Mychal,

I’m always concerned, especially during the 10th week of the term, when I hear from students concerned about their scores dating back to the 2nd week of the term.  The Moodle grade book has be visible and available to you all term long.

The Moodle server logs tell me that on Jan 6th and 13th you clicked the How Forums are Graded instructions.  It only tells me you clicked the link.  I can never know whether the student actually read the instructions or not.  Based on the date, I can only assume that you did not.  Here are the numbers of times you posted in each forum.

Week 2 forum - 3
Week 3 forum - 4
Week 4 forum - 2
Week 7 forum - 8
Week 8 forum - 2
Week 9 forum - 6 (not yet scored)

For weeks 8, you posted the absolute MINIMUM number of times required, and for weeks 4 and 8 you posted LESS than that.  Obviously failing 3 of the 6 class forums would result in a poor score (currently 70% for the forum category).

While you have done well in the quiz category, earning 97.3%, that category is only worth 20% of your total class grade.  Forums are worth 35% of your total class grade.  Clearly, more time should have been spent on your participation in these.

Below, I’ve included the text of every post or reply you’ve made during the course.  What I can tell from first glance is that the most come on Wednesdays and Sundays.  The How Forums are Graded instructions clearly warned against doing that.  On the Week 7 forum, which was your best participation week, the posts come on other days and your score for that forum was an A+.  The posts below also lack the depth of analysis.  There are plenty “I agree” type of posts/replies and these rarely earn over a single point, out of the potential 3 points they could earn.  Most lack citations, either from your textbook or videos, which help to prove your points.

Below a few examples, I’ve written comment in ALL CAPS to make it easier to read.



HST 209 W16 (Escobar 31984) -> Week 8 Forum -> Petersburg -> Re: The Siege
by Mychal Hilario - Sunday, February 28, 2016, 8:23 PM
 
   I would have to agree, while the documentary did add to my knowledge I dont think it was more effective or complete than the other sources.    I liked that it had a more focused scope on the battle and showed stuff they used.   It made me feel a bit more connected with the actual  battle part of the war.  Like you said it really made me think of the soldiers, the men who lived these conditions and still fought.  I think was a good addition to help round out our knowledge  but was definatly more dry and did not stick with me as much.  Another good point i agree with is that while i did like this documentary and looking more closely at a single battle and its tactics was interesting and helpful i would not want to do it for every single battle.  

 
Sum of ratings:1  

HST 209 W16 (Escobar 31984) -> Week 8 Forum -> Petersburg -> learning more about the battles
by Mychal Hilario - Wednesday, February 24, 2016, 10:06 AM
 
   I found this new documentary very interesting and for me added a lot to my understanding.    I felt like it had more personal information about Grant and had a more positive view of him, omitting some of the criticism he faced and even mentioning his nickname "the Butcher" as a positive rather than the distinctly negative implication given in the Burns documentary.  It certainly explained the battles more in depth.  The book is good for information about battles and tactics as well but the alternative documentary was far more interesting for me and showed it in away i really understood.   For one i liked the real life examples of the defense obstacles.  I think this more narrowed focus was great it really made me think about the battles and people involved. I feel like a lot of the Burns film is about the whole nation and conveying emotion, the time and is  atmosphere and more of a general historic overview. Where the new documentary is very focused and provides detailed information about specific events or people.   I really liked the new film and the more specific focus on the battles in the book and their tactics.  Learning more about the siege and how the people involved had to live was very eye opening, I could not believe the miles of trenches and the idea of living life getting used to that happening around you.  I think it was worth while to watch this and may even watch the rest in the series.  I think it was very complimentary to the other documentary and the book all offer different angles of focus and provide information lacking in the others.

 
Sum of ratings:3  

HST 209 W16 (Escobar 31984) -> Week 7 Forum -> The Divided Union -> Re: No Contradictions
by Mychal Hilario - Saturday, February 20, 2016, 8:54 AM
 
  That is a good point. It is important to have the book to back up what we learn from the video because as we have seen the Burns series can "sensationalize" some of the details.

Sum of ratings:  0

WHAT DETAILS ARE BEING SENSATIONALIZED.  NOTHING SPECIFIC INCLUDED.


