I do what I have to do to keep my students interested.
Do you ever feel like you are doing more entertaining than teaching?
Teachers in today’s tech savvy society have to achieve what Katie Lepi’s article, “7 Characteristics of a Digitally Competent Teacher,” refers to as “balance.” In other words, simply using technology in the classroom is not sufficient nor desirable. In short, teachers must use technology with a purpose that works for both them and their students. Rather than just showing off, educators must prove that they are legitimate in that they appreciate, understand, and incorporate technology into both their private lives and their classrooms.
Lepi outlines 7 ways that teachers can prove themselves worthy of “digital competence.” They are, briefly, as follows:
integrate technology into their private lives
have tech balance
try new stuff but use only what works
participate in digital communication
use digital assessments
respect privacy
behave appropriately
Lepi stresses the idea of “digital citzenship,” by which I assume she means that technology is a tool that the educator understands from a variety of perspectives and uses in all aspects of his/her own life.
I have found that my students are impressed that I encourage them to use technology, nearly any kind, in all of their presentations and assignments. Even though I may not be familiar with the technology they choose and despite the fact that some of them can use it better than I can, I am willing to put myself out there and let them explore. I have actually started to use “entertaining” technology less frequently and have focused more on educational technology over the past few years. I noticed that my students were unimpressed by my use of fun tech because they are practically inundated with it in their private lives. Instead, they enjoy things like Prezi, Polleverywhere, library databases, and Google Scholar that have an actual application to their lives as students. I have learned, though, that spur-of-the-moment technology can be hit or miss in the classroom, so I try to begin any such attempts with a warning that my experiment may or may not work. Often, my students can get it to work when I cannot, and for some reason, they always seem to expect extra credit for it.
Teaching with tech is not a competitive sport. Lepi makes valid points, especially about maintaining balance between traditional methods of presentation and technology. Who ever said it has to be all or nothing?
Work Cited
Lepi, Katie. “7 Characteristics of a Digitally Competent Teacher.” Edudemic. 27 June 2014. Web. 30 June 2014.
Chapters 7 through 10 of Scott Warnock’s Teaching Writing Online, though short and straightforward, contain quite a variety of helpful hints for facilitating online writing courses to the benefit of both the students and the instructor.
No, real books will NOT eat you!
Warnock begins Chapter 7, titled, “Readings: Lots of Online Options But the Book Is Not Dead!,” with a note about how closely writing and reading are linked. I, for one, appreciated this start to the chapter since I am often criticized by students and faculty alike for requiring so much writing in my reading courses. Warnock attempts to disprove the myth that students no longer read or purchase physical books due to the emergence of e-texts. This chapter first introduces Warnock’s focus on multimodal reading, which he revisits in several future chapters to stress that reading can also contain other media such as art, music, and videos. He also highlights every teacher’s worst fear for a course that relies heavily on student participation–the students do not read. He provides realistic solutions to help ensure that students do required reading, which is a problem equally as worrisome in a f2f course as an online course. Warnock recommends the tried and true process of simple quizzes, but with a twist to prevent cheating–give students only 5 minutes to answer the questions. He also recommends specifically outlining the types and amounts of reading students must take personal responsibility for at the beginning of the semester. Students in his class must “draw on evidence from the course readings” (65) as well as draw on their classmates’ writing, which we do quite a bit of in the online courses I currently take. Requiring students to incorporate what their classmates have said into their own writing also helps ensure that they have critically read.
In Chapter 8, “Conversation: Online, Course ‘Talk’ Can Become Writing” further develops the idea that when students discuss and respond to one another online, they are practicing a variety of writing exercises. For example, when students create primary posts, they are using their own ideas and often synthesizing the ideas from others. These posts will be longer and more thorough. Students may also create secondary posts in which they respond to a text or to the posts of their classmates. In other words, Warnock focuses mostly on discussion boards in this chapter. He states, “While negotiating the multiple audiences of a message board, students can practice invention skills, take risks, and develop their own authoritative voices” (70). Warnock stresses throughout these chapters that students must use diplomacy when writing on discussion boards but can assess the level of formality and depth of response dependent upon the situation, which, as Warnock points out, is a process inherent in the workplace. Students can also take part in “low-stakes writing,” as he calls it, that helps them develop a comfort level with their own writing that transcends being self-conscious. Comfort level can also make students better able to receive criticism on their work without feeling incompetent. This chapter also spends quite a bit of time discussing the roles instructors can play in the online environment. I was quite interested in Warnock’s ideas of switching roles so that students can be the focus but also be challenged, questioned, and provoked, in a sense. I believe I would struggle not to read every post and to stay out of the conversation, which Warnock warns may happen. I appreciated his rationale behind why it is better to be present yet in the background.
Continuing his point on the importance of message boards, Warnock’s Chapter 9 on Assignments gives ideas to online instructors for how to weigh and grade discussion posts. I noticed that his “tricks of the trade” (98) assignment is quite similar to the Literary Practices assignments I did for WRIT 510. I was particularly interested in how he created modules for important aspects of the class. I was also intrigued by his use of Dr. Logoetho, a play off the argumentative approaches logos and ethos. This persona plays devil’s advocate in a sense, and tests students’ ability to argue effectively, with evidence, and without using logical fallacies. I believe I may “borrow” this idea, in some form, for a class I currently teach. I would like to create such a persona to challenge my students on controversial issues through the message board, even though it is a f2f course, and their responses would be counted as part of their grade. I would also want them to debate the topic with each other, though, and possibly form teams to attack the persona’s argument from different standpoints. Thanks, Warnock, for the inspiration!
Finally, in Chapter 10, Warnock decides to devote an entire chapter on peer review, even though he openly admits that he had trouble deciding where peer reviews should be located in his book. He covers some of the most troublesome aspects of peer reviews, such as the “cheerleader” student who likes everything about everyone’s work and the under-prepared student who does not bring a draft to class. He does not attempt to hide the potential pitfalls of peer review but effectively argues its necessity in a writing classroom. Warnock even shares the peer review form he uses so that educators can see what he means about specificity. If the rubric asks yes or no questions or has questions that are too simple, students do not think critically or give thorough feedback. He claims that, if done correctly, students see revision as “reconceptualization” in which their peers are “collaborators” instead of “judges” (109). I do believe that students will be more open and less defensive abut feedback in the setting Warnock describes; however, I can also see students passing judgment on one another, such as labeling their classmates and preferring to work with some classmates over others. The truth is, though, that the same dynamic exists in a f2f course. Students recognize the high achievers and flock to them while they largely ignore the low achievers or students with poor attendance/participation. I suppose such unintentional peer pressure is healthy in an academic and competitive environment. Could it be an educational replica of natural selection?
Education’s natural selection
Surprisingly, I am finding multiple ways to use Warnock’s strategies, ideas, and advice in my current f2f courses. Although I do not envision myself teaching an online writing course in the near future, I believe his techniques can help with online writing tutoring that I may do and will better prepare me for the day when one of my courses goes online (I feel this change is inevitable in nearly every content area).
the reading and writing teacher 