Picture of Patrick Holihan
Patrick Holihan	FromTo	me
Joe Escobar
Wednesday, 30 September 2009
Patrick Holihan [01:43 AM]: Hello Mr. Escobar,

Isn't language a wonderful thing? Your lecture today seemed to highlight both intentional and inadvertent miscommunication. Having completed Chapter 1 Quiz, I find I may need some language clarification.

I missed two questions on the quiz. While this is an acceptable score, the errors are confusing. For future consideration, I would appreciate your interpretation of the language presented in these quiz questions.

The first appeared as question nine on my Quiz. It was a true or false question that stated, “For the Western Hemisphere as a whole, any given region probably lost at least 90 percent of its population within a year of sustained contact with Europeans.” Note that our textbook states, “For the hemisphere as a whole, any given region probably lost 90 or 95 percent of its population within a century of sustained contact with Europeans” (Murrin et al., 2008, p. 35). Did we lose 90 percent of the population in a year or did it take 100 years?

The second appeared as question thirteen on my Quiz. It asked me to name, “The nation that led the way for European expansion into the Americas.” Clearly our textbook delineates Portugal’s accomplishments in European expansion. It also states, “While the Portuguese surged east, Spaniards moved more sluggishly to the west” (Murrin et al., 2008, p. 14). Additionally the textbook indicates that the Portuguese, “… warned Columbus that he would perish on the vast ocean if he tried his mad scheme” (Murrin et al., 2008, p. 15). Doesn’t “into the Americas” imply westward expansion? Wasn’t Columbus sailing, in 1492, in the name of Spain?

I accept my score on this quiz. I understand that these types of quizzes can sometimes be limiting. I simply want to understand this history so I thank you in advance for your response.

Finally, be advised that I can’t get the week 1 video to play on my windows 2003 server. I will attempt to solve this or view the video on another machine. Thought you would want to know in case others have the same problem.

Respectfully,
Pat
Joe Escobar [09:50 AM]: Patrick,
I'm very impressed at your careful reading of the quiz questions. Let's see how well I can address your concerns in an email.

First, the publisher quiz questions are not written by me. I use them mainly as a sort of reading comprehension check for students, and they basically work very well in that manner.

Sometimes, the textbook publishers don't pay enough attention to these questions, usually written by the professor's/author's graduate students, who slip in the "trick" question every now and then. Simple time limitations prevent me from having been able to comb through every question in advance. That's one main reason that I disregard your actual scores on these practice assignments. I figure at least half of the questions are "good" ones.

I hope this bit of background helps.

Your first question about 90% population decline was a failed attempt at one of those "trick" questions, AND, the publisher mis-marked the correct answer. Because of your careful reading and notification to me, I have changed the question to make it "clear" and to have the correct answer. This will prevent other students from dealing with a vague (and wrongly answered) question. Thanks.

As for the second question, your comprehension of the material is spectacular. The textbook/publisher answered PORTUGUESE, because they understood it from a European "maritime influence" perspective. You probably answered Spain, because you read it from a geographic direction and "eventual outcome" perspective. (That's the way I read it as well.)

First, I won't be using this question on the midterm exam. Second, I haven't changed it at all, because again, it comes from the textbook/publisher/author perspective, and while vague, can still be considered correct.

Finally, as I'm sure you know, your score one the quiz was just fine regardless of these two questions. As a "type A" person myself, I certainly would like to have gotten a perfect score and want every question to be clear and make perfect sense. But that is not the purpose of these quizzes and is something we just have to "let go".

I hope I've been clear. Again, I'm very impressed with your responsible start in this class. See you Thursday, and we'll see if other students have similar questions.

Joe
Joe Escobar [09:50 AM]: Oh yeah, on the video. Be sure you "can" see it, whether on your own computer or at any other.
Patrick Holihan [03:47 PM]: Hello Mr. Escobar,

Thanks for your rapid clarification, your kind words and your encouragement. Your response allows me a better understanding of this material.

