Thinking about our audience....

This YouTube clip really got me reflecting on our changing university audience and their use of technology (and our use of technology and teaching strategies). I plan on using this clip to start a discussion with students in the spring about both of these topics. Check it out. [Update 10/29/08: Dr. Michael Wesch recently posted an entry to his blog,
Revisiting “A Vision of Students Today". I suggest you watch the video and then read his blog post, written more than a year after creating the video.]



And I plan on using this clip when talking with my Education colleagues about the importance of integrating technology more fully and creatively in our work with teacher candidates and in-service teachers -- to help prepare them to engage, inspire, and empower our digital-native students.

Sending big files to students

Here are two sites that help you send large files to students via email:

-- mailbigfile.com

-- yousendit.com

Cool kinetic sculptures

I love this sort of thing. Theo Jansen, a Dutch sculpture, has created beach creatures out of electrical tubing and lemonade bottles. Check out this demonstration -- love the creativity...and the possibilities!

AECT presentations

I had the pleasure of attending the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT) annual conference in Anaheim, CA, last week. I also had the pleasure of sharing two presentations. For any interested folks, here are links to the two presentations (as pdf files) and the corresponding handouts (as MS Word files):

Strategies for Creating Social Context in an Online Calculus-Based Physics Course
-- Presentation
-- Handout

No-Nonsense Discussion Guidelines for Enhancing Social Presence in Online Courses
-- Presentation
-- Handout
Note: For the digital story used in the presentation, please see a previous post in this blog -- Storytelling for presence, posted on May 17, 2007.

Tools for using film clips in the classroom

I really like to use film clips to illustrate various points. It's easy to do these days if you have Internet available in the classroom with so many film, tv, and advertising clips available via YouTube. This fall, I ended up in a room without Internet access. Luckily, there are tools that help you download clips to your computer. The two tools I've been using are Video Downloader and KEEPVID.

Here are a few of the clips I use in my courses:


To talk about classroom discussion facilitation --




To talk about the lecture format --




To talk about the future use of technology to support teaching and learning --





To talk about adult learning theory --








To talk about student engagement --





To talk about classroom management --

Structures for small groups reporting out to whole group (Protocols Part 4)

As I've mentioned before in this blog, I like to use small group activities in my courses, both on-campus and online. In my June 27, 2007 post, I described a few common reporting out structures that I use in the classroom. Below I describe the adjusted versions of those structures, used to help avoid boring report outs in online courses. These strategies – Rotating Threads (modified from Rotating Stations), Snowballing Threads, and Jigsaw Threads – involve students in small group discussions, while allowing for the benefits of reporting out in different ways than posting and reading summaries.

Note: The descriptions below assume the use of asynchronous threaded discussion forums, but you can use these same structures for synchronous discussions using chatrooms instead of forums. Especially consider using these structures synchronously when you have limited time.

Rotating Threads

1. Set up threaded discussion forums, with a different provocative issue to discuss in each forum.
   
2. In groups of 4-5, have students rotate to a new forum. In terms of timing, you could have each group spend one day in a forum – e.g., Forum A on Monday, Forum B on Tuesday, and so on.
   
3. Have each group record their ideas about the issue in the forum.
   
4. Once groups have rotated to each forum, give students time to revisit all of the forums to see what other groups posted.
   

Snowballing Threads

1. Discussion starts with small group discussions, with each small group having their own discussion forum.
   
2. After designated amount of time, each small group joins with another group in a new forum.
   
3. After designated amount of time, each larger group joins with another group in a new forum, and so on, until the whole group comes together into the same forum.
   

Jigsaw Threads

1. Groups of 4-5 students become experts on a particular issue/topic. Each group of experts has their own discussion forum to work in as they develop their expertise. Depending on the topic, and level of desired depth of expertise, this could take one week.
   
2. Form new groups. Each new group includes an expert from one of the original groups. These new groups have their own discussion forum.
   
3. Experts lead new group in an online discussion on their area of expertise. Again, depending on the topic and desired depth, each expert could lead a discussion over one day to one week.
   

Related posts in this blog:
Discussion ground rules
Don’t jump into discussions
Engaging quieter online students
Small groups reporting out to the large group?
Karma (or inspiration) points for discussion assessment
Beyond debates and conversational roles (Protocols Part 1)
Structures for asynchronous online discussions (Protocols Part 2)
Structures for synchronous online discussions (Protocols Part 3)

Don't jump into discussions

As the facilitator/instructor, don't jump in immediately. As soon as you start contributing to the discussion, it has the potential of shutting down ideas -- students are less like to share alternative viewpoints.

In my online courses, for example, if students start a discussion on Monday, I will wait until Thursday to post (and I make sure students know this is my plan so they don't think I have disappeared and am not monitoring). This allows the students to post their original position without being swayed by me. I monitor the discussion, even though I don't post, during those first few days to get a sense of who is participating, where the discussion is going, what themes are emerging, what misconceptions need addressing, and so on. Then, on Thursday, I post to threads of discussion instead of to every individual student post. This shows students that I am attending to all of their comments, even though I do not have a 1-to-1 ratio of post/response interactions.

Related posts in this blog:
Discussion ground rules
Engaging quieter online students
Small groups reporting out to the large group?
Karma (or inspiration) points for discussion assessment
Beyond debates and conversational roles (Protocols Part 1)
Structures for asynchronous online discussions (Protocols Part 2)
Structures for synchronous online discussions (Protocols Part 3)
Structures for small groups reporting out to whole group (Protocols Part 4)

Structures for synchronous online discussions (Protocols Part 3)

I'm just starting to use more synchronous discussion tools in my online courses. Besides the fact that the tools have improved and students (and I) have easier access to them, I found inspiration in Brookfield and Preskill's book (Discussion as a way of teaching, 1999) to help me think about some strategies for synchronous discussions.

Here are two ways to structure synchronous online discussions, modified from Brookfield and Preskill, that I particularly like.

Chatroom of Voices
(Modified from Brookfield & Preskill’s Circle of Voices protocol)

Steps:

1. Form students into groups of 4-5, and set up a chatroom for each group.


2. Post a question, a passage, etc. that focuses the chat.


3. After students have a few minutes of quiet time to organize their thoughts (or you can ask students to prepare in advance of joining the chat), each student in the group then has 3 minutes of uninterrupted time to respond (this can be done sequentially, or in whatever order, as long as everyone writes for 3 minutes). Modification: Each student must begin by paraphrasing the comments of the previous student, and must strive to show how his or her postings relate to the comments of the previous student.


4. After everyone in the chatroom has had their 3 minutes, the discussion is opened up with the following ground rule: Students are allowed to contribute to the chat only about other people’s ideas, not expand on their own ideas (unless asked a direct question).

Chatroom Full of Quotes
(Modified from Brookfield & Preskill’s Hatful of Quotes protocol)

Steps:

1. 1. Set up a chatroom for use with groups of 10-20 students.


2. Prepare 5-6 sentences/passages/quotes from the text. Assign each student a number based on the number of quotes you have (e.g., if you have 6 quotes, assign students a number from 1 to 6).


3. Share the quotes and explain that students assigned #1 will respond to quote #1 and so on.


4. Give students a few minutes to organize their thoughts about the quote.
   


5. Call on each student (randomly, by alphabetical order or by entry into the chatroom) to share the quote and comment on it.


6. Each student has 1-2 minutes to respond in the chatroom.


7. Once you have called on all students to participate in the chat, you may want to have them write and post a 250-word summary describing the content of the chat session.

Note: What is interesting about this activity is that since there are only 5-6 quotes that students are reacting to, that they get to read others’ views about the quote they posted on (or will post on).

Related posts in this blog:
Discussion ground rules
Don’t jump into discussions
Engaging quieter online students
Small groups reporting out to the large group?
Karma (or inspiration) points for discussion assessment
Beyond debates and conversational roles (Protocols Part 1)
Structures for asynchronous online discussions (Protocols Part 2)
Structures for small groups reporting out to whole group (Protocols Part 4)

Addicted

In my quest for a free whiteboarding tool, I came upon this excellent tool from GE. I needed the tool for an online physics course -- so students can work on drawings and equations together. This tool is perfect for that activity. I plan on sharing it with my students this fall. But, for the moment, I am just addicted to playing with it, and making friends draw with me.

Lots of eLearning tools!

Check out Jane Hart's blog. Every day she shares a new eLearning tool. I am impressed with the variety of tools shared, and with her ability to post something new every day...I'm lucky if I post something once a week. Anyway, Jane's blog is a great way to keep up with tools and a one-stop-shop for researching possible tools that you can use with students.

Making me think

Related to my last post, I find this to be a thought-provoking slideshow as well...

Clearly...the need for technology integration

Well, if this doesn't illustrate the need to integrate technology into what we do with students at every grade level, I don't know what will...

Please see this thought-provoking slideshow from the Durango School District's IT Director, Howie DiBlasi.

Structures for asynchronous online discussions (Protocols Part 2)

I have been using discussion protocols in my on-campus and online courses (see Protocols Part 1 posting for protocols for on-campus use). I like discussion protocols because they provide a structure for engaging students in critical thinking about topics and issues. These protocols also help me encourage balanced voices in which all students share their perspective. I originally learned about discussion protocols from two very useful books:

McDonald, J., Mohr, N., Dichter, A., & McDonald, E. (2003). The power of protocols: An educator's guide to better practice. New York: Teachers College Press.

Brookfield, S. D., & Preskill, S. (1999). Discussion as a way of teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

What I share below are descriptions of my modifications of various protocols for use in facilitating asynchronous online discussions (synchronous discussions addressed in a subsequent post in this series -- Protocols Part 3). If you (and your students) are tired of conventional Q&A sessions, debates, or conversational role-playing (such as devil's advocate), these structures may be helpful.

