Project 4: Discussion Board

I'd like this course to provide everyone involved with an opportunity to learn--and that includes myself. Although I have studied issues of scientific writing and the public more deliberately than many of you have, you should not consider me to be the "expert" on all aspects of public science writing--simply a fellow inquirer with a bit more background information and a head start on the reading.

In keeping with this perspective, the course will feature reading, thinking, and (virtual) talking, not just writing of individual projects. I ask for your help in making the course engaging and interactive.

One mechanism for making the course interactive is online course discussions. I consider our online discussions of course readings to be the most important element of the course, since it is here in the discussions that we'll explore answers to our questions about the intersections of science and the public. In some cases I'll provide topics and discussion prompts to guide discussion, but I'm counting on each student to propel the discussion forward. You are encouraged to introduce new topics (by showing how they connect to the ongoing conversations), to raise new questions, and to provide your own insights on the questions and topics raised by others. You should base your discussion contributions on course readings, your own background reading, your personal and professional experiences, or any other resources at your disposal.

The "discussion" aspect of the course will be ongoing--that is, you can post messages to the course discussion board at any time. However, as the calendar indicates, we will also hold scheduled discussions almost every week during the semester. Each student is expected to participate energetically in all of these discussions, and to fulfill an even more active role (as "discussion prompter") in one discussion.

I hesitate to make course discussions an issue of grades, since I'd rather have folks participate because of their sense of communal responsibility and their interest in the topic. However, these discussions will take quite a bit of time and energy, and I recognize that both are precious commodities. So I've decided to "grade" your participation to ensure that you have incentive to participate both frequently and well. Here's my formula for discussion points:

• Discussion prompter (up to 50 points). The "discussion prompter" helps to ensure that the discussion is active and productive. You do not necessarily need to develop a full-fledged "presentation" on the discussion topic (as you might have done in "discussion leader" roles in other courses). But you should shepherd the discussion in some or all of the following ways:
  • participate daily in the discussion
  • prompt contributors to develop their ideas further
  • make connections among different participants' insights
  • follow up with insightful questions as the discussion unfolds
  • make connections to the course readings
  • find and suggest web or print resources that relate to the topic, as appropriate
  • suggest additional activities or ways of approaching the topic, as appropriate
    
    
• Individual participation (up to 50 points). At the end of the semester, I will assign a grade from one to fifty, reflecting the quality and quantity of your overall participation in course discussions. The grade will NOT be based solely on the number of posts you make; it will be a fair, though necessarily subjective, judgment of how well you have contributed to the ongoing discussion--akin to a "participation" grade in a face-to-face class.
  
  
• Practically speaking, the discussion points will be assigned as follows. Students who fulfill the "discussion prompter" role during their assigned week, and who are also actively involved in all or most of the course discussions, will earn points equivalent to an A. Those whose participation is intermittent (e.g., strong participation in a few discussions, but weak in the other discussions) or cursory (e.g., a couple of posts in each discussion, but little ongoing involvement or "stake" in the conversation) will earn points in the B or C range, depending on the quality of their participation. Naturally, students who do not perform the "discussion prompter" responsibilities (or who do not participate individually at all) will earn the equivalent of an F.

End of Page

Last modified: 01/06/04