HST 209 W16 (Escobar 31984) -> Week 7 Forum -> The Divided Union -> Re: After 12 Minutes
by Mychal Hilario - Saturday, February 20, 2016, 8:52 AM
 
   I agree , the clip was short and showed little but what it did show lead me to believe it probably covered some different topics in better detail.  It left me interested as well and i think i would like to see the whole thing. It seemed to be a resource that focuses on the tactics and battlegrounds and that would be helpful to me as that is an area i struggle with.

 
Sum of ratings:1  




HST 209 W16 (Escobar 31984) -> Week 7 Forum -> The Divided Union -> Re: Collaborating Sources
by Mychal Hilario - Saturday, February 20, 2016, 8:44 AM
 
  I would have to agree, the 12 minute video did little to nothing to add to the information.   It seemed as though  the entire documentary probably had interesting information and had the added feature of actually showing the battlefields.  However being chopped up into a 12 minute overview  any real information it was meant to convey was lost.

 
Sum of ratings:  0

DID LITTLE OR NOTHING? THAT WAS NOT THE POINT OF THE CLIP.  GO BACK AND TAKE A LOOK AT THE FORUM QUESTIONS.  I’M SURE YOU ARE NOT IMPLYING THAT YOU CAN ONLY LEARN SOMETHING IF THE VIDEO IS A FULL HOUR LONG, LIKE THE KEN BURNS VIDEO EPISODES.




HST 209 W16 (Escobar 31984) -> Week 7 Forum -> The Divided Union -> Re: Comparing our sources
by Mychal Hilario - Saturday, February 20, 2016, 8:39 AM
 
  Perhaps "weakness" is the wrong word,   i suppose it is the more just the a/the weaker point in his program.  However for me his series is the one that makes e feel most connected and interested in the war.   It is tough to say something is really the weaker point of either the book or documentary series.  They are two different mediums created by two different individuals and those individuals are trying to convey what They found most important. At first i would say i don't agree both are needed, i would be wrong. They do create a powerful team that create a dynamic picture of the whole story vs. dry facts and the more I learn about the War it is clear emotion was a Huge part of the history of the time and the people.  


Sum of ratings:1  



HST 209 W16 (Escobar 31984) -> Week 7 Forum -> The Divided Union -> Re: working together to further understanding
by Mychal Hilario - Wednesday, February 17, 2016, 8:02 PM
 
  I really liked your title "Working together for better understanding".  That is very much how i felt about the different information sources we are using. 

 
Sum of ratings:1  

THESE TYPE OF REPLIES RARELY EARN MORE THAN A SINGLE POINT.


HST 209 W16 (Escobar 31984) -> Week 7 Forum -> The Divided Union -> Re: Different Forms of Content
by Mychal Hilario - Wednesday, February 17, 2016, 5:52 PM
 
   I also thought the Ken Burns episode had a lot of interesting information about the two generals and really painted a picture of their lives and them as men.  However as you said It is just the way it tends to go that it is hard to put into video all the a book can hold.   I think you are very right the  12 minute segment was more of a summary of a summary, almost a list of topics.   

 
Sum of ratings:1  

THIS REPLY IS REPETITIOUS, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, WHAT WAS THE INTERESTING INFORMATION INCLUDED ABOUT THE TWO GENERALS.  BE SPECIFIC.

HST 209 W16 (Escobar 31984) -> Week 7 Forum -> The Divided Union -> Re: Collaborating Sources
by Mychal Hilario - Wednesday, February 17, 2016, 4:50 PM
 
  I think you are right that they collaborate well.    Over all i think having multiple sources is nice so you get a more complete story. Often one person thinks of even one or two different questions to focus on and while both cover the same material, having multiple sources in various forms helps create a more dynamic picture of a subject and that is what these do for each other.