Structures for Asynchronous Discussions
These protocols help students interpret and reflect on readings, but you can also use them to focus students’ discussion of case studies or a current event in the news. For these protocols, it is best to have students work in discussion groups of 4 to 5, with each group provided access to their own threaded discussion forum.

The Final Post
(Modified from McDonald et al.’s The Final Word protocol)

Steps:

1. Each student identifies one of the most significant ideas from the reading, illustrated by a quote. (Ask each student to prepare a back-up quote in case another student in the small group has already posted their first choice.)


2. Each student starts a new thread by posting a quote from the text that particularly struck her or him. The student points out where the quote is in the text. In less than 100 words, the student describes why that quote struck her or him.


3. Each student responds to that quote and what the original student said, using no more than 50 words. The purpose of the response is to expand on the original student's thinking about the issues, to provide a different look at the issue, to clarify thinking about the issues, and to question the original student's assumptions about the issues.


4. After each student in the group has responded to the original post, the first student has the “final word.” Using no more than 50 words, the original student then responds to what has been posted, sharing what she or he is now thinking about the issue, and her or his reaction to what the other students have posted.


5. This process continues until everyone has had the opportunity to have the “final word.” This means that 4-5 discussions are happening simultaneously within a particular timeframe (say, 3 days to 1 week), or that they are happening one at a time (each discussion over 1-2 days).

The Last Post
(Modified from McDonald et al.’s The Last Word protocol)

Steps:

1. Each student identifies one of the most significant ideas from the reading, illustrated by a quote. (Ask each student to prepare a back-up quote in case another student in the small group has already posted her or his first choice.)


2. Each student starts a new thread by posting a quote from the text that particularly struck her or him. The student points out where the quote is in the text, but does not explain why that quote struck her or him.


3. The rest of the group discusses the quote, why it is significant, what it means, and so on. Specify an amount of time for this discussion, such as 2 days.


4. After each student in the group has participated in a discussion about the quote, the first student has the "last word.” In no more than 100 words the original student shares why she or he thought it was significant, and sharing what she or he is now thinking about the issue, and her or his reaction to what the other students have posted.


5. This process continues until everyone has had the opportunity to have the "last word.” This means that 4-5 discussions (depending on number of students in a group) are happening simultaneously within a particular timeframe (say, 3 days to 1 week), or that they are happening one at a time (each discussion over 1-2 days).

Posting the Crux of the Matter
(Modified from McDonald et al.’s Crux of the Matter protocol)

Steps:

1. Set up four new threads: Sentences, Phrases, Words, and Insights. Designate a time frame for the discussion, such as 2-3 days.


2. First round: Each student posts a sentence from the reading that she or he feels is particularly significant in the Sentences thread. Each new post must be unique; in other words, if another student has already posted a particular sentence, other students should not post it again.


3. Second round: Each student shares a phrase that she or he feels is particularly significant in the Phrases thread. Each new post must be unique; in other words, if another student has already posted a particular phrase, other students should not post it again.


4. Third round: Each student posts the word that she or he feels in particularly significant in the Words thread. Each new post must be unique; in other words, if another student has already posted a particular word, other students should not post it again.


5. In the Insights thread, the small group discusses what they understand about the reading based on what everyone has posted, and any new insights about the reading.

Note: When using a protocol, it is also very helpful to debrief the activity with the whole group. This can help reinforce what students have gained and learned from the discussion, and explore any remaining questions.


Designated Readers
(Modified from Brookfield & Preskill’s Designated Listeners protocol)

1. At some point in the course, each student takes on the role of the designated reader.


2. During an online discussion, the designated reader does not contribute (except to ask for clarification of someone else’s posting).


3. At the end of the discussion, the designated reader is responsible for summarizing the online discussion. (Note: You can require a specific word count for summaries, such as 250 words, to help designated readers write concisely.)

This protocol promotes active “listening” during online discussions because it requires the designated readers to read all postings, look for themes and differing perspectives, ask clarifying questions, and summarize what has occurred during the discussion in a way that values everyone’s contributions. Especially when written concisely, these summaries also serve to help the group feel a sense of closure, making it easier to move on to the next discussion.

Related posts in this blog:
Discussion ground rules
Don’t jump into discussions
Engaging quieter online students
Small groups reporting out to the large group?
Karma (or inspiration) points for discussion assessment
Beyond debates and conversational roles (Protocols Part 1)
Structures for synchronous online discussions (Protocols Part 3)
Structures for small groups reporting out to whole group (Protocols Part 4)

Engaging quieter online students

A few times a year I am lucky to work with a new group of online instructors. I primarily share with them my thoughts on engaging students in online discussions, and facilitating groupwork activities. A question that comes up has to do with involving students who are a bit on the quiet side, regardless of the reason (e.g., learning preference, procrastination, lack of interest, overwhelming number of posts in the discussion, not clear about value, not clear on directions, and so on). Here are just a few of the strategies I use to address this issue in my online courses.

