Feedback and Motivation

Online education is a natural step in the evolution of technology; as technology makes distance education more feasible, practical, and affordable, it is logical that online courses would become commonplace in the landscape of learning.

Still, if there is one fear I, a traditional classroom educator who never took an online course until graduate school, have had as I've explored the topic of teaching writing online, that fear centers around student motivation. In my own classroom, I am constantly interacting with students as both a teacher and a regular person. These interactions are huge because they allow me to form positive relationships and a classroom climate that, based on my experience, seem to promote student motivation in the classroom.

So, as I consider the online classroom experience, I've focused often on the steps a teacher can take to create an environment in which engagement and motivation flourish. Though the creation of such an online environment is a tasking venture that cannot be reduced to a single step, every time I consider this question, my mind comes back to the issue of feedback. I know that in the traditional classroom, I've witnessed the link between feedback and motivation firsthand.. When students are given timely, encouraging feedback that is centered on ownership of learning and mastery of specific outcomes, engagement and motivation are typically higher. When feedback is not timely and is mainly summative/evaluative in nature, motivation can often suffer.

Delivering the kind of feedback that promotes motivation, though, becomes a bit tricky in the online world. In my own classroom, I see my kids every other day. It is easy to give them feedback either in an explicit manner such as a scheduled conferencing session, or in a more embedded manner as we go about the daily routines of face-to-face class sessions. In the online world, however, interactions seem to require a bit more strategy and intentionality. While I might simply run into a student in our hallways at BHS and mention something he needs to do to improve a paper (yes, I do that frequently), I won't simply "bump into" a student online and have a chat about his work. Online interactions can also lack the personal, communal nature of face-to-face greetings as they are normally limited to text-based communication. None of these facts, though, inherently make online feedback inferior; instead, they simply make it clear that for the online instructor who recognizes the importance of effective feedback and wants to deliver the most beneficial feedback possible, some serious thinking and planning will be necessary.

First, it seems most important to consider what quality feedback is. Ultimately, feedback should ideally be that which fosters the highest levels of student engagement, motivation and learning. Citing the findings of Lizzio and Wilson in 2008, McGrath, Taylor, and Pychyl suggest writing students tend to value feedback that is fair and encouraging, yet has a developmental focus (2011). Conversely, McGrath et al. also point out that students typically find vague feedback focused primarily on the negative aspects of their writing unhelpful (2011). Researcher Dylan William proposes that feedback should be focused and clearly related to course goals explicitly shared with the learner (132). Taken together, McGrath et al. and William’s thoughts suggest that instructor feedback be crafted with specificity and aimed at promoting growth and progression toward course objectives rather than simply offering corrective direction.

The value of such feedback in developing a positive, engaging, motivating online environment cannot be understated. Though the instructor who offers vague, generalized feedback communicates at best a cursory interest in his students’ work, the instructor who is specific and targeted with his comments demonstrates both a keen interest and shared investment in his student’s growth as well as a laser-sharp focus on desired outcomes and learning targets. Though instructors who focus solely on corrective feedback may frustrate struggling writers by pointing out only their weaknesses, instructors who encourage and point out student writers’ strengths build a positive relationship which establishes confidence and builds the trust necessary to then address specific areas for growth.

After establishing what quality feedback looks like, though, online instructors must also consider the quantity of feedback to be given. In Teaching Writing Online, Scott Warnock encourages instructors to offer much feedback and response, especially early in a semester, and reminds instructors to avoid being the “bottleneck in the system” by failing to respond to student concerns or questions (124). While Warnock rightly acknowledges the impossibility of responding to everything a student writes in a course, it is worth noting that student perception of instructor presence is a chief determinant of student satisfaction and that learner-instructor interaction is possibly the most accurate predictor of course learning outcomes (Ladyshewsky, 2013). Teaching in an online environment where students can easily become isolated and disengaged, instructors must be cognizant of the fact that feedback plays a crucial role in engagement, motivation, and student achievement. Therefore, though there is no authoritative answer on exactly how much feedback is optimal, instructors should, at minimum, set clear expectations (based on what is reasonable and most effective) and make sure those expectations are communicated as explicitly as are expectations of student behaviors.

