It has been said by many, including myself, that threaded discussions in an online classroom are frequently of very little academic value, and that very little actual discussion takes place. For an existing (and interesting) thread related to the topic, see this one: http://www.degreeinfo.com/distance-learning-discussions/35900-do-threaded-discussions-online-classes-have-any-academic-value.html I wanted to share a small piece of a class as an example of a really unique way of promoting student engagement, and of bringing a class out of the mundane. This is a brief excerpt from a Humanities class; this discussion was one of a few related to Nietzsche. The exercise is reprinted with the permission of Robert Wren, PhD. Dr. Wren is a professor in UTEP's College of Liberal Arts, and has facilitated an online learning experience that has been extremely challenging and very rewarding. For the sake of protecting privacy, I am not including the discussion itself, only the prompt. I'll shut up now and let the exercise speak for itself. Read and enjoy. A Note From Lt. Columbo Please, can I talk to you for just a second. Won't take long at all. Really. I have this case, and I was told I should make a report here on it and you look like you might, or could, or wanta help me? Do they allow smoking in here? I thought they didn't. Oh, well. Nice clothes you are wearing. In Los Angeles people are still wearing those neon colors. Man, they can blind you, you know. I've developed a real distaste for pink. I useta like pink. Did ya know that earthquakes are kinda pink? yeah. Real close up they are. Really. Don't let me stop you. You go ahead with what you're doing. I'm just trying to figure out this case. I get the really good ones, you know. Yeah. This is a beaut. I usually work homicide, so I got this one cause it's kinda close I guess. It's a deicide. You know. Who killed God? Tough case. No surviving relatives. Relatives make great suspects. Not a break on this one. No wife, kids--not even a brother-in-law. You always gotta keep an eye on brothers-in-law. Well. Let me tell you what I found out. It won't take a second. Really. This guy Zarathrustra or somethin' like that found the body. Big guy. Real big. I figure it will take years and years to finish drawing the chalk outline of the body. I mean that--at least 500 years. That's what I figure. Had a bit of a weight problem, but unconnected to the cause of death. This guy in the robe and sandals--did I tell you that the guy who found the body was wearing Birkenstocks? Real nice, too. I got some of those for Christmas but I don't have a trenchcoat in the right color. Anyway, we haven't got much to go on. No photographs. We don't even know if we got a body. Have to wait for the boys to finish with the chalk outline before we know what we're dealing with. No visible signs of violence because the victim is invisible. Real tough. It may not even be a whole body. could be just some "invisible hand" like those economists write about. Still, you can see the situation. The autopsy's not gonna be easy. Whew, I'm glad I'm not Quincy. Can't get a blood type. Can't even see any blood. But there it is. Anyway, this Zarathustra guy had a list of suspects. I went talked to the first three--this is what I got. Have you got a pencil? A pen? I need to get this down. OK. Here we go. First guy on the list was a guy named Darwin. Some biologist guy. I asked what he knew and he claimed it was an accident. That confused me. Then he started talking about natural selection and survival of the fittest and stuff like that. I got the impression we were talking about lizards. Let me tell you, he really confused me. At least he admitted to some knowledge of the crime. I didn't think it useful to make an arrest. There were other people to talk to. I next talked to a politician named Marx. Karl. Yeah. Karl Marx. He said he was innocent. He just gave the Big Guy a sedative--should've been harmless, he said. A little opium with some tea. Perfectly harmless according to him. He said that He--the God guy--always took a little opium before going to hear masses. Strange. I don't know if he is on the level. Well, you know what we in the police always say "From each according to their guilt, to each according to the crime." The third guy on the list. . .well. I guess you've guessed that by now.
Agreed, and I'm sure this contributed to my infatuation with the exercise. Just to be clear about the context, the topic at hand is not about an attack on religion; it is more a statement on the inevitability of our society's movement away from religion as we advance. However, even outside of the subject material itself, just the structure of the prompt struck me as very cool. I mean, it's Columbo. It's great. It treats a profound topic with a carefully measured sense of irreverence. Anyways, I'm a fan.