• Use strategies such as karma points (see May 25, 2007, post on "Karma points for discussion assessment") to encourage students to get involved. Incentives, such as assessments that lead to points towards final grade, do make a difference to many students.

• Besides making sure that the activities are relevant (and that students know they are relevant...you can't assume it is obvious), create a structure in which students need to post by a certain time, and then respond to others by a certain time. For example, if the class week starts on Monday, I have students post their initial views on an issue, reading, case study, and so on by Thursday, and then engage in the discussion further between Thursday and Sunday.

• Organize students into groups to make it more likely that everyone will have a chance to participate – smaller discussion groups of between 5 and 10 learners can make room for everyone to contribute.

• Assign people specific roles in the discussion: facilitator, questioner, summarizer, devil's advocate, and so on. Then, provide clear directions about what you do specifically when you are assigned that role.

• Put a limit on the number of posts (and length) that any one individual is allowed to contribute. How does this help? It will be less likely that students will enter a discussion and feel overwhelmed by the number of posts (especially if you have students in discussion groups of 5-10 students), and it will keep students from feeling like someone has already addressed the issue thoroughly with his or her 3,000 word post!

• Assign students a response order/sequence and require each subsequent responder to post something that extends the previous posts.

• Use online discussion protocols. Interested? Watch for posts throughout July and August 2007 (Protocols Parts 2-4) for more on online discussion protocols.

Related posts in this blog:
Discussion ground rules
Don’t jump into discussions
Small groups reporting out to the large group?
Karma (or inspiration) points for discussion assessment
Beyond debates and conversational roles (Protocols Part 1)
Structures for asynchronous online discussions (Protocols Part 2)
Structures for synchronous online discussions (Protocols Part 3)
Structures for small groups reporting out to whole group (Protocols Part 4)

Beyond debates and conversational roles (Protocols Part 1)

A book that has been very helpful to me when thinking about ways to engage students in discussion is Brookfield, S. D., & Preskill, S. (1999). Discussion as a way of teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. If you (and your students) are tired of debates or being assigned conversational roles (such as devil's advocate), check out this book. Here are a few of the discussion protocols I use and really like.

The Circle of Voices (Brookfield & Preskill, pg. 80)
Steps:

1. Pose a question, read a passage, etc. that focuses the discussion.
2. Ask students to form groups of 4-5.
3. Allow students a few minutes of quite time to organize their thoughts.
4. Each student in the group then has 3 minutes of uninterrupted time to respond (this can be done sequentially, or in whatever order, as long as everyone speaks for 3 minutes).
5. After everyone in the circle has had their 3 minutes, the discussion is opened up with the following ground rule: Students are allowed to talk only about other people’s ideas, not expand on their own ideas (unless asked a direct question).

Circular Response (Brookfield & Preskill, pg. 81-2)
There are 6 ground rules:

1. No one may be interrupted while speaking.
2. No one may speak out of turn in the circle.
3. Each person is allowed only 3 minutes to speak.
4. Each person must begin by paraphrasing the comments of the previous discussant.
5. Each person, in all comments, must strive to show how his or her remarks relate to the comments of the previous discussant.
6. After each discussant, the floor is open for general reactions (timed or not).

Hatful of Quotes (Brookfield & Preskill, pg. 82-3)
Steps:

1. Write/type 5-6 sentences/passages/quotes from the text onto slips of paper (one slip of paper for each student in class).
2. Put slips of paper in a hat.
3. Have each student pull a slip of paper from the hat.
4. Give students a few minutes to organize their thoughts about the quote on the slip of paper.
5. Each student reads quote and comments on it (timed or not).

Note: What is interesting about this activity is that since there are only 5-6 quotes that students are reacting to, that they get to hear others’ views about the quote they commented on (or will comment on).


Designated Listeners (Brookfield & Preskill, pg. 96-7)

1. At some point in the semester, each student takes on the role of the designated listener.
2. During a discussion, the designated listener does not contribute (except to ask for clarification of someone else’s contribution).
3. At the end of the discussion, the designated is responsible for summarizing the discussion.

There are additional discussion and groupwork protocols I like that I will share in future blog posts, Parts 2-4. In these future posts on protocols, I will share ideas on how to use them to facilitate asynchronous and synchronous discussions in online courses.

Related posts in this blog:
Discussion ground rules
Don’t jump into discussions
Engaging quieter online students
Small groups reporting out to the large group?
Karma (or inspiration) points for discussion assessment
Structures for asynchronous online discussions (Protocols Part 2)
Structures for synchronous online discussions (Protocols Part 3)
Structures for small groups reporting out to whole group (Protocols Part 4)

Small groups reporting out to the large group?

I like to use small group activities in my classes because small group discussions have the potential of giving each student a voice and having students dig deeper into a subject even with limited time. I also like to have the small groups report out to the full group to share what their groups discussed and so on. However, this can sometimes be on the dull side...and it is hard for students to attend to this reporting out, especially if it is at the end of a class session.

