Education due in 48 hours - 2 assignments
combsattached
2 months ago
30
files (3)DiscussionBoard2.docx
TemplateforCRISPR-Cas9EthosPathosandLogos.docx
AssignmentCRISPR.docx
DiscussionBoard2.docx
Discussion Board 2: Generative AI in Real Life
Discussions play an integral role in monitoring your course participation throughout the term. You should check back to the weekly discussions multiple times throughout the week to engage in the discussion with your professor and peers. Participation is only counted during the week in which this discussion is assigned. Be sure to appropriately cite any sources you use to support your responses with standard APA citations. Answer the prompt question(s) thoroughly using a minimum of 200 words and respond to as many of your peers as possible - note that responses to 2 of your peers are required for full credit. Be sure to answer any additional questions asked by your professor in the discussion threads.
Many students, and people in general, are experimenting with generative AI (like ChatGPT) for school, work, or fun, but not always with clear results. Some say it saves time or helps them get started. Others feel it causes confusion, errors, or even dependency and the erosion of critical thinking.
Think about a time you did or could have used generative AI for something: a school assignment, a resume, a brainstorm, or even just asking a random question. Share the context and explain:
· What did you expect it to help with?
· What were the results? Positive, negative, or both?
· What kinds of AI use do you think professors might see as helpful vs. harmful? Why?
End your post by naming one specific risk or drawback you think others should watch out for when using AI, even if you found it helpful when using it.
Critical thinking is about seeing all aspects of a topic, so be sure to approach this topic with an open mind! This is a no-judgment space. The goal is to start thinking critically about the role of AI in our lives, as it is a rapidly emerging technology. Be honest, so that we can have productive conversations!
TemplateforCRISPR-Cas9EthosPathosandLogos.docx
Speaking about CRISPR-Cas 9 using Ethos, Pathos, and Logos
Following the successful mapping of the human genome in April of 2003, gene editing has become possible. Using CRISPR-Cas9, scientists can edit genes to prevent and cure once debilitating and lethal diseases and disorders.
Consider how Dr. Neville Sanjana, an assistant professor at New York University, explains CRISPR -Cas9 to five very different audiences: a child, a high schooler, a college student, a graduate student, and an expert in the field. Notice how Dr. Sanjana shifts ethos, pathos, and logos in ways that are appropriate for his listener.
|
Dr. Sanjana’s Audience |
Ethos Where does Dr. Sanjana’s ethos come from? Do they know his credentials, college education, job? How likely is it that the audience (person below) will find him believable/credible? How does he come across as credible IN the conversation with each of the audiences below? |
Pathos How does Dr. Sanjana appeal to the emotions of each of the audiences below? Name the emotion(s) he wants them to feel and explain why the audience feeling that/those emotion(s) would be helpful to what he would like them to do with their conversation. |
Logos Consider the evidence Dr. Sanjana presents to each audience (remember that the evidence presented to a 7-year-old will be different from what is presented to an expert in the field). How likely do you think the audience member is to take the evidence he provides and come away with the action, change of mind, or other behavior he wants from them? Why? |
|
7-year-old child |
|
|
|
|
High school student |
|
|
|
|
College student |
|
|
|
|
Graduate student |
|
|
|
|
Expert |
|
|
|
Write a paragraph here (minimum of four sentences). Explain how Dr. Sanjana changes his approach (consider the rhetorical appeals) with each audience member. Do you think he does a good job of meeting his audience where they are at with this topic? Why or why not?
AssignmentCRISPR.docx
Assignment: CRISPR-Cas9 & Ethos, Pathos, and Logos
Following the successful mapping of the human genome in April of 2003, gene editing has become possible. Using CRISPR-Cas9, scientists can edit genes to prevent and cure once debilitating and lethal diseases and disorders.
Consider how Dr. Neville Sanjana, an assistant professor at New York University, explains CRISPR -Cas9 to five very different audiences: a child, a high schooler, a college student, a graduate student, and an expert in the field. Notice how Dr. Sanjana shifts ethos, pathos, and logos in ways that are appropriate for his listener.
But first . . .
Download this template Download Download this template to complete your work and submit it for this week’s assignment.
After each explanation, note on the sheet how each rhetorical appeal functions for each audience, using the guiding questions at the top of the table. Once you have completed the table, in a short paragraph, explain how Dr. Sanjana changes his approach with each audience member. Do you think he does a good job of meeting his audience where they are at with this topic? Why or why not?
