Participation

"Lecture" notes will be posted for each Saturday we do not meet in person; they may sometimes be posted a day or two early. The class discussion of those notes is scheduled for the week after they’re posted – drop in at your own convenience during the week. Discussion topics will be provided for each week, and each topic will be archived at the end of two weeks, to keep our inboxes from getting too unwieldy. The "lectures" will include questions intended to start discussion. To participate, you may:

	Answer a starter question
	Raise a related issue
	Take part in a "class exercise" assigned within the "lecture"
	Tell us about journal articles or books you’ve read on the topic, or about useful URLs
	Tell us about relevant resources for the course
	Respond to a classmate’s question

This list is far from exhaustive. Substantive posts should not be very long, but should communicate interesting ideas and/or information. Other necessary posts – like requests for clarification of assignments – can be sent to their own topics – like "Assignments" – and aren’t exactly part of the discussion. Professionally interesting but off-topic subjects can be explored in the "Coffee Break." Messages to a single person – like "That was a super presentation," or "was the grade you posted for me a typo?" – should be sent only to that individual, via "Mail."

And messages like "Oops -- I made a typo in that last post but I've fixed it and here's the correct version" shouldn't be made at all, if we can help it! Do your proofreading before you post, but if you miss something, just let it go. Two hints about formatting in WebCT:

for a new paragraph, hit "Enter" twice -- if you only hit it once, the program won't recognize it; and

to send a clickable URL, make sure you include the http:// part of it, and also that there's no adjacent punctuation. "http://www.uri.edu" or <http://www.ala.org> won't work in WebCT because the program will include quotation marks, parentheses, commas, periods -- anything at all -- as part of the actual URL.

Q. Do spelling and grammar count?

A. For this assignment they don't, unless they interfere with comprehension. The instructor is always favorably impressed by good standard English, but spontaneous discussion of ideas and content is more important.

Q. WebCT counts how many threads you start and how many you respond to. Does initiating a thread count more toward your participation grade than responding?

A. No. What matters is to keep a good discussion going; so relevance and interest count more than who wrote first.

Q. What does the instructor mean by "substantive"?

A. Meaty. Informative. Interesting. It shouldn't be too long (don't make us scroll down endlessly); but it should at least be long enough so that readers will pick up the context without having to go back to the message you're answering (probably more than a single line). Maybe a paragraph or two? It all depends. Example:

	Repeating and reinforcing somebody else's point is OK. If Jeannie comes across a terrific URL about how to do an information needs assessment at your library, you could write, "Great URL, Jeannie; that's just what we need for the User Study assignment." That would reinforce the atmosphere of civility in the class, but it wouldn't add much new content; you could just send it to Jeannie's mail.
	What would be more substantive? Another good URL, maybe? Or a suggestion about just how you would use the site for your assignment? Something that would give not only Jeannie but all of us additional food for thought.

When you take somebody's idea and elaborate, add examples, or give it your own unique spin, you're adding intellectual content as well as collegiality to the discussion.

Criteria for grading

4. Above the Standard (B+ or A-)

	Quantity: An average of 1.5 substantial posts to each week's discussion list. (Posts to Coffee Break & Assignments topics are extra.) Student posts in a timely manner.
	Substance: Posts to discussion lists are on topic, contributing to classmates’ knowledge and understanding. Posts may advance discussion by synthesizing others' remarks, or raising new questions and suggesting new points of view, as well as by pointing out relevant online resources, research findings, etc.
	Civility: Posts are courteous; no flaming. Disagreement is constructive; "have you considered this angle?" or "what if you looked at it this way?" but not "I can't believe you said something so stupid."
	Participation in "in-class exercises" is timely and thoughtful.

3. Meets the Standard (B)

	Quantity: An average of 1 substantial post to each week's discussion. Student usually posts in a timely manner, but may miss one or two weeks.
	Substance: Majority of posts are on topic, contributing to classmates’ knowledge and understanding.
	Civility: Posts are courteous; no flaming.
	Participation in "in-class exercises" is timely.

2. Approaches the Standard (C+ or B-)

	Quantity: An average of fewer than one substantial post to each week's discussion, apart from the week the student is co-facilitating. Student may omit posting for two or more weeks and try to make up by multiple posts in other weeks.
	Substance: Many posts may be off topic, or too shallow or trivial to contribute much to the discussion.
	Civility: Posts may be less than courteous; disagreement may be tactless and edgy, coming uncomfortably close to criticism of a classmate's intelligence rather than a specific idea.
	Participation in "in-class exercises" is late or desultory.