Past experience compels the following. Please know that my questions were not intended to find fault. They weren’t meant to draw attention to me personally. While I often admire “Type A” people, I’m far too lazy to be counted as one. I don’t seek a perfect score on a quiz or a perfect score on a test. I do however aspire to a flawless understanding of this course. Your response seems to indicate that I have a partner in this endeavor. Again, I thank you.

Respectfully,
Pat
Joe Escobar [07:01 PM]: I'd like to hear about that "past experience" sometime.

I have no problem whatsoever with students finding fault with the textbook or anything related to it, mainly because I didn't write it myself. :)

And while I know you weren't trying to draw attention to yourself by asking these questions, BELIEVE ME, that type of "attention" is a welcome thing indeed... a student who cares about the course and their education. I can only hope that I have many more like yourself in class this term.

See you tomorrow
Tuesday, 27 October 2009
Patrick Holihan [03:56 PM]: Hello Mr. Escobar,

Can you make the Colonial History WIKI instruction page available on our Moodle site?

The instruction page provides links to the material used to answer the Colonial History WIKI questions.

I've sampled some of our (LCC) Colonial History WIKI's. Some have glaring inaccuracies. Some I find difficult to read. I would prefer to have benefit of both sources (our interpretation and source websites) to prepare for the Midterm.

Respectfully,
Pat
Joe Escobar [04:09 PM]: Will this do (below)? Or did you need the publisher link? Find that under the Web Links.


You have been randomly divided into groups of 4 or 5 students. Together, you will research a specific topic that will be assigned to you.

All group members must work together to complete the assignment by the deadline.

Two groups will be assigned to each topic, and they will work separately. This will serve as a source of academic competition. After the deadline, when final group projects are viewed by all, students will vote for the "better" project of the two.

1. Click here to go to the textbook publisher website.
2. Click "select a chapter" from the chapter drop down menu at the upper left and choose your assigned chapter.
3. Then select "Internet Exercises" from the Chapter Resources block on the left.
4. Click on your assigned internet exercise topic from the list.
5. One the next page, you will find links to the internet materials you will need to read AND the list of questions you will answer.


IMPORTANT - You will NOT answer the questions in the little boxes on the the textbook publisher site. You will re-write and answer those questions in Moodle, on your group's own wiki page.

Here are the groups and topics. To find out what group number you are in, look at the upper left-hand corner of the Colonial History Wiki page.

Chapter 3
Bacon's Rebellion - GROUPS 1 and 2
Pequots and Puritans - GROUPS 3 and 4
Chapter 4
Battle of Quebec - GROUPS 5 and 6
The Great Awakening - GROUPS 7 and 8
Trial of John Peter Zenger - GROUPS 9 and 10
Chapter 5
First Continental Congress - GROUPS 11 and 12
The Stamp Act - GROUPS 13 and 14
The Boston Massacre - GROUPS 15 and 16

Patrick Holihan [04:40 PM]: Hello Mr. Escobar,

The web link is what I was looking for. I've found it, thank you.

Respectfully,
Pat
Monday, 9 November 2009
Joe Escobar [10:33 AM]: Patrick,
I'm a bit surprised by what seems to be an accusation here. You wrote:

"The question misses the most important aspect of the revolution. It’s so far off the mark one wonders if there's a partisan agenda here?"

Are you arguing against the editors who compiled the Taking Sides book, of which this is just one issue? Are you arguing against me personally and my choice of this material?

I'm not sure if you meant it that way or not. Perhaps I've completely misinterpreted your post. Please let me know.
Patrick Holihan [08:04 PM]: Mr. Escobar,

Your lectures are very informative, entertaining, and thought provoking. I would prefer all classes match your benchmarks. My learned instructor, I don’t know you personally. What I do know, your ability to communicate and your talent in opening a gateway to history I greatly admire and respect. You have been prompt and thorough in helping me grasp the nuances of this history. Please know that no personal affront was intended by my post. Thank you for allowing this clarification.

