“iWorkshop: Sharing and Responding via Smartphones in the Composition Classroom” by Jill Buettner-Ouellette

Image

“Valley of the Heart’s Delight” wall mural in downtown San Jose, CA, 2012.
Photo by DMG.

Many teachers, especially those of us who value active hands-on learning and student-centered discussions, get frustrated when our students pull out their cell phones during class and disengage from the conversation. In spite of clear syllabus policies and verbal warnings, there are still a few students sending surreptitious text messages during class when they should be paying attention. For good or for ill, smartphones seem to be permanent fixtures in the lives of our students. There has never been a more connected, tech-savvy generation than this one. If we want to engage our Generation Y students in the classroom, it can be useful to use technology and tools that are familiar to them but that are channeled toward a shared academic purpose.

I used to be a “freeway flier,” driving between West Valley College and two other community colleges in the East Bay, where I also taught composition. I had multiple preps, and when I taught a new class, I often felt as though I was starting from scratch. Time was of the essence, so I began lesson planning in the car. I experimented with recording my ideas on my iPhone’s recording app while I was driving. Now that I think about it, this may not have been the safest practice! Soon, though, I had hours of ideas, mini-lectures, and activities recorded on my phone. I found that when I “talked out” my lesson plans instead of writing outlines, my lessons were often more interconnected, creative, and metacognitive.

Speaking aloud worked well to enforce my learning process as a teacher, and it works for others too. When I went to the California Community Colleges’ Success Network Reading Apprenticeship Workshop, they taught us a critical reading strategy called “Think-Aloud.” When students practice this technique, they stop periodically as they read to reflect on how they are processing and understanding the text. They relate this information orally to another listener and discuss the reading strategies they are employing. Research shows that thinking aloud while reading improves comprehension and retention of the material (Oster). In compositionist Janet Emig’s “Writing as a Mode of Learning,” she also discusses the relationship between speech and writing. She emphasizes the cognitive significance of talk and suggests that “talking is a valuable, even necessary form of pre-writing” (Emig 8). Though Emig ultimately privileges writing over talking, she also acknowledges that writing is learned behavior, while talking is “natural, even irrepressible behavior. Writing is then an artificial process; talking is not” (Emig 9). There is something wonderfully natural, immediate, and present about spoken conversation.

I use writers’ workshops in my developmental and first-year composition classes as a way for students to collaborate and share feedback during the writing process. I have found that workshops that center on conversations instead of silent written responses to a workshop “script” are almost always more dynamic and engaging. Students agree. I also find, however, that when students talk about their papers, they often forget some of the feedback they receive when they go home and try to revise. (I had the same problem when I lesson planned in the car before I began recording myself.)

Midway into the semester, I told my English 1A Composition class that we were going to do a different kind of workshop today. I asked them to pull out their phones. Though not everyone had a smartphone, we had enough to share them in pairs. They giggled about the fact that they were actually allowed to use their phones in class. I explained the theory behind “Think-Aloud” and modeled my own “Think-Aloud” with a sample student paper so that they would get the idea. I then asked my students to read through their partners’ papers out loud, stopping to notice how they were reacting to the papers as audience members. What did they focus on? What interested them? What was confusing? What did they want to know more about? They would take turns completing the “Think Aloud” with each other’s papers, and they would record their reflections on their smartphones. Then, they would email the audio clips to their workshop partners and to me.

As they began the workshop, I walked around and observed. They were focused—animated even! They were gesturing enthusiastically as they spoke into their recording devices, and they listened carefully to one another. The feedback that I overheard was markedly stronger than usual because it was clear they were engaged in the process. They thought the activity was fun and creative and told me that this was the most useful workshop because they could listen to the feedback as often as they liked when they revised. I also listened to the feedback they recorded, which gave me the opportunity to reflect extensively on how they were responding. Teaching students to give good feedback is sometimes challenging, and these recordings allowed me to check in with my class and think about ways that I can continue to help them grow stronger as colleagues and fellow writers and responders.

