Caroline Edwards-Mack, the grader for the discussion posts provided, the following advice in the fall for what she’s expecting.
While grading the discussions, I am noticing that the majority of the students are simply summarizing what their chosen articles say rather than weighing their personal input into the discussion thread. The purpose of these assignments to identify what the student finds the most interesting and what they are confused about, rather than reiterating the information contained in the articles? If I wanted to know what the articles said, I would just read them myself.
The interesting/confusing discussions should also be kept within the realm of the weekly topic. For example, being interested in the color of a building when looking at the structural engineering aspect is not relevant.
Also, I am finding that most students are not addressing the weekly special question directly. We suggest the following format to the class? This would make grading the discussions much easier, as well as increase the grades for the students.
First Article Title, Author, Hyperlink, etc.
- A very brief (2-3 sentences) identification of the article’s subject
- 1 paragraph (3-4 sentences) about what you found the most interesting about the article
- 1 paragraph (3-4 sentences) about what you found the most confusing about the article
Second Article Title, Author, Hyperlink, etc.
- A very brief (2-3 sentences) identification of the article’s subject
- 1 paragraph (3-4 sentences) about what you found the most interesting about the article
- 1 paragraph (3-4 sentences) about what you found the most confusing about the article
Special Question
- 3-4 sentences directly addressing the weekly question
Example of Good Post
Below is an example with her comments about a very good discussion post
Week 9 – Topic: Environmental Modeling
Post by xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Article 1:
Charles J. Newell, John A. Connor, "Risk-based environmental restoration," in AccessScience, ©McGraw-Hill Companies, 2001, http://www.accessscience.com.ezproxy2.library.drexel.edu
· Clear identification of the source.
In this article Newell, details the new industry standard for environmental cleanup, which is the risk-based corrective action approach. This approach as the name implies details the mitigation of risk of environmental cleanup and most importantly on the limiting of further contamination. This approach focuses on assessing a site’s parameters, figuring out the an exposure assessment which is the identification of the exposure pathways, the risk/cleanup standard calculation which is a model of contaminant levels decline pending on action taken, and lastly the response action.
· Thorough and concise summary of what the article discussed in 3-4 sentences. The grader of the discussion post should not have to re-read the article to understand what the student is talking about in the remainder of the post. A short summary outlining the key points is ideal. This allows the grader to focus on the subject the student is discussing, and also shows that the student read and understands the article. This summary should not be a direct copy of what the article says, but rather the student’s abridged interpretation after reading it.
The most interesting part of the article was the risk/cleanup standard calculation part of the RBCA approach. It is the most fascinating part of the article because it requires engineers to make detailed models of the contamination site where they model the different parameters such as contaminant pathways and lists of accepted exposure factors.
· Brief, but direct explanation of what the student found most interesting about the article. In a few sentences, the student should identify which part they found most interesting and, more importantly, why they found it interesting. Common answers like “It was all interesting” or “The part about the calculations was interesting” are not sufficient.
The most confusing part of this article was when Newell details how engineers create the contamination pathways and more importantly how they determine how much contamination levels decline between the source and the receptor. In addition I wonder how accurate their measurements are for contaminates at the sub-soil level.
· Similarly, a brief but direct explanation of what the student found to be the most confusing part of the article should be addressed in a few sentences. Again, the reason the student found some parts confusing is more important than which parts they found confusing. A very common response was “Nothing confused me.” These are very advanced scholarly articles, so it is rare that the student would understand it completely. If there is nothing confusing, the student should elaborate on what further research they would be interested in. In this example, the student does both; he identified the confusing part of the article in detail, and also discussed a parameter he was curious about.
Article 2: **Responses same as above
Daniel Vallero, Alan Huber, Paul Lioy, "Dispersion modeling in complex urban systems," in AccessScience, ©McGraw-Hill Companies, 2008, http://www.accessscience.com.ezproxy2.library.drexel.edu
· Clear identification of the second source.
In this article Vallero discusses the various models used in the environmental cleanup industry. Although Vallero details three different models, the physical models, the numerical models, and the Urban Dispersion program he focuses mostly on the Urban Dispersion model. The Urban Dispersion model overviews how air flows in an urban environment and is used mostly to provide data to improve airflow around an urban environment and how to create safe city in case of any dispersal of air pollutants.
· Thorough and concise summary of what the article discussed in 3-4 sentences. The grader of the discussion post should not have to re-read the article to understand what the student is talking about in the remainder of the post. A short summary outlining the key points is ideal. This allows the grader to focus on the subject the student is discussing, and also shows that the student read and understands the article. This summary should not be a direct copy of what the article says, but rather the student’s abridged interpretation after reading it.
The most interesting part of this article was they detailed a hypothetical scenario of air flow in Madison Square Garden. Although they used technical jargon it was interesting to see how engineers model these systems. I was most interested in how many people got exposed over such and such contaminant levels. It is really intriguing to see how quickly people can get exposed based on the various durations of the contaminant exposures.
· Brief, but direct explanation of what the student found most interesting about the article. In a few sentences, the student should identify which part they found most interesting and, more importantly, why they found it interesting. Common answers like “It was all interesting” or “The part about the calculations was interesting” are not sufficient.
The most confusing part of this article was how they collected data on these air-flows. The article details the sampling approach used by the NYC UDP. When they sampled the airflow in NYC they used wind-sampling instruments in and around the sampling location. I understand how they collected the airflow data for outside but how does one model how an air pollutant or contaminate affects the occupants of a building. From what we learned from the last week discussion about indoor air quality is that air is often pulled from outside to cycle in a building. How does the model reflect the exposure from this action. I figure since most people in a city are in doors shouldn’t one focus on the contamination levels inside?
· Similarly, a brief but direct explanation of what the student found to be the most confusing part of the article should be addressed in a few sentences. Again, the reason the student found some parts confusing is more important than which parts they found confusing. A very common response was “Nothing confused me.” These are very advanced scholarly articles, so it is rare that the student would understand it completely. If there is nothing confusing, the student should elaborate on what further research they would be interested in. In this example, the student does both; he identified the confusing part of the article in detail, and also identified questions he had about the approach to air pollution monitoring.
Special Question:
From what I gathered from the two articles environmental modeling can be a challenging task. Since an engineer has to model quite a few different parameters such as the site locations geometry and what it consists to the various possible contaminate pathways. In addition they have to model how contaminates move, and how the temperature of the site affects these pathways. Upon this you have to model how these contaminates flow in different mediums, be it water, air, or soil.
· The student effective addressed the special question for the week, “Consider how we sense and model the many aspects of the environment.” Most importantly, his response was on topic, and discussed the approaches to modeling environmental conditions. He tied in his response to what he learned from the articles discussed above, and the obstacles one encounters in this modeling process.
Grader Comment - Overall, the post was well written. It stayed on topic, addressed the requirements, and had no spelling or grammatical errors. It was organized in a clear way:
