This study examines student perceptions of the social tasks involved in online group projects and characteristics they thought were important (285). Data was gathered through a survey of 125 undergraduate students in six online classes. Questions were focused on behavior identification, such as what the students did to develop an identity, how they got to know other group members, what kind of characteristics they desired in group members, and how they contributed to developing supportive relationships, trust and etiquette (287-88). I thought the questions were worded in somewhat leading way, assuming positive motives and behaviors. In addition, some of the questions contained terms that were open to interpretation. For example, what exactly is meant by “etiquette” or “develop a specific identity”? The response rate was only 47%, and the students were enrolled through one department. The questions were based on the students’ own perspectives of themselves and, while this can be informative, we all have an inherent bias in how we view our own actions. Nevertheless, I’m looking for ideas to explore in developing a learning community as well as facilitating face-to-face group projects, and this article sheds light on a potential disconnect between student perspectives of effective groups and the characteristics that are actually needed to perform successfully.
The themes derived from the survey responses were showing respect, being nice, adhering to rules/direction, the importance of effective communication, defining roles and expectations, and determining desired characteristics of group members (288). The authors acknowledge that when students used terms such as “respect” quite liberally, they did not describe what they meant. Behaviors considered “nice” were detailed, however, these boiled down to the students’ efforts to be polite in order to avoid conflict; they weren’t willing to challenge group behaviors (288). If no one challenges group behaviors, ideas are held back, groupthink can occur, and more dominating group members can pull the group in directions that do not have consensus or support. A similar finding has to do with adhering to rules and following leader directions. The students did not feel it was important for students themselves to set their rules about such things as when and how to communicate (289). This is important to explore further to validate, as it can lead to misaligned expectations, role confusion and frustration if the teacher gives autonomy to the groups to establish their norms, and the students believe that is the teacher’s role. The students also preferred that roles emerge naturally in the course of interacting as opposed to assigning roles. This, too, could lead to uncertainty and dysfunction of the team. I agree with the authors’ conclusion that these results may indicate that students need more assistance to create effective groups (290). Perhaps this is a case for the use of process scripts. So although the study itself may be flimsy, it does highlight areas that may need more research and attention.
Morgan, Kari, Bruce A. Cameron, and Karen C. Williams. “Student perceptions of social task development in online group project work. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education 10.3 (2009): 285-294. Web. EBSCO. 23 May 2010.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Interaction in Online Learning
Swan, Karen. “Building Learning Communities in Online
Courses: the importance of interaction.” Education, Communication & Information 2.1 (2002): 23-49. Web. EBSCO. 23 May 2010.
Swan discusses three factors that are related to student perception of learning, factors that we have discussed in ENG 7/895: Student interaction with the content, with the instructor, and with each other. The article provides detail around two studies performed to analyze these factors as they related to asynchronous online courses provided by State University of New York (SUNY). The findings support the importance of interaction in online learning environments (23).
Interaction with content. Consistency in course structure was found to be relevant. In addition, fewer modules within a course resulted in higher satisfaction/learning. These allow for more clarity in the distance setting (30).
Interaction with instructor. Higher levels of learning and satisfaction were reported for online courses with the higher levels of interaction with the instructor. Interestingly, results did not suggest that class size or student achievement levels had a bearing on this factor (32).
Interaction with other students. The study found that discourse among students was an influential factor. It is notable, however, that there was a negative perception of grading based on group work. Swan indicates this may be due to difficulty in collaborating asynchronously or teacher expertise in structuring collaborative projects (33). I’ve had some challenging experiences in school and in the workplace with both situations, so while these may not be the only explanations, they are important issues in the planning process.
The second study in the article investigates the effect of “immediacy” behaviors in online learning based on the examination of one online asynchronous graduate course. Three kinds of social presence were evaluated: Affective (e.g. emotion, values, humor), interactive (e.g. acknowledgement, approval, invitation), and cohesive (e.g. greetings, group or course reference) (38).