So, a few strategies I use to help avoid boring report outs are described below. These strategies -- Rotating Stations, Snowballing, and Jigsaw -- involve students in small group discussions, while allowing for the benefits of reporting out in a different way.

Rotating Stations

1. Set up discussion stations in the room, with a different provocative issue to discuss at each station.
   
2. In groups of 4-5, have students rotate every 10 minutes to a new station.
   
3. Have each group record their ideas about the issue on flipchart paper at each station.
   

Snowballing

1. Discussion starts with one-on-one discussions.
   
2. After designated amount of time, pairs join with another pair, forming a group of 4.
   
3. After designated amount of time, quads join with another quad, and so on, until whole group comes together.
   

Jigsaw

1. Groups of 4-5 students become experts on a particular issue/topic.
   
2. New groups are formed. Each new group includes an expert from one of the original groups.
   
3. Experts lead new group in a discussion on their area of expertise.

Related posts in this blog:
Discussion ground rules
Don’t jump into discussions
Engaging quieter online students
Karma (or inspiration) points for discussion assessment
Beyond debates and conversational roles (Protocols Part 1)
Structures for asynchronous online discussions (Protocols Part 2)
Structures for synchronous online discussions (Protocols Part 3)
Structures for small groups reporting out to whole group (Protocols Part 4)

Co-teaching as a workload reduction strategy

I receive a lot of email from colleagues regarding an article I wrote on workload reduction for online teachers. In reflection, I realize that there is a workload reduction strategy I frequently rely on, but failed to mention in the article -- co-teaching. It is true that it can take additional time to coordinate with a co-instructor, but having taught online as a solo instructor and a co-instructor, I find co-teaching enriching for the learners and for me. Besides the multiple perspectives and complimentary strengths, the shared responsibility makes a big difference in terms of workload...when it works well. I have been blessed in two of the online courses I teach to co-teach with a colleague who is an excellent teacher.

When you teach online you want to be connected all the time -- to make sure you maintain a strong teaching and social presence so learners never feel isolated or disconnected. Co-teaching allows you to share the responsibility for being online all the time. For example, when co-teaching an online course a couple of years ago, I experienced a personal tragedy that required my full attention and all of my energy. I saw that my co-instructor was online and available for questions, so I gave myself permission to disconnect and focus my attention on my needs and my family's needs. If my co-instructor hadn't been available, I would have had to make a difficult choice -- not allow myself to take the time to work through a difficult personal situation, or to try to juggle both the needs of my family and the needs of my online students...which would most assuredly lead do me doing a poor job in both arenas, and possibly doing damage to key stakeholders in both arenas.

Workload issues in online education are challenging. It is important to think about your own well-being as an online educator, as well as the well-being of your learners, and build in some "training" for learners on how to reduce and manage workload and related stress.

On quiet facilitation

Recently, I've had the opportunity to sit in on a colleague's course -- to be exposed to the content, and exposed to good teaching. Watching others in the activity of teaching has always been a great way for me to learn how to teach (or how not to teach).

The main aspect of my colleague's teaching that has stood out with every class meeting is the quiet confidence, calm demeanor, and steady flow of the experience. This approach is the opposite of mine -- I tend to perform, with lots of high energy, drama, theatrics. At first I was caught off guard, and I wondered how my colleague would hold the students' attention. After all, the students had been working all day and were now sitting in a classroom, tired and hungry. This translates to nervous energy, lots of figeting and twittering, checking cell phones, unability to sit still.

So, I watched. Slowly, the students calmed down too, started to attend to what was being discussed, started to take notes, ask questions, respond to questions. They sat up straighter. Their eyes even looked brighter.

Now, my colleague is a great storyteller, and clearly knows the content. And, there is no discomfort with long pauses, letting a question hang out there while the students reflect and prepare a response. So, all of that is part of it. But the quiet facilitation must have something to do with the chemistry of the class. I believe that it is through this quiet facilitation -- as opposed to the type of big-top performance I try to create in my pursuit of engagement and motivation to learn -- that the students become engaged. After their hectic, crazy days, they come to a place of calm...a place where they are supported in their intellectual pursuits through discourse, without the pressure to perform.

Legos and teamwork

I tend to involve students in a lot of teamwork activities. Besides determining "rules of engagement" and making decisions about how teams and individual team members will be assessed (please see the "Creating structures for effective groupwork" post on May 16, 2007), I think it helps to involve students in teamwork activities early on that are low-stress and serve as teamwork practice. One of the activities I like to do in an on-campus course is give each team a bag of Legos. I give them 20 minutes to create something with the Legos that serves a purpose beyond artwork. Then they have an additional 10 minutes to prepare their pitch -- what their creation is called, what the catch phrase used in all marketing materials will be, who their audience is, and how they will market it. Then they give their presentation to the rest of the class. After all of the presentations are done, I have the groups spend 5-10 minutes debriefing what worked and didn't work regarding their collaboration, and coming up with 3 lessons learned about collaboration. Each group shares their lessons learned, and these lessons are later reviewed and incorproated into the "rules of engagement" team contracts.

