Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
nous engagement allows for ample deliberation
on experiences in placement, scenarios shared by
colleagues and provocations offered in the class,
and that this pacing encourages diligent contem-
plation and careful analysis prior to response.
Tasha, from Alberta, said,
There is no way I will post something that is not
good - I mean, not my best work. It's kind of like
the written word lasts longer than the spoken
word, you know? So I am going to take my time
and post something I can be proud of, not just
today, but next year.
I tend to be a listener, taking time to process and
integrate new information into my practice. I liked
taking the time to consider and process my own
feelings and reactions without pressure to respond
immediately. I contributed to the dialogue when I
felt that I had new information to add and appreci-
ated doing so on my own time and initiative.
In the online environment faculty have the
opportunity to read each posting, an experience
distinct from the campus based settings, where
they might circulating during small group discus-
sion time, often missing much of the discussion
and debate among students while doing so. One
faculty member who teaches both online and on
site commented,
As noted by Tasha, online learning responds
to a wide variety of learning styles. The student
who learns best by reading (“listening”) and re-
sponding right away can do so; the person who
learns more effectively by reading (“listening”)
and pondering at greater length and collecting
her thoughts before scripting a response is also
honoured. In contrast, on site classrooms tend to
privilege the extroverted, spontaneous learner,
leaving fewer options, or little later chance, for
the student whose learning is not compatible with
this format.
In addition, students report that text-based
responses require greater conceptualization and
articulation of their reflections than do spoken
responses. Together, these conditions foster lay-
ered and nuanced debate and discussion within
the seminar setting, creating an enriched learning
community. Jeremy, from Ontario, said,
My course evaluations from on site teaching
regularly include student frustration that I do not
spend my time evenly among all the small groups.
I simply cannot spread myself across several si-
multaneous discussions, yet I regret not getting
to hear all the students weigh in on the material,
particularly the students who are quiet in the
larger group. But online, I can take my time, read-
ing the transcripts of the small groups, preparing
questions or reflections that are considered, not
rushed, and have more meaningful engagement
with each small group than I ever could with my
on site class.
In addition to participation in the online group
dialogue, faculty can follow up via email with
students regarding the content or process of the
seminar. The literature supports that these two
functions of online communication between stu-
dent and faculty - discussion boards and email - are
experienced as less intimidating and threatening
than traditional face to face communication. It
is both preferred by students and experienced as
more effective (Kitsantas & Chow, 2007).
The critical success factors discussed above
prioritize consistent and authentic engagement
between faculty and students. The work of Cho
et. al. (2007) underscores the lesson that attention
Each posting is like a mini-assignment! Which
bugged me at first, but then I realized I had this
great opportunity every time I go to respond, to
really think about what I was saying, and take the
time to word it just right.
Yasmin, from Newfoundland, concurred:
Search WWH ::
Custom Search