Peer Grading Using the forums Honor Code
Peer Assessments (https://class.coursera.org/googlemedia-001/human_grading/) / Week 6: The Impact of Social Media Help (https://class.coursera.org/googlemedia-001/help/peergrading? url=https%3A%2F%2Fclass.coursera.org%2Fgooglemedia001%2Fhuman_grading%2Fview%2Fcourses%2F970721%2Fassessments%2F14%2Fresults%2Fmine)
Submission Phase
1. Do assignment (/googlemedia-001/human_grading/view/courses/970721/assessments/14/submissions)
Evaluation Phase
2. Evaluate peers (/googlemedia-001/human_grading/view/courses/970721/assessments/14/peerGradingSets) 3. Self-evaluate (/googlemedia-001/human_grading/view/courses/970721/assessments/14/selfGradingSets)
Results Phase
4. See results (/googlemedia-001/human_grading/view/courses/970721/assessments/14/results/mine)
Your effective grade is
8
Your unadjusted grade is 8, which was calculated based on a combination of the grade you received from your peers and the grade you gave yourself. See below for details.
Peer Grading After submitting your work (and after the assignment deadline has passed), you will get the opportunity to grade the work of five of your fellow students. Your own work will also be assessed by peers, from which we'll get your grade. Since you've worked hard on your submission and would like your peers to do a good job of assessing your work, please take your time and do a good job of assessing your peers' arguments in return. You will then be required to assess your own work. Please note that peer graders can only evaluate your work if it is submitted in English. See this help page for non-English speakers (http://help.coursera.org/customer/portal/articles/1164743-can-international-students-non-nativeenglish-speakers-participate-in-coursera-s-english-language-courses-) for suggestions.
Using the forums Your fellow students are a great resource, and we encourage you to sharpen your ideas against them in the forums. There is a dedicated forum for Assignments; if you like, you can post your argument there and receive feedback before submitting your work officially. As you have already seen, the forums are also a place where you can hone your critical thinking about other issues related to Google and the media by engaging in discussions with other students.
Honor Code
Once again, please remember that you have agreed to the Honor Code, and your submission should be entirely yours. The definition of plagiarism is fairly straightforward: passing off someone else's work as your own, whether from a peer or a published resource. You may well need to quote others' material in your work; if you do, be careful to attribute it to its original source, for example: As Jeff Jarvis has said, "Customers are now in charge" ("WWGD?,"
the first chapter of What Would Google Do?). This week This is your last assignment (and will be your last peer-grading exercise) in the course. Final grades for the course should become available within 96 hours of the peer-assessment deadline. Thanks for going on this journey with us.
The subtitle of Jeff Jarvis’ most recent book Public Parts, which we did not read but whose contents are central to the online debate at The Economist, is “How sharing in the digital age improves the way we work and live.” In no more than 400 words, take a position on whether our decreasing anonymity online, and the increases in data collection and information sharing that accompany this decrease, either improves or damages 21st-century life. You must include an example from your own direct observation, outside reading, or personal experience, and carefully cite at least two sources from Week 6 materials. As in previous weeks, you will find a separate field for the citations so that they don't count against the word limit.
I am definitely for data collection and information sharing and openness and I think all these are improving our life in the 21st century. I know that many times it is very trendy to think and say that social media and sharing information about ourselves some other way are just "evils" that will go against people and will have some bad impact. But I think that just as some other great inventions in the past were not necessarily seen as positive in their own times, these new technological "inventions" should be natural parts of our lives. Even if we managed to live without Facebook, Twitter or Amazon, today it would be a lot less enjoyable and effective experience NOT to use them. I remember that first I did not really see the big value in using Facebook (some 4 years ago) but when I started using it, I became a fan. I don't think that my REAL social life weakened, however, at the same time, I could stay in very close contact with people far from me (relatives living abroad, friends moving to another continent etc.), in a way that it is almost unnoticeable how far we are from each other. I also very much enjoy the fact that Amazon or some local webshops can give me personalized suggestions and recommendations and that they appreciate and clearly state when and how I helped other customers with my habits or reviews. Privacy concerns me as well, of course. But my main principle is that I share information about myself exactly how I would share it outside the virtual world. Once you are careful about what you share and to whom, I am confident that your online presence could only bring you benefits. I completely agree with Jeff Jarvis when he writes: "It's often said that the internet is a threat to privacy, but on the whole, I argue it is not much more of a threat than a gossipy friend or a nosy neighbor, a slip of the tongue or of the email (http://www.theguardian.com/technology/email) "send" button." (1). And when it comes to openness, "...when information is legal and in the public domain, blocking it would violate publishers' right to freedom of expression." (2).
