Week 10 Discussion — What Moves You, and What Is a Feeling? — Traditional alternative (no AI)
Instructors: publish this instead of the adaptive version if you prefer, and unpublish or delete the adaptive one.
Hook
You have probably worked hard for something nobody paid you for, eaten a snack you did not need, or felt your heart race before you knew whether you were scared or excited. This week you learned four ways to explain what moves people to act, and three theories that disagree about what comes first in a feeling. That raises a question worth arguing: does any one theory explain a real person's real moment, or does each one leave something out?
Your discussion question — choose Option A or Option B; they carry the same weight and the same rubric, and you say which you picked.
Option A: Think of a real goal you have pursued in your own life, job, family, sport, or studies — something you kept working at over days or weeks. Which theory of motivation from this week best explains what kept you going: drive-reduction theory, arousal theory, incentive theory, or Maslow's hierarchy of needs? Argue for your choice, and then say where that theory falls short for your case and which other theory would have to fill the gap.
Option B: Think of a real moment when a strong feeling arrived fast — nerves before a performance, fear on a dark street, excitement at a game, or a racing heart before an interview. Describe its physiological arousal, its expressive behavior, and your cognitive appraisal. Then argue which theory of emotion fits your moment best — the James–Lange theory, the Cannon–Bard theory, or the two-factor theory — and say what your moment shows that the other two theories would miss.
There is no single right answer. The same marathon, the same late-night snack, or the same racing heart can be argued well under more than one theory. Pick one you actually care about, and tell us the story.
Expectations
Activity format: one initial post followed by two substantive peer replies. Plan on about 45 minutes across the two deadlines; your instructor sets both due dates in Canvas.
Your initial post — by the first due date (early in the module week):
- Say which option you chose.
- Describe the goal or the moment, and apply the theory you chose to it step by step.
- Use at least two of this week's terms (motivation, need, drive, homeostasis, drive-reduction theory, arousal theory, Yerkes–Dodson law, incentive theory, Maslow's hierarchy of needs, self-actualization, emotion, physiological arousal, expressive behavior, cognitive appraisal, James–Lange theory, Cannon–Bard theory, two-factor theory) correctly.
- Give your position with a reason, and name one place where the theory you chose falls short for your case.
- Share only what you are comfortable sharing, and never describe or label another person's feelings or eating.
- Length: roughly 150–250 words if written. You may instead record your post as audio or video (about two minutes) and attach a transcript; both forms are scored by the same rubric.
Your replies — by the second due date (the end of the module week):
- Reply substantively to at least two classmates.
- A substantive reply does more than agree: suggest a different theory that could explain the classmate's goal or moment, point out a push read as a pull (or the reverse), or ask whether a label decided their feeling. "Nice point!" on its own does not count.
What a strong post looks like:
I chose Option B. Before my first solo shift at a busy café, my hands shook and my heart raced while I was still tying my apron. I told myself, "This is the good kind of nervous," and by the first order I felt excited, not scared. That fits the two-factor theory best: the arousal came first, and the label I gave it decided the feeling. Cannon–Bard would miss that the label changed what I felt.
Notice how it names the three parts of the moment, picks a theory, and says what the other theory would miss. That is the bar.
Participation rubric
This discussion is worth 10 points. The three criteria below look at your initial post and your peer replies.
| Criterion | Full credit | Partial credit | No credit |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quality of the initial post (4 pts) | A real, specific goal or moment is described, the chosen theory is applied to it step by step, and the position is backed by a reason | A goal or moment is present, but the theory is named without being applied, or the position is asserted without a reason | Missing, off-topic, or no reasoning about motivation or emotion |
| Use of course concepts (3 pts) | Uses this week's terms precisely, keeps push apart from pull and the three emotion theories apart, and hedges any biology | Uses a term loosely or with a small error | No course terms, or used incorrectly |
| Engagement with peers (3 pts) | Two or more substantive replies that extend or challenge a classmate's reasoning | One substantive reply, or replies that only agree | No replies, or "I agree" with nothing added |
Post early if you can — the best threads happen when people have time to reply before the second due date.
Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com