Besides being a fun activity that gets the creative juices flowing, it helps bring to light some aspects of collaboration that teams need to address early on to make sure they are both effective and efficient in the work together.

Karma (or inspiration) points for discussion assessment

Assessing discussion contributions, whether in an online or on-campus course, is a drag. I like to participate in the discussions too, and if I am responsible for judging the quality of each student's contribution I am distracted. Plus, I've always thought that it was inappropriate for me to be the sole judge of value. Luckily, karma points emerged as a teaching and assessment strategy that fit well with my teaching approach. (Note: I now refer to these as "inspiration points" because I had a student who was very offended by the use of the name "karma"...I did not want the name -- which was not critical to the process -- to get in the way of the purpose, described below.)

Karma points, an approach used by members of the online Slashdot.org community (and similar to the valuing process used by community members of Amazon and Ebay), involve students in the evaluation of the quality of discussion contributions. The idea behind karma points is that the learning community, not a moderator or an instructor, should be responsible for (1) determining the value of community members’ posting in terms of helping the community achieve specific goals, and (2) awarding those valued contributions.

To make karma points work, I give each student a certain number (e.g., three) of karma points that she or he can assign to valued discussion contributions within a certain timeframe (e.g., by week’s end if online, or by the end of the evening session if on-campus). Because the students are evaluating each other, I work with them at the beginning of the semester to establish criteria for determining “value” and then apply the criteria to their assessment of peers’ contributions and the creation of their own contributions. For example, karma point criteria may include sharing original ideas, writing clearly, presenting a coherent argument, providing evidence to support an argument, “listening” to others and incorporating their ideas and perspectives, and so on (see below for an example of criteria).

***********************************************************************************
Criteria for Karma Points

Here is how we will assign our allotment of karma points for each discussion:

0 points: Though you may have introduced an interesting idea or contributed to the discourse, it is not original enough, or is somehow unclear.
1 point: You provide a succinct, interesting, original, and well-documented argument or idea, or provide a useful link or pertinent fact.
2 points: Your contribution is creative and original, and compellingly argues a very clear point. You support your contribution with evidence.
3 points: An exceptional contribution to the discourse, one that really opens eyes and encourages a lively discussion/debate. Exemplary in all respects.

Ways to Improve Chances of Receiving Karma Points

• Choose provocative subject lines to make our postings stand out.
• Present our own perspectives.
• Write clearly.
• Construct an argument. Provide evidence, present a rationale that supports our positions, and reference the opinions of others, linking to supplementary evidence when appropriate.
• Open up debate by remembering that the best response is one that gets people thinking, and that makes them want to reply.
• Learn from others who have posted before us by reading through the posts and referring to appropriate posts in our own.

Rules for Assigning Karma Points

Only award karma points to those who have contributed significantly to the discussion – vote trading is unacceptable. Award karma points based on the quality of the message, irrespective of the content of the message – vote for exceptional messages even if you do not necessarily agree with the ideas presented.

************************************************************************************

In my experience, the community-centered focus of karma points improves the quality of each post during a discussion because students are more reflective and thoughtful about their responses, make sure their responses are supported by evidence, and work hard to provide value to the learning community by moving the discussion forward. The example below shows the quality of postings karma points inspires and how karma points are assigned to postings even if students share opposing views (e.g., Michael disagrees with Michelle’s perspective but still acknowledges the posting’s value to the overall discussion). By using karma points, I participate more in the discussion because students have taken over part or all of the evaluation role. The karma points students accumulate for their valued contributions to the discussion can be used to determine a score for class participation.




Online, karma points can be distrubuted in the subject line of a student's post -- e.g., Karma point to Rick. In an on-campus classroom, I pass out index cards and have students track their point distribution on the cards.

Side note: A couple of years ago I was teaching an online course in which I used karma points. A few weeks before the end of the course, my daughter decided to be born five weeks early. I wanted to complete the course, but needed to scale back on some of the activities, specifically my monitoring of the last couple of weeks of online discussion. I informed the students that they were welcome to continue the discussions but that they need not assign karma points because I would no longer be monitoring. I thought for sure they would discontinue all discussion and focus on completing their final projects. To my amazement, they continued the discussion until the end of the course, and continued to acknowledge each other’s contributions by awarding karma points! They clearly believed that there was value in the process and, in fact, told me so in the end-of-course evaluations.


