Mission & Protocol Discussion (A start…)

[mmm4444bot]

Mission & Protocol Discussion (A start…)

I appreciate JeffM taking time to get the ball rolling (by responding to the first poll attempt; that poll thread was deleted, secondary to technical issues). Jeff's typing was preserved; I've reposted it below (see post #4).

As I mentioned in the deleted thread, I think there's an important distinction between the phrases "active member" (hangs out a lot) and "regular contributor" (posts a lot). I'll explain in greater detail later.

I'd also like feedback on whether we have more than these four categories, for new members posting their first requests for help:

Student Learner
Student Non-Learner
Non-Student Learner
Non-Student Non-Learner

Jeff mentioned conflict between different purposes (aka mission interpretations?) -- would a protocol written only for responses to new members who haven't yet posted enough to make clear which category (above) they belong to suffice? Do we need more clarity than that?

:cool:

 

[stapel]

I'd also like feedback on whether we have more than these four categories, for new members posting their first requests for help:

Student Learner
Student Non-Learner
Non-Student Learner
Non-Student Non-Learner

What do we mean by "non-learner"? Would a "student non-learner" be somebody who posts their homework, saying something like "no time 2 do it need ans NOW PLEEEEEEEZ!! (show all ur werk)"?

Many of us have ad the experience of helping somebody who claimed that the posted query related to something for fun, or for work, or for some other non-academic purpose. But during the course of assisting, the helpers learned that, no, they'd been scammed; the poster was actually a student who, say, wanted the guts of his semester project done by somebody else. I've noticed that, when "non-students" get complete worked solutions (or at least nearly so, since they're not in school, etc), the "students" (a) complain about unfair treatment and (b) start claiming that they're not students, either. Do we want to encourage this?

I mean, the purpose here (I think) is to help, not to "spoon-feed" or otherwise "do" everything for the poster. Inviting people to claim, for instance, that they're "a non-student, trying to help my niece with her homework, so please show all the steps on these eight problems" seems not the best idea. :shock:

Thank you for opening this discussion!

 

[mmm4444bot]

There are some polls, now, on the News board.

This posts contains a lot of my thoughts, some in response to stapels comments (thank you), that pretty much poured out of my mind in one sitting (i.e., not organized). Please comment on what JeffM, stapel and I have posted, so far.

---

What do we mean by "non-learner"? Would a "student non-learner" be somebody who posts their homework, saying something like "no time 2 do it need ans NOW PLEEEEEEEZ!! (show all ur werk)"?

Yes, that's a good example. Another would be a student who says nothing at all, beyond an exercise statement. Or, a student who does not respond to our suggestions or questions. Or, one who makes clear after a few post exchanges that they aren't really interested.

These categories/attributes are just a start. I understand that there are issues with identification or placement related to these categories. They need to be discussed.

Student = somebody requesting help with schoolwork

Non-Student [NS] = somebody who does not need help with schoolwork

Learner [L] = somebody who shows a willingness to participate, makes an effort, follows instruction, responds to our questions, accepts constructive guidance, tries or completes the steps we suggest, etc (any combination of the above)

Non-Learner [L] = somebody who doesn't really participate, shows little or no effort, seems to skip over or not read our replies, ignores our questions, seems to ignore our assessments or guidance, seems to expect others to do most of the work (any combination of the above)

Once a new member has posted a few times, I feel that the active membership can make a decent judgment as to whether this new member is: [S&L] a student with an interest in learning and willingness to accept tutoring, [S&NL] a student who isn't really interested in exerting mental effort, [NS&L] a non-student with an interest in learning or a willingness to participate, to share feedback on what we suggest, to answer questions, or [NS&NL] a non-student who is looking only for somebody to do all math-related work for something they want, without wanting to learn any details.

You raise a major issue, stapel: how do we assess a new member's true intent, without much to go on?

There are lots of additional issues. As a community, do we want a one-size-fits-all approach? Do we turn away all [NS]? If not, what's the protocol?

Jeff provided a viewpoint (see post #4) that this forum has a primary purpose (providing a service for [S&L]), and he alluded to a secondary purpose ("answering simple mathematical questions for those who are not "). Do we allow for a secondary purpose (is that a sub-mission)? Ought all AM have equal access to a [NS] request? How do we label new member's first requests for help? What protocols are needed to discern up-front what the request entails (eg: simple answer for somebody trying to understand unit pricing because AARP told them they should use it, more involved answer for a geocacher seeking GPS coordinates, or a semi-major project like "reverse-engineering" sets of data and circumstances, to provide some formula). It's possible such posts will motivate a particular member to play with it -- for recreation, or to be nice, or both. Should we be concerned whether protocol or mission limits their ability to do that?

The reason it's hard to define things like protocol and mission is because the community is a diverse membership with varied backgrounds and motives AND there are many viewpoints and issues swirling around the definitions.

Overall, the goals of (1) defining or refining the forum's mission and (2) defining or writing clear protocols for active members (in general) and moderators (in particular) is a BIG IDEA. Speaking for myself, I need it broken down into smaller parts because I'm not smart enough to see the totality of it all -- especially before receiving input/feedback from the regular contributors.

