Reliance on visual cues during webcasting

Today, I had another webcast experience as a presenter. I have done them before (both as a presenter and a participant), but it has been a little while since I have presented during a webcast...and I had forgotten...

The webcast was in support of a recent article we (Jackie Dobrovolny, Dave Young, and I) had published in Innovate (a good journal for people interested in online education). [Note: The article is on our use of Kolb's model of experiential learning in the eLearning MA/certificate program at UCD.] Innovate asks authors to participate in a webcast in support of their articles, sharing a presentation and facilitating a discussion. It is a fantastic idea, and one I think more journals should consider because I think audiences/readers crave opportunities to discuss the work (and, in my mind, it recognizes the criticality of social context). Anyway, I love the idea and think it serves its purpose well. [Note: By the way, Innovate has all of these webcasts archived. I have watched/listened to many of them, and found them to be a good source of information...even though I wasn't able to participate in real-time. You will need to register (for both the journal and the archived or live webcasts), but it is free. Also, Jackie and I participated in another webcast of our live presentation at the Innovation 2008 conference, in case there is interest.]

So, it caught me off guard yet again today when I was reminded of how much I rely on the visual cues of the audience. People nodding, taking notes, talking to a neighbor, or even glaring at me with arms crossed across their bodies...those cues give me information that encourages me, informs me, and often redirects me.

I am not a good multitasker. So, my other challenge -- one commonly expressed by people working in synchronous technology-mediated environments -- is that I wanted to deliver a smooth presentation while at the same time attend to the high volume of text-based comments and questions from the audience. There was a ton of interaction (potential and realized) from the audience of around 25 folks. All with great contributions. Yet, I was simply unable to track it all. In fact, there was one point where I completely lost track of where I was in the presentation...something that never happens to me in a face-to-face live setting.

Where does this experience leave me? I am not going to give up on webcasts, that I know. Again, I think there is a craving for synchronous connection, and there is power in that. So, I want to add more webcast opportunities to my online courses, and plan to use them to deliver professional development through UCD's Center for Faculty Development starting in the fall. But, I do have to deal with these two issues -- (1) my reliance of visual cues from the audience, and (2) attending to audience comments and questions. The second issue is much easier to deal with. I have had great luck with asking a colleague to step in and act as moderator during a webcast. The moderator can completely focus on the text traffic, and make sure that I address questions and respond to comments.

In terms of the first issue, I have come up with two angles I will pursue: setting ground rules, and structuring the presentation to support time for frequent interaction.

Setting ground rules:

• Demonstrate how participants can engage in side conversations using the "private" feature so that they do not distract the entire audience (or presenter).
  
  
• If there is no moderator involved, ask the audience to hold their questions and comments until the designated times throughout the presentation.
  
  
• If there is a moderator, explain to the audience that the moderator will track comments and questions, try to categorize them into themes, and present them to you during the designated times throughout the presentation.
  
  
• Share a set of emoticons that the audience can use to let you know whether they are in agreement, disagreement, want more, want less, and so on.
  

Structuring the presentation:

• If possible, collect potential questions and comments from participants in advance of the webcast. This gives you time to incorporate content that you may not have been planning to address.
  
  
• Make sure there is time before the presentation begins for people to check their technology and say hello.
  
  
• Share the ground rules. Ask if the group wants to change any of the rules, and adjust as appropriate. (If it is possible to send this information out in advance, great. But, review them at the start of the webcast so they are fresh.)
  
  
• If you are interested in collecting some pre-presentation data from folks (to make sure you will address questions, and to get them engaged in the topic), use the polling feature of your webcast tool. For example, the webcast today was in Breeze, which has a polling tool.
  
  
• Set up the presentation so that you are delivering content in 3-5 minute chucks.
  
  
• Between each chunk, open it up for questions. Make sure the time is monitored -- say, only 3-5 minutes for questions.
  
  
• Leave time at the end for a lot more discussion. (I have found that presenters so often fill up their allotted time with their own talking, leaving no time for the audience to participate. And, let's face it, they often do want to participate.)
  
  
• Use the polling feature to check for understanding throughout the presentation. This is a quick way to get feedback without waiting for a large group of people to type in their responses. Plus, it is something that can be set up in advance of the webcast.
  
  
• If appropriate, provide a way for you and the audience to keep the discussion going after the webcast using an asynchronous communication tool (e.g., threaded discussion).
  

Wish me luck -- I have another webcast coming up, and will certainly put some of these strategies into play.

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.

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)

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)

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.

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