I know that recording feedback is not new or particularly innovative, but this workshop provided a learning moment for me. We often take our personal technological devices for granted, or we consider them to be nuisances when they distract our students. Nevertheless, on that day, our smartphones were not detractors—they allowed us to be more collaborative and engaged. Anything can be a tool for learning. To me, using technology in the classroom, even in small ways, is exciting when it can serve my students.

Works Cited

Emig, Janet. “Writing as a Mode of Learning.” College Composition and Communication 28.2 (1977): 122-28. Print.

Oster, Leslie. “Using the Think-Aloud for Reading Instruction.” The Reading Teacher 55 (2001): 64-69. Print.

Jill Buettner-Ouellette teaches composition in the Department of English at West Valley College. Her other passion is dancing ballet.

Posted in Best Practices, Instructors Speak, Pedagogy | Leave a comment

eTools for Any Classroom

Of course, you don’t have to be teaching online in order to take advantage of the many tools that enhance any mode of delivering content to students. Following is a list of those tools:

Air Sketch: http://www.qrayon.com/home/airsketch/

Animoto: http://animoto.com/

Bubbl.us: http://bubbl.us/

50+ web 2.0 ways to tell a story’: http://50ways.wikispaces.com/

Flowboard http://flowboard.com

Google Sites: https://sites.google.com

Issuu: http://issuu.com/

Livescribe: http://www.livescribe.com/en-us/

Panopto: http://www.panopto.com

Pixton: http://pixton.com/uk/

Prezi: http://prezi.com

ShowMe: http://www.showme.com

Scalar: http://scalar.usc.edu/anvc/?page_id=6

SlideShark https://www.slideshark.com/register.aspx?r=78601A

Storify: http://storify.com/

Storybird: http://storybird.com/

TedEd: http://ed.ted.com

Voicethread: http://voicethread.com

Weebly: http://www.weebly.com/

Wikispaces: http://www.wikispaces.com

Wordle: http://www.wordle.net/

Xtranormal: http://www.xtranormal.com/

Posted in Technological Tools, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

“Technology and Researching: Step Away from the Distractions” by Maryanne Mills

Asilomar Beach

Asilomar Beach is Maryanne’s favorite place…
to ponder.

On any given day in the library, I am amazed at the amount of information our students manage. Most of it is online in the form of updates to social media sites, watching videos, creating presentations, and writing papers. The academic library of today is a convergence of multiple spaces: entertainment center, “third place,” tutoring area, rehearsal studio, creative space, coffee shop, study room, test center. And that’s just the physical library. The digital library is another destination altogether: research portal, e-book collection, digital archive, exhibit hall.

Contrary to popular belief, the library as an institution is alive and well in the 21st century. Visits to academic libraries in 2011 increased 8.89% over 2008 according to the American Library Association (“State of America’s Libraries” 30). Electronic book borrowing is also growing in number. No doubt that this revered American institution will morph and take on different forms as humankind progresses—as it should. As the caretakers, librarians are prepared to meet these challenges and embrace transformation as we did with the advent of the World Wide Web nearly 20 years ago. Here at West Valley College, our physical library may be stuck in a 1970s time warp, but our collections and the tools to access them are progressive.

When it comes to our student’s research skills, West Valley College has been at the forefront with the development of our information literacy requirement in 2005. Thousands of students have successfully gone through the program and it continues to be a skill crucial to our students’ success. According to the American Library Association’s 2012 State of America’s Libraries,  a survey of first-year students entering college in the fall of 2011 found that 60 % do not evaluate the quality or reliability of information; 75 % do not know how to locate research articles and resources; and 44 % do not know how to integrate knowledge from different sources (28). Once they are in college, however, many are taught these important research skills. Information literacy skills (aka information competency skills in California colleges) are a student learning outcome at 56 % of associate-degree granting institutions, at 44 % of baccalaureate institutions, at 52 % of comprehensive universities, and at 43 % of doctoral-degree granting/research institutions (28).

The passing of California’s Student Transfer Achievement Reform Act (SB1440), however, has changed everything. Information competency courses in community colleges across California will soon no longer be a graduation requirement for students getting AA-Ts and AS-Ts.  Enrollment in Library 4, our information competency class at West Valley College, will decline because only students getting AA/AS degrees will be required to take it. I am saddened by this legislation, but I understand why it was passed. Community college librarians across the state are brainstorming ways we can still impart these research skills to our students transferring to four-year institutions.

The reality is that many students try to rush the research process. In my encounters with them, I find that many expect to spend only five to ten minutes doing their research gathering. If they haven’t found anything after that amount of time they begin to lose patience with the entire process. (I hope that these are the students who haven’t taken Library 4). They lose interest and become frustrated. My pleas to try different search strategies and the importance of browsing contents and indexes (both electronic and print) fall on deaf ears. How do I make conducting research important to our students? How do I get our students to read more than the abstract of an article or more than a few lines of a book? How does technology play a part in the processing of knowledge? Will it help to make it more interesting? I’m no theorist, but my interactions with students both online and in person tell me that technology plays a key role, but only as a tool for gathering, organizing and delivering/communicating information. When it comes to making the deep connections between pieces of information, technology takes a backseat to the human mind.  The mind must make the inferences and connections on its own. There needs to be time and energy spent on deep thinking and pondering. Asking the “what ifs” and “why nots” should be a natural response, but these questions are woefully absent in the life of an average college student.

“A piece of information is not knowledge,” I implore. “So, you’ve found this concept, and what are you going to do with it? Yes, paraphrase it in your paper, but then what? Does it make you think differently about the subject? Can you make a connection between this new information to something else you read, saw or heard? What new knowledge is borne of this symbiosis?” OK, so I’m earnest—and I want our students to be too. Some of them do get it, but as faculty know, it doesn’t happen overnight. When that connection does occur, knowledge is not far behind. And when you witness it, it is a glorious thing. There is no greater joy to an instructor than to behold a student forming new thoughts and relationships between disparate ideas. And this gets back to my first question. Conducting research becomes important and interesting when one experiences the novel ideas that come out of synthesizing information. It only has to happen once and the bug is caught. The problem is how to get students to catch that bug? I argue that information competency is a basic skill which sets the foundation to finding those novel ideas. Along with this skill, there is one very simple exercise all of us can do to make those information connections happen: step away from the distractions.

Turn off any and all electronic equipment that is not assisting you in the deep thinking exercise. In the case of me writing this post, I have nothing beeping or ringing at me while I write. All I have is Microsoft Word open on my laptop. When I walk around the library, I see students trying to write a paper or to conduct research while toggling to Facebook every minute or so. Next to them their smart phones beep every five seconds with a new text message that they must read and answer. How can any synthesizing of information happen in this environment? The Millennials tout that they can multi-task. Multi-tasking social media apps while eating or chatting with a friend is one thing, but a person cannot adequately be present in the moment of researching, studying or writing while planning her next tweet. There is research to prove that.  Clifford Naas of Stanford University’s Communication Department studied students who considered themselves highly functional multi-taskers (able to do three to four things at the same time) and found that when you switch from one task to another you experience what psychologists call “task switch cost”: you must turn off one part of your brain to turn on another part. There is a cost associated with doing that. It takes time to concentrate on that new task, and every time you switch, you require more time to get back to concentrating. Multi-taskers also have problems identifying irrelevancy and make more errors.

I am a recovering multi-tasker and a firm believer in the importance of deep thinking. When I am writing, grading or creating lectures for my students, I turn off all distractions. It didn’t use to be that way. I was caught up in the social media craze until I realized what it was doing to me. I’m one of the lucky ones, because I remember how my brain functioned pre-Internet; I could sit for hours at a time reading, writing, creating. Suddenly, there were all these fun distractions—dopamine hits that I became addicted to. I realized my concentration was shot. I then read Nicolas Carr’s book The Shallows and realized that my brain had transformed. Thankfully, I got back to being a one task at-a-time person. But, what about those who have never known a world without the World Wide Web?

There is a place for technology in our daily lives and in teaching and learning. It can help us with so many tasks.  But let’s leave the thinking, reflecting and pondering to the most precious tool: our brain.

Bibliotheca Alexandria: the modern version, built in 2002 in the shape of the sun rising out of the Mediterranean Sea, invokes Egypt’s first library built in the 3rd century BC. Image from globalpost.com.

