Leading Discussion

Thus far, our two discussion days have gone quite well. Thank you to both groups for doing a nice job!

Here are some guidelines for the rest of the semester (since these guidelines were not available to the first two groups I bumped up their grade a bit):

Each discussion leader has to chance to earn a total of 25 points per leadership session for a total of 50 points by the end of the semester.

Here's how that is determined:

Mastery of Material (see below for an alternative to this): 10 points
The student demonstrates a deep understanding of each of the readings we have done that week and the student is able to guide the discussion due to that understanding. The student is able to identify a deficiency in understanding in other students (or the prof) and is able to helpfully correct any misunderstandings or allow other students to do so. The language of the student is clear and the student is able to clarify difficult terms and concepts when prompted or when needed.

Relevance and Depth of Questions: 10 points
Student's questions are clearly relevant to the topic, show a deep understanding of the material, and are able to bring others in the class to their level of understanding. The student has alternative ways of asking the same question and the student is ready to ask follow-up questions that help the discussion avoid stalling and steer the discussion to deeper levels.

Discussion Guidance: 5 points
The student is able to discern the direction of the discussion and is able, if need be, to keep the discussion on track. Comments from other students that are not relevant to the discussion are helpfully steered back to the main topic. The student does not dominate the discussion but is ready to interject when appropriate and is ready to move to a new topic when appropriate.

Suppose that you do not understand the material that well. Are you out-of-luck? No way!

If you do not understand the material that well, here is the alternative to the above:

Mastery of One's Lack of Understanding: 10 points
The student realizes that she or he does not grasp the main ideas of the material and is aware of the primary areas where a lack of understanding exists. Such a student is able to point the class to such areas and is able to ask good and helpful questions to the rest of the class in hopes of clearing up their lack of understanding. Such a student asks relevant follow-up questions and allows others to provide relevant feedback. In such cases, the discussion will proceed in such a way that all are benefited and all achieve a new level of understanding of the material.


Important Tip:
I encourage you to seek out additional sources to help you lead the discussion in the most fruitful way possible. This includes additional material on the topic being discussed; setting up a meeting with prof; discussing the material with other students prior to the discussion day.

Keep up the good work!

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Lakatos and Thagard: Demarcation Problem

Lakatos-Falsification and Methodology Naïve Falsificationism (NF): Rules of Acceptance:  if T is falsifiable, the T is scientific. Rules of Falsification:  If some observation statement conflicts with T, then T is falsified. Sophisticated Falsificationsim (SF):  Rules of Acceptance:  T is scientific only if T has more empirical evidence than some other T* Rule of falsification:  T is falsified iff some other theory T* has greater predictive and explanatory power than T and is confirmed to some degree. Theoretically Progressive:  T is TP if T purports to take in more empirical data than some other theory T*. Empirically Progressive:  T is EP if T is TP and some of the excess empirical data is confirmed to some degree. Progressive Problemshift:  both TP and EP If a Problemshift is TP, then it is scientific, if not TP, then it is pseudoscientific So, some theory T is  pseudoscientific  if T is an alter...
Read more

Diverse Viewpoints: Should we be open?

There are lots of different factors in not only theory acceptance but also in accepting and maintaining various beliefs. One is acquiring relevant information about the topic. Another is acquiring and assessing different interpretation of that information. Another is comparing the theory or belief with other theories and other beliefs to see if they fit together well. In some cases, embracing a new idea or theory requires changes in one’s existing beliefs, and sometimes those changes seem too drastic. If embracing theory T means I have to change my belief that 2+2=4, then I ain’t embracing T. That seems perfectly rational. What theories should we really seriously consider? By that I mean, give them serious thought, and be open to changing our minds. Are there ideas, views, theories, that we should not give any serious attention to, even if they have defenders?  We mentioned the Alien-laser theory of drunk driving, but that is not defended by anyone as far as I know.  ...
Read more

Defeaters

Undercutting : where  E  is evidence for  H , an undercutting defeater is evidence which undermines the evidential connection between E and  H .  Rebutting : is evidence which prevents  E  from justifying belief in  H  by supporting not- H  in a more direct way.  In general: a. Moving from believing that p to believing that not p requires a rebutting defeater b. Moving from believing that p to not believing that p requires an undercutting defeater Note the difference between the scope of the 'not' in a. and the scope of the 'not' in b. In a. one believes something, namely, not p. In b. one does not believe something. The 'not' in b. is negating the believing, whereas the 'not' in a. is negating the thing that is believed.  Ok, given all of that, you should be able to explain the relevance of the following cases that Plantinga brings up in Chapter 6. Are they examples of undercutting or rebutting defe...
Read more