The Perils of Presenting to Professors

Image from taringa.net.

Pardon the alliteration. It just sort of happened.

Next week, I will be presenting at the National Association of Developmental Education Integrated Reading and Writing Summit. My nerves prompted me to type up this quick little blog about the mixed feelings such bravery can provoke.

As far as presenting at a conference, the most I have ever been courageous enough to do was at the state level. That was several years ago, and I was fortunate to have a very appreciative and kind crowd. Many of them stayed after to thank me for ideas, and I ended up sharing resources with several of them afterwards. The national level, however, is much more intimidating, and let me explain why.

First, teachers are a mixed bag, especially teachers who enjoy the euphemism of professorship. I have sat through my fair share of conferences and have noted the looks of disdain and even outright disgust on the faces of educators when they listen to other teachers share their philosophies, strategies, and ideas. I have, sadly enough, been one of those educators who frowned upon the disappointing ideas spewing forth from colleagues’ mouths. However, I try to always smile and remain polite anyway. Some teachers, unfortunately, do not observe the same protocol of southern niceties that I do. I have seen educators, partners in this jungle we call the higher education system, intentionally attempt to destroy presenters with clearly preconceived questions, statistical data that speaks otherwise, and even just snide remarks. Frankly folks, it scares the crap out of me.

I have always been quick on my feet and can combat a snarky comment before it completely leaves the mouth of my attacker. But in a room filled with my peers, whom I revere and even somewhat fear, I am not so sure I want to have to retaliate in that fashion. This thought leaves me with the question of what I will actually do if I get berated at the conference. My initial reaction to come back guns blazing may not be a good idea in this situation. Perhaps I will just smile and play it off with my southern accent.

On the opposite side is the fact that many educators are thankful for every single drop of information they get that could be useful to them. The room will also contain these folks, which I know are the ones I should focus on. It is so easy to focus on the haters, as my students would say. The squeaky wheel gets the oil, after all.

Educators are often elitist, much like grammarians. Most of us feel a sort of superiority in teaching prowess that far exceeds that of our peers. I believe this trait is characteristic of people who do often thankless and/or undervalued work. We are just as important, if not more so, than people in much more lucrative professions. To comfort ourselves, we consider ourselves the best at what we do. We dislike people who threaten our security. Some of us do, anyway.

I plan to remain optimistic that everyone who attends my session will be open-minded and gentle. If they aren’t, I suppose I need to smile anyway and come back with stories for my students about all the “haters” at the conference. Wish me luck! I will post an update on how it went after the conference ends and my delicate feelings have repaired themselves.

2 Thumbs Down for Discussion Boards: Research Response

Last week, I posted about the benefits of online bulletin boards, aka discussion boards. This week, I would like to show a different perspective on discussion boards–one that claims that they are not all they are cracked up to be.

“Interactive E-learning–Why Can’t We get Beyond Bulletin Boards?,” by William R. Klemm, argues that bulletin boards could be replaced by more effective technology in an online environment.

Contemporary models of exemplary pedagogical practice include constructivism and cooperative learning. Neither of these are supported well by discussion boards, but are well supported by the seldom-used environment of shared-document Web conferencing. – Klemm

Klemm begins by a definition of constructivism, stating that it allows students to build their own knowledge and have a product to show for it, such as a project or essay. He argues that such higher-order skills cannot be achieved through a standard discussion board. Like many other authors I have come across recently, he asserts that online learning provides more opportunities for learners to collaborate, simply because they can work on their own schedules, think clearer and for longer periods of time, be held accountable for their individual work at all times, and have their responses and ideas archived for later reference.

In addition to typical advantages held by discussion boards, shared documents, such as Google Docs, can be more helpful for a few key reasons, according to Klemm:

• help students stay organized
• get edits and feedback from multiple people
• no circulation is required
• connections are better made since all work is in one place
• annotations are evident
• messages are easier to view and locate

Essentially, Klemm claims that traditional methods of file sharing, such as through email or discussion boards, creates hardships for students because, overall, those methods are disorganized, chaotic, and difficult to access.