Then upload your completed sheet to the assignment.
https://youtu.be/sweN8d4_MUg?si=2zOZJ0QwO3ZssCNo
Rubric
CRISPR-Cas9 Rubric
|
CRISPR-Cas9 Rubric |
||
|
Criteria |
Ratings |
Pts |
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeEthos, pathos, logos when speaking to the 7-year-old child |
5 to >4.0 ptsExcellentAll three rhetorical appeals (ethos, pathos, logos) are fully and thoughtfully addressed using specific examples or reasoning. Answers show a clear understanding of Dr. Sanjana’s rhetorical choices. 4 to >3.0 ptsProficientAll three rhetorical appeals are addressed with mostly complete and appropriate answers. Reasoning is appropriate but may lack some detail or clarity. 3 to >2.0 ptsDevelopingTwo of the rhetorical appeals are addressed, or all are addressed but with vague, general, or incomplete answers. 2 to >0 ptsMissingOne or none of the appeals are addressed, or answers are missing, unrelated, or show misunderstanding. |
5 pts |
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeEthos, pathos, logos when speaking to the high school student |
5 to >4.0 ptsExcellentAll three rhetorical appeals (ethos, pathos, logos) are fully and thoughtfully addressed using specific examples or reasoning. Answers show a clear understanding of Dr. Sanjana’s rhetorical choices. 4 to >3.0 ptsProficientAll three rhetorical appeals are addressed with mostly complete and appropriate answers. Reasoning is appropriate but may lack some detail or clarity. 3 to >2.0 ptsDevelopingTwo of the rhetorical appeals are addressed, or all are addressed but with vague, general, or incomplete answers. 2 to >0 ptsMissingOne or none of the appeals are addressed, or answers are missing, unrelated, or show misunderstanding. |
5 pts |
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeEthos, pathos, logos when speaking to the college student |
5 to >4.0 ptsExcellentAll three rhetorical appeals (ethos, pathos, logos) are fully and thoughtfully addressed using specific examples or reasoning. Answers show a clear understanding of Dr. Sanjana’s rhetorical choices. 4 to >3.0 ptsProficientAll three rhetorical appeals are addressed with mostly complete and appropriate answers. Reasoning is appropriate but may lack some detail or clarity. 3 to >2.0 ptsDevelopingTwo of the rhetorical appeals are addressed, or all are addressed but with vague, general, or incomplete answers. 2 to >0 ptsMissingOne or none of the appeals are addressed, or answers are missing, unrelated, or show misunderstanding. |
5 pts |
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeEthos, pathos, logos when speaking to the graduate student |
5 to >4.0 ptsExcellentAll three rhetorical appeals (ethos, pathos, logos) are fully and thoughtfully addressed using specific examples or reasoning. Answers show a clear understanding of Dr. Sanjana’s rhetorical choices. 4 to >3.0 ptsProficientAll three rhetorical appeals are addressed with mostly complete and appropriate answers. Reasoning is appropriate but may lack some detail or clarity. 3 to >2.0 ptsDevelopingTwo of the rhetorical appeals are addressed, or all are addressed but with vague, general, or incomplete answers. 2 to >0 ptsMissingOne or none of the appeals are addressed, or answers are missing, unrelated, or show misunderstanding. |
5 pts |
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeEthos, pathos, logos when speaking to the expert |
5 to >4.0 ptsExcellentAll three rhetorical appeals (ethos, pathos, logos) are fully and thoughtfully addressed using specific examples or reasoning. Answers show a clear understanding of Dr. Sanjana’s rhetorical choices. 4 to >3.0 ptsProficientAll three rhetorical appeals are addressed with mostly complete and appropriate answers. Reasoning is appropriate but may lack some detail or clarity. 3 to >2.0 ptsDevelopingTwo of the rhetorical appeals are addressed, or all are addressed but with vague, general, or incomplete answers. 2 to >0 ptsMissingOne or none of the appeals are addressed, or answers are missing, unrelated, or show misunderstanding. |
5 pts |
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeReflection paragraph |
25 to >22.0 ptsExcellentReflection (4+ sentences) clearly explains how Dr. Sanjana shifts his approach across audiences. Offers specific insight into rhetorical adaptation and audience awareness. 22 to >18.0 ptsProficientParagraph addresses most shifts across audiences and gives general thoughts on effectiveness. 18 to >14.0 ptsDevelopingParagraph is vague, too short, or lacks real analysis or justification of audience differences. 14 to >0 ptsMissingParagraph is missing, too short, and/or off-topic. |
25 pts |
Total Points: 50
- BA 181 Apple iPhone: Life in the Technology Lane
- BA 181 Final
- only for you
- FINC330
- wisemosez
- Write a paper that contrasts the common myths of the American Frontier from the historical realities. Choose one group who...
- Management 2
- CIS 312 Week 4 Assignment 2 Input Devices
- ANT 101 Entire Course
- MHA 610 Biostatics