Evaluation/feedback on the above work
Note: this section can only be filled out during the evaluation phase.
4 points -- Makes a powerful, persuasive, clearly articulated case that decreased anonymity, plus increased data collection/sharing, either improves or damages life today. 3 points -- Makes a good but not great case that decreased anonymity, plus increased data collection/sharing, improves or damages life today. 1 point -- Attempts to take a position, but makes inconsistent or self-contradictory arguments. 0 points -- Fails to answer the question understandably and directly, or seems to be answering a different question.
Score from your peers: 4 Score from yourself: 4
2 points -- Includes an example from the student's own direct observation, outside reading, or personal experience. 0 points -- Fails to include an example from the student's own direct observation, outside reading, or personal experience.
Score from your peers: 2 Score from yourself: 2
You may enter your required citations here so that the text does not count against the assignment's word limit.
(1) Jeff Jarvis: "Welcome to the end of secrecy", http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/06/nsa-surveillance-welcome-endsecrecy (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/06/nsa-surveillance-welcome-endsecrecy) (2) Toby Sterling: "EU Court Rules That You Have 'No Right To Be Forgotten' by Google", http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/25/eu-court-google_n_3495450.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/25/eu-court-google_n_3495450.html)
Evaluation/feedback on the above work Note: this section can only be filled out during the evaluation phase.
2 points -- Carefully cites at least two sources from Week 6 materials that are directly relevant to stated position on data sharing and collection. 1 point -- Cites only one relevant source from Week 6 materials in support of stated position on data sharing and collection. 0 points -- Fails to cite any relevant sources, or fails to use them in support of the stated position on data sharing and collection.
Score from your peers: 2 Score from yourself: 2
Overall evaluation/feedback Note: this section can only be filled out during the evaluation phase.
You may supply overall feedback on the assignment here -- what impressed you, which areas might have been improved. Your peers will appreciate any constructive comments you supply, just as you would.
peer 2 → Good assignment. I agree with you and your support of Jeff Jarvis. Sharing data can create more openness and maybe we just have to learn to be smarter about what we share. peer 3 → "It's often said that the internet is a threat to privacy, but on the whole, I argue it is not much more of a threat than a gossipy friend or a nosy neighbor, a slip of the tongue or of the email "send" button."" I don't understand. "not much more of a threat". So he's arguing that online privacy is worse than real life privacy. Also, doesn't he realize that email uses the internet? It shouldn't be included in a list of non-internet things like neighbours and tongues. peer 4 → You are the first person (of the three I have so far marked) that writes about both sides of the discussion. Good to read.
Submission Phase
1. Do assignment (/googlemedia-001/human_grading/view/courses/970721/assessments/14/submissions)
Evaluation Phase
2. Evaluate peers (/googlemedia-001/human_grading/view/courses/970721/assessments/14/peerGradingSets) 3. Self-evaluate (/googlemedia-001/human_grading/view/courses/970721/assessments/14/selfGradingSets)
Results Phase
4. See results (/googlemedia-001/human_grading/view/courses/970721/assessments/14/results/mine)
Your effective grade is
8
Your unadjusted grade is 8, which was calculated based on a combination of the grade you received from your peers and the grade you gave yourself. See below for details.
Peer Grading After submitting your work (and after the assignment deadline has passed), you will get the opportunity to grade the work of five of your fellow students. Your own work will also be assessed by peers, from which we'll get your grade. Since you've worked hard on your submission and would like your peers to do a good job of assessing your work, please take your time and do a good job of assessing your peers' arguments in return. You will then be required to assess your own work. Please note that peer graders can only evaluate your work if it is submitted in English. See this help page for non-English speakers (http://help.coursera.org/customer/portal/articles/1164743-can-international-students-non-nativeenglish-speakers-participate-in-coursera-s-english-language-courses-) for suggestions.
Using the forums Your fellow students are a great resource, and we encourage you to sharpen your ideas against them in the forums. There is a dedicated forum for Assignments; if you like, you can post your argument there and receive feedback before submitting your work officially. As you have already seen, the forums are also a place where you can hone your critical thinking about other issues related to Google and the media by engaging in discussions with other students.
Honor Code
Once again, please remember that you have agreed to the Honor Code, and your submission should be entirely yours. The definition of plagiarism is fairly straightforward: passing off someone else's work as your own, whether from a peer or a published resource. You may well need to quote others' material in your work; if you do, be careful to attribute it to its original source, for example: As Jeff Jarvis has said, "Customers are now in charge" ("WWGD?,"
the first chapter of What Would Google Do?). This week This is your last assignment (and will be your last peer-grading exercise) in the course. Final grades for the course should become available within 96 hours of the peer-assessment deadline. Thanks for going on this journey with us.