Related posts in this blog:
Discussion ground rules
Don’t jump into discussions
Engaging quieter online students
Small groups reporting out to the large group?
Beyond debates and conversational roles (Protocols Part 1)
Structures for asynchronous online discussions (Protocols Part 2)
Structures for synchronous online discussions (Protocols Part 3)
Structures for small groups reporting out to whole group (Protocols Part 4)

Discussion ground rules

Although it may seem like an overly formal step, I have found it very helpful to have students set "rules of engagement" to guide how they will participate and contribute to discussions in both on-campus and online courses. I have students answer questions like:

• What is our definition of a respectful, balanced discussion?
  
• How will we determine in what order people speak?
  
• How do we feel about interrupting?
  
• What should we do if someone dominates the discussion?
  
• What should we do if we don't hear from everyone in the room?
  
• What should we do if we discuss something controversial or uncomfortable?
  
• What should we do if someone says something we don't like?
  

Working together the students develop their rules of engagement to guide our discussions. This is a formal document that everyone in the class agrees to. We review it often, and make adjustments when needed.

This activity helps students reflect on their own discussion habits, makes it clear to everyone what is expected during discussions, and empowers students to stick up for themselves and others when one of the rules is violated (e.g., someone dominates the discussion or keeps interrupting others). It also gives students a chance to practice being in a discussion before they have to participate in a discussion covering a course topic, allowing them to become more comfortable with their peers and the discussion format.

Related posts in this blog:
Some guidelines for discussion participation
Don’t jump into discussions
Engaging quieter online students
Small groups reporting out to the large group?
Karma (or inspiration) points for discussion assessment
Beyond debates and conversational roles (Protocols Part 1)
Structures for asynchronous online discussions (Protocols Part 2)
Structures for synchronous online discussions (Protocols Part 3)
Structures for small groups reporting out to whole group (Protocols Part 4)

Preparing for guest speakers

I think it is nice to have guest speakers in my classes because they offer different perspectives on topics, and are often much better equipped than I am to talk about how things happen and work in the professional world for which the students are preparing.

However, I have found that it can also lead to a lost opportunity if students don't prepare ahead of time. Guests are only with us for a limited amount of time, and they are coming to class on their own time as a service to the community of practice. It is no fun for guests to feel that their time and expertise is not appreciated. So, I have students prepare in one of two ways:

1. Prepare the top 5 questions. I usually have students work in teams of 3-4 to come up with a list of 3 questions they would like the guest to address. I collect the questions, compile them into one master list, and give them back to the students. Then I have the students create categories of questions. I have them reflect on whether the questions are best addressed by this particular guest, or better addressed by someone else or via another resource. This reflective activity usually leads to us eliminating several questions. The students then vote for their top 3 questions. I track the vote on the board. Often this vote narrows it down to the top 5 questions. If not, then I ask for volunteers to defend why we should select a particular question, or why we should drop it. Once we have the 5 questions, we forward them to the guest.
   
   What questions should students ask guest speakers? What I tell students is to think of questions that will lead to unique responses from the speakers -- responses they wouldn't find in a text or via a Google search. They can ask them about their particular jobs, research, areas of interest. For example, students can ask speakers to talk/tell a story about:
   
   • The challenges of successfully developing and implementing [a computer system, a new curriculum, a new incentive system for the sales force -- fill in the blank]
     
   • The most rewarding project they worked on, and why it was rewarding
     
   • The project they consider a classic "war story," why it was so difficult, and what they would do differently now
     
   • Why they became a [systems analyst, professor, HR director -- fill in the blank]
     
   • The future of their profession, and what they see as being cutting edge in 5, 10, 15 years
     
   
   The most enjoyable guest speakers tend to tell great stories, so I ask students to think of prompts and questions they can present to guest speakers that encourage dramatic sharing of past, current, and future events.
   
   
2. Determine the topic. Sometimes it makes more sense to interview a guest instead of asking her or him to prepare a presentation. When this is the case, I ask students to determine a focused topic that is shared with the guest in advance. Then, we do a similar activity as #1 where students develop their interview questions. They also select 1-3 students who will serve as the interviewers.
   

The added bonus of having the students prepare, is that we can share our questions/main topic with the guest speaker in advance, helping the guest prepare for her or his time with us.

Jazzing up the syllabus

Recently I read a great article called The Promising Syllabus from James Lang, who writes a column for the Chronicle of Higher Education. This article got me thinking about my syllabi: what I include, the order of content, the number of "professor says 'no'" statements, and so on. Bottom line, it made me realize why I hate going over the syllabus the first night of class...boring, irrelevant, pessimistic. How can I write a syllabus that gets students -- and me -- excited about the course?

One strategy I have used is to start with a recent position announcement for a job that students would be interested in. Then, I use the position announcement to describe what we will do in the course, and how the course activities will help them prepare to apply for positions like the ones in the announcement. Here is an example:


Another example is to start the syllabus with vignettes or questions that grab students' attention, and then go on to describe how the course will help students address the challenges presented in the vignettes or answer the questions posed. Here is an example:



And yet another example is to sprinkle fun activities throughout the syllabus to grab students' attention, for example:

Storytelling for presence

One of the concerns I had early on in my online teaching -- I teach online and on-campus courses -- was how to establish my own presence in the course so that students felt a connection with me. Along with a number of other strategies, the strategy that has had the biggest positive impact is storytelling. My most elaborate example is a digital story created using Premiere (but could be easily created in iMovie, or even PowerPoint). In this digital story, I share personal information about a challenging time (going through tenure) and about why I am a professor. It also provides insight on what I value as an educator, what I consider to be "good" teaching.

