I see a trend among online courses to have all student works and critiques posted and shared with the entire class. I think this practice stems from social media habits and has not been well-examined. The problem with using social media for learning is that it is made for commercial interests (Friesen & Lowe, 2011, p. 187), which promotes ‘liking’ and not attempted objective critiquing (Friesen & Lowe, p. 191). In current online course iterations, we can see courses emulating commercial social media platforms with class blogs, discussion boards and class texting. Just as Friesen and Lowe described, these platforms discourage real critical analyses of student work, “When practicing social networking within a platform based on conviviality, expressions of reservation, nuance, and qualifications are made difficult if not impossible; and negativity, in both its everyday and dialectic senses, is avoided.” (p. 191).
Part of the problem, as I see it, is that whereas in the past students could submit only to their teachers; online group posting is a public display and social pressures discourage negativity. Furthermore, a student would be concerned that if they were objectively critical of a particularly student’s work, that particular student might overly retaliate and publicly cast a negative light on the other student’s work. Lastly, contemporary students come preconditioned from their experiences with social media and would use a classroom social media iteration as such, viewing classmates as ‘friends’, and overlooking other students’ errors in their work so as to maintain a congenial social atmosphere. As discussed by the esteemed ‘New London Group’, “Rather, human knowledge, when it is applicable to practice, is primarily situated in sociocultural settings and heavily contextualized in specific knowledge domains and practices.“ (1996, p. 84) .
However, the classroom ‘public’ approach certainly has benefits of added motivation (The New London Group, p. 84) and increased quality of work due to students being cognizant of the exposure of their work (Dobson & Willinsky, 2009, p. 2). I would not say that the losses of a classroom public discourse negate any possible benefits thereof, but I would say that privately submitted critiques to teachers should be an essential part of good pedagogy so students feel that they can “speak freely”. Seeing literacy as a social practice (Dobson & Willinsky, p. 14-15) should entail giving students multiple socio-cultural context to fully explore their learning; both the private and the public.
We, as students and teachers, should remember that this new trend of instruction is not inevitable and that we have a voice in its direction (Bolter, p. 204). I know that what I have written can be inflammatory to some readers who are comfortable with posting publicly. I challenge you to critique me in comments harshly, or else prove me right by your silence.
References
Bolter, Jay D. Writing Space: Computers, Hypertext and the Remediation of Print. Routledge, 2001.
Dobson, T., & Willinsky, J. (2009). Digital literacy. The Cambridge handbook of literacy, 286-312.
Friesen, N., & Lowe, S. (2012). The questionable promise of social media for education: Connective learning and the commercial imperative. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(3), 183-194. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00426.x The New London Group. A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Designing Social Futures
The New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review 66(1). Retrieved July 18, 2018, from http://newarcproject.pbworks.com/f/Pedagogy of Multiliteracies_New London Group.pdf
Cathy Miyagi
July 20, 2018 — 12:56 pm
You make an accurate observation about the trend of online courses: lack of objective critiquing and expressions of reservation. We see this in the corporate world now too where social media is used for “thought leadership” but underlying all this are all clichés and mere self-promotion.
There is a sort of tribalism that emerges through such public discourse, and criticality becomes viewed as negative or not fitting in.
I want to share an interesting theatre experience that attempts to test these human behaviors through anonymous digital information gathering. “Fight Night” is an interactive play that was held at the Cultch back in 2016 prior to the U.S. Presidential election.
“Fight Night literally puts the power into your hands to vote for your favourite candidate…and into the intricacies and traps of voting systems and mediatized democracy. The outcome of the show is your decision!” (https://thecultch.com/events/fight-night-2/).
Audience involvement facilitates the suspension of disbelief, and they become a part of what’s happening, and are put into the position of having to make decisions which has consequences (Miller 408). However, while the audience can vote (ie. has choice), individually they cannot control what they want to happen next.
