Yeah, that's a shocking story. Very disappointing. 
-
-
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.
-
Indeed :) Yes, you are right, this distinction could help avoiding most of the problems.
-
Another point is that all feedback should be after the marks are out.
-
Both UC and SUNY require students to make evals before marks; only released to Prof after
- 27 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
To be fair, anonymity with a class is impossible if you teach them closely anyway. I used to mark anonymised essays and I knew who wrote each one with high confidence.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.