As long as it is still too hot to do much else than sweat (no AC) as I listen to the roar of the many fans, I might as well try to get a handle on another assignment as when the heat breaks I need to go into a big push mode to make up cognitive time loss on the course project. Previous summers I would just pack up and be off to a library or coffee shop and set up for hours of intense working. Not this summer due to the pandemic. I need to sweat it out at home and rearrange time and activities to match what the heat does to mind and body.

Once again I need to do a bit of searching on terms to know what the assignment is about. This time its Claim, Connect, Action feedback approach. Yes, I can guess what that is but I’d rather have some sense of confidence that I’m correct. I’ll start with ReVISION Learning – oh, interesting. When I check out the ABOUT US I see my professor is one of the contributing consultants. That should serve as a credibility check. First, Claim, Connect, Action feedback appears to be used for observing and giving feedback on teaching. I understand the class assignment as applying it to feedback on students’ online discussion posts. Brief takeaway then: Feedback (on discussion post) needs to include: Claim(s) against specific attributes of the post (this I would assume would be based on a rubric students are given for what a discussion post should include); Connect the claim(s) to the actual observation (as in mention both the rubric criteria and specific wording in the post); and give Actionable suggestions (how that particular post might be edited to better match a given level of the rubric … here I assume it might be better to make suggestions that would move the student to the next level up … not necessarily to the top level).

Now I need a rubric. There are lots of rubrics on the Web. I do a search w/.edu and look at anywhere from a half to a baker’s dozen. In this case I see a range of quite simple to complex … the complex ones look to me more like they are intended to score a decent length paper rather than a discussion post. A few are titled rubric but I would call them checklists with points. Others seem very general (quality of post, relevance of post, contribution of post) … and a bit too-open for scorer-bias. I’m drawn back to one that is, to me, a checklist. I go back to one I’ve used before … summarize the body of posts, add a new interpretation or clarification or illustration or thought-line, bonus – summarize own post with a question that can prompt additional posts. I do another search for scoring checklists + .edu. First one up has thirteen criteria [really?].

The rubric522-Discussion-PostRubric

The prompt – View the following video [6:38] While viewing, pay attention to buzz-words, the illustrated flow and consequences, and personal actions presented. Are there parallels on a more personal f2f basis? Be sure to review the rubric before posting your response.

2 thoughts on “Information Wildfires

  1. There isn’t a parallel to f2f because we would never rubcricize every single conversation we have in class.
    So why do this online?
    My discussion boards are a 1/0 you either our shared criteria or a class or you did not.
    Instead of a rubric I provide a checklist of criteria. I can write my ideas to that.
    In terms of Claim, Connect, Action…can’t take credit for it, Claim, evidence, warrant came before. Same thing.
    I don’t own the term (not beyond my beliefs taht terms can’t be owned) due to work for hire relationships but it all began when I coached a group of Hartford administrators
    to write observation reports.
    We needed a simple replicable approach…and OMG does it work. I make a claim of quality against my checklist about your work, I then link to evidence from your artifacts (the student’s posts) and then I provide actionable feedback using the language of the checklist again.

  2. • #fakenews
    • National news story
    • Confirmation bias
    • Reliable sources
    These buzzwords are ones that I’ve heard countless times and also tried to explain to others countless times, the way the speaker broke down each term and gave examples of how these news stories spread was viewer-friendly and easy to follow.

    These terms coupled with new ones that I hadn’t heard before such as filter bubbles and echo chambers, were enlightening to say the least. While my friends and I frequently discuss how “creepy” the internet and social media are, prior to viewing this video, I did not know the correct terminology to describe the “creepiness”. It makes total sense that your personal search history and internet usage begins to filter out stories and concepts that you may disagree with, therefore leaving you to view stories that are potentially misleading or incorrect why simultaneously appearing as accurate to you, the viewer.

    These ideas absolutely tie in to f2f communication as well, as I frequently say to friends and family “this is how rumors start”. Learning how to distinguish between rumors and truths (even hard truths) is an important skill for all to develop, especially younger students in elementary, middle, and high school, who are totally and completely bombarded by information all day every day. If they do not understand how to identify reliable sources, they are doomed to become the kind of adults who talk without listening.

    The question then becomes, how do we make them realize their susceptibility to #fakenews so they can form well-rounded, accurately researched opinions of their own?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.