Discussion post instructions and sample

Discussion posts. Students will be divided into three groups. Each group will be assigned a rotating role in the discussion, beginning with the second week of classes. Each class session, a group will be assigned to be first readers, responders, or to have a break. Beginning with the second class, students will post a200- to 300-word scholarly response to the class’s readings. To ensure that everyone has a chance to read the blog before class, post your response by midnight on the night before class. 20%

First readers. Students in this group will post a 100- to 200-word scholarly response to the class’s readings. Use the italicized questions on the syllabus to focus your reading. See the Reading Primary Sources and Reading Secondary Sources for guides to approaching texts. Post your response by 10:00 pm on the night before class. There are a number of ways to approach these open-ended posts:
Consider the text in relation to its historical or theoretical context.
Write about an aspect of text that you do not understand or something that jars you.
Formulate an insightful question or two about the reading and then attempt to answer your own questions. Use the Reading Primary Sources and Reading Secondary Sources as guides.
As you read, reflect on the guiding reading questions on the syllabus, marked by a Ø You are not limited to answering these questions in your discussion posts.

Second readers. Students in this group will build upon, disagree with, or clarify the first readers’ posts in an approximately 100-word response. Second readers should demonstrate an engagement with the assigned texts in their responses. Responses should be posted by 10:00 am on the day of class.

Students may skip one assigned post without penalty throughout the semester.

Evaluation of discussion posts and responses. Forum posts will be evaluated according to the following scale of 0–4, primarily on the basis of the kind of critical thinking and engagement displayed in the post.

Rating	Characteristics
4	Exceptional. The forum post is focused and coherently integrates examples with explanations or analysis. The entry demonstrates awareness of its own limitations or implications, and it considers multiple perspectives when appropriate. The entry reflects in-depth engagement with the topic.
3	Satisfactory. The forum post is reasonably focused, and explanations or analysis are mostly based on examples or other evidence. Fewer connections are made between ideas, and though new insights are offered, they are not fully developed. The entry reflects moderate engagement with the topic.
2	Underdeveloped. The forum post is mostly description or summary, without consideration of alternative perspectives, and few connections are made between ideas. The entry reflects passing engagement with the topic.
1	Limited. The forum post is unfocused, or simply rehashes previous comments, and displays no evidence of student engagement with the topic.
0	No Credit. The forum post is missing or consists of one or two disconnected sentences.

Discussion post sample:

This week's reading brought to light the concept of collaborators. As I read through the excerpts, I noticed a very striking fact. The Poles did not need goading or suggestion from the Nazis to kill the Jews. The murders at Jedwabne were committed because the Poles wanted it to happen, not the Nazis. Thinking about this makes me question the word "collaborator." There was no collaboration or communication between the Nazis and the Poles. The Poles murdered their neighbors on their own decision. Were the Poles collaborators or just murderers? From this realization, should we still consider the Holocaust an atrocity borne of the Nazi regime? It seems that the Poles' violent hatred for their Jewish neighbors came from their shared Soviet history and the destruction caused by the world wars. Does this mean we should label this incident a mass murder that happened to take part during the Holocaust or is it part of the Holocaust?