Much like Scott Warnock, Klemm suggests that teaching the same way online as in the classroom is one reason constructivism is not frequently embraced. For example, teachers who have lectured in the classroom tend to adhere to a more traditional method of content delivery online. Klemm also argues that teachers do not necessarily take to change, and many online teachers have poor background experiences with cooperative learning in an online environment. Warnock warns that team projects online may be challenging, but they are also rewarding, and Klemm seems to agree with that notion. Also, teachers feel compelled to use discussion boards since they are often part of the CMS for the course. Finally, Klemm argues that teachers are not properly informed about share systems. Since they may not feel comfortable with them or know where to look for resources, they tend to avoid them altogether.

I should point out that Klemm wrote this article in 2005, prior to the widespread popularity of file sharing programs like Google Docs. Although I believe that teachers are more comfortable with such technology today, discussion boards do still seem to be the main mode of operation for online courses. Clearly, the underlying principles of online discussion boards are solid and founded in educational frameworks that encourage collaboration, writing, and critical thinking. However, Klemm argues that file sharing can further enhance this learning experience for students and teachers alike.

 

 

Work Cited

Klemm, William R. “Interactive E-Learning – Why Can’t We Get Beyond Bulletin Boards?.” Journal Of Educational Technology & Society 8.3 (2005): 1-5. Academic Search Complete. Web. 10 July 2014.

Wrapping Up Warnock: Response to Chapters 16-18 of Scott Warnock’s Teaching Writing Online

By Chapter 16, Warnock has pretty much retired notions of advice for those teachers who foresee themselves teaching online composition courses. Instead, he chooses to use his final chapters to provide useful resources that can help them get started in a successful online educational environment. I, for one, appreciate such a conclusion. After all, it demonstrates that Warnock knows his ideas are not the only ones out there, and I especially appreciate his acknowledgment that his list of resources is not exhaustive.

Since these chapters are mostly ways to apply advice or search for further information, I will just choose a few main quotes to focus on and respond to in this post.

Education, and writing instruction in particular, is dynamic: people are inventing new ways daily to help students learn. – Warnock, Ch. 16

The quote above is Warnock’s way of encouraging teachers to not only share ideas with one another but also utilize previous ideas and methods of instruction–recycling, as I call it. In other words, although teaching philosophies have changed drastically over the years, and especially since online instruction has become popular, that does not mean that older materials, ideas, and assignments may not hold value today. Oftentimes, such older materials can be recycled or revised to work in a current course. Warnock refers to this strategy as “reinventing” (163).

Accompanying this idea is the threat that teachers might be supplanted on a large scale by technology. – Warnock, Ch. 16

Okay. I’m sorry, but that is one creepy teacher. She is the stuff of nightmares.

Warnock suggests that teachers share ideas and resources through use of a database or virtual teaching circles. Many websites currently function in a similar fashion. However, Warnock is aware that teachers feel like “over-sharing” electronic resources may one day make them obsolete. Indeed, I have read works by Pulitzer-Prize winning economists who argue that one day, only a handful of true teachers will be employed, and their lectures and materials will be available (via MOOCs) to students all over the world. Warnock contradicts this notion by asserting that good teachers will always be needed to assess writing activities.

 …less than 30 percent of full-time faculty who teach online receive detailed training about how to do so.-Warnock, Ch. 16

Warnock’s statistic above rather worries me. I understand that a good teacher in the classroom is also, quite likely, a good teacher online. However, I do believe it is necessary to have some formal training in teaching and especially organizing in a virtual environment. It is no wonder students and faculty alike are fearful of online courses.

By assessment I don’t mean evaluation of students and their work. I mean assessment of our courses and, perhaps, our programs. – Warnock, Ch. 17

Chapter 17 focuses on how teachers should assess their own online course. Warnock argues that teachers should constantly evaluate their own methodology and goals to make sure their courses are “pedagogically sound” (168). He also recommends that teachers track student behaviors that could impact success–both positive and negative trends.

Increasingly, it’s an assessment-based education world. – Warnock, Ch. 17

Warnock recognizes that not only is assessment essential for students, but it is also necessary for educators. He advocates for several best practice resources, including MERLOT and the Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration.

Chapter 18, entitled “Resources: A World of Help Out There,” is simply a useful bibliography of works that Warnock himself has referenced or that he believes will be helpful to educators wanting to further investigate online instruction. This chapter was by far my favorite, simply because it is a starting point for educators to research new ideas, strategies, and compile innovation that has been successfully used by other educators. Rather than just providing a list, Warnock actually describes the ways in which each source would be helpful. Good job, Warnock!

Whatever Happened to Cork Board? Research Response on Online Bulletin Boards

Remember these?

Well, today’s classrooms use the virtual bulletin board, instead. These old cork boards are reserved for tacky student artwork or advertisements for summer work at the suspiciously great-paying warehouse that has been condemned for years, or perhaps posters from 1982 that read “Be Cool. Stay in School.”

Brian L. Dos Santos and Andrew L. Wright, authors of “Using Bulletin Boards in an Educational Setting,” lay some ground rules for using bulletin boards and cite some reasons why they can be a useful tool for students.

Bulletin boards can be a very useful tool in education. They allow even the most introverted students an opportunity to be heard. The greatest benefit is that the online discussions are of a much higher quality than typical in-class discussions, because they
allow participants time to assimilate what has been said and to compose their responses. – Dos Santos and Wright

The quote above is pretty typical of online discussion board advocates, as are the other reasons Dos Santos and Wright claim that online discussions are beneficial. For example, they cite the typical pros like students can work at their own pace and think longer on their answers, plus shy students have a chance to shine.

Instead of just stating the obvious, the authors spend a great deal of time helping educators gain insight into how important the setup of such discussion boards are, reminiscent of Scott Warnock’s Teaching Writing Online. Dos Santos and Wright explain the significance of closely monitoring new discussion boards to point out and correct any problems. As an example, if a student were to make a new post instead of a new thread, then that mistake should be immediately corrected so that all users may see how to avoid such problems. They suggest different levels of threads, or rather, threads for different topics/components of the course. They also encourage instructors to allow 7-10 days for students to reply to posts so they may have an opportunity to plan accordingly and answer thoughtfully. After all, students are less likely to b.s., plagiarize, and cut corners if they have adequate time to respond. One suggestion they make that seems to have worked well in the online courses I have taken is to wrap up discussions with an announcement to all students plus provide one-on-one feedback to individual students. This notion would seem to contradict Warnock’s suggestion that instructors are facilitators instead of participants, but, in actuality, if instructors simply provide information that helps students make connections or transitions to the next topic, then they are being instructive and not intrusive.

We believe bulletin boards produce richer, more effective learning for a greater number of
students than is achieved through exclusive use of traditional face-to-face discussions.  The additional time required is manageable and is more than compensated for by the  increased learning opportunities presented. – Dos Santos and Wright

Speaking personally, I am currently taking an online course that requires response to questions via a discussion board twice a week. The questions are lengthy and encompass large quantities of precise information. The instructor allows approximately 8 hours to answer the questions thoughtfully, and I must admit, that is pushing it a tad, even though it is doable. I do find myself giving very thorough responses, but I also find myself wishing for more time. In this same course, we have live chats every 2 weeks. During the live chats, on the other hand, my responses feel shallow, quick, and incomplete. I also feel too rushed and cannot stay atop all the other responses flowing in between the time I start to type my response and the time I finish typing it. I much prefer the discussion board so my brain can function at the turtle’s pace it sometimes does. In other words, I find the opinions of Dos Santos and Wright to be on-target.

My thoughts exactly…5 minutes ago, anyway!

 

Work Cited

Dos Santos, Brian L., and Andrew L. Wright. “Using Bulletin Boards In An Educational Setting.” Communications Of The ACM 49.3 (2006): 115-118. Academic Search Complete. Web. 10 July 2014.

 

 

What Do You Mean, I Can’t Cut & Paste? Response to Chapter 15 of Scott Warnock’s Teaching Writing Online

…says every writing teacher ever!

Plagiarism–a word we use all too often yet cannot seem to define. In today’s culture of internet access, plagiarism seems to be a moot point for youngsters. After all, if they can download free music, why can’t they download free essays?

Scott Warnock’s chapter on plagiarism and copyright is a chapter I wish could be replicated in every textbook. As a matter of fact, I recently wrote a reading textbook for my school and even included pages on plagiarism and citation in it, just in case. Just recently, I have had my own work plagiarized, and so has a classmate of mine. To top that off, I catch about 3 cases of plagiarism per semester, most of which is intentional (I can say this because I spend quite a lot of time discussing plagiarism and even hand out a packet at the beginning of every semester plus provide multiple online resources for citation).

Warnock’s main suggestions for catching plagiarism are “through intelligent, creative assignment design and by close attention to students’ process and revision of work” (152). I agree 100%. Students are less likely to find sources they can copy if the assignment is unique or synthesizes material specific to the course. Open-ended essay assignments are far more likely to be plagiarized, such as the argument assignment that simply asks the students to write on any topic they find interesting. The cheater, cheater, pumpkin-eater student suddenly becomes ecstatic when he/she reads that assignment. Warnock also spends some time discussing options that can both catch and discourage cheating. We use turnitin.com where I work, which is actually linked through our CMS. Students, as Warnock mentions, can view their own originality reports, so they have an opportunity to correct unintentional plagiarism. Prior to having turnitin, I used Google to type in sentences as mentioned in the chapter, and I have caught quite a few dishonest students that way.  Most importantly, Warnock asks teachers to rely on ourselves to find academic dishonesty, especially in online courses. He writes, “You will develop an intimacy with your students’ writing that is difficult to match in onsite courses” (155). He acknowledges that this process occurs in the f2f course as well, and I would argue that teachers also assess and become familiar with their students’ personalities, and it is virtually impossibly to write without personality seeping through the cracks. Like many other teachers, I can feel my students’ personality through their writing, and that may very well be the best deterrent for cheating. One philosophical disagreement I would like to wage against Warnock’s chapter concerns his belief that most plagiarism is a teachable moment. I would like to take a proactive stance, instead. If we educate our students from day one about the potential pitfalls of plagiarism, then we no longer need to wait until it happens to teach them. By the time I have discussed plagiarism with my students, if they commit the unfathomable act of academic dishonesty, then it was most likely intentional. I have rarely run across accidental plagiarism, in my opinion. I also believe that we rarely prosecute plagiarism in the public education system any longer, so by the time students reach college, they have no fear of consequences. I am a staunch supporter of reporting it and stopping the cycle, one pumpkin-eater at a time. On a more positive note, Warnock suggests giving multiple grading opportunities so that students can “experiment and take risks,” (159) which then discourages plagiarism because not so much is riding on that one essay/assignment. This option seems viable to me.

Finally, Warnock closes the chapter with a warning about copyright and a short, oversimplified definition of fair use. First, let me say, “Thank goodness for fair use!” If fair use did not exist, I would be very limited as a teacher by burdensome yet necessary copyright laws. Even though Warnock does not go into great detail, he does provide some basic information and references that can be pursued by interested readers. As an aside, I found this great video produced by Grammar Bytes on plagiarism that I am considering showing to some of my classes. Check it out, if you have a few minutes.

Dude, Don’t Freak! Handling Student Anxiety in an Online Course

Online courses are not nearly as scary as this donkey.

“Following a constructivist, collaborative orientation, the author believes that the most successful and satisfying online learning occurs when adult learners are in continual and fluid exchange with each other and with the instructor—exchanges that encourage the flow of both content and socially oriented information” (Conrad 208).

The quote above is from Dianne Conrad’s “Engagement, Excitement, Anxiety, and Fear: Learners’ Experiences on Starting an Online Course” and is an extremely concise and open-ended answer to the question this post poses—what can help alleviate student anxiety about online courses? As Conrad suggests, developing a rapport with students and helping students develop a community with their classmates is the ideal way to encourage relaxation and participation. Conrad further suggests that “optimally, the adult learning classroom becomes a community of learners with shared goals and character” (209). If students cannot see how they fit into the online classroom environment, then they are less likely to feel connected to other students. If instructors cannot properly develop an online personality that reflects who they are as both teachers and individuals, then the students will be unable to trust and identify with their teachers.

Another important element in establishing a “safe zone” for online learners is to have the website up and running with assignments loaded in advance so that they can “’mentally prepare’” (211) for deadlines and gain knowledge about the CMS/website within which they will work. Adult learners, in particular, often have busy lives and prefer to know their assignment far in advance so they may schedule their work around their lives instead of the opposite, which is part of the overall appeal of taking online courses in the first place.