References:

“The 2012 State of America’s Libraries.” America’s Libraries. American Library Association, 2012. Web. 2 Mar. 2013.

Carr, Nicholas. The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains. New York: W.W. Norton, 2010. Print.

Media Multitaskers Pay Mental Price. Perf. Clifford Naas. YouTube.com. Stanford University, 25 Aug. 2009. Web. 2 Mar. 2013.

Maryanne Mills is the Outreach and Instruction Librarian at WVC. When she is not pondering or blogging or tweeting, she enjoys learning new software to try in her online classes. She represents faculty in WVC’s Academic Senate and is currently the President of the West Valley College Toastmasters Club.

Posted in Best Practices, General Information, Policies and Laws, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

“Incorporating Technology in the Teaching of Art” by Heidi Brueckner

Image

Sample of art created by Heidi Brueckner’s students.

I am an Art professor. I teach Painting, Drawing and Design. Generally my students use traditional media such as paint, ink, pencils, charcoal, collage, etc. to learn about the discipline. So, when I was asked to contribute to a blog about technology and teaching I thought, “I am not really the one to ask.” By no means am I always looking for cutting edge technological approaches to teaching. I would label myself more in the “traditionalist” camp. My students grapple with their materials. Art making is messy and we get our hands and clothes dirty during the creative process.

When I was assured that many viewpoints were encouraged in the blog, I decided to give it a shot. While my first reaction was how much I didn’t use computers in my classes (for instance, I teach no online classes), upon further consideration, I realized to my surprise that I really do use computers in a variety of ways. Many of the ways are quite practical. I am a big convert to grading and recording student participation with Excel spreadsheets. I’ve got all that information in one place and I can track a student’s performance much more easily and effectively, and in a way that is clearer to the students as well.

I have also found ANGEL (the course management system used at West Valley College, where I teach) to be more efficient for teaching and learning in a number of practical ways. Part of explaining a new art project to students is showing them examples of previous student work. We always looked at them in the classroom but now I also post the images in ANGEL so that students can see them not just once, but may refer to them at any time. I find that ANGEL is also great for posting handouts and guidelines for projects. Students are responsible for bringing them to class in either paper or digital format. I don’t have to make copies anymore. This saves me time and saves the college paper. We also view art videos as outside assignments and we have discussion groups about them through discussion forums in ANGEL. This is a great way to accommodate everyone’s busy schedules. Students can view these films and make comments at different times. This has really expanded the curriculum. Before I posted videos in ANGEL, it would have been impossible for the entire class to view and discuss a film outside of designated classroom meeting hours.

Another practical necessity for computer use has been converting my existing slide library of student and professional work to digital format, because slide projectors are a thing of the past. While the quality of the images tends to be not as strong, they don’t deteriorate like traditional film. Additionally, the Internet has made it incredibly quick and easy to find and use new artwork images that can be easily adapted to lecture format.

The Internet really does bring the world to your fingertips. Access to quick reference material has expanded exponentially for students. If a student needs to reference a picture of a frog for a painting, he or she can have hundreds of frog images almost instantaneously. If the class wants to visit a museum in Moscow, we can now do it with no expense. I have also found YouTube to be wonderful for how-to art instruction.

Using computers as an art medium has also been an interesting transition. While I do not have students use computers as their exclusive or final medium, I do find some computer art applications can help in the creative process, even when the final outcome is done in a traditional art medium. Art applications are great for sketching ideas and enabling the user to change elements quickly. Another fantastic use is color palette visualization. For instance, if a student is having trouble choosing an appropriate color for part of a drawing, he or she can digitally photograph the work and then play with unlimited color schemes in Photoshop to find a solution.

While I don’t believe that traditional art media should or could be taught exclusively online, my perception of how computers can be integrated into teaching Art concepts has expanded in an additional way as well. Though it was years ago now, I did teach a hybrid drawing class. Half of the time was spent in the art studio, and the other in the computer lab. At times I found it hard to relate the two media but eventually I figured out common concepts that I could teach both with pencil and keyboard. We spent our studio days on proportion and perceptual skills, but because drawing involves a lot of compositional principles, we spent our lab days creating digital “drawings” that focused on concepts like “texture,” “value” and “repetition” (see the image of student artwork above).