Here's a couple more definitions:

Active members [AM] = members of the forum who log in regularly (several times a month, if not weekly or daily), and who read a lot of threads. (I take note when AM are logged in. I see their usernames often, as having read a post or in a variety of places in the forum).

Regular contributors [RC] = active members of the forum who regularly post replies to new member requests for help.

All [RC] are also [AM], but relatively few [AM] are also [RC]. Most [AM] who are not [RC] post only rarely (eg: Grandpa Bob).

The definitions I've posted so far comprise a start. Are there other categories/attributes for new members that we need to consider? Are there other things for which definitions would help the main discussion? Once the membership agrees on those four categories/attributes (or adds some more), then I can prompt discussions around the various issues related to each of them, one at a time. After that, I plan to solicit the specific issues that the [RC] want to discuss. Then we ought to be able to have an organized discussion.

Or, we can collectively decide to take a different approach for this discussion. I'm listening!

Many of us have had the experience of helping somebody who claimed that the posted query related to something for fun, or for work, or for some other non-academic purpose. But during the course of assisting, the helpers learned that, no, they'd been scammed; the poster was actually a student who, say, wanted the guts of his semester project done by somebody else.

I sure hope this has not happened to any [RC] more than once or twice, over the years. I can't remember experiencing it, but I definitely empathize with the disappointment and frustration that would entail. The [AM] need to provide their thoughts about how we identify veiled schoolwork -- especially up front, but also after several posts, if people are leading us down a long path with several posts of misrepresentation. One thought: [AM] can always submit a private-message request for a moderator to look at the registration data, before investing a lot of time. For example, if somebody claims to be a [NS], but their registration email address is me@someschool.edu, that would be a red flag.

I've noticed that, when "non-students" get complete worked solutions (or at least nearly so, since they're not in school, etc), the "students" (a) complain about unfair treatment and (b) start claiming that they're not students, either. Do we want to encourage ?

Definitely not! This is also a good point. We need more refined protocol, for dealing with new member OPs that make it difficult to assess intent. Perhaps a harder line, for new posters? Force them to declare up front (or their moderated OPs will be bounced back to them, for editing). We could also invoke a policy that threads from new members who declare as [NS] will be displayed but closed with a notice, for the first 7 or 10 days. Do we take people at their word or not? I don't know how to apply a lie-detector test over the Internet; I generally need to see a pattern of behavior or a number of posts. Other members need to chime in on this.

I mean, the purpose here (I think) is to help, not to "spoon-feed" or otherwise "do" everything for the poster. Inviting people to claim, for instance, that they're "a non-student, trying to help my niece with her homework, so please show all the steps on these eight problems" seems not the best idea.

I totally agree with you, on this example. I feel that once we know a request is , the protocol must be tutoring, regardless of whether we dealing with a student directly or through a representative. Personally, I am likely to provide some spoon-feeding, when a family member states they're trying to help a child. I support that effort. (If they're an imposter, hopefully time will tell.) Maybe we need to take a harder approach on this and insist that the student work with us directly. Or, maybe we need a protocol that says, if a representative wants to relay our information to the student, that we always refer them to introductory lessons, examples, and/or video lectures off-site. We would continue helping only after effort is subsequently shown or specific questions about the referenced lessons asked.

Frankly, I was laughing out loud yesterday morning, as I began writing notes for a poll. While trying to work out what the poll should ask, I suddenly experienced a burst of insight into why our elected officials have been struggling for so long to deal with issues of public assistance, employability, and immigration!

Do we allow public assistance or not?
Is a willingness to work a condition of that or not?
Are we talking about a legal resident or not?

Remind anybody of anything?

Please, members, if you have anything to contribute, now's the time to start framing your thoughts. I sense that, as a community, we're going to need a lot of feedback and participation, in order to define mission & protocol and to reach consensus on workable solutions. :cool:

PS: If your skillset includes organizational insight or you've worked creating things like flowcharts, protocol, or administration, I welcome suggestions.

 

[mmm4444bot]

The following was posted by JeffM, in response to a prior poll-attempt about our forum's mission (that thread no longer exists, due to technical issues).

---

I am a relatively new contributer. But I have always acted as though the primary purpose of this forum was to help students to learn mathematics with a secondary purpose of answering simple mathematical questions for those who are not studying mathematics. The site's title does not seem to deny help to those who are not students. In fact, if I remember correctly, I first came to this site with a question, and I certainly was not a student asking for help with homework.

I have always recognized that there is some conflict between the purposes because giving answers is seldom good pedagogy and because it is occasionally difficult to determine whether or not a question has been posed by or for a student. With multiple purposes, there is always some risk that we will address a question with the wrong purpose in mind. It seems to me that risk is worth taking.

~ JeffM

 

[mmm4444bot]

There is a new poll, on the News board. We encourage active members to participate (all polls are completely anonymous). Each poll's current standing will display, after you enter a choice. (Currently, the turn out has been, um, limited.)

Have an idea for another poll? Suggestions about the polls? Please reply in the poll's thread, or send me a private message. :cool: