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.