# data[].attributes.body
Post from all participants = 🥴
Most voted Post from one participant=🤓📝

# data[].attributes.body
Here are some of my experiences using discussion boards in the past for engineering courses. As engineers, we are predominately looking for problem-solving skills. I decided to give them some design related topics for them to come up with some out of the box ideas. I associate these discussions with brainstorming. In undergraduate courses, we deal with problems where we have arrived at the best possible solution already. Although I would have received loads of ideas, I will have often have to try and let them down by saying why those ideas won't work and the ideas that we discuss after is the best and sometimes the only possible solution.

I believe discussion boards are appropriate where that are some grey areas. Where we can generate tonnes of ideas and discuss. Engineering sometimes seems to be a firm discipline.

To develop a rubric for the discussion posts in engineering, I would value more how they have understood the problem and how innovative and creative solutions were provided.

-- Prabahar

# data[].attributes.body
Lots of post = engagement
Lots of post = lots of time!

# data[].attributes.body
I thought I'd take a different approach here and use a top down approach identifying values and then how they might be reflected in evaluation, instead of starting with the evaluations themselves as that approach has mostly led me to identifying things that don't align with some of my own teaching values:

(1) Students take responsibility for learning
- posts are connected to weekly theme and reading

(2) Creating a community of learning
- posts are respectful and encourage dialogue between students, for example, students pose questions, ask for clarification or elaboration from others, and build on conversations that have already taken place

(3) Equity
- already addressed on the discussion board and flexible grading approaches that don't rely on quantification of engagement, and focus on content and engagement over presentation/grammar/writing

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with some peers that the number of postings should be reasonable and not overwhelming, taking into account other assignments and the time they take throughout the course. In terms of the assessment criteria, the discussion board should be mainly assessed based on responsiveness to the assignment prompt, application of readings and engagement in a few other discussions. The post needs to cover what has been asked in the prompts. The post should also provide critical analysis, thoughtful and demonstrate understanding of the readings. I also agree that engaging in all discussion is impossible and deep discussion in one or two peers’ post is sufficient. Mohamad Alikhani

# data[].attributes.headline
 I actually don't think discussion boards should be graded quantitatively. I believe last week it was mentioned that there is evidence from the COVID transition that discussion boards are challenging for students because of the cognitive load associated with needing to constantly engage.  I think our discussion board should consist of a yes/no participation grade. I think if we really care about fostering conversation, we have to allow it to develop organically. My experience as a TA has been that as soon as students are focused on earning a certain number of marks, it is very difficult to establish and maintain a natural flow. I think the discussion board points could be awarded on a yes/no basis - yes, you participated (in any capacity - an original post or reply that adds to the conversation) or no, you didn't (no post was made that week). From an instructor point of view, I think following "netiquette" procedures should be a matter of course, and isn't necessarily something to evaluate with a grade. Just my 2 cents! - Kayla

# data[].attributes.subject
 I actually don't think discussion boards should be graded quantitatively. I believe last week it was mentioned that there is evidence from the COVID transition that discussion boards are challenging for students because of the cognitive load associated with needing to constantly engage.  I think our discussion board should consist of a yes/no participation grade. I think if we really care about fostering conversation, we have to allow it to develop organically. My experience as a TA has been that as soon as students are focused on earning a certain number of marks, it is very difficult to establish and maintain a natural flow. I think the discussion board points could be awarded on a yes/no basis - yes, you participated (in any capacity - an original post or reply that adds to the conversation) or no, you didn't (no post was made that week). From an instructor point of view, I think following "netiquette" procedures should be a matter of course, and isn't necessarily something to evaluate with a grade. Just my 2 cents! - Kayla

# data[].attributes.body
I totally agree with the things that have already been said here about the need for simplicity and clarity as well as the desire for a focus on quality over quantity.

If I'm being honest, I have really struggled with discussion boards both as a student and TA as it always feels so forced, especially when there are requirements like you need to post everyday with a certain number of words and references. In these scenarios I've just found myself getting frustrated and have left the course not feeling like I got anything positive out of the discussion boards.