I guess I'm no Columbo :disappointed: My answer to this question can be summed up in two words: cognitive dissonance. People generally do what is most convenient for them to do, and contrary to common sense, their attitudes will shift according to their actions, not vice versa. There is not as great of a social (and therefore, economic) benefit to being a part of an organized religion as there was in the past, and more and more people who do believe are the ones who are considered the violators of social norms. In an increasingly busy and independent (less family and community oriented) society, time spent on spiritual matters is time lost from activities of personal achievement, or conversely, enjoyment. If it is harder to have God in your life, less people will, and in turn, their attitudes will be shaped accordingly. Add to this the fact that we live in the information era. Egregious religious wrongdoing has been exposed, creating an opposite-halo effect. People are more skeptical of claims of spiritual leader's generosity- seeking every i and t dotted and crossed respectively- but nearly automatically believe charges of embezzlement and child abuse* as "ringing true." Also, while people today demand more insight and are less likely to follow unquestioningly, most religions utterly refuse to offer their followers reasons to believe either that their religion is true amongst the ones that are false, or to believe in God, or anything, altogether. *footnote: I recognize that it is extremely rare that a child will falsely accuse someone of sexual abuse, although it does happen.
Hate to say it but it's typical university indoctrination. Remove the students trust for god and family and place it in government controlled institutions. It happens at an early age and continues to it's climax at the university. It's affects are lessened after you get a job and a family of your own but now the influence is upon your children. This is why cleps are great. No need to become indoctrinated to pass the class.
I agree that the format is a lot more engaging than the typical stupid question that all students are forced to pretend they care about answering. Of course I disagree with Columbo's assumptions here but I know that debating that was not the purpose of this post. I do wonder though how many of the students recognize Lt Columbo. I used to watch the movies/shows growing up but I would guess that a lot of younger people (teens & early 20's) wouldn't know who he is.
Who killed God? The moment he or she became a thing capable of worship, we killed it. The only thing that lives perpetually in parallel with man, is whatever man isn't aware of yet or can't interact with.
I'm bummed. I thought this really was about Lt Columbo. It is my favorite. show. ever. (I'm serious) I've seen every episode multiple times. Whoever wrote that, no disrepect, didn't do my favorite detective justice. Oh,and just one more thing, what's this about?
Point is that man changes or destroys whatever he touches in the name of control. There's no structure or concept that's immune to change.
My point exactly. And the discussion has really been a blast. That's true, but hey, I posted it in a public forum, so it's fair game I guess. You are right, though, I was posting it more so that the structure and approach could be appreciated. The topic, though, tends to polarize, so I anticipated a certain level of debate. Dr. Wren has different "voices" and approaches as well, some more relevant to the late-teen/early-twenty-something bracket than others. However, I think we all recognize that the age bracket for dl work is generally a little older than for traditional b&m work. Anyways, like I stated, just the approach to the topic is what struck me. Each of his threads has been a complete break from convention, and it does a good job of keeping the student on his/her toes. Additionally, it shows that the professor is engaged in promoting real interaction, and does not want canned responses.
Sorry Jennifer, didn't mean to bait-and-switch. I'm a casual Columbo fan also; maybe that's one of the reasons I liked this topic so much. Classic Columbo! Really just another discussion about Nietzsche. The professor is trying to get the student to think about historical and societal changes/movements/trends that contributed to the diminishing importance of religion. In societal terms, what/who contributed to the transition from a mythopoeic to a more scientific/rational mindset? I'm not asking the question, I'm rephrasing Columbo's quandary.
I agree with pretty much everything you are saying here. But, the fundamental question being asked is: what/who made the chinks in the armor that made such a shift possible? Religious/creation/reality myths dominated our world view for thousands of years, and then it seems as the events/advances/ideas of a relatively short time period rendered this world view obsolete. The prof mentioned Darwin and Marx. These people, though not directly attacking religion, brought ideas/concepts/practices that inevitably led to the questioning of religion. The question, then, is who/what else (historically) helped to catalyze this shift from the mythopoeic to the rational? Again, though, I am not seeking answers to the question. I'm not sure there are any definitive answers. I just really liked the format of the question, and wanted to share. Thanks for playing! :smile:
I must say that I found you disappointing; I mean your incompetence. you left enough clues to sink a ship... and for a man of your intelligence, you got caught in a lot of stupid lies..
