Module 6: MVMs

After reading Chapter 12 of Making the Move to eLearning: Putting Your Course Online by Chamberlin and Lehmann, I have discovered that I am not an online instructor. I am a full-time, tenured faculty member that happens to sometimes teach her entire load online. There is a difference that is worth noting.

I am required to be involved in college governance. That means that I spend about 20% of my time attending meetings and participating in activities that contribute to managing the campus. I am currently a member of the Tenure Review Committee and the Instructional Pluralism Committee and I am an alternate on the Faculty Commons Council. I am required to be on campus for college governance meetings. I am also required to hold on campus office hours equal to the amount of time that I teach F2F. In Winter I will teach 5 credits F2F and 11 online. I will need to hold 2 hours per week on campus.

My normal work hours are 7:00 am to 3:30 pm Monday through Friday. I am able to stay in touch with my online classes all week between classes, office hours, and governance. I grade papers at night and on the weekends, because there just are not enough hours during the week to get it all done.

Because I normally work Monday through Friday all day, I take the weekends off. In all the years that I have been teaching online, I have had only a few quarters when I taught completely online and only one in which I was able to teach from a remote location. Contact instructors who teach completely online have a very different life from FT, tenured faculty who are involved in governance. If we try to live the life on an online instructor, we are criticized, and rightly so, for not contributing to the college committees. When we are protected by tenure and have a guaranteed load, we have certain obligations on campus to fulfill.

The work we did in class this week centered on using different methods of moving discussions forward. I felt mostly disengaged from the large group topic because there was no real discussion. I can see how the reply only technique can be used to create lists and documents, but it should be used for specific purposes and in limited amounts--in my opinion. We also continued to practice our facilitation techniques in small groups.

What I took away from this week is that reply only technique appears to limit discussion. Because our Canvas LMS allows only replies and side comments or the creation of a new discussion as forms of threaded discussion, I have to pay special attention to how this method is working in my classes.

Resource:

Lehmann, K., & Chamberlin, L. (2009). Making the Move to eLearning: Putting Your Course Online. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Education.

Module 5: MVMs

Looks like I jumped the gun last week when I commented about the best practices in the Subject Lines in a threaded discussion. I don't like the technique of starting the response in the subject line and finishing it within the text of the message. It is something that I may try; however, likely something I will not choose to keep in the my tool kit.

Changing the subject line of a reply in a discussion posting (and in an email) is someithing I need to which I need to pay more attention. I am usually pretty good about changing the subject line when I change the subject, but I don't always think to change it when I am replying directly to the question. Actually, I don't think the it is actually necessary if my response (re:) is directly related to the subject line.

This week was (still is) my turn as guest facilitator for the discussion. I selected a question to which I believed the other participants would reply using the assumption that the student was in the right class but was being negative about taking the class. It was my plan to present the other side of the scenario--the student really is in the wrong class. When students self-advise they often end up in the wrong class or don't know about the challenge tests or substitutions.

I enjoyed working as the facilitator, but I am concerned about overstepping the boundaries of the assignment. For example, when I posted the scenario I also gave instructions. The activity instructions did not tell me to do that; however, it made sense that I should give some instruction as if I were talking to my own students about their assignments. I was following a discussion on deleting messages to see if anyone would question the practice. This must have been an issue that had particular impact on Kay as she addressed it quickly. I thought this was a little out of character for her and that is why I ventured the guess that she has some experience with altered or missing messages.

I think I may have posted too many messages. My thinking on this was that, since there was no other discussion this week, I should be interacting with the material as well as moving the group along.

I also decided that the group had done a fine job of beating up the scenario I posted and that they should be able to post a question that had meaning to them. I thought it might be a risk, but I was rewarded when Kay sent me a kind note stating that is was  appropriate.

Friday was professional development day at Bellevue College and I attended a seminar on UDL and one on cultural awareness in online classes. They were both very well done. Using the checklist on UDL I was pleased to see that I was hitting over 75% of the principles of good design, but I have plenty of room for growth. In the cultural awareness class I connected with one of our new tenure candidates that wants to pick my brain and share ideas on designing online classes. I felt honored.

What things will I take with me from this week?

• Remember to change the subject line of a reply with I change the subject.
• Make sure that my precourse emails are warm and welcoming.
• I can't stop students from griping, so I need to direct their energies in more positive directions that benefit the students and help me improve my classes.

