THE VALUE OF PUTTING A COURSE ON LINE AND SOME CHALLENGES In
part, the readings assigned for this essay are a review of what I
already know; in part the articles are preaching to the choir, for, by
the persuasive power of Melanie Levinson, I have come to believe in the
value of on-line education, particularly in writing.
Most important for me, therefore are the technological and
academic matters that the writings speak to and some matters that the
writings do not. With
respect to technology, these readings address the significant aspects of
on-line education that have been practiced in this very Educational
Technology One course—planning a syllabus in terms of modules,
creating shells and filling them with introductory materials and
critical thinking questions, establishing bulletin boards, creating chat
rooms for generating and manipulating information and communication. From
an academic point of view, the readings deal with the value of on-line
courses in comparison to the same courses as taught in the classroom.
They deal, for instance, with identifying the kind of student who
would, or would not, thrive in such a course, the responsibilities of
students, the ways in which this different medium of delivery both
demands student in-put (a very keen and valuable point, especially in
lecture-type courses) but equally well allows for asynchronous
communication, usually at the student’s convenience.
Further, from an academic perspective, there even is discussion
of administrative and accreditation issues—how many units is a course
worth in terms of instructor input, for instance, and how justly to
articulate an instructor’s time spent on-line according to standard
methods of classroom loading. These
readings thus convince of the value of on-line education and the
effectiveness of on-line courses. Any
course, presumably, can be equally well presented in the on-line format
and in the classroom format; the method of evaluation can be even better
done on-line, for this format allows for direct revision of student
writing; also, the tempo of the syllabus can be established and altered
according to need throughout the term as well in on-line courses as in
the classroom. Despite
the value of what the articles do present, they do not address certain
crucial procedural issues and affective matters that instructors,
especially veteran instructors like me, would find useful to know when
moving from classroom presentation of material to on-line presentation,
procedures that would reassure instructors even more skeptical than I
that their established and presumably successful courses could be
equally as successful on line.
The procedural matters have to do with course form and the
time-line for course preparation. The
affective matters have to do with what, for want of
better terms, I will call the je ne sais quoi or charisma of the
live performance, the effects of which create a student following from
semester to semester, generate a good professorial reputation, and
educate students well. The
readings not unreasonably assume that the method of delivery in the live
classroom is in the form of lecture, so they address and contrast
on-line methods with it. The
writings do not, however, address how other course forms might fit
on-line procedures. In my
case the course form I have been using since the 1980s is commonly
called the seminar—wherein students sit in a discussion circle and
take turns questioning the texts that have been assigned, the
responsibility of answering resting with the other students in the
class. This kind of student
focused course form has gained increasing popularity in the past
decades, and in addition to me are utilized by several members of the
English Dept., Marty Kendall, Michelle Blair in particular. Instructors
of such a seminar course form could find on-line teaching directly
applicable to their method, for chat rooms enable and require input from
all students to the topic at hand. The
instructor as the facilitator can in advance call upon one student to
ask the group a question, then direct the answers in a quay (I carefully
select and keep track of who is called, how often, who answers and how
often). Everyone thus gets a
chance to respond to or answer that student’s question.
Thus
there is an advantage in the ability to have asynchronous answering,
which gives all students the opportunity to state their perceptions
without the limitations of a time-bound classroom.
There is also the strengthening effect of creating side
conversations between two or more students of similar or even opposing
opinions, which cannot take place even in a seminar method form, for it
would disrupt procedures. However,
what happens to the subtle but kind
of communication by body language and tone of voice, which that often
enormously revealing in a discussion circle?
It never ceases to amaze me that the way a student sits or raises
his or her voice during a discussion ignites kinds of curiosity
(sometimes enthusiasm, sometimes hostility) in the rest of the group,
which is pedagogically useful, especially in critical thinking courses.
An on-line course can (at this point in technology) only express
all of this communication through language, through style.
Assuming that one accepts physical phenomena as a part of the
rhetoric of communication, I
cannot figure out how an on-line format can experience the community
feeling that happens in the workshop mode of the seminar form,
especially not when the feeling is generated spontaneously. Perhaps
there is an article that can help me with this matter, one that might be
pointing to using, perhaps methods of videoconferencing. Of
less mystery to me than how to reproduce the rhetoric of body language
and vocal tone for educational effect is the time-line issue of creating
on-line courses. Although
the preparation time for an on-line course is presumably equal to
preparation time for a classroom course, the time-line of the
preparation is different, and this difference may be crucial to
instructors. Typically I
have selected my texts significantly before the semester began.
This is also done in on-line courses.
Typically as well the syllabus for my courses, or some reasonable
facsimile thereof, has been blocked out, even written, before the course
begins. However, not until
shortly before the class hour itself--sometimes a day, sometimes an
hour—have I really focused on how to deliver significant information
or how to reach the specific goal of that that particular class, and,
more subtly, what route I will take to get there.
Especially when teaching a piece of rich literature, my goals
during a class have frequently changed, depending on the particular
needs of the class, its background knowledge.
Thus the flexibility of class preparation has been essential to
my success as an instructor. When
I delivered lectures to several hundred students at Berkeley, for
instance, I usually planned (but never wrote) my lectures the night
before they were given. In
the case of seminar method courses, that I have been using in community
colleges, on the other hand, I’ve used my long commute as a time to
play around in my mind with focus, or direction, or pace of the upcoming
class. Quite
differently, an on-line course must be written out in advance of the
class, often in advance of the course itself, or at least modules (or
weeks) before. This
difference has been the single most significant factor in keeping me
from putting courses on line heretofore.
