@lalalaud this is an example of things I would usually complain about on twitter with people like @twitemp1 @o_guest and @zerdevehttps://twitter.com/jdavidjentsch/status/957032526706593793 …
-
-
Yes, ofc. I was referring to the anonymity of the feedback only!
-
Anonymity on feedback forms when it's about the content of the lectures (provided the content does not violate any rules) is not really there to help anybody. If the contents violates rules then that feedback should be anonymous.
-
I can write software that maintains anonymity 100% (the lecturer can't know who left the feedback) and allows for these two options.
-
It sounds reasonable but how would it help to know the identity of the person making such homophobic (or other) comments? Unless we are thinking on some subsequent educational training, I don't see what it would solve. Filtering the feedback that lecturer gets is indeed necessary
-
Two reasons: 1. Educational. Because this is (or should be!) against school policy. The lecturers deserve to work without hate speech. The student should be confronted. 2. Preventative. Non-anonymous feedback on content (not violations) will deter such hateful stuff.
-
OK 1) I fully agree 2) This is the part I find a bit dangerous because it can also be dishonestly applied but I see your point and I concur that prevention is needed.
-
For 2: I made a specific distinction between non-anonymous for CONTENT and anonymous (but reversible if found to be abusive, but a neutral party) for VIOLATIONS (i.e., the lecturer said racist stuff).
-
No system can be perfect, but the one that gave rise to the above horrible anonymous abusive message was a worse one than what I propose. Dialogue on better systems is always going to be ongoing of course.
- 30 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