So even though I am probably still a traditionalist at heart, I understand and accept the necessity of computers in the teaching and learning process no matter what the discipline. It has been a matter of discovering what can be gained with them and simultaneously being mindful of how not to lose the kernel of the discipline.

Heidi Brueckner is a faculty member in the Art Department at West Valley College. Her art focuses on cultural allegories and norms conveyed through the use of figurative imagery and symbolism, and it often comments on the dark side of human nature. Last year, she had a solo exhibition at the Triton Museum of Art in Santa Clara, CA.

Posted in Best Practices, Instructors Speak | Leave a comment

“Why eLearning Matters to This ‘Freeway Flyer’” by Eileen O’Halloran

When not teaching geography, Ms. O'Halloran likes to be on the beach. This photo was taken by her from her lounge chair in Playa del Carmen, Mexico.

When not teaching geography, Ms. O’Halloran likes to be on the beach. This photo was taken by her from her lounge chair in Playa del Carmen, Mexico.

Working in your pajamas? Sign me up! Teaching online has many perks and benefits. After teaching geography online, in the classroom, and in hybrid mode since 2006, I have decided that elearning is a great option for my repertoire of teaching gigs as a “freeway flyer.”

If you’re not familiar with the term “freeway flyer” in academia, let me tell you that it refers to an instructor who teaches one or two classes at more than one college… and therefore must “fly” down the freeway to get from one college to the next in time to teach. It’s exhausting—especially when you have very little time between classes and you have to drive very long distances. Getting to the classroom feels like punishment some days.

This semester, I’m teaching in person at De Anza College  (down in Cupertino) and at College of Alameda (up in Oakland). Normally, I just teach online for COA, but they were short an instructor, so I’m now a cross-bay freeway flyer! Good thing I’m a geography instructor and like to travel! To add more balls in the air to juggle, I also teach online at three other colleges where the online teaching software and learning management systems are all different. One college uses Etudes; one college uses Moodle; and the third uses an iteration of Moodle called Catalyst. I usually also teach face-to-face courses at San José State University, and if they ask me to teach online I will have to get used to Blackboard.

So, needless to say, elearning makes my teaching life a little easier. Here are the top five aspects that I love about teaching online:

  1. Not having to commute (gas, wear and tear, and sheer body exhaustion all factor in here).
  2. Not having to deal with disruptive students.
  3. Not having to dress up and be “on” energy-wise.
  4. No paper photocopying.
  5. Not needing a key ring so large that you feel like a janitor.

I spent much of my previous career in high-tech working as a Program Manager. Therefore, the technology stuff comes really easy to me. I actually enjoy posting content and interacting with students via some electronic medium. I realize that is not true for everyone, though, and I feel for instructors who don’t find the use of technology easy or enjoyable. Overall, I love teaching online and I hope to always be able to provide distance education. True, the camaraderie that my students and I gain from face-to-face communication is much richer and personal than what I have experienced through elearning. But like in anything, there are pros and cons to both modes of teaching. In the end, I am happy to be doing what I love and to be helping others become more educated and passionate about our world!

Eileen O’Halloran teaches geography at De Anza College, San José State University, College of Alameda and Lake Tahoe Community College. She is extremely passionate about international travel!

Posted in General Information, Instructors Speak | Leave a comment

“Helping Students Find Their Voices in The Virtual Classroom” by Lenore Harris

Lenore (along with her creative writing student, and her two colleagues, Paulette Boudreaux and Susan Glass) interviewing Cuban American novelist and poet Cristina Garcia (at West Valley College's Global Citizenship Center on 18 October 2012). Photo by DMG.

Lenore (along with her creative writing student, and her two colleagues, Paulette Boudreaux and Susan Glass) interviewing Cuban American novelist and poet Cristina Garcia (at West Valley College’s Global Citizenship Center on 18 October 2012). Photo by DMG.

