Course homepage
Course homepage
Sunday, 17 June 2007
Classroom communities & how to best use a wiki
I liked the idea that Kadjer presented in Chapter 8 about the communities that can be formed through the internet. It seems such a simple idea - use what the kids are already using to promote their academic growth! Wow! So, simple, yet I've never done it. She says that "we strive to create meaningful spaces for student learning," which is absolutely right, but I think I've been trying too hard (98). The wikis and blogs that we've experimented with this week have planted a seed in my head of the possibilities that can arise using the internet. She refers specifically to email in the beginning of her chapter. "E-mail is appealing to students (and teachers) because of its speed, efficiency, ubiquity, and accessibility" (99). Although I personally love the speed of the internet, I still feel that it takes away some of the interpersonal connection that an in class discussion has. Yet, using these programs only reminds me that my students communicate in this form daily. Many of them text each other frequently instead of calling each other (something I hate when people do to me - for example sending me an invitation to go out as a text message instead of calling me directly!). Although I may think that it's impersonal, my students don't. My class needs to be interesting for them, not necessarily for me. If this will keep them engaged then this is what I need to include in my class to be a successful teacher. Which brings me to my reactions to "When Blogging Goes Bad: A Cautionary Tale About Blogs, Email Lists, Discussion, and Interaction". Krause begins by quoting that " "Content Delivery in the 'Blogosphere,'" Richard E. Ferdig and Kaye D. Trammell claim that the benefits of blogs in classrooms include giving students a "legitimate" space to participate in discussions and to share diverse perspectives with readers in and outside of the classroom," - my own initial reaction to what blogging could promote in a classroom. Yet, Krause's article also seems very reasonable. He talks about people feeling disengaged, lack of a dynamic, and lack of participation. I appreciated this article because of its honesty. It presented many of the concerns that I have had in the previous weeks but it also leads me to think that the use of blogs and wikis in a class have their place, as long as they are only a small portion of the class. For example, the professor who came to our lab last week (and I apologize for not referring to her by name), I think had a successful experience with her wiki project because it was simply a project that the class did to help their grade, not a substantial part of the course. If the class really reacts well to the project, then there could be a possibility of expanding its use. Yet, I think the idea behind including these programs in class should be to attempt to talk outside of class, to expand thier use of technology, to add another dynamic to the class, and to provide for mulitple communciation levels. What do you think?
When Blogging Goes Bad
After much frustration, I have now managed to post on the google group and also on the class blog(twice by mistake...does anyone know how to delete?). Despite this, because of my discomfort with blogs, I still feel like an outsider in this discussion (see my previous posting on Kajder chapter 4 & 8). Therefore, I think it appropriate to discuss Steven Krause’s “When Blogging Goes Bad: a Cautionary Tale About Blogs, Email Lists, Discussion, and Interaction.” In case someone hasn’t read it, the gist of it is that Krause asserts that, for the purposes of teaching writing, blogs are a forum for “publishing,” while email mailing lists are a means of “communication.” Krause analyzes the reasons for the failure of an “experiment” with blogs in his advanced writing class: “There was very little writing that could be described as reflective, dynamic, collaborative, or interactive...almost no exchange or conversation...it wasn’t even clear if the students were reading other posts. Individuals made their posts in an erratic and inconsistent manner, and they moved on.” (5) In his essay, Krause makes the case that despite the shortcomings in his own assignment, a good part of the reason for its failure was the decision to use blogs rather than email as a site for discussion. Along the way, he makes a series of statements, which I’d like to explore as a student of writing also attempting to use blogs for a class.
Krause purposely gives few prompts or direction as to what should go on his class blog, or how much each student should contribute. His intention is to create a space for spontaneous intellectual interaction, “where [his] students would simply just want to write.” The students’ failure to “want to write” disappoints Krause and, despite his reflection on the objective reasons and his understanding that his own lack of structure for this assignment was greatly to blame, he still feels disappointed by the fact that, when given the opportunity to write without restrictions, advanced students of writing do not use that opportunity.
Krause attributes his disappointment to the “idealistic” misconception of much writing theory, which claims that “writing teachers ought to focus on fostering and nurturing an atmosphere where...students can write not because they are being required to do so by some sort of ‘teacherly’ assignment, but because they want to write.” (5) Krause concludes that students are never going to want to write about anything without “a reason—and generally a personal reason.” (6) I will take the chance that my comment on all of this might seem self-evident or off-topic. Krause’s view of students strikes me as reductive. One basic fact which Krause neglects to mention is that posting on blogs (or anywhere, for that matter) involves a great deal of work. From his description of his class requirements, it would seem he expected students to hold this online discussion in addition to the regular work of his course. He does not seem to have incorporated this new form of writing in his own syllabus.
I think that one of the dangers of incorporating computer technology into our teaching is that, often, it is added to the traditional print work, not instead of some of the other class requirements. Because some people often spend a great deal of time on their computers doing personal tasks (emailing, blogging, surfing, etc.), it is easy to equate these online writing forums to relaxed, stress-free activities, when, in fact, the personal tasks to which people devote their time are recreational. It is the nature of the task, not the medium, which promotes free and, often, exploratory communication, such as that which Krause hoped for. In reality, students are aware that they are students when they are doing any communication for a class (blogs, email, or paper and pencil). There might not be any forum in which students can feel that class-related work is recreational. In contrast with Krause’s implications, I do not think this means that student writers do not become truly interested, even invested, in what they write. This does not mean that students will not reflect and discuss on paper or online in the way Krause envisioned. It does mean, however, that students are aware that there is a teacher expectation—the proof is in Krause’s disappointment, which was great enough to write about in an article, stating that he had hoped that his students would take the opportunity to write without being obligated because they were “grown-ups.” (5) It is hard to think of more condemning judgment than that.
Perhaps Krause has a point when he argues that “email posts to mailing lists are drafts or works in progress, and more often than not, they demand a literal response....and that [b]log posts are more finished...and while readers might ‘respond’ in some sort of metaphoric way, they are not as likely to write a direct response to the writer.” (9) In fact, if we can forget my inability with blogs, I have posted single, non-conversational texts this week myself, just as Krause suggests this medium encourages. So, Krause’s theory might hold some truth. However, I think his analysis of the failure of this technology in the classroom leaves out something that all teachers need to consider when incorporating technology into their teaching: class work is just that, work for a class. It can lead to rich and fruitful dialogue and reflection, but students will (and should) always be aware that it has standards by which to abide.
In her chapter on “Creating Community,” when discussing online discussion, precisely what Krause wanted his students to engage in, Kajder talks about the “clear dividing line between [her] professional and personal worlds,” and how she expects, and takes measures to ensure, the same from her students. I think teachers need to hold the same understanding when thinking of the purposes for class writing in contrast with those for personal writing. I believe the reason for the failure of Krause’s experiment lies in the fact that he believed the technology he was incorporating (blogs) would change the nature of the work the students were doing—so that they would “simply just want to write.” Because they were graduate students, and adults, he seemed to expect them to write as if his were not a class, a graduation requirement, one that they probably took concurrently with others, perhaps in addition to working and/or taking care of their families. The fact is that there are concrete reasons why his students weren’t going to want to “‘just want to write’ in a blog space (or anywhere else, for that matter, just because they were given the opportunity.” (5-6)
When referring to high school students, Kajder makes a very important point in relation to the use of online discussion tools: “It’s [giving an assignment] only different online insofar as it asks us to think and respond in a different medium... [i]t’s easy for the teachers to think that the technology itself will lead students to high-level thinking. Not true.” (103) Kajder’s point on higher level thinking in high school students, applies to Krause’s situation in that the medium will not change the fact that the discussion is part of a class, to be read by members or that class, including a professor.
At the time of writing his text, Krause planned to use blogs in a graduate class the following semester, hoping that the students would “come to see their class blog space as a useful research and prewriting tool.” I hope he was successful, but I can’t help but think that, again, he was overlooking the fact that posting writing on a blog, would not make it any less of a required assignment. As a graduate student, I would, personally, not present all of my prewriting and research writing for class or instructor reading. Instead, I would consider the expectation to post on a blog another class assignment, in addition, to my research and authentic prewriting work (to be re-worked over and over again before posting), making the blog an added assignment in my eyes.
Krause purposely gives few prompts or direction as to what should go on his class blog, or how much each student should contribute. His intention is to create a space for spontaneous intellectual interaction, “where [his] students would simply just want to write.” The students’ failure to “want to write” disappoints Krause and, despite his reflection on the objective reasons and his understanding that his own lack of structure for this assignment was greatly to blame, he still feels disappointed by the fact that, when given the opportunity to write without restrictions, advanced students of writing do not use that opportunity.