It resembles a true election, one that includes a “fist fight with words” or a “theatrical game”. Voting takes place anonymously by an app-like console that every viewer holds. It plays with human psyche and tests out the various game theories in international politics & security. Take for example, the staghunt theory which rests on player trust. That is, each player must choose an action without knowing the choice of the other. The advantage of interactivity that digital media provides in this context is anonymity.
As stated in Miller’s Digital Storytelling (339), some considerations for hypermediation (as described as when illusion of time & space are disrupted by competing layers of attention) include:
– Offering users a way to actively participate in the content
– Promoting social interaction
– Characters having vivid personalities
– Using visuals that are appropriate for a small screen
I agree that this new trend of instruction in our education system needs more examination.
References:
Miller, Carolyn H. Digital Storytelling: A Creator’s Guide to Interactive Entertainment. Elsevier, 2004.
Zale Darnel
July 24, 2018 — 9:26 pm
Great post Steve!
I agree and disagree with your comments all at the same time. I agree that the structure does mimic social media and that posting on other discussions does not promote critical or harsh analysis. However, I personally find the posts and responses the most interesting part of any of the MET courses. Often I find the insights of others to be the most enlightening comments that make one question the validity of something. Although you are correct in the fact that I would not be overly critical of another classmates post as that is bad etiquette, similar to a class discussion where you would not tell someone that their idea is “just bad”. Instead, similar to an online discussion you might add a logical response to help drive the conversation.
On a bit of a tangent, I find that the group work in the MET program can be the most frustrating. For my first 5 courses I was fortunate to have a small group of 5 to 7 others that were taking courses together and we would usually work as a group on most assignments. It was an amazing professional learning community (PLC). Unfortunately I moved away and took a semester off and many of my PLC finished their masters. Doing group work over distance just plain sucks! It’s hard to coordinate, plan and learn. I have been thankful that this course has not forced group work on us, and I fully think that the collaboration of posting and building on others ideas is a much better learning experience than working on a google doc with someone in a different time zone.
So, I guess if posting and commenting is similar to social media and not as educational as it could be its still better than group work through distance education. Just my 2 cents 🙂
Zale
marcia kondo
July 26, 2018 — 12:57 pm
I really enjoyed your post. I think I am still not always completely comfortable being in this program and being limited to only communicating online with classmates who are essentially strangers to me. I think of myself as a very private person. I don’t have a Facebook account, a Twitter account, LinkdIn…the list goes on. I do use Snapchat but only with close friends and family, and I have Instagram but I’ve never posted anything myself, just use it to follow friends and others. Although I have hundreds, thousands of photos of my daughter, vacations, experiences, food, etc., I rarely share them with others but enjoy receiving them from friends. I’m not sure how to explain it. In person, I am not a shy person at all. I’m quite open with new people, as well and have always been outgoing and social. I guess it is just something about sharing so publicly with the world that makes me nervous. Even posting my video documentary project was challenging for me. I have only ever posted videos on YouTube that were course related but I actually put myself in the beginning of the video which was a huge step for me!
I appreciated your points about living in this world of social media and how perhaps all of this liking and friending affects not only our online social lives but our performance in online classes, as well. I think for myself, it is definitely a game-changer to go in thinking that not just your teacher/professor will be viewing and grading your work, but a whole group of people whom you have never met, who are all very educated and experienced professionals. You discussed the motivation factor and how perhaps the increase in exposure actually creates a direct relationship to an increase in quality of work.
It did, however, raise two questions for me. First off, I wonder if the increase in exposure is different depending on who the audience is. Would my work show an increase in quality if I were presenting it to family members as opposed to a group of close friends, as opposed to a group such as the members of this course? I think the answer is yes but I’m unsure which group I’d be more inclined to try to impress. Perhaps a course since you will be receiving an actual grade and feedback that directly affects your performance in a course but maybe you are someone who really needs the “likes” and approval of friends and are more concerned with that type of group. Perhaps this is then dependent on age? A teenager, for example, might be more concerned with their friends than their families or teachers.