 
Sum of ratings:1  




HST 209 W16 (Escobar 31984) -> Week 7 Forum -> The Divided Union -> Comparing our sources
by Mychal Hilario - Wednesday, February 17, 2016, 3:22 PM
 
    It was interesting to see short clip of the alternative documentary.  I was hard to get a true feel for what it was like and how it compares to our other sources because it was so short. However i felt that while short it imparted a lot of facts and really conveyed much of the the information it had in a more direct way than the Ken Burns documentary.  I thought using scenes from battle re-enactments was a great touch.  From reading the article it would seem though that had much of the same critiques as Burns work.  To me they seemed very different, i was drawn to the second documentary a little more i think, I liked the way they were outside in the actual locations and showed re- enactment scenes.  Both documentaries seem to be a story mostly told in photographs because that was the dominate medium of the time and in that respect i think Burns imparts more of the feeling of the time with the pictures he chooses to use and choosing to show photos of the dead and severed limbs.  With only seeing 12 minutes it is hard to really compare it to the book or other documentary.  I think the strength of the Burns documentary is also its weakness.  It seeks to create a emotional bond with the viewer.  Using photos and letters and music expertly placed to tug at heart strings and connect an audience to a dark and now seemingly distant episode of our past as a nation.  In contrast the book seems to me to be a ore detailed fact based account.  With its goal being to clearly impart factual information..    I think they work well as a team to create a clear full story,  the older documentary less so because it was so short and choppy feeling to me.    I can say it hindered me learning about Lee, Grant , The hospitals, or the battle of the wilderness, ect..  The 12 minute clip touched on these subjects a bit but to me did not really impress any new information.    It is hard for me to compare the book and the Burns documentary on these specific subject as i have not yet done this weeks reading, but in my previous experience with the two i have felt that the two create a rather complete and complimentary duo.  Though to be truthful i have never studied the Civil War seriously before and would not really know what one could be missing.

 
Sum of ratings:3  

HST 209 W16 (Escobar 31984) -> Week 4 Forum -> Civil War Photography -> Re: Not Comparable
by Mychal Hilario - Thursday, January 28, 2016, 11:35 AM
 
I have to agree that to me at least the two are pretty uncomparable.   From the evidence and information presented it seems as though he moved the for purely selfish reasons.  So that he could have more shots to sell. As well as be able to create a scene he use to fit a story or create a story to fit the photo.   I think it is highly disrespectful and while i think he knew what he was doing with the photos in the first story it is at least possible he thought he had taken pictures of two groups of men. In the case of the moved body it is pretty clear that he did physically change the scene and intentionaly moving a mans body and changing  the scene to fit his needs. Which is as you said disgusting and disrespectful. 

 
Sum of ratings:2  

HST 209 W16 (Escobar 31984) -> Week 4 Forum -> Civil War Photography -> Re: Civil War Photography
by Mychal Hilario - Tuesday, January 26, 2016, 5:19 PM
 
 I think the second case the "case of the moved body"  is the more upsetting.  In the "case of the confused Identity" It is at least possible there was some kind of mix up and he thought he was writing about 2 different groups of men. The angle of the first photo supports his narrative more, in the detail of the men having been striped of their shoes because of the enemies need of them. In the second photo the men have shoes on and thus it does not support his narrative.   I think he probably did know the difference obviously building the glory of the deaths of the men on his own side while painting a grim picture of those on the other side.  However In the "case of the moved body"  It is pretty clear he well moved the body and posed it where he wanted to either provide him with more material or to create a photo to fit a story he had already thought of.    To me there is a big difference in manipulating words and angles to convey your message and moving a body and fabricating a scene so you have more material to work with.  

 
Sum of ratings:3  

HST 209 W16 (Escobar 31984) -> Week 3 Forum -> Creative License -> Re: Burns' Creative License
by Mychal Hilario - Thursday, January 21, 2016, 11:30 AM
 
   I think you made a good point about this film being more about captivating peoples attention and sparking interest in the Civil War.   I had the exact same thought that if someone were studying the war as a historian or student of history they would certainly be using other resources and hopefully even then would be encouraged to question and verify as we are.    As you said it is not actively misleading and was not made to be completely academically accurate but made to accessible to many people and spark a deeper interest.

 
Sum of ratings:1  

HST 209 W16 (Escobar 31984) -> Week 3 Forum -> Creative License -> Re: A Different View of the War
by Mychal Hilario - Thursday, January 21, 2016, 11:21 AM
 
    I also really appreciate Ken Burns way of storytelling.  As you said history can be very dry and though it is a serious and emotional subject it can be hard to feel a real connection for words on a page.  The way Burns presents the story draws in all kinds of people even those not necessarily interested in history and helps create emotional attachment. It also for me at least made it a little more "real" for me, with the use of photos, letters, paintings and news clippings it gave me a much more personal connection as well as creating a dynamic view of the time period.