Here is that digital story:
http://www.augustcouncil.com/~jdunlap/JoniDunlapSOR.mov
(alternatively, http://www.augustcouncil.com/~jdunlap/movie)

Related posts in this blog:
Creating digital stories with VoiceThread
Flickr photo sets

Creating structures for effective groupwork

One instructional strategy that I use a lot in my online and on-campus courses is group projects, involving learners in collaboration, teamwork, peer review, and so forth. I like this strategy because:

• Group work can help counter the isolation some students may feel in an online course,
  
• Exposing students to multiple perspectives can open their eyes to diverse ideas,
  
• Students can achieve higher expectations with collegial support, and
  
• The quality of individual student work can be enhanced through collaboration.
  

However, when I don't provide some structure around group projects, specifically addressing how group work will be assessed, these projects can lead to a lot of problems.

One thing I have done to help teams function more effectively is to have them establish a formal agreement describing how the team will function. A “Rules of Engagement” contact is especially important for students who have had negative past experiences in which they had to cover for team members who did not contribute. In the contract, each team can determine what to do if a team member cannot fulfill his or her obligations. This contract should include information on:

• Who will post: Which team member will be responsible for posting the group’s deliverables?
  
• Leader or not: Some groups chose a leader to keep things moving, some groups change that leader each week (or every other week or whatever), and some groups decide not to do this.
  
• Communication and deadlines: How will they communicate with each other? How often? Will they set interim deadlines? Some groups like to set certain deadlines, such as initial work done by Wednesday, rewrites by Friday, and final posted Sunday.
  
• Equal contributions: How will work be distributed?
  
• Preferred work style: Some people like to get things done during the week and take the weekend off and others prefer the opposite. What is your style? How will you handle style differences?
  
• Not getting work done: What will the group do if one member cannot fulfill his or her obligations? Will that member be docked points, or can the member make up the work?
  
• Known problems: Issues you know will come up, how to handle dates you know you will be out of town?
  

See below for a simple team agreement.

*******************************************************************************
Team E Agreement

1. Will you have a leader who keeps the team on track during team assignments?

After a preliminary review of the projects, Team E has decided that it is best to have a different team leader for each of the weeks that have a team assignment. The team leader will be assigned a week in advance based on personal schedules at that time.

2. How do you prefer to work?

After reviewing individual work schedules, we have decided to assign a team leader a week in advance so that he/she can organize and assign tasks to be completed by the weekend before the due date. This will provide an adequate amount of time for completion and review by our teammates. The team leader will assign a preliminary due date prior to the actual due date for all to adhere. This offers flexibility to each team member to work on his/her task, yet hold him/her accountable to successful completion of his or her task by the due date.

3. Do you agree to provide timely, substantive feedback?

We all agree that it is important to provide feedback that is positive. This benefits the team and provides open communication. It is important to critique constructively…the team wants to create a superior product.

4. How will you handle a team member who does not do what he/she has agreed to do?

The team is comprised of professionals and we expect if an individual has a problem (technical or personal) hindering him or her from performing the assigned task, the team will be notified ASAP so the team can assist in the completion of that task. The team may advise, inform, break the task into smaller and more manageable parts, or assign to another team member. The team leader will be the focal point for managing these activities. At that point the team will also negotiate how the team member’s assignment score should be affected.

********************************************************************************

I then have the students use the team agreements to assess each group members’ contribution (including their own contribution) to the submitted paper or product. Below is an example of a tool students adopted, based on the team contract, to assess each other’s contributions to group projects. These assessments can have ramifications, such as if a group member receives less than 50 points on the Group Review Form from more than one group member then that student's points for the deliverable will be reduced by 20%. I have found that this empowers students to have a say in the point distribution on group projects. This review process also functions as an incentive for all group members to fulfill their obligations. And, this approach has some additional benefits:

• Because students complete Group Review Forms describing each group members’ contribution, it summarizes the project work and minimizes the amount of time an instructor needs to spend examining the posts in each group’s private workspace forum for clues to level and quality of each student's contribution to the project.
  
• It alerts me to specific group and group member issues, and provides data to use when addressing those issues. This allows me to address the issues quickly and efficiently.
  
• Often, when given the means and opportunity, students are very thoughtful and detailed about the feedback they provide to group members, and are very honest about their own contributions. Therefore, the students' reviews of group members and themselves provides me with useful comments that can be included in feedback to individual students.
  

Stuff to inspire

This is just a collection of links that I am tracking. Things that make me smile...

Achievement!



Merry Christmas message


Dancing bird