SUGGESTION: Add an evaluation of readings feature

I'm started on my second Mobile Ed course. Naturally I do not expect to always find theological agreement with the courses but generally both have seemed to tow a reasonable line. However, a few of the readings have been insulting to my intelligence in their utter abuse of logic and gross appeal to emotion, misrepresenting academic groups with which the author disagrees. Note these are not theological debates except in a most tangential way. I remind myself of the logical obscenity by giving the resource a 1 star rating but I would like a way to inform the teacher/course development staff that the author's logic is non-existent and perhaps an alternative resource should be recommend.

Mind you, such articles are rare but that only makes it more annoying to waste my time on them.

Find more posts tagged with

Mobile Education

Comments

Robert Peters

I could not agree more. I love the lectures, just some of the reading seems more like busy work. It would be nice for them to have more readings tailored to the lectures. Maybe we can create our own note files would would be beneficial to someone else?

Miles Custis

Thanks for the feedback. I'd encourage you to go to the course Faithlife pages and discuss the specific readings there (I'm not sure what course you are referring to or I would provide a link). In general, we try to link to readings from a relatively broad range of resources. We definitely try to tie them into the lecture content and provide a way for people to dig deeper into the topics discussed in the course. We also want to help people make better use of their Logos libraries by helping them get more acquainted with the different resources they own in their base package and by pointing them to helpful resources found outside the base packages.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/695415#Comment_695415

The problem with this solution is that the students who are used to sloppy thinking and appeals to emotion may have liked the source and could be insulted by an objective evaluation of the reading. There is a reason one uses discretion as to where you say what. In a college class you complain to the professor not to the class.

NB.Mick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/695517#Comment_695517

The problem with this solution is that the students who are used to sloppy thinking and appeals to emotion may have liked the source and could be insulted by an objective evaluation of the reading. There is a reason one uses discretion as to where you say what. In a college class you complain to the professor not to the class.

I think this kind of complaints should be brought to the editors via eMail. However, the News area, Community Notes, and discussions of NT221 (the only mobileEd course in my price range) are widely unused - prior to being part of the course myself, I would have expected interaction with the course and the reading materials there.

One could surely discuss the material there (and of course others might challenge your purely objective evaluation by clobbing together some sloppy subjective remarks). Often, what one perceives as the consensus of all thinking scholars as opposed to a fringe aberrant opinion is just a matter of prior perspective. However, personally, as an evangelical I'm often embarrassed by the arguments put forth by people from 'my camp'.

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/695519#Comment_695519

as an evangelical I'm often embarrassed by the arguments put forth by people from 'my camp'.

Ditto.