Pages

Thursday, May 8, 2014

Blended Interactions

The second week in BlendKit14 focuses "Blended Interactions" and essentially addresses two different things: student-student interaction and student-instructor interaction. These are two of the three components in Garrison, Anderson, and Archer's (2000) Community of Inquiry Model. It makes sense to leave the third one--student-content interaction--out for now, as this week seems to be more about Social Presence and Instructor Presence. The people. 

Anyone who knows me knows that this conversation is at the core of my pedagogy and, increasingly, my research. To me, Blended Learning makes it possible to facilitate the most effective and engaging interactions between students and between student and teacher. This is critical for writing courses. Plenty of research suggests that it's critical for any discipline, but I'll only speak to what I know. As a writing instructor, my first job is to facilitate a healthy, safe, supportive learning environment. Only then will students be able to share their work, accept and give constructive feedback, and feel compelled to revise and revise some more. Writing is a process. Learning is a process. Both writing and learning are social acts.

Since I started teaching blended courses two years ago, I have taken advantage of the discussion forums much more than I could in the past. In a 100% face-to-face class, discussion boards are always homework in a class that already has an obscene amount of homework. In a blended class, discussion boards can be both classwork and homework. It's taken me a couple of semesters, but I've finally arrived at a model that makes discussion boards 20% of the course grade. We have one every week, and most of them have structured responses, e.g., go back and find two people to respond to. 150-200 word responses (on top of their 250-300 word posts). That's 2-3 pages of informal writing every week on topics that range from personal expression (like the introductions in Week 1) to reflections to analysis. They work, when designed well. 

As for my face-to-face classes: I do very little lecturing. I could, in fact, do more (I'll come back to this later. I'm realizing now at the end of the semester how much I haven't adequately addressed, content-wise, which I need to figure out over the summer). What I do instead is a lot of group work in response to maybe a ten-minute presentation. In order to create a close community of writers in a format that only has 75 minutes of face-to-face contact, the group work is critical. I also set up the desks in a horseshoe (at least, I usually do) so that we're all looking at each other. When possible, I sit down, too, so that I'm part of the circle like everybody else.

Going forward, I know that I want to have more hands-on time with student writing before they submit their formal assignments for a grade. I think that I can do more of this in the f2f classes, though it's tough; we have so much to do in all three classroom environments (f2f, AdobeConnect, and asynchronous OL days) that it's hard for me to see how exactly I could provide direct feedback live. But I know I need to get my hands on students' drafts earlier. I can, too--their drafts are uploaded electronically for peer review, so my TAs and I have access to them. We need to do more than skim these--we need to provide more written feedback on them. It's time-consuming, but vital. 

That's my takeaway from Spring 14. I feel good about the sense of community in my classes, but I need to provide more direct instruction and direct feedback. More instructor presence, both in the classroom and one on one with students. 

3 comments:

  1. Thanks, Lyra, for the clear introduction to the big idea being discussed in the readings for Week 2 of BlendKit2014. The online course experience is enhanced when a concise introduction to the content or a structure overview is provided. The lengthy hyper-texts are full of ideas and information. Garrison's model does justice to the new challenges of teaching and learning online--for instructors and students alike... Conversations are more productive when people can bring their personal, social, and cognitive selves to the process of knowledge building within a face-to-face environment and they are equally important in a virtual environment. You discussed your desire to provide more direct instruction and direct feedback within the online course. Recently I heard of a web conferencing tool that can be added to courses called the Big Blue Button. http://demo.bigbluebutton.org/. It is like a google hangout, but can handle 25 people. Do you have a feature like this at your university?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  2. Thanks for your comment! I apologize for the delay--I've been traveling for the last several weeks. I have used Big Blue Button, but it's not as stable as Adobe Connect, which I also have access to at my university. That's what I use for my synchronous online classes. I use Google Hangouts to talk with my TAs, though it's shakier than I would expect from Google, even with just a couple of users. Adobe Connect is as solid as they come. Imperfect, but fairly solid as long as users don't have 27 other things open on their computers. It's good for live classes; less so for direct feedback on individual writing, unless I'm holding one-on-one office hours. As for boosting instructor and social presence even more: I want to return to encouraging students to speak and maybe even use their webcams during these sessions. I think it could be cool...but I don't want to scare my students, either. Again, thanks for your comments!

    ReplyDelete