Group items tagged

I think we should focus our efforts on addressing problems #1 and #10. Move your cursor on top of problem 1 and 10 to read my comments.

I think we should focus our efforts on addressing problems #1 and #10. I analyzed the debate data using my software tool (http://garnet.fsu.edu/~ajeong/DAT) and found the following: 1) 2 of the 19 arguments did not elicit a challenge; 2) only 22 of the 64 challenges elicited a rebuttal or counter-challenge;3) only 5 of the 64 challenges elicited explanations; and only 4 of the challenges elicited suporting evidence. These observations point to some serious weaknesses in the quality of the debate. Move your cursor on top of problem 1 and 10 to read additional comments.

I think we should focus our efforts on addressing problems #1 and #10. I analyzed the debate data using my software tool (http://garnet.fsu.edu/~ajeong/DAT) and found the following: 1) 2 of the 19 arguments did not elicit a challenge; 2) only 22 of the 64 challenges elicited a rebuttal or counter-challenge;3) only 5 of the 64 challenges elicited explanations; and only 4 of the challenges elicited suporting evidence. These observations point to some serious weaknesses in the quality of the debate. Move your cursor on top of problem 1 and 10 to read additional comments. Also, see additional response data in the figure presented at the bottom of the wiki.

I think this should be one of the main problems we need to address in the group projects. The ScoreSheet tab in the ArchivedDebates.xls in the row titled "Interactivity" shows that only 66% of all message elicited one ore more replies (after I ran the CountPostings function to analyze the messages posted in the "Debates" tab). That is a very high level of interaction compared to what I've seen in other debates. The same sheet also shows that there were 17 different threads (or arguments) posted to the debate. Perhaps there were too many arguments, and that the number of arguments did not allow students to thoroughly examine each argument (given constraints in time and effort)? When I ran the "PerformanceReports" function, the Reports sheet under the column "#Daysw/Postings" showed that only 3 of the 20 students made all their postings in one day (not over multiple days across the week). The high level of interaction could be explained by the fact that so many of the students posted their messages over two or more different days?

In other words, I take this as meaning that some students never challenged (or post messages with the label BUT) the accuracy or the veracity of the arguments posted to the debates. Given that the debate is a group effort, should we require ALL students to post at least one challenge? Or can we allow students to choose and perform specific roles - some as critiques, and some as idea builders?

A doctoral student and I did a study to see if poor grammar affected the number and the types of responses posted in reply to messages containing good vs. poor grammar. We did not find any significant effects of grammar on the mean number of challenges posted in reply to arguments stated with poor vs. good grammar. We also did not find any significant differences in the mean number of explanations posted in reply to each challenge presented with poor vs. good grammar. So in conclusion, grammar does not appear to effect level of critical discourse in the EME5457 online debates. See my powerpoint presentation.

[ ARG] Yes, I agree that this is one of the unique advantages of using Wikis as another tool for group discussions when compared to using threaded discussion boards for the same type of activity. In a Wiki, it is easier to scan the ideas presented before and after each posting. [-BUT] The disadvantage of using Wikis is that (as mentioned later) it is difficult to find and read all the new entries posted to the Wiki. [ BUT] However, one can use the NotifyMe/RSS feed function to receive emails that highlight what changes have been made to the Wiki each time someone clicks the Save button.

Can anyone think of any additional advantages of Wikis over threaded discussion boards?

Another advantage is that at the end of the week, we all have one final product that we can print out - a product that reflects or captures all of the work we achieved during the week.

Yes, I like to hear some suggestions on how to track student participation. Blackboard provides a simple tool to track number of weekly postings. But Wikis don't provide this sort of function (at least not that I am aware of). There was one suggestion, below, that I simply ask students to type in their names in bold font directly into the Wiki. However, handcounting the names could be quite tedious and perhaps is prone to human error. Again, I'd love to hear some creative ideas and solutions to this problem. :-)

Yes, I agree that it does have its quirks. Someone suggested that we try another wiki or try using google docs instead. See google/labs/docsAndSpreadsheets.

In particular, students do not seek out and report empirical data or findings to present evidence (and hard numbers and statistical findings) to establish the veracity of a claim or argument. So what you are really suggesting here is that each student should be assigned to read a research article and report its empirical findings to strengthen (or to disprove) the arguments posted to the debate.

This sounds like a pretty good idea, Mark.

FORMATTING THE DOCUMENT: To make the text easier to read, I inserted a two column table immediately below the heading. Then, I inserted all the text under the heading into the second column so that all the text is indented below the main heading.