Conrad defines the instructor’s role in education as “a facilitative and collaborative presence that invites peer interaction among learners and a more democratic sharing of responsibility than what may have occurred in some traditional classrooms” (212). Ultimately, if the instructor and the course design meet the expectations of the students, the students are less likely to experience stress and anxiety.

It seems to me that, if students do indeed respond better to an engaging online presence from both instructors and peers, then a platform such as Blackboard that has live chat and discussion board options would be a wonderful option. Google Hangout, since it provides collaboration among users, would also be viable to establish such online relationships. Having virtual video chats can help students, as Scott Warnock suggests, see that “there is a real teacher” out there, and personally, putting a face to a name is helpful to me as a student. When I have had instructors for online courses who have not included a photo, I have looked them up to put a face in my mind.

Mark Pearcy’s article entitled “Student, Teacher, Professor: Three Perspectives on Online Learning,” recommends Elluminate as a great way to reach students from afar, labeling it “engaging, collaborative, and dynamic” (173). He also places high priority on chats, both between the instructor and student and the student and his/her classmates, and video conferencing. One of the problems Pearcy recalls from his own online teaching experience is that “students who had difficulty with assignments of conceptual understanding would have to make their problems clear via email” (175). He also states that “the sheer number of assignments, documents, and deadlines became, if not overwhelming, then tedious at least and occasionally disabling at worst” (175). Pearcy has acknowledged two major contributors to student anxiety about online courses. First, some students really need more one-on-one attention or assistance than others, especially those students who have trouble following directions, thinking critically, or organizing their work. Secondly, students may get confused and then feel overwhelmed by deadlines, especially when they can view all deadlines up front. Sometimes, students need reminders to divide their assignments and prioritize, concentrating on immediate needs first.

I feel that, if I ever teach a course online, I would prefer to do frequent online collaboration through both discussion boards and synchronous chats. Although I cannot stand to be videoed or hear my own voice, I would recognize the importance of being a “real person” and submit to these technologies willingly. I would make sure to be organized and ahead of schedule as much as possible, and I know it would be important to routinely and frequently reply to emails and other modes of communication from my students. I would also offer face-to-face office hours, if students were nearby, and probably group study sessions. I would also have several “visitors” go to my class website/CMS and view my layout to provide feedback on how user friendly and accessible the information is so that I may make changes prior to the semester beginning.

Student anxiety about online courses is based off of legitimate concerns, albeit concerns that can be easily overcome. Once students and educators alike can recognize methods to overcome potential obstacles, online courses can become less of a challenge and more of an enjoyable experience for everyone involved.

Now that’s more like it!

 

Works Cited

Conrad, Dianne L. “Engagement, Excitement, Anxiety, and Fear: Learners’ Experiences of Starting an Online Course.”  American Journal of Distance Education. 16:4, 2002. Web. 16 July 2014.

Pearcy, Mark. “Student, Teacher, Professor: Three Perspectives On Online Education.” History Teacher 47.2 (2014): 169-185. History Reference Center. Web. 17 July 2014.

 

Response to Chapters 13 & 14 of Scott Warnock’s Teaching Writing Online

Please allow me to begin with a personal teaching story.

Last week, my RDG 101 class got behind. We were presenting projects, and they took much longer than I had anticipated. I decided not to cut the students off at the knees because they were collaborating, asking questions, and responding to one another’s projects. Critical thinking abounded. For the last part of class, I had planned for my students to team teach sections of the readings. Well, we ran out of time. I became aware that we would not have time part of the way through the last presentation, at which point my teacher brain began to reassess the situation. Suddenly, out of nowhere, I saw an image of Warnock’s book cover flash in my mind, and I thought, “Eureka!”

Long story short, instead of having my students team teach, I posted 1 question per student from the readings to the CMS discussion board (D2L). The students were required to answer 1 question and then read and respond to the other answers. Since the class is smaller than normal (being a summer course and all), I did not feel that I was adding significant work. However, I did offer them some credit since it was done outside of class.

The students were slow to respond at first. Then, the responses poured in. In some cases, they gave trite responses, such as “This is true.” Overall, though, the discussion was solid. Several threads turned into lengthy debates about how and why rumors spread (our topic was rumors, as you can see).

I told this story to demonstrate how Warnock‘s push, admittedly repetitive at times, has seeped into my psyche. Chapter 13 is a perfect example of his repetition; I do not believe there is any new material in it. Entitled “Pacing and Predictability: Help Students Get Comfortable in the OWcourse,” Warnock revisits previous ideas concerning the Weekly Plan, message board deadlines, quizzes, and smaller, “low-stakes” writing assignments. He also encourages instructors to put their faces out there so students can see they are real teachers (145). Warnock’s focus on how the message boards can aid student collaboration follows in Chapter 14.

Chapter 14, “Collaboration: Working in Virtual Groups,” is one of the reasons I decided to change my plans in the lesson I mentioned above. The ideas in this chapter are also not unique from the rest of Warnock’s book; however, he dedicates the entire chapter to the specifics of online collaboration. He focuses on team projects, and I appreciate that he admits the kinks in online team projects, such as that some students choose not to participate and largely ignore communication from team members. I see this pretty much every semester, but I have developed a peer review grading rubric that discourages such lackadaisical behavior. The students’ peers give them 50% of their grade on the project in my class, so very few students decide to take the lazy way out. I like Warnock’s suggestion to “identify a clear group leader” so he has someone to “talk to to get progress updates about the group” (149). I believe this strategy would be useful in my current f2f courses. Although one student usually stands out as the leader, the actual title may help influence his/her behavior. Warnock also revisits virtual writing workshops and message board subgroups, recommending once again that 4-5 students is an effective number in a discussion group.

Toward the end of the chapter, Warnock uses a quote from Bruffee that struck me: “‘Knowledge is the product of human beings in state of continual negotiations or conversation'” (150). I could not agree more. We learn from each other–even from those with whom we disagree. Without collaboration, where would we be today? Would mankind still be in the dark?

 

What Students Want…No, This Is Not a Mel Gibson Movie. Sorry to Disappoint.

Jeffrey L. Bailie of Kaplan University recently published his study, “What Online Students Want Compared to What Institutions Expect.” What the study reveals is that students enrolled in an online course expect great things from their instructors, and the instructors are under pressure to live up to the standards set by these students.

It appears from the study results, which I will cover in part, that students actually expect more from an online instructor than a f2f instructor. In other words, it seems that the way the teacher remains “present” and “concerned” to their students, who are often separated from them by zip codes and even countries, in some cases, is to respond quickly to their students’ questions and assignments. Ironically, some of the students even expected online teachers to keep office hours. Many online teachers use virtual office hours for this reason, I suppose.

Some of the data sets that were most surprising to me included that students (63%) expect online instructors to grade even  major assignments within one week, which is much sooner than these students would expect this assignment back in a traditional f2f course, at least from my college experience, anyway, not to mention that many online course have ridiculous numbers of enrolled students. Also, students expect instructors to access the online course every single day of the week (56%). Wow! Now I may be a demanding student, but I do not expect my teacher to live and breathe my course. I suppose we teachers really may be replaced by robots one day. At least, then, these unrealistic expectations can be met.

Here are a few other tidbits I found interesting:

• Students expect online instructors to initiate email contact with each individual student at least 1 day before the semester begins.
• Students expect online instructors to announce a new unit at least 1 day prior to its beginning.
• Students do not expect online instructors to include personal photos.
• Students anticipate that online instructors should return minor assignments within 3 days.

As Bailie notes, students appear to consider themselves consumers, as well they should since they are being targeted as the audience for a consumer-based marketing strategy for education. Put simply, teaching has increasingly become about satisfying the customer, especially online teaching since the students expect a much faster and efficient presentation of material, feedback, and response from instructors. Maybe schools should adopt Burger King’s “Have It Your Way” slogan.

In general, the results of this investigation support the belief that for online faculty to meet the expectations of their students, they must demonstrate a timely and dependable presence [sic] their online courses. They must also communicate often with students through consistent feedback, widely engage in and promote opportunities for discourse, and be responsive to occasions for contact. -Bailie

If online education puts more demands on teachers from a student’s perspective, or, rather, to satisfy students, then it is no wonder so many teachers hesitate to teach online. However, it appears that some simple communication with students could alleviate this concern. Perhaps the online teacher could set expectations for himself/herself at the beginning of the semester and then have a realistic potential of living up to the students’ expectations. Self-set goals are often components of a f2f classroom. For instance, I usually tell my students to give me as long to grade their minor assignments as I gave them to complete them, or sometimes I simply ask for a week, up front. That way, they know not to get irritated until at least that week is up! Even though I usually surpass my own goals for returning work and communications, at least my students have a reference point. It would seem reasonable that students would also understand such guidelines in an online environment. Wouldn’t it?

Work Cited

Bailie, Jeffrey. “What Online Students Want Compared to What Institutions Expect.” Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration XVII: II (2014). University of West Georgia. Web. 7 July 2014.

Response to Scott Warnock’s Teaching Writing Online Chapters 11 and 12

Don’t rubber stamp your students’ papers!

We writing teachers do love our red pens! However, we also usually write like doctors and use mystic codes to tell students about their errors. Warnock’s Chapter 11, “Response: Give Lots of Feedback without Burning Out,” provides hints so that teachers may avoid draining all those pricey pens and also give students legible, manageable feedback that does not require a decoder ring.

Warnock begins the chapter with the acknowledgement that the transition to typed feedback is awkward at first. He then hands readers several options, including the use of macros, rubric generators, voice comments, and even audiovisual comments. He warns of the temptation to “rubber stamp” grades and implies that students can sniff out an insincere or canned remark like a gang of foxhounds. I had never heard of macros, Warnock’s suggestion for saving keystrokes, but I felt pretty confident while reading the chapters because I frequently type the feedback to my f2f students. One reason I took up this method is because students can no longer read cursive handwriting, so my students often looked like they were trying to decipher hieroglyphics when they were reading my comments. So many students came up to me to ask, “What does this say?”, that I just decided to type to make it easier on them and me (mostly me). Also, I quickly discovered that I gave better, more detailed feedback when I typed, plus I could cut and paste generic comments about writing to save time, which Warnock also mentions as an option. My students were so impressed with me that I decided to deliver feedback this way more often. Besides, it’s not often that we teachers can impress our students these days! Typing feedback also gave me a chance to be more personal. For example, I use the letter-style feedback Warnock discusses, in which I state the student’s first name. I then begin with what he/she did well and progress to areas of improvement with a statement such as, “Please allow me to provide you with some feedback that can further improve your writing.” Boy, doesn’t that just sound fancy and professional? Well, it certainly is better than scribbling a mark transposed over the grease stain just to cover up the fact that I was eating a pork chop while reading the essay. Now, I can eat my pork chop AND grade, with no one the wiser. 

Warnock’s Chapter 11 also  focuses on just how much response online writing instructors should give their students. His basic idea is this: provide frequent feedback at first and taper it off as the semester progresses and as students get to know the teacher and each other. However, always respond to emails, direct questions, and introductions. Such responses let students know that the teacher cares and is actively engaged with the course material, as well. Students tend to perform better, I believe, when they feel their instructors are carefully monitoring their progress and reading their work regularly. However, Warnock is quite convincing that teachers can overdo it, and I could see myself being one of those teachers. If I ever teach online, I must revisit this book to recall some words of wisdom so that I do not overtake my students’ responses and become “Queen of the Discussion Board.”

Warnock’s Chapter 12 closely relates to Chapter 11. in Chapter 12, “Grading: Should It Change When You Teach Online,” he revisits several previous ideas, which I found to be redundant and irritating. For example, he spends significant time speaking about quizzes, which he already covered in an earlier chapter. He also reiterates that discussion boards and other informal writing assignments should count more in an online course–again, I felt this information was thoroughly covered by previous chapters. However, he did get a bit more specific about how he would count what. For instance, Warnock asserts that informal writing should count around 35% of the overall course grade. Again with the redundancy, he argues that students learn more when they have more opportunity to engage in low-stakes writing assignments. I agree with the frequent and less formal writing as a way to further comfort levels with the overall writing process.

Until next time, I solemnly swear to use only colored ink pens that are NOT red and to type comments that my students can actually read. I’ll save my hieroglyphics for my to-do list, since I never get around to it anyway.

That sounds about right…

Research Response to “7 Characteristics of a Digitally Competent Teacher” by Katie Lepi

 

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:

1. integrate technology into their private lives
2. have tech balance
3. try new stuff but use only what works
4. participate in digital communication
5. use digital assessments
6. respect privacy
7. 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.