As a veteran I swore an oath to uphold and defend our constitution. The ideals espoused in our founding documents are very dear to me. It’s important to realize that without Liberty we cannot be conservative or radical. In discussing the movement that describes our revolution, it’s absurd not to identify freedom as a fundamental goal. We have paid too high a price gaining and maintaining our Liberty not to recognize it as our revolution’s fundamental legacy.

The choices (conservative vs. radical) presented by the editors of the Taking Sides book are limiting at best. They offer only the false choice of two hot-button adjectives. Cannot conservatism be radical? Even Mr. Degler, arguing for conservatism, described the radical change in how our government interacts with religion. In limiting the argument to these choices, the editors reveal a point of view.

My post reveals my point of view. Mr. Escobar, I chose this issue in order to make these afore mentioned points. I perceive this as an appropriate forum. It’s my intention to honor proper decorum. I respect you and our award winning authors too much to knowingly insult any of you. There is value though, especially today, in challenging the premise of an essay. I dare say Mr. Escobar, you teach as much. The statement you question is intended to get respondents to consider and comment on an alternate point of view.

If this is unacceptable please let me know. If you see a conceptual or contextual error in my argument, I welcome the correction. Any advice at all is highly valued.

Respectfully,
Pat
Joe Escobar [10:05 PM]: Pat,
Thank you for the kind words. It clarifies for me the constructive point I believe you were trying to make. Part of the issue is your firm grasp of the subject (which I believe to be MUCH better than the average student). What I mean is that I am expecting students to argue several points in this "too simplified" yes-no question.

#1 defining conservative broadly as "tradition, the way things were" and liberal as "change, usually meant for the better" (some students will have trouble just at this point

#2 argue the merits/facts of the revolution itself (simple stuff... leaders before were leader afterwards... in this case, more conservative than liberal or revolutionary... republican form of government without a king, more radical than conservative)

#3 examine the "experts", their backgrounds, the time period they wrote, etc.

#4 if lucky, get to the changing nature of the definitions of conservative and liberal over time, and how this complicates the issue.

As you can see, you are already operating on the #3 and #4 levels (highly analytical and complex). This is wonderful for you and I hope a few high achievers in your group can truly participate in a fruitful discussion with you at that level.

So, in order for me, and more importantly, for other students to more clearly see where you were coming from, I would suggest a rewrite of your first two sentences.

You wrote:
We are to argue, based on the reading, whether the revolution was conservative or radical. The question misses the most important aspect of the revolution. It’s so far off the mark one wonders if there's a partisan agenda here?

I would re-write it this way:
In order to argue, based on the reading, whether the American Revolution was conservative or radical, it is crucial for us to have a common understanding of those two politically charged terms. Moreover, since either expert will (or has) undoubtedly express a particular bias, it is imperative to know what THEY mean when they say conservative or radical.

Please let me know if I'm in the ballpark here or missing your point completely. Written this way, your introduction no longer sounds like a direct attack on the Taking Sides book, on either of the two experts, or even on me for assigning such a reading.

Actually, since early posters (like yourself) often get to "set the agenda" in an online forum, my real worry is/was that students reading this post might indeed turn this discussion into a name-calling, conspiracy-finding, Bush vs. Obama exercise... which, as it turns out, I'm happy to say, was not your intention.

I hope my written communication to you has been as articulate as yours was to me. If it was not, let's be sure to touch base, in person, tomorrow sometime.

Joe

P.S. I guess I should add that since you cannot change the text of your post, I am still able to do that. Feel free to accept, reject, or rewrite my intro and/or adapt yours as you see fit. Let me know how you'd like it to read.
Tuesday, 10 November 2009
Patrick Holihan [12:14 AM]: Mr. Escobar,

Once again your prompt and thorough response is enlightening. Your improvements and direction are welcome. It may take me a day or so to rewrite. To prevent devolving into a free-for-all, please update my post as proposed. Thank you.

Respectfully,
Pat
Joe Escobar [11:58 AM]: Done