Module 4: MVMs

Module 4 is about creating connections between Learners and Content, Learner and Facilitators and Learners and Learners using facilitator skills and Web 2.0 tools. My main "aha's" came from reading the comments of my peers and learning from their experiences. I also learned that I tend not to challenge directly but to use questions to stimulate learners to question their ideas or to find alternative methods.

We also explored creating connections with Web 2.0 tools and to use them to enhance the learning not simply because they are cool or interactive. I did a lot of work with Web 2.0 tools this summer in my Intro to Web Technology class. I also use YouTube and Screencast-o-matic regularly in my classes. I am using Twitter more often and just started using our program's group page on Facebook. I'm also a big fan of PollEverywhere.

I am definitely on the fence about the instructor's best practices for this module. I think addressing a speaker by name is polite. Anything posted to a discussion board is by nature public. It is no different than two students engaging in a public discussion in a classroom. Although the discussion started between these two, the rules of open discussion allow anyone to join into the interchange. Additionally, I do not like starting a sentence in the subject line and finishing it the body of the message. I find that I have to reread the sentence several times to grasp the meaning. Probably just the way my brain works; however, since I find that I have to reread the sentence several times, I would not use this method in my own classes.

Module 3: Most Valuable Learning Moments

My first learning moment of this week occurred on Sunday when I discovered that one can be stung by a dead bee. Of course you have to touch the stinger in some way. Placing one's arm on the bee does accomplish just that. Ouch. Large, swollen, itchy spot.

My second learning moment came when I received my grades from Module 2. On Monday I read the materials for Module 3 and made a note next to this paragraph on the Background page: "Instructors need to watch argumentative dialogues carefully to make sure that ideas are challenged, but people are not." My note read--felt like Kay did this to my post in 2B or not 2B. Kay's comment on my grading sheet for Module 3 read "And then you let me challenge one of your points a bit to build the conversation!" I am pleased that I was able to see what was occurring and respond appropriately.

One technique that I have used in facilitating online discussions is to know who can be challenged to take the discussion to the next level. The other students will often see that it is okay--even safe--to engage with the instructor in that manner and the student being engaged can feel more connected with the materials and the class.

One of the techniques that I learned this week that I will definitely take to my online classes is summarizing the discussion. I don't do this enough. I think if I were to do this after a particularly informative series of messages, I could enhance the understanding of the materials and reduce the number of similar questions. As much as I don't like this, I believe that my students are more likely to read my posting then those of their classmates. Students in my software classes have stated that they prefer to hear from me than from their classmates. I try to temper this my commenting on how accurate the posting of their classmates usually are.

AKK--Ichiro just hit a home run for the Yankees in the 9th. I hate the Yankees. Go Tigers!!! Double akk--Raul just took one long-AGAIN. I love Raul and hate the Yankees. Just goes to show you that professional players may not come out strong in the first half but they finish strong when it counts.

Module 2: Most Valuable Learning Moments (MVMs)

Module 2 was focused on social constructivist learning theory and personality instruments.

Beaumie Kim offers this explanation of Social Constructivism: Social constructivism emphasizes the importance of culture and context in understanding what occurs in society and constructing knowledge based on this understanding (Derry, 1999; McMahon, 1997).

We explored social constructivist learning theory and looked at personality instruments that could be used to create high functioning groups. I learned how even some of the shorter personality assessment instruments can deliver meaningful results. We discussed the importance of stressing to students that these instrument are used to improve communications and not to pigeon hole students.  I was fascinated by the discussions of the impact of culture in constructivism. This discussion will help me be a more effective online instructor by increasing my understanding of how adults learn and giving me more options for creating better functioning student teams.

I posted Teaching Perspectives Inventory and took several of the assessments that were posted by my group members.

• Team Roles Test posted by Tom Sagstetter
• Learning Styles Inventory posted by Lori Pennock
• QUEST Enneagram Test posted by Amy Chenoweth
• Learn Myself posted by Tina Rabideau

The results from each instrument added to my self knowledge and made me question how I might better present myself to my peers and students.

References:
Kim, B. (n.d.). Social constructivism. (M. Orey, Editor) Retrieved October 1, 2012, from Emerging Perspectices on Learning, Teaching, and Technology: http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Social_Constructivism