Given my work schedule, especially since teaching at community
colleges, I have simply been unable to put away enough time in advance
of the course to develop lectures, class questions, introductions, and
advisories on how to read or understand a text in advance of the course
itself. This has especially
been true in courses that I have been developing, such as the Short
Story, or the Lesbian/Gay Literature, where initial research of an
essential, sometimes extensive, bibliography has been necessary.
I
am aware that one doesn’t have to write an entire course before the
course is given on line, that a few modules at a time will work so long
as one keeps a few weeks ahead of the students in the preparation of the
syllabus. Nonetheless, the
crucial difference for the instructor in class preparation of the two
kinds of courses under discussion is necessary lead-time.
An on-line course must be both written, and written in advance of
the class, whereas the classroom course can be organized, reorganized,
thought out, re-thought out, on
the way to the class itself. In addition, because of the asynchronic nature of delivery in an on-line class, the introductory lectures have to be posted in advance, and once the lecture or introduction is written and posted, there is no way to make ON THE SPOT, changes the way an instructor in a classroom structure might, no way to introduce spontaneously historical or factual matters that the class might need. Admittedly, after the fact, changes can be made and information provided, but I think such a way of providing information, if used too often, would be ineffective pedagogy. Finally,
there is the issue of what I have called the je ne sais quoi or
charisma of the teacher. It
is often remarked that teachers especially at the college level are
frustrated actors, hams, one might say.
In my own university education, I remember being drawn to courses
not simply because of the content—within a major course of study one
usually has leeway to choose from a list—but because the professor was
renowned to be an excellent teacher.
And I have profited from such an experience insofar as I have
modeled my own methods on those of the most effective teachers I myself
have had. Who I am as a
teacher is more than an amount of knowledge that I can deliver to or
evince from students. And
what I can teach them is more than facts and content.
Of
course, one shows personality in writing, and writing can carry with it
liveliness, depth, provocation, sympathy, wit, etc.
But insofar as the medium is the message, the written medium
cannot fully produce “the smiles, the frowns, the ups, the downs” of
a live presentation or performance.
Moreover,
a live performance gains enormously from silences, carefully controlled
to manipulate an audience into thinking about a point.
Even in seminar method classes, where my profile is considerably
lower than in lecture courses, I have found that after a student has
asked a question or challenged a response, my sitting silently without
saying a word has created a useful discomfort in the class that
frequently has caused students to rethink their assumptions.
In other words, silence is a powerful tool for causing students
to think critically. I have
not figured out how this can be done on-line, and I would love to see an
article that addresses these powerful methods of teaching. There
is yet another aspect to this issue of je ne sais quoi or charisma that
I have been unable to foresee developing from an on-line course:
Just as my own practice as an instructor (and ham) have been
modeled after the excellent teachers I have had, so too have other
students (God help them!) have modeled themselves after me.
When students return or write years later to tell me that their
lives have changed because of studying with me, I know it is not
necessarily Thoreau, or Aristotle, or even Shakespeare who have changed
their lives but the ways in which they have been led into textual
analysis and the identification of their own prejudices and points of
view in the reading of Thoreau, or Aristotle, or even Shakespeare.
Try as I might, I do not understand how an on-line course can
deliver that richness. Having
brought up these issues that are not discussed in the texts, issues
directly related to instructional methods and forms of classes, I aver
that I am still convinced that certain courses are possible on line,
especially writing courses. Your
article on the way in which reading can be taught on line is alluring as
well. I would like to
believe that other kinds of courses can successfully be taught on line,
and Melanie’s course in American Literature certainly gives the lie to
the notion that literature can’t effectively be taught on line.
Nonetheless, it would be enormously encouraging to me and to
others like me if there were an article for instructors, different from
those addressing “how to” construct the course, if there were an
article that spoke directly to the practical issue of preparation and if
there were an article, more philosophical perhaps in orientation, that
spoke to the issue of professorial charisma. As
a further consideration of matters with respect to on-line courses,
I’m wondering how functional and in what ways Video streaming might be
used in teaching an on line course.
In my own imagination, the instructor can be talking to the cam
live, something like those old fashioned video courses like the Sunrise
Semester that were popular in the 60s, but enlivened by the ability to
stream the presentation asynchronously as well as to have chats, etc.
In such a circumstance, the instructor might even have a
“studio audience”-- always useful in enlivening television shows--
of, say, a half dozen students, who might themselves channel for the
larger on-line group something of the alchemy that takes place in a live
classroom. Guidelines for Good Practice: Technology Mediated Instruction: http://www.sabri.org/EDTECH-01/good-practice.htm Implementing Effective Technology
Integration: http://www.sabri.org/EDTECH-01/Assignments.htm In Defense of Computer Assisted
Reading Instruction: http://www.sabri.org/EDTECH-01/Cari.html Online Learning in Brief : http://www.sabri.org/EDTECH-01/online-learning.htm What is Online Education? http://www.sabri.org/EDTECH-01/Definition.htm Who Should Attend Online Courses : http://www.sabri.org/EDTECH-01/who_should_attend.htm
|