Like a lot of people have already mentioned, I also didn't agree with the focus on spelling and grammar that the rubrics had. As many people here have pointed out, writing mechanics isn't a goal of this course, so it seems counterintuitive to emphasize it in our rubrics. It also made me think about the Talking Teaching episode this week with Dr. Aaron Wright who talked about how he applies an EDI lens to his teaching of writing and focuses on the strength and structure of the argument rather than spelling and grammar. Again, this would place the emphasis on the quality of the contribution to the conversation, rather than some quantitative element.
- Caitlin Cunningham

# data[].attributes.headline
Great discussion here. Rubrics, I think, are needed. But I feel if the main purpose of the discussion board is to stimulate thoughtful discussion in a respectful manner, we may be able to simplify these rubrics somewhat. For example, in rubric 1, we could likely achieve our objectives by evaluating on “critical analysis”, “participation in the learning community” and “etiquette”. Further, the rubric could be simplified by having just 3 levels of grading: unsatisfactory, satisfactory, proficient. I think that might serve the purpose while reducing the burden on the instructors. - Souvik

# data[].attributes.subject
Great discussion here. Rubrics, I think, are needed. But I feel if the main purpose of the discussion board is to stimulate thoughtful discussion in a respectful manner, we may be able to simplify these rubrics somewhat. For example, in rubric 1, we could likely achieve our objectives by evaluating on “critical analysis”, “participation in the learning community” and “etiquette”. Further, the rubric could be simplified by having just 3 levels of grading: unsatisfactory, satisfactory, proficient. I think that might serve the purpose while reducing the burden on the instructors. - Souvik

# data[].attributes.body
I appreciate  many of the points already made, so to avoid repetition, I will add a few short points!

This is a theme in previous posts, but to make it explicit: both as a student and an instructor, few things are more frustrating than a lack of clarity in expectations. When students are clear on assignment guidelines and clear on expectations for successful engagement more generally, it makes everyone's life so much easier. (I'm sure we have all had encounters with students where there is a misunderstanding of assignment expectations, for example, and then had to invest a significant amount of time re-explaining assignments/rubrics/general expectations, when clarity in the first place could have saved time/stress/resources!).

A simple rubric, with clear explanations of what meaningful engagement looks like, with reasonable expectations (re: time commitments and our own general availability) is ideal.

When it comes to adopting a rubric for our discussion board here in CNLT 5000, a revised version of example rubric 1 could work nicely. I think we should be most concerned with  participation (especially holistically, as presented in the "A+" rubric): "posts should actively stimulate and sustain further discussion by building on peers'  responses" (under 'Participation in the Learning Community').

Looking forward to our discussion this week!

-Lara Millman

# data[].attributes.body
I personally have a strong opinion on the entire discussion board tool.
In my opinion, there are right moments on a course to interact between students and instructors. In ordinary courses, these moments are lectures, office hours or tutorials. The discussion board promotes a type of interaction that I personally don't like, really similar to the one you can find on a social network.
The first problem I see is that it requires a lot of time and this time must be found on top of our personal activities and our free time. If I'm working for a company, I don't want, when I go back to my home, to still interact with my colleagues or my boss and talk about work. This kind of conversation must be done during office time. I know that being a student is different from being a worker, but honestly, I perceive discussion boards as an invasion of my time that I need to use for research as a student or simply my free time.
I think that there are right moments in each course where I want to push my entire focus and energy and where interaction with others and instructors can be a way to learn and share ideas/thoughts. But out of these moments, I don't really enjoy talking about a specific course.
I also personally don't really like this way of interacting. I do prefer to have a more face-to-face interaction/discussion.
In general, I do not really agree with the discussion board as a good tool to engage with people. I will still discuss here for this course because this is how the course has been designed.
I also hopefully stimulate a discussion about that. My intentions are not to disappoint or offend anyone, so if I ever offend someone, please let me know and accept my apologies.
Mine are opinions and I perfectly acknowledge that different people have different opinions.
All the best,
Marcello

