Syllabus home

Syllabus

Discussion

Here is my 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!

Rubric

The minimum requirement is that you post three messages a week. The rubric offers you guidelines on how I evaluate those messages. If you post less than three messages a week, I don't bother with grading: you get a D or F for discussion.

Advice on Participation in Discussion

I present these points in no particular order. Each is important.

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.
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 their electronic 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 The second time the student will be withdrawn from the course with an F. Any further harassment and I'll recommend the student's account be terminated.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.
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 motiviation. 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.
Cite your sources
Here is another point where web-based 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. My Web lecture pages are all numbered, so you can cite Web lecture, Punic Wars, p. 7. With other Web sources, cite the URL (the full address). For example, the URL for this page is "http://history.boisestate.edu/westciv/admin/discuss.shtml").
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?
Modernism 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 modernism 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.