The most prevalent affective indicator was paralanguage, the use of special text to indicate emotions or to emphasize something (i.e. emoticons, punctuation, bolding, etc.) Swan assumes logically these are needed to take the place of non-verbal and auditory cues. The next indicator used most often was self-disclosure. This generated the highest quantity and most in-depth student responses. Surprisingly, humor was used very little. I would have thought some humor would help with bonding and comfort-levels, but after reflecting on this, all my experiences have been with students who I’ve had some direct contact or experience with prior to the online relationship (39).
Cohesive indicators were the least used of verbal immediacy behaviors in the study; these behaviors were used more often in the beginning of the course and declined as time went on, likely as the group bonded (40).
The most frequently used interactive indicator was acknowledgement, meaning to respond to a student by quoting or paraphrasing their own message and indicating agreement, agreement, or approval.
Swan gives a realistic assessment that more research is needed, and acknowledges these studies are hard to generalize. Her research methods, criteria and data are explained comprehensively. She notes that the interaction factors overlap with and support each other, but that it can still be useful to examine them independently to shed light on interaction in online learning (23).
Courses: the importance of interaction.” Education, Communication & Information 2.1 (2002): 23-49. Web. EBSCO. 23 May 2010.
Swan discusses three factors that are related to student perception of learning, factors that we have discussed in ENG 7/895: Student interaction with the content, with the instructor, and with each other. The article provides detail around two studies performed to analyze these factors as they related to asynchronous online courses provided by State University of New York (SUNY). The findings support the importance of interaction in online learning environments (23).
Interaction with content. Consistency in course structure was found to be relevant. In addition, fewer modules within a course resulted in higher satisfaction/learning. These allow for more clarity in the distance setting (30).
Interaction with instructor. Higher levels of learning and satisfaction were reported for online courses with the higher levels of interaction with the instructor. Interestingly, results did not suggest that class size or student achievement levels had a bearing on this factor (32).
Interaction with other students. The study found that discourse among students was an influential factor. It is notable, however, that there was a negative perception of grading based on group work. Swan indicates this may be due to difficulty in collaborating asynchronously or teacher expertise in structuring collaborative projects (33). I’ve had some challenging experiences in school and in the workplace with both situations, so while these may not be the only explanations, they are important issues in the planning process.
The second study in the article investigates the effect of “immediacy” behaviors in online learning based on the examination of one online asynchronous graduate course. Three kinds of social presence were evaluated: Affective (e.g. emotion, values, humor), interactive (e.g. acknowledgement, approval, invitation), and cohesive (e.g. greetings, group or course reference) (38).
The most prevalent affective indicator was paralanguage, the use of special text to indicate emotions or to emphasize something (i.e. emoticons, punctuation, bolding, etc.) Swan assumes logically these are needed to take the place of non-verbal and auditory cues. The next indicator used most often was self-disclosure. This generated the highest quantity and most in-depth student responses. Surprisingly, humor was used very little. I would have thought some humor would help with bonding and comfort-levels, but after reflecting on this, all my experiences have been with students who I’ve had some direct contact or experience with prior to the online relationship (39).
Cohesive indicators were the least used of verbal immediacy behaviors in the study; these behaviors were used more often in the beginning of the course and declined as time went on, likely as the group bonded (40).
The most frequently used interactive indicator was acknowledgement, meaning to respond to a student by quoting or paraphrasing their own message and indicating agreement, agreement, or approval.
Swan gives a realistic assessment that more research is needed, and acknowledges these studies are hard to generalize. Her research methods, criteria and data are explained comprehensively. She notes that the interaction factors overlap with and support each other, but that it can still be useful to examine them independently to shed light on interaction in online learning (23).
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Instructional Design Theory to Guide the Creation of Online Learning Communities for Adults
This paper recommends an instructional design theory with the objective of building an online learning community (48). The article captured my interest because I am responsible for establishing a learning community in my workplace to enhance the training skills of subject matter experts who do training as a fairly small part of their jobs. The goal is to foster participation, knowledge-sharing, and networking initiated by community members through this resource.
Snyder used the formative research method to develop her theory (49). This appeals to me because formative research is goal- and action-oriented, and lends itself to practical application and process improvement. It is the type of research behind action learning, group problem-solving and self-directed learning, which are elements of my program and have met with success in some of our leadership programs. Snyder’s theoretical framework is drawn not only from the field of learning communities, but also from the fields of adult learning theory, including icons such as Knowles and Mezirow, and constructivism (49). This is another plus for me, as I gravitated toward these areas in my Human Resource Development graduate studies.