There is much more to say about the numerous challenges of teaching in an online environment, but it is clear that one of the primary issues instructors must be prepared to face is the issue of feedback and its delivery. As feedback has a strong relationship to student engagement, motivation, and achievement, instructors must seek out the most effective means of delivering high-quality feedback that creates connection and engagement with learners, thereby positively affecting student motivation and creating the most hospitable environment for student achievement. Though definitive guidelines regarding this matter may be scarce, the implications are clear; feedback can and should be a topic of primary concern for the online instructor.

Works Cited

Ladyshewsky, Richard K. "Instructor Presence in Online Courses and Student Satisfaction."International Journal for the Scholarship and Student Satisfaction 7.1 (2013): n. pag. Georgiasouthern.edu. Georgia Southern University. Web. 15 April 2013.

McGrath, April L., Alyssa Taylor, and Timothy A. Pychyl. "Writing Helpful Feedback: The Influence of Feedback Type on Students’ Perceptions and Writing Performance." The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 2.2 (2011): n. pag. Scholarship @ Western. Western Libraries. Web. 9 Apr. 2013.

Warnock, Scott. Teaching Writing Online: How and Why. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, 2009. Kindle.Wiliam, Dylan. Embedded Formative Assessment. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree, 2011. Print.

Wiliam, Dylan. Embedded Formative Assessment. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree, 2011. Print.

The Role of Audio Feedback in Writing Instruction

Over the course of my tenure as a writing instructor, one of the most challenging aspects of my job has primarily been the delivery of feedback. It has been my experience that the most powerful feedback always occurs in a conferencing situation in which I engage in dialogue with students about their work. However, conferencing can be extremely time-consuming, and my class sizes are simply too big for each student to get adequate conferencing time. I have attempted to schedule conferences outside of class hours, but since I am working with high school students whose schedules directly before and after school are normally booked solid with school-related activities, trying to do such conferencing has proved a daunting task.

 

I suppose that's why I've primarily stuck with the standard means of feedback, written comments. Still, the fact that I've stuck with written commentary and feedback seems strange to me at this point. Why have I not ventured far beyond standard written commentary even though I know it has clear limitations and does not always yielded the results I desire for my student writers? As I reflect on this question, here are some of the reasons my own reluctance to change strikes me as odd.

 

1. It is no secret that my handwriting, when hurried, looks much like that of a disoriented toddler. In a traditional writing classroom where physical copies of writing are submitted and returned, students sometimes likely feel as though they should receive bonus points for deciphering my comments scrawled into the margins. This fact translates into feedback that is illegible, confusing, and often ignored. John Killoran, in "Reel-to-Reel Tapes, Cassettes, and Digital Audio Media: Reverberations from a Half-Century of Recorded-Audio Response to Student Writing," expresses a similar sentiment. In the article, referencing his research on teacher use of audio rather than written feedback, Killoran notes, "Several [instructors] reported that students found written comments to be illegible, incomprehensible, insensitive, or too terse to be helpful. Some reported that students often did not even read their written comments. Indeed, it was frustration with written response that prompted some, including me, to experiment with recorded-audio response." Additionally, while echoing my own feelings about the illegibility and confusing nature of my written commentary, Killoran's statement also hints at another obvious problem I should have recognized with written feedback.

 

2. I'm quite aware that written feedback is grossly limited in its ability to convey nuance and tone. It is impossible, in written form, to instill feeling into commentary; as a result, I've often had students give too much or too little weight to a comment, feel insulted by a comment that was intended as encouragement, or perceive my feedback as directive when it was intended to probe and question. In "When I Stopped Writing on Their Papers: Accomodating the Needs of Student Writers With Audio Comments," Sara Bauer brings up this very point. Bauer quotes audio-feedback advocate Adam Cavanaugh who says, "Text- based comments often ‘sound’ terse when read by students; with audio comments, the instructor can qualify his/her language, adjust volume, use pregnant pauses, etc. in offering the student feedback on concerns in a paper. These dynamics help to communicate the problems in a student’s writing with care and empathy." As a person who works hard to establish a culture of trust and solid working relationships with all students, it is troubling when my own commentary, because of its imprecise conveyance of tone and feeling, undermines the very culture I want to create. Audio feedback seems, as Bauer and Cavanaugh suggest, to offer a much more quality platform for creating this culture of care and empathy in the feedback I offer students.