Krause attributes his disappointment to the “idealistic” misconception of much writing theory, which claims that “writing teachers ought to focus on fostering and nurturing an atmosphere where...students can write not because they are being required to do so by some sort of ‘teacherly’ assignment, but because they want to write.” (5) Krause concludes that students are never going to want to write about anything without “a reason—and generally a personal reason.” (6) I will take the chance that my comment on all of this might seem self-evident or off-topic. Krause’s view of students strikes me as reductive. One basic fact which Krause neglects to mention is that posting on blogs (or anywhere, for that matter) involves a great deal of work. From his description of his class requirements, it would seem he expected students to hold this online discussion in addition to the regular work of his course. He does not seem to have incorporated this new form of writing in his own syllabus.
I think that one of the dangers of incorporating computer technology into our teaching is that, often, it is added to the traditional print work, not instead of some of the other class requirements. Because some people often spend a great deal of time on their computers doing personal tasks (emailing, blogging, surfing, etc.), it is easy to equate these online writing forums to relaxed, stress-free activities, when, in fact, the personal tasks to which people devote their time are recreational. It is the nature of the task, not the medium, which promotes free and, often, exploratory communication, such as that which Krause hoped for. In reality, students are aware that they are students when they are doing any communication for a class (blogs, email, or paper and pencil). There might not be any forum in which students can feel that class-related work is recreational. In contrast with Krause’s implications, I do not think this means that student writers do not become truly interested, even invested, in what they write. This does not mean that students will not reflect and discuss on paper or online in the way Krause envisioned. It does mean, however, that students are aware that there is a teacher expectation—the proof is in Krause’s disappointment, which was great enough to write about in an article, stating that he had hoped that his students would take the opportunity to write without being obligated because they were “grown-ups.” (5) It is hard to think of more condemning judgment than that.
Perhaps Krause has a point when he argues that “email posts to mailing lists are drafts or works in progress, and more often than not, they demand a literal response....and that [b]log posts are more finished...and while readers might ‘respond’ in some sort of metaphoric way, they are not as likely to write a direct response to the writer.” (9) In fact, if we can forget my inability with blogs, I have posted single, non-conversational texts this week myself, just as Krause suggests this medium encourages. So, Krause’s theory might hold some truth. However, I think his analysis of the failure of this technology in the classroom leaves out something that all teachers need to consider when incorporating technology into their teaching: class work is just that, work for a class. It can lead to rich and fruitful dialogue and reflection, but students will (and should) always be aware that it has standards by which to abide.
In her chapter on “Creating Community,” when discussing online discussion, precisely what Krause wanted his students to engage in, Kajder talks about the “clear dividing line between [her] professional and personal worlds,” and how she expects, and takes measures to ensure, the same from her students. I think teachers need to hold the same understanding when thinking of the purposes for class writing in contrast with those for personal writing. I believe the reason for the failure of Krause’s experiment lies in the fact that he believed the technology he was incorporating (blogs) would change the nature of the work the students were doing—so that they would “simply just want to write.” Because they were graduate students, and adults, he seemed to expect them to write as if his were not a class, a graduation requirement, one that they probably took concurrently with others, perhaps in addition to working and/or taking care of their families. The fact is that there are concrete reasons why his students weren’t going to want to “‘just want to write’ in a blog space (or anywhere else, for that matter, just because they were given the opportunity.” (5-6)
When referring to high school students, Kajder makes a very important point in relation to the use of online discussion tools: “It’s [giving an assignment] only different online insofar as it asks us to think and respond in a different medium... [i]t’s easy for the teachers to think that the technology itself will lead students to high-level thinking. Not true.” (103) Kajder’s point on higher level thinking in high school students, applies to Krause’s situation in that the medium will not change the fact that the discussion is part of a class, to be read by members or that class, including a professor.
At the time of writing his text, Krause planned to use blogs in a graduate class the following semester, hoping that the students would “come to see their class blog space as a useful research and prewriting tool.” I hope he was successful, but I can’t help but think that, again, he was overlooking the fact that posting writing on a blog, would not make it any less of a required assignment. As a graduate student, I would, personally, not present all of my prewriting and research writing for class or instructor reading. Instead, I would consider the expectation to post on a blog another class assignment, in addition, to my research and authentic prewriting work (to be re-worked over and over again before posting), making the blog an added assignment in my eyes.
Thoughts on Blogging and Wikis
Thoughts on Blogging and Wikis
First, I’ll start with the genre that interested me least- the wiki. I read “Making the Case for a Wiki,” and I have to say that it really didn’t persuade me to start using it as a tool in my classroom. I have to say that I did go into reading the article with a bias, my only experience with a wiki being Wikipedia, which I feel is an unreliable source. I hate it when my students use that as a reference (even when I tell them not to), but I know that when they type something into Google or whatever, that Wikipedia entries are one of the first things to pop up. They don’t understand that they could create or edit an entry, or that they could be getting their information from someone who really knows very little about the subject, or has posted incorrect information.