The design theory Snyder recommends begins with a goal to “foster the sharing of information, knowledge, skills, and experiences among adults with common interests and goals through online communication, collaboration, and interaction” (50). The goal is backed by the values of a learner-centered environment, the power of synergy, respect, tackling practical problems, and self-directed learning (50-51). The theory goes on to offer a number of instructional methods, including multiple ways to learn content, public sharing of information, and a flexible learning framework to support individual goals, and shared leadership (51-52), linking these to the values. Snyder is speaking my language. She goes on to develop these methods in more specificity by listing situations in which each method works best. She even provides the gift of organizing this information into a handy table. At this point in my reading she has me hooked.
The remainder of the article drops off a cliff into questions which I had hoped would be answered. Now I become a little unhooked. Snyder wonders which web tools foster interaction and collaboration best, what types of tools can be used to establish community, and which web tools support which outcomes (52). For action-oriented research around online communities, I (perhaps wrongly?) expected at least some attempt to answer these questions. But at this point, I have reached the end of the article. There is no more meat. It also dawns on me that I haven’t seen any detail of exactly how Snyder collected and analyzed data during her research. Oops! She cites some very sound sources, but I’m left questioning how scientific her research was.
Snyder offers an array of instructional methods and situations that seem appropriate and practical in establishing a learning community, but more detailed research should be reviewed to corroborate her ideas and to examine the use of specific web tools in learning communities.
Snyder, Martha M. “Instructional-Design Theory to Guide the Creation of
Online Learning Communities for Adults.” Tech Trends 53.1 (2009): 48-53. Web. EBSCO. 23 May 2010.
Snyder used the formative research method to develop her theory (49). This appeals to me because formative research is goal- and action-oriented, and lends itself to practical application and process improvement. It is the type of research behind action learning, group problem-solving and self-directed learning, which are elements of my program and have met with success in some of our leadership programs. Snyder’s theoretical framework is drawn not only from the field of learning communities, but also from the fields of adult learning theory, including icons such as Knowles and Mezirow, and constructivism (49). This is another plus for me, as I gravitated toward these areas in my Human Resource Development graduate studies.
The design theory Snyder recommends begins with a goal to “foster the sharing of information, knowledge, skills, and experiences among adults with common interests and goals through online communication, collaboration, and interaction” (50). The goal is backed by the values of a learner-centered environment, the power of synergy, respect, tackling practical problems, and self-directed learning (50-51). The theory goes on to offer a number of instructional methods, including multiple ways to learn content, public sharing of information, and a flexible learning framework to support individual goals, and shared leadership (51-52), linking these to the values. Snyder is speaking my language. She goes on to develop these methods in more specificity by listing situations in which each method works best. She even provides the gift of organizing this information into a handy table. At this point in my reading she has me hooked.
The remainder of the article drops off a cliff into questions which I had hoped would be answered. Now I become a little unhooked. Snyder wonders which web tools foster interaction and collaboration best, what types of tools can be used to establish community, and which web tools support which outcomes (52). For action-oriented research around online communities, I (perhaps wrongly?) expected at least some attempt to answer these questions. But at this point, I have reached the end of the article. There is no more meat. It also dawns on me that I haven’t seen any detail of exactly how Snyder collected and analyzed data during her research. Oops! She cites some very sound sources, but I’m left questioning how scientific her research was.
Snyder offers an array of instructional methods and situations that seem appropriate and practical in establishing a learning community, but more detailed research should be reviewed to corroborate her ideas and to examine the use of specific web tools in learning communities.