 
Sum of ratings:2  



HST 209 W16 (Escobar 31984) -> Week 3 Forum -> Creative License -> Re: For All We Know
by Mychal Hilario - Wednesday, January 20, 2016, 10:55 AM
 
I think that is a very good point that extends well beyond this film series.  How many letters or diaries and such were rewritten?  Much of what we read of the past does seem quite romanticized and it is certainly something to consider that not all of what we are presented is original just because it says journal or letter of a person.

 
Sum of ratings:1  



HST 209 W16 (Escobar 31984) -> Week 3 Forum -> Creative License -> Creative License
by Mychal Hilario - Wednesday, January 20, 2016, 10:14 AM
 
 

  I am a very lineal thinker and even more so when taking in information.  I personally prefer to know just how things happened from start to finish. That being said i do understand this is not 100% historically accurate and  is made for mass entertainment consumption with that in in mind the placement of the letter and how it is presented are compelling and help drive home the feeling of how uncertain the time was. As well as provide an emotional and dramatic point to end on. For the dramatic and emotional effect on the film I can see why Burns would want to include the letter toward the end of the first episode in this series.  It does demonstrate  the desire for closeness and connection to family the people of all parts of the families had to be feeling. I do not think it is necessary to infuse more drama into an already highly dramatic story and i dont think that is really what Burns set out to do or did.  I think in this case anyway he used the real drama present  and shaped how it was presented to something a little more  dynamic for an ongoing video series.  I do think he made the right choice to include it where he did, it had a candid relatible feeling and i feel helped wrap up the situation and feeling of the time presented in the first episode.  The music that accompanies it and the other pictures certainly all serve to help create the emotional connection I believe Burns was going for and found it a tasteful way to end the episode that really left me wanting to learn more.

 
Sum of ratings: 3

SCORED A 3, EVEN THOUGH THERE ARE GRAMMAR PROBLEMS…  CAPITALIZATION, CONTRACTIONS, ETC. AND SPELLING MISTAKES.


HST 209 W16 (Escobar 31984) -> Week 2 Forum -> Meet Ken Burns -> Re: Meet Ken Burns
by Mychal Hilario - Sunday, January 17, 2016, 7:53 PM
 
 I think you have a very good point that he limited himself by not including more historians.  I can see why as an artist he has a certain group he trusts and enjoys working with but the Civil War is such a broad subject that their are many historians who study it and even specialize in specific battles. I think it would have added some more factual integrity and would have added more substance to an already good  film.    I also agree that it a really cool aspect that we are being encouraged to question what we see and read by the professor who assigned it.

 
Sum of ratings:1  

HST 209 W16 (Escobar 31984) -> Week 2 Forum -> Meet Ken Burns -> Re: Meet Ken Burns
by Mychal Hilario - Friday, January 15, 2016, 12:22 PM
 
   I also was really struck by Burns enthusiasm and enjoyed the first video.  I was very drawn in, I watched the video first and then did the reading and found it kind of a shock at first that there were so many facts and events omitted or changed.  However it is a show produced for public television and there for is created with certain bias and sensationalism. I came away from the experience with a much more critical attitude and the information i take in.      

 
Sum of ratings:1  

HST 209 W16 (Escobar 31984) -> Week 2 Forum -> Meet Ken Burns -> Did you find yourself "admiring" Ken Burns
by Mychal Hilario - Wednesday, January 13, 2016, 1:37 PM
 
  I did mostly because he is a man doing what he loves to do and is very successful at it.   I have watched many of Ken Burns specials on pbs over the years and have always enjoyed them.  I did like the message of the video as well. I found it both interesting and endearing that he immerses himself so fully in all aspects of the work he does.  After reading the articles i must admit I feel much more critical of Ken burns work.  The most prominent thing that stood out to me that made think more critically about Burns work was in the second article. Where it states that  John Browns biographer wrote that John brown brought along a wagon load of pikes and tool to the raid. However in the Civil war series by Ken Burns it says he brought a wagon load of guns.   I do still have a fairly high confidence in the information we are receiving from this series and I feel like it does well to cover and convey the issues and mindset of a very complex issue and time.

 
Sum of ratings:2  