But to get off of my own personal feelings about wikis, and onto the article, I think it actually reinforced my issues with wikis. Reading about the “edit wars” that take place over controversial issues only confirmed to me that there are serious issues with wikis— as far as I know, no one can delete your blog, or change your words. I suppose if the wiki had a page locking system as Tonkin suggests, then it would improve the authenticity of the wiki, and a reader could see the natural flow and progression of an idea as it is shaped. I do think the “mapping” that can take place with a wiki could be useful as well, but overall I don’t think that I will be using wikis in my classroom.
On a more positive note, I do think that blogging could be something I utilize in my teaching. I read both ”When Blogging Goes Bad…” and “New Jersery High School Learns the ABCs of Blogging,” and they both started to get the ball rolling in terms of what I could do with my students next year. I think that Krause’s story was really helpful in that he modeled what not to do, and I was able to pick up some pointers for blogging with my students. I think his biggest mistake was that the assignments and expectations were not clear to the students, and I believe he knows that. That is one thing I learned very early on in teaching— you have to spell it all out for them, or else you’ll be disappointed in the results. He also assumed that because the students were graduate students, they would be more internally motivated to do work voluntarily— well, we all know what happens when you assume. When I do use blogging in my classroom, I now know I need to be very clear about the expectations— what I want posted, how frequently, responding to the postings of other students etc.
So even though his article was about blogging gone awry, it was still very helpful to me. The article about the New Jersey high school was pretty simplistic, a cheerleader of sorts for blogging— since I read it after Krause’s article there wasn’t anything terribly new or informational about it. It was simply an example of an effective way to use blogging in your classroom that echoed what Kajder said in Chapter 8, and is an example to follow. I would have liked to hear more about how the teacher set it up, student opinions, assignments (i.e. what the study guide assignment looked like), how he got the students motivated etc. I think he could have done a lot more with that article.
First, I’ll start with the genre that interested me least- the wiki. I read “Making the Case for a Wiki,” and I have to say that it really didn’t persuade me to start using it as a tool in my classroom. I have to say that I did go into reading the article with a bias, my only experience with a wiki being Wikipedia, which I feel is an unreliable source. I hate it when my students use that as a reference (even when I tell them not to), but I know that when they type something into Google or whatever, that Wikipedia entries are one of the first things to pop up. They don’t understand that they could create or edit an entry, or that they could be getting their information from someone who really knows very little about the subject, or has posted incorrect information.
But to get off of my own personal feelings about wikis, and onto the article, I think it actually reinforced my issues with wikis. Reading about the “edit wars” that take place over controversial issues only confirmed to me that there are serious issues with wikis— as far as I know, no one can delete your blog, or change your words. I suppose if the wiki had a page locking system as Tonkin suggests, then it would improve the authenticity of the wiki, and a reader could see the natural flow and progression of an idea as it is shaped. I do think the “mapping” that can take place with a wiki could be useful as well, but overall I don’t think that I will be using wikis in my classroom.
On a more positive note, I do think that blogging could be something I utilize in my teaching. I read both ”When Blogging Goes Bad…” and “New Jersery High School Learns the ABCs of Blogging,” and they both started to get the ball rolling in terms of what I could do with my students next year. I think that Krause’s story was really helpful in that he modeled what not to do, and I was able to pick up some pointers for blogging with my students. I think his biggest mistake was that the assignments and expectations were not clear to the students, and I believe he knows that. That is one thing I learned very early on in teaching— you have to spell it all out for them, or else you’ll be disappointed in the results. He also assumed that because the students were graduate students, they would be more internally motivated to do work voluntarily— well, we all know what happens when you assume. When I do use blogging in my classroom, I now know I need to be very clear about the expectations— what I want posted, how frequently, responding to the postings of other students etc.
So even though his article was about blogging gone awry, it was still very helpful to me. The article about the New Jersey high school was pretty simplistic, a cheerleader of sorts for blogging— since I read it after Krause’s article there wasn’t anything terribly new or informational about it. It was simply an example of an effective way to use blogging in your classroom that echoed what Kajder said in Chapter 8, and is an example to follow. I would have liked to hear more about how the teacher set it up, student opinions, assignments (i.e. what the study guide assignment looked like), how he got the students motivated etc. I think he could have done a lot more with that article.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)