Post-Experimentation Part I

As per the syllabus, I did not expect anyone to participate in the blog or in the full-class discussions in WebCT during the small group experimental activities. The nine weeks have passed as has the week devoted to portfolio-polishing and submission. As a group, the class continues to impress its professor. Every one of the anticipated assignments is on my desk. The queue has a virtual “high priority” stamp upon it; reading shall begin later today. It is important to make some observations and to pose some questions in advance of reviewing the submissions.

I will pick up where I left off at the end of January. During these weeks, I observed some of the interactions on WebCT and others on the various web 2.0 tools, taking great care not to be intrusive. There was not enough time for serious interaction or enough people per group for a dynamic to be built. Both factors were deterrents to the value of the learning experience but considerable learning has occurred in any event. Nevertheless, two-way communication must be learned as a two-way process and the amount of time devoted to an activity should mirror the percentage of the points allotted to it in grading.

Here is a question open for discussion:

Given the need for interaction, an inability to determine enrollment, and the awareness that the small group activity with all its components represents less that half the final grade, how would you structure the teaching/learning activity?

Unstructured activities in the past degenerated into popularity contests. Ungraded activities go ignored by the very people who need the experience the most. Open-ended syllabi contradict the fact that a syllabus is a contract. Is it possible that someone addressed the issue in his reflections and lessons learned? We are at somewhat of a disadvantage here because students are reluctant to appear to be criticizing a professor. Perhaps one of our guests will provide reassurance that the focus is on the subject, not upon me.

Here is a second discussion question:

Should a course, whether totally or partially online, have more than one online tool for interactive discussion? Observing participants as students and as instructors struggle with appropriate placement of different remarks, I formulated my answer which I will share at another time. Here comes the hard part: Assuming you, the instructor, have a range of option, how do you decide which one(s) to use? Please discuss the subject matter of the course in mind when responding to the question. [Yes! The subject matter makes a great deal of difference in the answer. Everything one thinks about needs a frame of reference into which to place one’s thoughts. Same need applies when considering someone else’s thoughts.]

Questions three and four for discussion are carry-over-with-modifications from January 28, 2008. Perhaps, given our limited experience, some answers may be forthcoming. These are important questions. If left unanswered, they may be raised again.

How might thinking skills be developed or extended through collaboration/interaction with any of the web 2.0 tools?

How might a specific learning environment be transformed with a blog, a wiki or another web 2.0 tool?

There are no right or wrong answers. Quickly, before literature on web 2.0 tools becomes established, share your opinions.