Study Guide

Discussion

This is where the class discussions take place. You should check the discussion area at least three times a week, though it is not unusual for students to check in five times a week. Each time you check, you'll probably find some new messages; these wll be from the other members of the class. You will read through the messages, perhaps replying to some on the spot, but for others you will find you'll have to do some research first before replying. Thus, you might read a message one day and not reply to it until the next.

I present these points in no particular order. Each is important. I explain how I grade discussion in a separate page.

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 The second time the student will be withdrawn from the course with an F. Any further harassment and I'll recommend the student's account be terminated.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

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 list-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 (you don't need the title for our textbook--citing Chambers, p. 98 will do). My Web lecture pages are all numbered, so you can cite Web lecture, Punic Wars, p. 7. With other Web sources, cite the URL (=Uniform Resource Locator). For example, the URL for the page you are looking at is "http://www.boisestate.edu/courses/studyguide/discussion.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.

Discussion Participation

All evaluation of your discussion is subjective. I give this rubric not so you can "figure out" your discussion grade. You can't. Only I can.

Still less do I provide this as a template by which you can aim for a particular grade. This is not a checklist. Learning is not a guaranteed process and it doesn't happen the same way for every person.

I do provide the rubric as one tool to help you understand that discussion plays a crucial role in my course, and that there are ways to judge the quality of the participation. I hope that you can use this rubric as a way to improve the quality of your discussion, not only in this course but in others as well.

Note that in the descriptions I am indicating tendencies rather than absolute rules. For example, it's perfectly all right to post a message that says "gee, I didn't know that" or "I agree" or "here's something that just struck me as interesting". Those are normal parts of the conversation. But when a student who posts fifty messages over the semester has forty that are these sort of comments, that's not engaging in historical discussion. That's just talking about the past. There's a difference, and that difference will be reflected in the grade. On the other hand, the student who posts fifty messages and forty are substantive clearly is taking part in scholarly dialogue, and again this will be reflected in the grade.

Finally, remember that you will receive two progress reports in which I will let you know specifically how you are doing in discussion. This will allow you to make adjustments.

Doing nothing is an F