Discussion Guide
Here is a guide for on-line discussions. I've included here only those points that are
concrete enough to be helpful. When evaluating your work I also judge more intangible elements
such as level of understanding, clarity of communication, and the like. I don't know how to give
you tips or guidelines to achieve historical insight. As soon as I figure it out, I'll let you
know. <grin>
I present these points in no particular order. Each is important. I explain how discussions are graded in a separate page.
No ad hominem arguments
-
This covers most of what is called netiquette. The rule is very simple. If someone says
something and you wish to challenge or criticize it, you are allowed to criticize the
position, but not the person holding the position. In other words, you can say that the
position is wrong because of thus and so, but you cannot say that the person is stupid for
believing this, or that the position shows the person to be a fool or worse. Hammer away at
the position, but not at the person. ad hominem is Latin for "against the
person".
-
No harassment
-
This should be covered by the point above, but it's worth emphasizing separately. Everyone
in this class will treat everyone else with respect and courtesy in all their
communications. Anyone who starts harassing another student, either on the list or
privately, will be warned once. The second time the student will be withdrawn from the
course with an F. Any further harassment and I'll recommend the student's account be
terminated. Be nice. Please notify me if you have complaints.
-
Avoid reductionism
-
Reductionism is the reducing of explanations to a single factor. A reductionist argument
would say that the real reason Rome fell was because of this or that. Historical
events have multiple causes, and any explanation that gives only one cause is simply wrong.
The same can be extended to human motivation. It is wrong to say, for example, that the only
reason this country went to war with that was to gain land (or whatever). Humans are more
complicated than that. It is, however, permitted to argue that some one factor was the most
important factor. Then the burden would be to prove its importance over the other factors.
-
Language matters, but is not graded
-
Discussion lists have their own idiom, located somewhere between formal discourse and
casual conversation. Strive in your messages for two worthy goals: clarity and precision. In
casual conversation we can get away with being vague: we have our arms, shrug, say "you
know" a lot, and generally invite the listener to understand us despite our words. That
doesn't work in e-mail.
-
On the
other hand, you don't need to be as careful in discussion as you do in your exams of matters
such as spelling and grammar. I realize you are composing at the keyboard and then hitting
the Send key. I only become concerned when the mistakes are so numerous and grievous as to
interfere with the actual communication.
-
Do avoid abbreviations. Our goal is to communicate and to learn to do so well. Please
write two, to or too - not 2. Write you, not u. And please avoid common internet
abbreviations - they are too obscure and confusing. I will count off for these
abbreviations.
-
Cite your sources
-
Here is another point where online class discussion differs from live discussion. If
you refer to something specific from the readings--textbook, on-line resources, or outside
resources--let us know where you got it. For a physical book, mention the author, the title,
and the page number (you don't need the title for our optional textbook--citing Hunt, p. 98
will do). Many of the Web lecture pages are all numbered, so you can cite Web lecture, Punic Wars,
p. 7. With other Web sources, cite the URL (=Universal Resource Locator). For example, the
URL for this course on Blackboard is "http://ccd.blackboard.com/bin/common/course.pl?course_id=_2369_1&frame=top").
-
You don't
need to cite your source every time for every fact and morsel. Cite them when you
think it's appropriate--this is part skill and part style, but it is definitely part of what
historians do. More importantly, be prepared to cite your source when asked. If someone
makes a statement that seems dubious, it is perfectly legitimate in scholarly discussion to
ask the proponent to cite sources.
-
Be specific, provide evidence
-
Related to the point above. It is not enough merely to assert something. For example, do
not merely say that people around the year 1000 thought the world would soon end. You need
to say which people thought this. Better yet, cite a document or other specific evidence
that supports your statement.
-
There are no stupid questions
-
If you don't understand something, ask. The most common example is when you don't
understand a term or a phrase. You might see others in the discussion use a word like
oligarchy, and think that you really ought to know what it means and that it would only show
how dumb you are to ask.
-
Not at
all. I rely on students asking the "obvious" questions. I use these as
opportunities to provide additional explanations and to add depth to the discussion.
Oligarchy, for example, is not the same as aristocracy, although the word is frequently
misused in this way. If no one asks, no one learns. And isn't that what you are paying for?
-
Anachronism is treacherous
-
It is OK to try to find parallels between the past and the present. This is a natural
human impulse and it can often make something quite remote seem more real and meaningful. I
encourage you to look for such parallels and "lessons."
-
Be
prepared, however, to be challenged on these. Projecting modern ideas or structures into the
past is called anachronism and usually leads one to wrong conclusions. The past and the
present are not the same, and in hunting for parallels it is easy to confuse the two.
Description of Discussion Boards
How Discussions are graded
|