Snyder, Martha M. “Instructional-Design Theory to Guide the Creation of
Online Learning Communities for Adults.” Tech Trends 53.1 (2009): 48-53. Web. EBSCO. 23 May 2010.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
She Didn't Make the Case
The Digital Imperative: Making the Case for a 21st-Century Pedagogy
J. Elizabeth Clark
Computers and Composition
Volume 27, Issue 1, March 2010, Pages 27-35
This article attracted me because I thought it would provide some creative ideas for teaching writing online. I was excited by an early statement in the article, in which the author stated, “The future of writing—based on a global, collaborative text, where all writing has the potential to become public—informs our classrooms and forms a new, “digital” imperative, one that asks how we can reshape our pedagogy with new uses of the technologies that are changing our personal and professional lives.” However, it turned out to be quite limited in scope. My impression was that most of the writing space was devoted to touting the wonders of creating an ePortfolio, protecting undocumented students, and using an online digital persona in an activist role to pursue a political agenda. Persuading others to move to action is certainly one role of rhetoric dating back to the classical period, however, we write in the 21st century for a myriad of reasons. After reading the ambitious article title, I was frankly “turned off” by what followed.
The author believes that the “essayistic literacy” still prevalent in composition classes is outmoded and should be replaced by an action-oriented civic focus on the “the now” through digital rhetoric. That could be one track of writing, but it is far too limited to completely replace traditional composition pedagogy. We write for many other purposes. For example, we write to inform, to please or entertain, to reflect, to inspire, to express our thoughts and emotions, and to capture visions for the future. There is no certainty that every text will eventually be compressed into the digital world. There are still plenty of applications for printed text, and there are worlds of communication beyond the virtual environment we haven’t yet imagined! And yet, the author has converted her composition classroom to a laboratory for activist digital rhetoric. Some of the teaching methods are sound enough, but I did not find anything out of the ordinary.
The author emphasizes using ePortfolios and brings up the related issues of audience, the quite public sharing of private information, and questions of ownership. A portfolio of work is not a new idea, and I don’t feel the digitizing of a portfolio is a radically fresh idea. Considering the audience who will be reading the work is an age-old rhetorical concept. The twist comes from considering the questions of privacy and ownership.
There is a short discussion of incorporating visuals with storytelling, but I didn’t see any new ideas here either. The author quotes The Center for Digital Storytelling (n.d.) as follows: “We have found that writing into the images, narrating the story, and bringing the images to life using the power of digital media design tools, creates a powerful medium for presenting a story.” I don’t see how this is different from writing for a cartoon, animated movie, or perhaps a nature documentary. Except that the graphics are superior. Or, in this author’s case, the purpose serves a political agenda.
Online gaming is mentioned, and it, too, cannot escape being sucked into a world of activism. In the author’s case, it is used to crusade against a world overtaken by evil corporations. Using games for teaching or training is another antiquated idea recycled here in digital form.
The one statement in the article that makes a good point, in my opinion, is in reference to blogging. The author states, “Because of the comment function and the ability to dialogue online with audiences they both know and do not know, students feel pressured to create effective arguments and to respond to critiques of those arguments. Their work gets stronger because these visible critiques ask them to take ownership over their argument, and more often, their research.” Although blogging is already widespread, at least the author explains clearly how it directly contributes to teaching writing.
This article does nothing to add to my beginner-level knowledge of teaching writing online, so I will keep exploring the literature for more fresh and more objective perspectives.
J. Elizabeth Clark
Computers and Composition
Volume 27, Issue 1, March 2010, Pages 27-35
This article attracted me because I thought it would provide some creative ideas for teaching writing online. I was excited by an early statement in the article, in which the author stated, “The future of writing—based on a global, collaborative text, where all writing has the potential to become public—informs our classrooms and forms a new, “digital” imperative, one that asks how we can reshape our pedagogy with new uses of the technologies that are changing our personal and professional lives.” However, it turned out to be quite limited in scope. My impression was that most of the writing space was devoted to touting the wonders of creating an ePortfolio, protecting undocumented students, and using an online digital persona in an activist role to pursue a political agenda. Persuading others to move to action is certainly one role of rhetoric dating back to the classical period, however, we write in the 21st century for a myriad of reasons. After reading the ambitious article title, I was frankly “turned off” by what followed.