The subtitle of Jeff Jarvis’ most recent book Public Parts, which we did not read but whose contents are central to the online debate at The Economist, is “How sharing in the digital age improves the way we work and live.” In no more than 400 words, take a position on whether our decreasing anonymity online, and the increases in data collection and information sharing that accompany this decrease, either improves or damages 21st-century life. You must include an example from your own direct observation, outside reading, or personal experience, and carefully cite at least two sources from Week 6 materials. As in previous weeks, you will find a separate field for the citations so that they don't count against the word limit.
I am definitely for data collection and information sharing and openness and I think all these are improving our life in the 21st century. I know that many times it is very trendy to think and say that social media and sharing information about ourselves some other way are just "evils" that will go against people and will have some bad impact. But I think that just as some other great inventions in the past were not necessarily seen as positive in their own times, these new technological "inventions" should be natural parts of our lives. Even if we managed to live without Facebook, Twitter or Amazon, today it would be a lot less enjoyable and effective experience NOT to use them. I remember that first I did not really see the big value in using Facebook (some 4 years ago) but when I started using it, I became a fan. I don't think that my REAL social life weakened, however, at the same time, I could stay in very close contact with people far from me (relatives living abroad, friends moving to another continent etc.), in a way that it is almost unnoticeable how far we are from each other. I also very much enjoy the fact that Amazon or some local webshops can give me personalized suggestions and recommendations and that they appreciate and clearly state when and how I helped other customers with my habits or reviews. Privacy concerns me as well, of course. But my main principle is that I share information about myself exactly how I would share it outside the virtual world. Once you are careful about what you share and to whom, I am confident that your online presence could only bring you benefits. I completely agree with Jeff Jarvis when he writes: "It's often said that the internet is a threat to privacy, but on the whole, I argue it is not much more of a threat than a gossipy friend or a nosy neighbor, a slip of the tongue or of the email (http://www.theguardian.com/technology/email) "send" button." (1). And when it comes to openness, "...when information is legal and in the public domain, blocking it would violate publishers' right to freedom of expression." (2).
Evaluation/feedback on the above work
Note: this section can only be filled out during the evaluation phase.
4 points -- Makes a powerful, persuasive, clearly articulated case that decreased anonymity, plus increased data collection/sharing, either improves or damages life today. 3 points -- Makes a good but not great case that decreased anonymity, plus increased data collection/sharing, improves or damages life today. 1 point -- Attempts to take a position, but makes inconsistent or self-contradictory arguments. 0 points -- Fails to answer the question understandably and directly, or seems to be answering a different question.
Score from your peers: 4 Score from yourself: 4
2 points -- Includes an example from the student's own direct observation, outside reading, or personal experience. 0 points -- Fails to include an example from the student's own direct observation, outside reading, or personal experience.
Score from your peers: 2 Score from yourself: 2
You may enter your required citations here so that the text does not count against the assignment's word limit.
(1) Jeff Jarvis: "Welcome to the end of secrecy", http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/06/nsa-surveillance-welcome-endsecrecy (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/06/nsa-surveillance-welcome-endsecrecy) (2) Toby Sterling: "EU Court Rules That You Have 'No Right To Be Forgotten' by Google", http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/25/eu-court-google_n_3495450.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/25/eu-court-google_n_3495450.html)
Evaluation/feedback on the above work Note: this section can only be filled out during the evaluation phase.
2 points -- Carefully cites at least two sources from Week 6 materials that are directly relevant to stated position on data sharing and collection. 1 point -- Cites only one relevant source from Week 6 materials in support of stated position on data sharing and collection. 0 points -- Fails to cite any relevant sources, or fails to use them in support of the stated position on data sharing and collection.
Score from your peers: 2 Score from yourself: 2
Overall evaluation/feedback Note: this section can only be filled out during the evaluation phase.
You may supply overall feedback on the assignment here -- what impressed you, which areas might have been improved. Your peers will appreciate any constructive comments you supply, just as you would.
peer 2 → Good assignment. I agree with you and your support of Jeff Jarvis. Sharing data can create more openness and maybe we just have to learn to be smarter about what we share. peer 3 → "It's often said that the internet is a threat to privacy, but on the whole, I argue it is not much more of a threat than a gossipy friend or a nosy neighbor, a slip of the tongue or of the email "send" button."" I don't understand. "not much more of a threat". So he's arguing that online privacy is worse than real life privacy. Also, doesn't he realize that email uses the internet? It shouldn't be included in a list of non-internet things like neighbours and tongues. peer 4 → You are the first person (of the three I have so far marked) that writes about both sides of the discussion. Good to read.
