Analysis and Grading of Discussion

A major part of the Global Change course grade comes from the discussion students enter on the web. It is expected, this being a senior-level course, that the discussion will be thoughtful and represent a knowledge-building process. Gerry Stahl has offered a valuable perspective on this issue in a recent conference:

"Students more readily engage in discussion, responding spontaneously to existing notes without taking time to appropriate the ideas in new syntheses. True construction of knowledge involves distinct tasks - including brainstorming, articulating, reacting, organizing, analyzing and generalizing." (Stahl, 1999)

Metaphor of a Committee Meeting

I think of the discussion as a committee meeting or a task meeting in a work environment. This is the kind of experience that most students will face in employment situations. People are usually asked to come to a meeting because they bring some information, skill, or insight that the committee needs to complete its task. So participation by everyone is desirable (justification for item (A) below). The committee functions well when each member responds, when appropriate, to another committee member (justification for point (B)). Good comments usually elicit responses from others and irrelevant comments usually lead to a change of topic (justification for item (C)). The committee also functions well when each participant offers relevant comments that contribute to the task (justification for item (D)).

Additionally, for item (D), committee participants should come to the meeting prepared, meaning they should not ask questions for which information was provided in advance unless it was unclear (discussion should not ask for a repeat of class material, but should include requests for clarification or implications).

Characteristics of Discussion that Build Knowledge

Stahl (1999) offers some characteristics of knowledge-building discussion:

• Brainstorming
  Brainstorming is the introducing of new ideas that relate to the topic or task of the committee and offer a perspective not previously considered. It the idea is pretty "far out", it needs to be explained in sufficient detail to justify its plausibility.

• Articulating
  Articulating means explaining complex or difficult concepts. This could apply to (a) course material that may be difficult to understand, (b) new material brought into the course discussion from other sources and explained, or (c) comments of other students that seem incomplete and need further explanation.

• Reacting
  Reaction should provide an alternative or amplified perspective on a concept previously introduced into the discussion. Simply stating that you agree with a particular point of view or result does not contribute to the knowledge-building process; rather, new points or perspectives must be added.

• Organization
  Occasionally, an organization of existing thoughts or perspectives helps to clarify the flow of discussion (e.g., identifying that there are really only two lines of thinking in the dialog despite numerous comments in seemingly different directions). In addition to its application to discussion, organization may apply to course materials (e.g., a US map showing regions on high windpower potential together with a US map showing regions of high electric power rates might be used to create a list of states where windpower might be economically feasible).

• Analysis
  Analysis is a powerful knowledge-building characteristic that includes comparing or contrasting previously articulated views. It also could include new calculations from existing data that shed new light on the issue under consideration (e.g., calculating how much the global sea level would rise if the Greenland ice sheet were to melt).

• Generalization
  Generalization is another powerful characteristic that takes comments or data already presented and extracts new information or knowledge that applies to a broader set of conditions. For instance, since global warming extends the growing season for agricultural crops in cold climates, it might be tempting to generalize that all countries north of 50 degrees N latitude will have increased crop production under global warming. Even though such generalizations must be carefully tested for their truth, they do offer a positive step in the knowledge-building process. Generalizations are very thought provoking because they immediately challenge the reader to search for counter-examples.

• Questions requesting clarification of ambiguous points
• New and relevant authoritative information that goes beyond what was provided
• Opinions, provided they are substantiated with logical arguments from accepted facts
• Synthesis of given information that suggests a new conclusion
• Hypotheses whose testing would lead to new information
• Calculations that lead to new conclusions or reveal new insights (one student calculated how much sea level will rise due to a very large chunk of ice breaking off Antarctica)

Characteristics of Discussion that do not Build Knowledge

The following characteristics are not helpful to the task, contribute to a general loss of credibility to the author (credibility is very important on environmental issues), and reduce the contribution of the author to the task:

• Sweeping generalizations ("our environment is rapidly deteriorating")
• Impractical solutions ("we should stop global warming now by not burning fossil fuels")
• Unsubstantiated claims ("global warming will turn the US Midwest into a desert")
• Questions raised that are broad and reverse progress of the discussion ("why do we have global warming?")
• Degrading or impolite comments

Grading of Discussion

Analysis of Electronic Dialog and grading of discussion for each student is based on the following elements:

A. Total number of entries by made by the student
B. Total number of responses the student makes to other student comments
C. Total number of responses the student receives from other students
D. Quality of the comments

For each Block, the requirements for full credit for the discussion are

• submit at least 5 entries
• respond to at least 3 other students' comments (these are counted as part of the required 5 entries)
• elicit at least 3 comments from other students.
• provide high quality comments.

A. 2 points for each entry for maximum of 10 points
B. 3 points for each response to another student for maximum of 9
C. 3 points for each response from another student for maximum of 9
D. 31 points for overall quality of entries

Note that comments characterized as not contributing to the knowledge-building process may be eliminated and not counted in items A or B.

Self Assessment of Discussion on Unit Topics

At the end of each block, each student is asked to use the criteria of knowledge-building discussion to self-evaluate their own contributions to the electronic dialog on the unit topics. In other words, each student is asked to demonstrate how he/she has used brainstorming, articulating, reacting, organizing, analyzing and/or generalizing to contribute to the discussion during that particular block.

Reference

Stahl, Gerry, 1999: Reflections on WebGuide: Seven issues for the next generation of collaborative knowledge-building environments. Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning. Palo Alto, December 1999, pp. 600-610 Eugene S. TakleElsebeth K. Sorensen
Department of Communication Aalborg University DK-9220 Aalborg Oest, DENMARK