# data[].attributes.body
I'm really enjoying reading the perspectives previously posted. I am getting the sense that folks are driven by simplicity, clarity, and quality, all of which I very much agree with. I would like to add just a thought about returning to the course objectives and aligning them with the grading rubric to ensure that students are achieving what the course is setting out to teach. With that, consider the undergraduate experience in which we are preparing ourselves to engage with through participation in this course, as outlined in this course syllabus. What do we, as prospective educators, need to demonstrate skill wise to be able to effectively model and use discussion boards in our own teaching? Again, I think simplicity, clarity, and quality are the three pieces we should be emphasizing through our rubric in alignment with this goal of the course.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that each of the example rubrics had some valuable evaluation criteria, but overall I think they could be simplified. I think that focus should be placed on student engagement, which as we spoke about last week, can mean many things. To me, there are two key rubric components that should be considered: our ability to provide insightful/ thought-provoking contributions, and our tendency to engage with and build off of others. Some of other criteria such as timeliness, quantity, grammar, and conciseness of the posts are secondary in my opinion and don't necessarily reflect student engagement. For example, there are a variety of factors that may affect an individual's ability to post frequently on a discussion board (e.g. varying workload, personal and professional commitments, differing timezones), but this doesn't necessarily mean that the student is disengaged in the course. I think that keeping the rubric relatively open with respect to the type of posts (original threads or comments) and the frequency of posting would allow for more open discussion that isn't fuelled by students attempting to reach a "quota". Further, taking the emphasis off of grammar and editing would also allow for more open contributions and reduce the time required to articulate thoughts.
-Lindsey

# data[].attributes.body
I totally agree with others who highlighted that quantity, timeliness and grammar should not be included in this course rubric. I would like to highlight the point “ responsiveness to discussion assignment prompts, mentioned in Rubric 3”, I agree it is an important point to be included in any rubric, but I believe students don’t have to response to all assignment prompts or even to all of their colleagues’ posts. Having a few “ two let say” authentic replies to colleagues’ post  might be enough and really reflecting the class room reality.

Additionally, I like Rubric 3 because it gives different values to different components of the evaluation rubric. It highlights the importance and value of each component in the rubric and could significantly help evaluators as well students to assess their participation. It is more objective as well.

# data[].attributes.body
This is already posted in the discussion board. I love to see the following criteria in the weekly discussion board rubric: (1) Promptness and initiative (seems okay to me) [20%]; (2) Delivery of post (this is something I do not want to include as English is a second language for many participants like me) [0%]; (3) Relevance of post (seems okay to me) [3, 4 and 5 combined 20%]; (4) Expression within the post (this seems to be somewhat overlapping with the idea of "Relevance of post"); (5) Contribution to the learning community (in a boarder sense, this also might be somewhat overlapping with the criteria of 3 and 4); (6) Etiquette in dialogues with peers (this might be added as we need to "encourage" our peers to express their opinions) [20%]; (7) Understanding of readings and outside references (these both criteria seem to be included but could be "separated" to put more emphasis on each of them individually) [10% + 10%=20%]; (8) Timeliness of discussion contributions (this also seems to be important as each week's discussion board has a deadline for participation) [10%]; (9) Quantity of contributions (might be included to encourage peers to participate frequently following the criteria of "Relevance of post" and "Understanding of readings and outside references" in order to ensure "Overall quality" [10%].

# data[].attributes.body
I love the idea of having a simple rubric for our discussion posts. I think based on the demographic of our class (high achieving grad students interested in personal growth) that we will be respectful and engaged on the discussion board. I am confident we will put thought and care into our posts to ensure they are (generally) respectful, well-written, and engaged. The first rubric spoke to me because it had 4 general areas we could be graded on. I like the first 3 areas (critical analysis, participation, and etiquette). I agree with Krista that writing mechanics might not be as important for our class. For a lower level undergraduate class, I think the other discussion board rubrics (with detailed expectations) would be a better option as students learn how to use discussion posts and what is expected of them in higher education for collaboration/ engagement. - Clarisse

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
University of Wisconsin - Stout - Follow us on Schedule of Online Courses, Online Certificate Programs, and Graduate Degree
Facebook.

Critical Analysis

Discussion postings show little or no evidence that readings were completed or understood. Postings are largely personal opinions or feelings, or "I agree" or "Great idea," without supporting statements with concepts from the readings, outside resources, relevant research, or specific real-life application.

Discussion postings repeat and summarize basic, correct information, but do not link readings to outside references, relevant research or specific real-life application and do not consider alternative perspectives or connections between ideas. Sources are not cited.

Discussion postings display an understanding of the required readings and underlying concepts including correct use of terminology and proper citation.