The author believes that the “essayistic literacy” still prevalent in composition classes is outmoded and should be replaced by an action-oriented civic focus on the “the now” through digital rhetoric. That could be one track of writing, but it is far too limited to completely replace traditional composition pedagogy. We write for many other purposes. For example, we write to inform, to please or entertain, to reflect, to inspire, to express our thoughts and emotions, and to capture visions for the future. There is no certainty that every text will eventually be compressed into the digital world. There are still plenty of applications for printed text, and there are worlds of communication beyond the virtual environment we haven’t yet imagined! And yet, the author has converted her composition classroom to a laboratory for activist digital rhetoric. Some of the teaching methods are sound enough, but I did not find anything out of the ordinary.
The author emphasizes using ePortfolios and brings up the related issues of audience, the quite public sharing of private information, and questions of ownership. A portfolio of work is not a new idea, and I don’t feel the digitizing of a portfolio is a radically fresh idea. Considering the audience who will be reading the work is an age-old rhetorical concept. The twist comes from considering the questions of privacy and ownership.
There is a short discussion of incorporating visuals with storytelling, but I didn’t see any new ideas here either. The author quotes The Center for Digital Storytelling (n.d.) as follows: “We have found that writing into the images, narrating the story, and bringing the images to life using the power of digital media design tools, creates a powerful medium for presenting a story.” I don’t see how this is different from writing for a cartoon, animated movie, or perhaps a nature documentary. Except that the graphics are superior. Or, in this author’s case, the purpose serves a political agenda.
Online gaming is mentioned, and it, too, cannot escape being sucked into a world of activism. In the author’s case, it is used to crusade against a world overtaken by evil corporations. Using games for teaching or training is another antiquated idea recycled here in digital form.
The one statement in the article that makes a good point, in my opinion, is in reference to blogging. The author states, “Because of the comment function and the ability to dialogue online with audiences they both know and do not know, students feel pressured to create effective arguments and to respond to critiques of those arguments. Their work gets stronger because these visible critiques ask them to take ownership over their argument, and more often, their research.” Although blogging is already widespread, at least the author explains clearly how it directly contributes to teaching writing.
This article does nothing to add to my beginner-level knowledge of teaching writing online, so I will keep exploring the literature for more fresh and more objective perspectives.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Pedagogy: Critical Approaches to Teaching Literature, Language, Composition, and Culture
Volume 6, Number 2 doi 10.1215/15314200-2005-003 © 2006 by Duke University Press
Recommendations for teaching digital rhetoric can inform us as teachers of composition and professional writing. This article specifically points to the impact of technology on writing pedagogy and the resulting need for change. The authors define digital rhetoric as written communications created using handheld or desktop technologies and distributed through either wireless or wired networks. Digital writing incorporates words, motion, graphics, and interactivity, all of which contribute to constructing meaning.
Writing for a desktop computer screen holds different considerations than writing for a PDA or cell phone screen, and certainly different considerations than writing for a magazine/journal article, news article, or book. There may be considerations for products such as Kindle and NOOK as well. The authors state that writing today means integrating text, images, sound and video, for delivery across multiple media. They say that few advances have had a truly sweeping impact on writing, including the printing press as one, and networked computers as another. I’d have to agree with them on this point. Access to self-publishing and dissemination tools afforded by computer technology and the Internet have created a flood of written communications worldwide at unprecedented levels. What we write, the audiences we write for, and the means of delivering that writing is ever-changing and must be addressed in how we teach writing. Teaching writing online is especially compatible with writing in this new environment. The authors also describe the shift in technology as requiring a shift in how we emphasize the canons of rhetoric. The state, “Digital rhetoric also shifts the productive techne of the rhetorical process (as typically instantiated in composition and other writing courses) from primarily invention-driven to a broader rhetorical approach that privileges arrangement as a focal activity and reclaims the importance of delivery and memory as key areas of rhetorical practice.”
In teaching digital rhetoric, authors found three things necessary that I feel equally apply to composition or professional writing: community, critical engagement, and application. Students need to feel they belong and have a connection with their peers, to begin building trust needed for true collaboration and peer review. Critical engagement is also necessary to the effectiveness of these processes. Application is essential to develop higher-order knowledge by bringing real situations, immediate purpose, and the nuances of situational analysis and decision-making into the classroom.