Second question I had was whether all of this added exposure changes your writing to be less open and honest. Would the idea of having more people review your work than only your professor cause you to be wary of being too honest and even offensive so you would tone down your ideas and writing to reflect that?
Thank you for your great post!
Marcia
bradley forsyth
July 28, 2018 — 4:27 pm
Hi Steve,
Great post. I found it to be very thought provoking and appreciate your recommendation and invitation to objective critiquing.
This is my first time experiencing a course in which our assignments and projects are published publicly online and I have to admit the idea was a little unsettling at first. I am not sure if being aware of this and cognizant of the potential audience motivated me to increase the quality of my work any more so than submitting it privately to an instructor. I do wonder if having our work available not only to classmates but to the public discourages students from selecting controversial topics or proposing controversial arguments.
I agree that the platforms and tools we use are similar to those utilized in social media, but I don’t think that necessarily means we are using them or influenced by them in the way that social media platforms originally intended. Rather, we are utilizing tools to connect with each other in the best way possible in an online format. I have experienced the alternative in which online learning is completely individualized and self-paced and can attest that although it provides certain benefits, the experience is not nearly as rich. I find it beneficial to be able to read and learn from other students’ insights. I think the role of an online instructor is to act more as a moderator and much of our learning comes from our interactions.
Asynchronous online discussions and commenting feel contrived and inorganic, but again I think this is the reality of online courses. I agree that we may hesitate in objectively critiquing other students’ works (it’s funny that social media platforms seem to have the exact opposite effect on people), but I think we would likely have the same reservations in a classroom discussion. Students should feel free to have constructive discussions online. Perhaps some of our reservations stem from the nature of putting our thoughts and arguments in writing which can lack context and tone and may be misinterpreted.
Ultimately, we must weigh these concerns with the positive aspect of having our work shared online- that we are contributing to public knowledge and learning. One of the exciting things about this program and this course in my opinion is that it is trying to be innovative in its delivery. We can see that this course has experimented with delivery formats and platforms over the years. I certainly agree, however, that careful consideration of instructional methods should be utilized.
Katie Cox
August 6, 2018 — 3:49 pm
Thanks for your post Steve! I have to say I enjoy seeing other students’ work, as is common in many courses in the MET program. At first I was hesitant to post my own work, but after a few courses I got more used to it and enjoyed seeing how everyone else interpreted the same assignment.
I’ve found quite a bit of research done around the use of tools like wikis (or Wikipedia itself) where students can add to sites and share the work they’ve done. Some studies have shown this can “help students build connections with others and accomplish a collaborative task in real time” (Seo, 2012, p. 13). In my experience, it can go either way… I’ve had courses where discussion has been stilted, not very engaging, and is just done because it has to be. However, I’ve experienced the opposite, where respectful discussions have been generated, and it’s because of these instances (where I’ve seen firsthand how collaborative and community-building it can be) that I support the sharing of work.
On a selfish note, it’s also been very helpful for me at times to be able to view what previous students have done for certain assignments, especially in this online forum where sometimes expectations are not always crystal clear.
I agree that there is very rarely negative comments on people’s work, and I think this is a good thing. I do believe there could be more constructive feedback in responses, where people disagree with perhaps some of the message, but do so in a respectful way without being too harsh or negative. I believe a lot of this can be achieved when proper guidelines are laid out for communication in these forums.
PS – Love the final sentence of your post!
Seo, K. (2012). Using Social Media Effectively in the Classroom: blogs, wikis, twitter, and more. Routledge.
Anonymous
August 8, 2018 — 11:45 am
Hi Steve,
A great post and thoughtful way to stoke the embers of discussion. I also have reflected on some of your concerns, and from your and other ideas emerging from the comment thread, I really wanted to respond.
I think in general, educational practice and a student’s educational experience is all about balance (cliché, I know, but there is probably a reason for that). When you add the extra element of interaction and course delivery through an online realm, you are adding another element that must be considered, and balanced, and I wonder if this element doesn’t have a tendency to trump others when considering an educational experience. Steve, I agree to a certain extent when you say that online course following a social media model tend to dilute contributions in favor of congenial, friction-less responses that may reflect hesitation within students. However, I feel that the larger consideration to be made here is that the online framework for these courses encourages something else: choice and anonymity.
