I am struck by the idea that the interactive online community that I am proposing should model discourse rather than cater to casual or disengaged users.
The notion that education has become a passive activity for most of the consumers (students)-- that it is something that is being 'done to them'-- has pervaded my discussions with teachers at UMD. How can I expect to interest students enough to participate in online discussion when they don't talk in class?
I have heard from both of my teacher interviewees that online discussion is not a venue that allows reticent students to participate, as they had initially hoped. Quiet students remained quiet. This anecdotal evidence suggests that online interaction will not change a particular student's level of participation in discourse. Interestingly, many of the returned surveys from students have indicated that not only is a certain amount of participation in online discussion required for some classes, but their teachers expect them to have better thought-out arguments than in class. This perception that written observations are placed under greater scrutiny than comments made in class may account for some of the reluctance my interviewees have seen.
I am not interested in implementing an online course website, but an electronic agora where discussion and resource-sharing occur almost entirely outside of class. Users (students, primarily) are empowered to participate at whatever level they choose. Give students the agency and see where it leads. Just more food for thought.
The notion that education has become a passive activity for most of the consumers (students)-- that it is something that is being 'done to them'-- has pervaded my discussions with teachers at UMD. How can I expect to interest students enough to participate in online discussion when they don't talk in class?
I have heard from both of my teacher interviewees that online discussion is not a venue that allows reticent students to participate, as they had initially hoped. Quiet students remained quiet. This anecdotal evidence suggests that online interaction will not change a particular student's level of participation in discourse. Interestingly, many of the returned surveys from students have indicated that not only is a certain amount of participation in online discussion required for some classes, but their teachers expect them to have better thought-out arguments than in class. This perception that written observations are placed under greater scrutiny than comments made in class may account for some of the reluctance my interviewees have seen.
I am not interested in implementing an online course website, but an electronic agora where discussion and resource-sharing occur almost entirely outside of class. Users (students, primarily) are empowered to participate at whatever level they choose. Give students the agency and see where it leads. Just more food for thought.
posted by eb at 8:46 PM
7 Comments:
electronic agora
Wow. Wish I had said that.
What do students say about those online communities they join by choice?
Is the presence of adult-overhearers or eavesdroppers part of the problem?
Bosses, teachers -- scrutinizers?m
Do I pretend that my mistake in the earlier post would invite student participation....is the focus also on error-free writing in front of adults?
Unfortunately, I cannot take credit for the "electronic agora" model of online community. My new favorite, most-quoted, netizen-scholar Howard Reingold describes the downsizing or even disappearance of forums for 'meeting and sizing eachother up' IRL (in real life). Why not turn to the internet?
I am torn about the "adult-overhearers/seers" issue. Most literature on internet communication heralds it as the great leveler, where race/class/gender/age boundaries all but disappear. I am thinking that it may be a power issue. The communication that the students were refering to in the surveys was 'mediated' or rather, controlled by teachers. Perhaps if the forum is more democratic, or at least out of the hands of the elite/prof, students might feel more comfortable writing? All of that is barring the overwhelming scariness of peer-evaluation...
The Discourse Network of 2000 (Academic Version): Friedrich Kittler would be pleased.
There's a lot of high-level critical theory about how technology influences the discourse model. Discourse Networks 1800/1900 is a book I'm studying right now with Matt Kirschenbaum. So you've got some old school support here.
The upshot, I believe, would be that an online community for AMST would create a more readily transmitable and digital variant of a real-life community. Rapid-response, trackable posts, easy-access helps proliferate discourse. But, as you have seen, does not change the basic personality dynamic of the participants.
Introversion (you refer to it as reticence) is a complicated personality dimension that both the Myers-Briggs and the Big 5 Personality Model have trouble pinning down. Even on the web, discussion can overwhelm and overload the young introvert. Anonymity appears to help by reducing risk, but the very fact that you will eventually be in the same building as the people you are posting about online counterbalances the benefits of online community.
In other words, a community that is both real-life and virtual life will have a dramatically different dynamic than a completely virtual one. I post on your blog today, I can see you in real life next week to talk to you about it. That changes what I can or will talk about, and how you can or will respond.
I refer to it as reticence for a reason. Not all students who exhibit reticence to participate in class are introverted. I have been in classes where I rarely, if ever, contributed in class. There are numerous explanations: I was bored, I was thinking about something else, the class didn't invite much discussion, etc. I have seen very social people clam up in class if they didn't do the reading, or didn't feel challenged by the subject matter-- the list could go on.
Often, I feel like personality evaluations like the Myers-Briggs test are taken for explanations of personality traits rather than helpful guides to personal-social preferences. I mean, in short, that people are more than their 4-letter Myers-Briggs result. Point taken on the "young introvert" comment, but I think that the introvert/extrovert language model of social interaction represents a dichotomy that rarely presents in such a rigid form. I am speaking purely from experience and defer to your psych training on this one.
Something that has come up in my research of online interaction is the idea of "fluid identity". People have the opportunity to define or re-define themselves in virtual space as they see fit. I have perceived that people amend their online persona as their interests and tastes change, so the 'fluidity' is closely aligned with their personal growth. I'm basing some of this on an overwhelming number of respondents who'd indicated that they'd changed screennames or handles on the web said that they did so because their previous one "wasn't cool anymore". I don't know what the reality of this is. Regardless, the agency to choose your own name or email address appears to be highly valued.
I agree that 'community that is both real-life and virtual life' will function differently than one whose virtual citizens have the perceived safety of never meeting each other.. but as I'm typing this, I'm blanking on good examples of these anonymous communities. Instead, I'll present examples of virtual/real-life community crossovers: Gaming conventions were formed so that people who only knew each other online as their avatar's name could meet up and chat about gaming IRL; Reingold's example of the WELL (from BBS-era internet) shows participants getting together for community picnics; Suicidegirls, which for many is a very active internet community in addition to its alternative pin-up gallery, has a travelling burlesque show that invites RL interaction among members. Communities of common interest seem to be drawn together in real life...
Yes, the Myers-Briggs and other personality tests are not intended to define people along particular axis--though that is an unfortunate consequence when discussing them. It's the problem of defining something and the definition overtaking the defined. The old symbolism vs. symbolized arguments. I was referring to the possibility of the introvert-inclined to be overwhelmed by the internet if they are not already comfortable with it.
"Fluidity," I hadn't thought of that term before in online identity--though it's talked about often in other ways. I can imagine one of those "Stages of a Relationship" charts with steps in online identity growth. I digress.
Online communities do beg the question of meeting in real life, and most sucessful communities will sponsor some sort of live event where members can meet face to face. When I speak about a virtual community, I'm more speaking about communities where over 50% of interaction takes place online, mainly because of distance. I doubt members of many online communities many times in the same week or even month, but a classroom online community can and does. That presents new problems, but also new possibilities. If anything, it expands your chances of meeting like-minded people in the same area. Someone might talk about a subject that interests you online that you would never realize they were interested in while attending the class or department event. It's an additional avenue of communication; nothing wrong with that.
By the way, one of the neatest things about the Wired article you fund is that it is written by guest editor Will Wright, creator of the Sims and other amazing games. I have often fantasized about running an AMST class using the Sims online...
Post a Comment
<< Home