.

In all these, I look for evidence of historical thinking. Are you proceeding from the materials you are reading? Are you understanding what you are reading? Do you avoid reductionism and anachronism?

I am not terribly strict in all this. It is important that our discussion be conversational and not merely a series of potted essays. I want people to talk to each other and explore and try out ideas.

Somewhere along the line, I start making notes to myself about whether you are participating at an "A" level or "B" level. The "C" level is reserved for those who participate but who fall below the minimum too often, or whose messages are mainly fluff with only a few of substance. "D" and "F" are for those who are consistently below the minimum requirement. So the tough choice is between "A" and "B".

In Week 3 or 4 I give you an initial progress report. The main purpose of this report is to serve notice on those who are under-participating, and to note any obvious trends in your messages. In Week 5 or 6 I send out a second report with a tentative grade. This still gives you time to make adjustments if you want.

Here is the grading rubric:

Assessing Effectiveness of Student Participation in Online Discussions Student Name:
Category	1	2	3	4	points
Promptness and Initiative	Does not respond to most postings; rarely participates freely	Responds to most postings several days after start; limited initiative	Responds to most postings within 24 hours;	Consistently responds to postings in less than 24 hours; demonstrates good self-initiative
Relevance of Post	Posts topics unrelated to the discussion; makes short or irrelevant remarks	Occasionally posts off topic; most posts are short; little new insight to topic	Frequently posts on topics related to discussion; prompts further discussion of topic	Consistently posts on topics related to discussion; cites additional references related to topic
Expression Within the Post	Opinions or ideas are not clear; no connection to topic; no citations; little familiarity with secondary readings	Opinions and ideas are clear; occasionally off topic; poor citations; incomplete understanding of secondary materials	Opinions and ideas are clear and concise; obvious connection to topic; good citations; good familiarity with secondary readings and some primary reading	Clear, concise, on topic, good citations and demonstrates a understanding and synthesis of secondary and primary readings; brings in relevant outside materials
Contribution to the Learning Community	Little effort to participate in learning community as it develops; seems indifferent	Occasionally makes meaningful reflection on group'’ efforts; marginal effort to become involved in the group	Frequently attempts to move discussion forward and to present relevant viewpoints for consideration by group; interacts freely	Aware of needs of community; frequently attempts to motivate the group discussion; presents creative approaches to topic
				Total:

CCD HISTORY 101 - History of Western Civilization 1 section 66F