Okay, I will be the first to admit. I have been relatively skeptical of distance learning since it has become more and more popular. The reasons vary and aren’t necessarily thoughtful or even rational. First, I am skeptical of everything–especially anything new or unfamiliar. (This is illustrated by the fact that my mother bough my first cell phone for me when I was thirty-two.) Second, I had doubts that an online course can provide the same level of intimacy, immediacy and spontaneity of a face-to-face course. Third and most important, I was concerned about how I, (and I mean me), would translate in cyberspace.

Let me be clear that this isn’t about ego; although, it is about personality. I have a big one. I am animated; I am spontaneous; and, I’d like to think I’m funny. It seemed to me that distance learning wouldn’t allow me to be any of those things. Would my dry sense of humor seem caustic or sharp on line? Would my willingness to toss an exercise that isn’t working look erratic or disorganized? Would all the aspects of my teaching that I consider to be my strengths become weaknesses when translated into an online platform?  Would teaching on-line would take “me” out of the classroom?

The next logical question is whether or not I am that important–and should I be? The answer is–I probably shouldn’t be but probably I am. Much teaching philosophy tries to discourage instructors from making themselves the center of the educational experience. Focus on the student. Shift your concentration to what the student is experiencing. In many ways, the most important aspect of teaching is the information but I am the vehicle by which that information is conveyed and if I fail, the experience is a failure.

So my first few experiments with on-line teaching did divorce me from the teaching experience and by association, divorced me from my students. My lectures were distilled down to Power Point presentations and supplemental links to various websites. My voice was absent. The spontaneous observations, investigational riffing, speculative thoughts and epiphanies were nonexistent. It seemed impossible to create inter-textual connections between pop culture, literature and history; and, the closest vehicle to dialog–the discussion forum–had proved to be sterile.

I didn’t feel that I knew my students. The intimacy and immediacy of the classroom was lost to me. I wanted to quit. But, like the cell phone, distance learning was here to stay and sooner or later, I had to master the format. I read some textbooks, articles and took a course. Ironically, it was an on-line course, in which I experienced much of the frustrations my students did. Just as I would in a face-to-face course, I had to be willing to jettison some of the exercises that were unsuccessful and try something new.

I changed the format and grading schema for discussion forums–assigning points for the number of posts and replies to posts students provided. In addition, I created two separate deadlines for posts, mid-week and at the week’s end. This ensured that the discussion didn’t languish until the deadline and I could address the most erroneous or tangential threads before they got out of control. And surprise, though, mostly asynchronous, the nature of discussion became more rigorous and surprisingly, increasingly more student-centered.

I found that when I logged on students had taken it upon themselves to address others’ questions, directing them back to texts or even, resources they had discovered on their own. They were beginning to troubleshoot one another’s problems and conversations were more focused on the subject matter than even in my face-to-face courses.

I decided to record my lectures. At first, talking to the screen—a terrible experience that made me feel like I was trapped in reality television show—and then, my actual face-to-face class. This, too, was uncomfortable, at first. But being in front of the class was more natural to me. I was informed that my lectures were frequently being downloaded. When I found myself fielding questions based upon the lectures on line, I felt like I was truly teaching.

So in essence, I had both found my voice and I had disappeared. In my online classes, I have yielded the spotlight to my students and my students are forced to be more thoughtful, articulate and self-directed. I may miss the immediacy of face-to-face but they have become more empowered, which is far more important.

Let’s face it: my voice will always be here. I will still be same spontaneous, slightly salty instructor I have always been. But my students have found their voices and isn’t that what teaching, in its deepest essence, is all about?

Lenore Harris teaches African American literature, composition, fiction and creative writing in the English Department at WVC. She is also a writer whose work has been published in the San Francisco Writers Conference Anthology, Prism Review, and Voices Magazine. Learn more about her writing and publishing at her public journal, Desk of L. Rebecca HarrisCurrently, Lenore is working on her second novel and is a Resident Fellow at the Martha Heasley Cox Center for Steinbeck Studies at San Jose State University.

Posted in Best Practices, Instructors Speak, Pedagogy | Leave a comment

“Fostering Regular and Effective Contact Among Students,” by W Clay

Image

Street art in San Jose, CA. September 2012.
Photo by DMG.

