Online Discussions and Critical Thinking

This week's readings focused on the use of blogging and online discussions as teaching tools.  Middlebrook  believes that blogs are a useful tool to create an environment for an undergraduate students to create a professional space for him/herself to establish reputation and presence as part of the academic discourse.  I was impressed that his students found their class blogs useful in obtaining employment and that they were sufficiently well-done that the students encouraged prospective employers to observe their blogs. Middlebrook found a way to make college composition more than an introduction to academic discourse, but by no means degraded the level of writing or intellectual performance that one would expect an undergraduate student to demonstrate.   As Middlebrook writes, “As is apparent, a robust linkroll brings important resources to the attention of a blog's readers, and at the same time expresses connections between an undergraduate blogger and web-based entities of merit, which is significant because if one aim is forging at least a formative scholarly and professional identity, familiarity with the players in a given realm is obviously essential.”  By encouraging his students to link to worthwhile blogs, journals, and other websites, he was sending his students straight to the source of great information to become well-read on their area of interest and current on thoughts in their fields.

 

Beach et al. include findings on the formal/informal writing conundrum that worries many teachers regarding the integration of digital tools into their writing courses.  In their research, “Christiana Haas and Pam Takayoshi find that this writing [Facebook walls, etc ] contains complex uses of linguistic features, constituting a new form of language communication.  They also find that these young people can readily switch between informal and more formal language use associated with traditional academic writing” (50).  Teachers and professors may not need to be afraid of students not knowing the difference between academic discourse and texting to the extent that it has been traditionally feared.  I know many teachers who are certain that texting is the downfall of the English language and feel threatened by the abbreviation and familiarity often exhibited on sites such as Facebook or MySpace.  Haas and Takayoshi have found evidence that those fears are not entirely accurate and that students are able to differentiate between the two types of writing and that the more formal style is not necessarily lost to them simply because they prefer the lightning fast speeds of abbreviation.  As the researchers point out, these types of writing are not a bastardization of English, but rather a language of their own with its own rules.

Furthermore, blogs and other online discussions can certainly be part of academic discourse if modeling and instructions are used to shape student responses.  Alison Black’s sample expectations for student online discussions model correct behavior and the types of writing that are expected (Beach 55).  By showing students what is expected of them, they will quickly adapt to the tone and style modeled for them.  I thought Black's list of expectations were an excellent guide for her students and would be very effective in shaping the responses given.  Black's suggestion that reprimands for inappropriate comments be private are also wise.

Beach et al. also share information from Conrad and Donaldson who coined the phrase “phases of engagement” to describe the use scaffolding to introduce students to the world of online collaboration and writing (53).  I felt that these ideas closely corresponded to last week's reading in Selfe when she described the types of scaffolding that could be used to introduce digital tools for composition in the classroom.  Several of us liked that approach last week, and I noticed it in our reading with approval.  Branching out into these new worlds of composition instruction with a "dive right in" approach could result in a tragic drowning and fear of water after such failures.  Instead, teachers must plan carefully for both themselves and their students that neither party is overwhelmed by the newness of what is being attempted.  As Middlebrook stated, “However what may be surprising, and I think positive, are the results from a recent ECAR Study of Undergraduates and Information Technology (Salaway, Caruso, & Nelson, 2007). This research found that students are discriminating and recognize '[t]echnology is an enabler of learning when professors use it effectively' (p. 13), while '[p]oor use of technology ([that is] under use, over use, inappropriate use, or over dependence […]) detracts from the learning experience' (p. 14)."  Technology cannot be part of the classroom just because it is "cool."  There must be some pedagogical purpose behind its inclusion.

I agree with Beach et al. that online discussions, whether synchronous or asynchronous are greatly beneficial in addition to face-to-face discussions (Beach 51).  Although the reading addresses the topic of students who "hog the floor," I find that online discussions even that phenomenon out whereas in class discussions highlight that student's desire to be the center of the conversation (67).  Online discussions allow everyone to speak and force even those who are shy and unsure of themselves to join the conversation at some point.  The only concern that was growing for me was the thought of keeping tabs on 100 students' blogs/discussion boards.  I found Gina Nelson's 5-4-3 grading strategy simple but reasonable as a way to approach evaluation of this type of writing (Beach 57).

Online discussions are probably the strategy I feel most comfortable employing in my classroom, assuming that the district was willing to allow such an activity to take place.