The teacher of writing needs to facilitate community to strengthen the collaboration needed in an effective writing process. I look forward to research that my own peers in English 7/895 are doing on this topic. The writers in this article suggest activities to foster share goals and similar interests, such as small groups to explore topics, sharing experiences, and pooling knowledge. They speak of the need for comfort in both physical and virtual spaces, but offer no specific suggestions for achieving it. They discuss use of mentors in the form of other faculty researching topics of interest to the student or more experienced students. The authors also recommend online ethnographies to help create community, and suggest that students be asked to research other online groups, discussion forums, bogs, etc. to look for evidence of community. This is a helpful activity, as it provides possible frameworks that can be modified for the students’ own learning community, provides a visual of what a community might look like, and also helps students apply the theory of community by critically examining others as they grow their own. In fact, this type of activity combines creating community and critical engagement with practical application.
One approach to creating community, critical engagement and experimentation suggested getting students comfortable with doing routine things in a digital environment that they may normally do in other ways. For example, reading a paper online vs. a physical newspaper, or texting/chatting instead of telephoning. This may apply to some students, but this article was written four years ago and it’s becoming more and more common for students and many adults to use this approach as a daily routine anyway. More importantly, the authors suggest involving the student in critical analysis of the media, which is important in writing instruction as well, to use in decision-making for arrangement and delivery of content. They encourage exploration of different media as well, which also translates to teaching of writing. The classroom of all places is a safe environment to try things out and experiment, and a great opportunity to incorporate this in different methods of engaging with teacher and peers in a distance environment. One suggestion I really like is having the teacher model trying out new technologies, without feeling a need to be an expert. This gives students “permission” for trial and error and adds to the exploratory atmosphere that should be part of the educational experience.
To connect and engage, however, students need access and skill in using quality technology solutions. This may be more of a challenge on the investment and provision of infrastructure and teacher education, and individual needs of certain adult learners and students in economic situations affecting access and familiarity with these solutions.
The suggestions provided reflect a student-centered pedagogy. Structured assignments are connected to the needs and interests of the students. Experimenting is encouraged, with modeling by the instructor in a safe environment. The students are prompted to assess technology themselves to determine what is and isn’t effective for specific purposes. This helps engage the student in the course, as there is an immediate purpose and application of the learning, and the individual student’s perspective is valued and respected.
The authors make what I feel is a very important point, that disciplines are “living entities.” Technology, economy, and many other cultural shifts create new opportunities, challenges and needs. These certainly impact writing and other communication practices, and consequently, how we teach.
Notes
DigiRhet.org is a collective of individuals interested in digital writing practices.
Contributors to this manuscript are Dànielle Nicole DeVoss, R. Joy Durding, Douglas
Eyman, Kristen Flory, Angela Haas, Mike McLeod, Chad O’Neil, Jim Ridolfo, Martine
Rife, Suzanne Rumsey, Stephanie Sheffield, and Tina Urbain.
Volume 6, Number 2 doi 10.1215/15314200-2005-003 © 2006 by Duke University Press
Recommendations for teaching digital rhetoric can inform us as teachers of composition and professional writing. This article specifically points to the impact of technology on writing pedagogy and the resulting need for change. The authors define digital rhetoric as written communications created using handheld or desktop technologies and distributed through either wireless or wired networks. Digital writing incorporates words, motion, graphics, and interactivity, all of which contribute to constructing meaning.
Writing for a desktop computer screen holds different considerations than writing for a PDA or cell phone screen, and certainly different considerations than writing for a magazine/journal article, news article, or book. There may be considerations for products such as Kindle and NOOK as well. The authors state that writing today means integrating text, images, sound and video, for delivery across multiple media. They say that few advances have had a truly sweeping impact on writing, including the printing press as one, and networked computers as another. I’d have to agree with them on this point. Access to self-publishing and dissemination tools afforded by computer technology and the Internet have created a flood of written communications worldwide at unprecedented levels. What we write, the audiences we write for, and the means of delivering that writing is ever-changing and must be addressed in how we teach writing. Teaching writing online is especially compatible with writing in this new environment. The authors also describe the shift in technology as requiring a shift in how we emphasize the canons of rhetoric. The state, “Digital rhetoric also shifts the productive techne of the rhetorical process (as typically instantiated in composition and other writing courses) from primarily invention-driven to a broader rhetorical approach that privileges arrangement as a focal activity and reclaims the importance of delivery and memory as key areas of rhetorical practice.”