I still consider myself a relative novice in the field of online teaching. I’ve been doing it for about five years, but I think I’ve only cracked the tip of the pedagogical iceberg. The struggle is and always has been (for me at least): “regular and effective contact.” What is it? How is it done? When I’m in my lecture courses and I’m looking out at my students crammed into their seats, shoulder-to-shoulder, trying hard not to pay attention (and failing in the attempt)—I can feel the learning happening. It just kind of works, and if it doesn’t, I tweak it slightly or severely and then it does. With online courses, though, counteracting the inherent distance and delay requires a lot of work (and a lot of patience).

For most of my online teaching career I’ve thought of my courses as being like automatic cat feeders: the content is available and the students can digest it at will without needing to come into contact with me or each other. Human support and interaction is available but not necessary. Cats like this system. So do some students. But is that approach healthy? Is it conducive to learning? If feral cats can be convinced to socialize with humans, can’t online students?

I started adding video lectures to my online courses a couple of years ago and in hindsight, I see that my excuse for not having them in the first place (something about the sanctity of the lecture hall performance or some such thing) was pretty lame. Bad lighting, cluttered background, messy hair, pajamas—it didn’t matter much—the students would at least know who I was. They and I became connected. But I was still faced with the quandary of how to connect them to each other.

In my lecture courses I have managed to greatly increase interaction between the students by creating group projects and the space in which to complete them. And ironically, while I’ve been able to find and create online elements to augment my lecture courses (which, of course, I deliver via ANGEL, the college’s course management system), I haven’t been able to cross-pollinate my online courses with the same success.

Discussions were some of the first assignments I created online, but they don’t function very well since I originally intended them for my lecture class. They instead provide an almost passive experience, because the questions I ask do not promote discussion. (In my lecture courses they do foster student interaction only because I am there to coax the answers out of the participating students.) Still, they serve a purpose and for now I leave them as they are.

For an online discussion to really work, there needs to be a question that a student is really interested in answering. The answer needs to come from the student’s own subjective experience, because a correct answer to an objective question is a terminal event in most cases. But opinion provokes other students to weigh in with their own opinions, which leads to further responses. Suddenly, there is dialogue. Suddenly these students who have never met, and most likely never will, are interacting.

In order to foster student-to-student interaction, I started by creating a low stakes type of “blog” assignment—a set of five questions that was graded only on participation—in a multi-discussion Discussion Forum with 8 related topics. The students had incentive to participate (1 point per post, 2 posts per week) but the content they created had no bearing on the exams or papers. I asked simple questions that I knew anyone could answer (for instance, “what is your favorite film?”), and as those became exhausted, I added more questions based on student responses. I continue to include new discussion topics.

Although I read all of my students’ posts, I don’t actually respond much unless specifically asked to (the FAQ discussion is the one exception). I enjoy the fact that the students are talking to each other rather than to me, that they are sharing their stories and opinions with each other. That’s one engaging way for them to learn. Occasionally I feel inclined to weigh in, correct a misconception, or give encouragement, but for the most part, this assignment in the class belongs to the students.

I do have to mention that there is one big technical problem that gets in the way of this assignment, which I hesitate to call a blog, since I set it up in a Discussion Forum (partly because the ANGEL blog feature works so poorly); instead, I think of this assignment as the “HYDRA discussion forum.” (That name came about because at one point there were 8 questions and the metaphor kind of stuck). ANGEL’s grading tool doesn’t allow me to grade the topics individually, or to add all of the scores. And so my students have to wait for their grades until I close the assignment, and then use two different browsers to open the grade book and each of the individual discussions. That’s grading made tedious by technology!

But, for the time being I am sticking with this system, flawed though it may be. Either tools in ANGEL will catch up with this type of assignment (doubtful), or I’ll learn to use WordPress, and or I will create a blogging application from scratch (slightly less doubtful). I might also create a new set of discussions to help students connect with each other while doing group projects. Now that the students are talking together, I’ll see if I can get them working together.

W Clay teaches television production, non-linear editing, introduction to film, and survey of film in WVC’s Theatre Arts Department. Currently, he co-chairs the WVC Distance Learning Committee.

Posted in Best Practices, Instructors Speak, Pedagogy | Leave a comment