Discussion postings display an excellent understanding of the required readings and underlying concepts including correct use of terminology. Postings integrate an outside resource, or relevant research, or specific real-life application (work experience, prior coursework, etc.) to support important points. Well-edited quotes are cited appropriately. No more than 10% of the posting is a direct quotation.

Discussion postings do not contribute to ongoing conversations or respond to peers' postings. There is no evidence of replies to questions.

Discussion postings sometimes contribute to ongoing conversations as evidenced by
- affirming statements or references to relevant research or,
- asking related questions or,
- making an oppositional statement supported by any personal experience or related research.

Discussion postings contribute to the class' ongoing conversations as evidenced by
- affirming statements or references to relevant research or,
- asking related questions or,
- making an oppositional statement supported by any personal experience or related research.

Discussion postings actively stimulate and sustain further discussion by building on peers' responses including
- building a focused argument around a specific issue or
- asking a new related question or
- making an oppositional statement supported by personal experience or related research.

Discussion postings are at midpoint or later in the module or contributions are only posted on the last day of the module.

Discussion postings respond to most postings of peers several days after the initial discussion.

Discussion postings respond to most postings of peers within a 48 hour period.

Discussion postings are distributed throughout the module (not posted all on one day or only at the beginning or only on the last day of the module).

Written interactions on the discussion board show disrespect for the viewpoints of others.

Some of the written interactions on the discussion board show respect and interest in the viewpoints of others.

Written interactions on the discussion board show respect and interest in the viewpoints of others.

Written interactions on the discussion board show respect and sensitivity to peers' gender, cultural and linguistic background, sexual orientation, political and religious beliefs.

Written responses contain numerous grammatical, spelling or punctuation errors. The style of writing does not facilitate effective communication.

Written responses include some grammatical, spelling or punctuation errors that distract the reader.

Written responses are largely free of grammatical, spelling or punctuation errors. The style of writing generally facilitates communication.

Written responses are free of grammatical, spelling or punctuation errors. The style of writing facilitates communication.

© COPYRIGHT 2001-2020 Joan Vandervelde
All Rights Reserved.
Updated: Saturday, April 18, 2020

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
University of Wisconsin - Stout - Follow us on Schedule of Online Courses, Online Certificate Programs, and Graduate Degree Facebook. Critical Analysis Discussion postings show little or no evidence that readings were completed or understood. Postings are largely personal opinions or feelings, or "I agree" or "Great idea," without supporting statements with concepts from the readings, outside resources, relevant research, or specific real-life application.

# data[].attributes.headline
Krista's General Thoughts on Each Rubric

# data[].attributes.subject
Krista's General Thoughts on Each Rubric

# data[].attributes.body
The A+ discussion rubric:

While etiquette is important, it should always already be maintained, so I think including this is a little awkward. It’s like rewarding someone for showering and getting dressed before coming to class. I think perhaps the term "etiquette" needs to be clear if this is part of a rubric.

Writing mechanics are also important, but not necessarily for a course on teaching pedagogy. I have this for my English 1040 course, but that’s a writing course. I guess what I’m saying is that the discussion criteria should be in alignment with learning outcomes. Perhaps instead of writing mechanics or quality of writing, something like “furthers the conversation.”

EME 5050 Rubric:

I like the idea of responsiveness: “the quality of reacting quickly and positively,” which feels in keeping with the purposes of the discussions for this course.

I like that the engagement with peers is separate from engagement with readings because these two things sometimes require different approaches.

“Timeliness” feels redundant because it’s already part of “responsiveness.”

I’m never a fan of “quantity” because it can dilute the purpose and quality of engagement. People become so focused on reaching the number that they forget the reason why they’re engaging in the first place.

The Online discussion rubric:

The “I” of the instructor is too intrusive here. It sounds less about the purpose of discussions and more about what the instructor wants. This is very much a Transmission-style discussion rubric.

I like the idea of rewarding initiating discussion, but this could probably be worked into another section of the rubric (like responsiveness).

I’m not a fan of “expression” because it suggests there is only one way to express one’s response to readings or their peers. It feels like it devalues EDIA.

I like the idea of motivating the student community. I think this is a valuable part of furthering the conversation.