In teaching digital rhetoric, authors found three things necessary that I feel equally apply to composition or professional writing: community, critical engagement, and application. Students need to feel they belong and have a connection with their peers, to begin building trust needed for true collaboration and peer review. Critical engagement is also necessary to the effectiveness of these processes. Application is essential to develop higher-order knowledge by bringing real situations, immediate purpose, and the nuances of situational analysis and decision-making into the classroom.
The teacher of writing needs to facilitate community to strengthen the collaboration needed in an effective writing process. I look forward to research that my own peers in English 7/895 are doing on this topic. The writers in this article suggest activities to foster share goals and similar interests, such as small groups to explore topics, sharing experiences, and pooling knowledge. They speak of the need for comfort in both physical and virtual spaces, but offer no specific suggestions for achieving it. They discuss use of mentors in the form of other faculty researching topics of interest to the student or more experienced students. The authors also recommend online ethnographies to help create community, and suggest that students be asked to research other online groups, discussion forums, bogs, etc. to look for evidence of community. This is a helpful activity, as it provides possible frameworks that can be modified for the students’ own learning community, provides a visual of what a community might look like, and also helps students apply the theory of community by critically examining others as they grow their own. In fact, this type of activity combines creating community and critical engagement with practical application.
One approach to creating community, critical engagement and experimentation suggested getting students comfortable with doing routine things in a digital environment that they may normally do in other ways. For example, reading a paper online vs. a physical newspaper, or texting/chatting instead of telephoning. This may apply to some students, but this article was written four years ago and it’s becoming more and more common for students and many adults to use this approach as a daily routine anyway. More importantly, the authors suggest involving the student in critical analysis of the media, which is important in writing instruction as well, to use in decision-making for arrangement and delivery of content. They encourage exploration of different media as well, which also translates to teaching of writing. The classroom of all places is a safe environment to try things out and experiment, and a great opportunity to incorporate this in different methods of engaging with teacher and peers in a distance environment. One suggestion I really like is having the teacher model trying out new technologies, without feeling a need to be an expert. This gives students “permission” for trial and error and adds to the exploratory atmosphere that should be part of the educational experience.
To connect and engage, however, students need access and skill in using quality technology solutions. This may be more of a challenge on the investment and provision of infrastructure and teacher education, and individual needs of certain adult learners and students in economic situations affecting access and familiarity with these solutions.
The suggestions provided reflect a student-centered pedagogy. Structured assignments are connected to the needs and interests of the students. Experimenting is encouraged, with modeling by the instructor in a safe environment. The students are prompted to assess technology themselves to determine what is and isn’t effective for specific purposes. This helps engage the student in the course, as there is an immediate purpose and application of the learning, and the individual student’s perspective is valued and respected.
The authors make what I feel is a very important point, that disciplines are “living entities.” Technology, economy, and many other cultural shifts create new opportunities, challenges and needs. These certainly impact writing and other communication practices, and consequently, how we teach.
Notes
DigiRhet.org is a collective of individuals interested in digital writing practices.
Contributors to this manuscript are Dànielle Nicole DeVoss, R. Joy Durding, Douglas
Eyman, Kristen Flory, Angela Haas, Mike McLeod, Chad O’Neil, Jim Ridolfo, Martine
Rife, Suzanne Rumsey, Stephanie Sheffield, and Tina Urbain.
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Greetings!
Welcome to my first blog! The day will come when you can say, "I knew you when..." For now, I hope you will receive and give great ideas from the research we discuss.
I am interested in studying how best practices in the fields of digital and visual rhetoric can be applied to distance education. As I begin reviewing literature over the next week, I may decide to narrow the focus.
I am interested in studying how best practices in the fields of digital and visual rhetoric can be applied to distance education. As I begin reviewing literature over the next week, I may decide to narrow the focus.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)