Students have the choice of what to respond to and when. That is a big part of the reason why they take online courses. As part of this, they choose which contributions engage them, be it the most interesting, the easiest to understand, the quickest to complete, etc… Some people may choose not to devote the mental and emotional energy to get into a robust – maybe controversial – discussion of course content, and that’s ok, because under the current online framework, they can get away with it, thanks to relative anonymity. The discussions regarding balancing over-contributors with under-contributors (or lurkers) in these online courses have been plentiful in the past courses I have taken. I think people are going to engage on a level that is commensurate with their comfort in the course content, and with the time they have to devote to their studies.
I agree that private submissions may help, but again, there is an issue of balance. What is gained in this private submission, versus what is lost in student interaction? I think ultimately, we need to remember that the actual physical act of being in a classroom, seeing other students and becoming familiar with their ideas, words, and actions, can carry weight to help encourage a fuller exchange of ideas. Still, even if we were all together in a physical classroom, the amount of contributions would still be dependent on students’ willingness to engage.
I think 540 has done some interesting things with social media technology and how it is utilized. The blog is for formal submissions and responses, while Mattermost is for formal/ informal contributions. Yet if you take a look at actually who uses the platforms and how often, I do not believe the results would indicate a class dominated by people who are wanting to liberally populate the social atmosphere with likes, thumbs up, or even comments, frivolous, negative, deeply considered, or otherwise.
But again, it comes down to balance. No doubt this class has a unique composition from any other, and maybe in the next course you take, you will find a greater proportion of students who are willing to enthusiastically challenge and support each other’s ideas. To be perfectly honest, that takes a lot of work, and while I may have had the time and energy to rise to the occasion as a full-time student in a physical classroom, I have so many other things to balance in my life now.
References
Pretty much anything from Sherry Turkle. Her Ted Talk was pretty good.
scott pike
August 8, 2018 — 12:19 pm
I keep forgetting to put my name, and I guess I commented without logging in. It was me, Scott, who posted the last comment. 🙂
joanna cassie
August 9, 2018 — 3:18 pm
Hi Steve
Thank you for posting what I have been thinking! I fully agree that ‘liking’ is the result over objective critiquing, and that social pressures absolutely discourage negativity, no matter the intent of the instruction. What you propose about submitting comments to instructor is a good idea but I would still be reluctant to make any negative comments toward another student regardless for fear of affecting their grade. I base this on a similar experience in ETEC 522 where we used a rating system. I found that I never rated anyone under 3 so the ratings of mine that the professor saw were skewed (I let him know). However another aspect of that course actually worked quite well I think was a “recommend” vote that allowed you to recommend another’s post. Your presence online became based on what others saw you recommend, and that build up your posting ‘equity’ (not sure what else to call it) so provided some context regarding posts you recommended. Agreed though that permitting/encouraging objective critique is a major social challenge.
I know several have stated here that they were reluctant at first to post publically and I completely felt the same when I started my MET program. Seven courses later I am comfortable enough to even commit to a personal brand and logo for the rest of my courses (originally I thought I would take all my work down once the course was over). The difference for me is with live group work, after so many, many years of it being forced on me I STILL cannot think clearly in a live group situation. I do my thinking beforehand if there is the opportunity or afterward; but during I can contribute very little. Some like me are overwhelmingly attuned to the underlying intensity of humans participating in a group and it is almost as though my thinking gets clouded by all the other thoughts and feelings that are not being said. I am sure others must feel this way but haven’t spoken up yet against group work not being suitable for everyone (take that Vygotsky! Wait, did he mean learning actually participating/performing in font of others or by watching others? We may have that nuance wrong…). All that to say that a fully online program has been an absolutely AMAZING option for me and I feel so relieved not to be distracted by the energy of a forced live group setting. No offense fellow humans.