 

3. I know written feedback tends to keep my commentary at a level that mainly addresses only the specific issues of editing (grammar, spelling, punctuation, etc.). While those are certainly issues that need to be addressed, the exclusive use of only written feedback seems somewhat ill-suited for addressing more advanced aspects of writing. In relation to this, Killoran, speaking of teachers who had adopted audio feedback as practice, says that "Some characterized audio recording as less conducive than writing to comments on small-scale issues such as grammar and spelling, but more conducive to comments on large-scale issues such as development and organization." Additionally, he goes on to say that they generally "perceived recorded-audio response, in comparison with written response, to exemplify principles of good communication and good composition pedagogy: to be clearer, better developed, more specific, more detailed, more explanatory, and less directive." Killoran's findings line up with my own practical experience as I just last week walked with a student through a question of organization in an essay. This particular student needed some pretty significant organizational direction and instruction, which demanded a detailed discussion related to purpose, audience, and medium of transfer, among other details. Looking back on the oral guidance I provided the student, I cannot fathom how I might have even approached packing all that I said into the margins of an essay. Audio feedback seems a much better way to approach issues that one would classify as true issues of revision rather than simple matters of editing.

 

When I consider the objectives and aims I have as a writing teacher, audio feedback seems to make so much sense. As I said earlier, having read up more on this approach, one that Killoran makes clear is not some new idea, it seems odd that I've "arrived to the party" so late. I am excited to take this approach and build it into my courses for next fall.

 

 

 

Works Cited

 

Bauer, Sara. "When I Stopped Writing on Their Papers: Accommodating the Needs of Student Writers With Audio Comments." English Journal 101.2 (2011): 64-67. Web. 10 April 2013.

 

Killoran, John B. "Reel-to-Reel Tapes, Cassettes, and Digital Audio Media: Reverberations from a Half-Century of Recorded-Audio Response to Student Writing." Computers and Composition 30 (2013): 37-49. Web. 10 April 2013.

 

 

 

Posted with Blogsy

The Peer Review

While reading in Warnock's Teaching Writing Online this week, I was reminded that one of the most important aspects of any writing course is the process of peer review. Because of the relationship between writing and conversation, it is vital that students have opportunity to examine and refine their work in the context of interaction and discussion with peers. However, though peer review is an essential part of a collaborative writing environment, it can also be one of the toughest aspects for teachers to implement effectively into the classroom routine.

 

Early on in my teaching career, I recall attempting to implement peer review and finding it more a frustration than a benefit (for me and my students). When I used a discussion-based approach, discussions routinely stalled or got off track. When I used checklists or ranking scales, they were arbitrarily filled out for completion and were rarely, if ever, considered useful by the writer the group was intended to help. When I had students use a close reading approach and write comments on each other's papers, students stuck to safe feedback in the form of minor editing advice ("you forgot a period") or simply mimicked and recapitulated the comments of others rather than formulating individual responses to the writing they reviewed.

 

Through all of the frustration, I still believed wholeheartedly that my students needed to write and review their work interactively with each other; I believed this because I knew the peer review process offered students, among numerous other benefits, a sense of authentic audience, a chance to receive feedback from varied perspectives, the opportunity to talk out their ideas in front of others, and a safe place to practice the skill of giving and receiving feedback.

 

Over that last few years, thankfully, I have refined my approach to peer review and implemented what I feel is a far more effective and beneficial process. Some of the most important aspects of this shift have been:

 

1. Implementation of Writing Groups: Student writers, particularly those in high school, are not regularly prone to share substantial writing with those they do not trust. Thus, my practice of assembling random groups for each peer review session did little to establish a sense of trust and community within the group. To change this, I instituted consistent writing groups in which students worked for an entire semester with the same group of people. The repeated interactions within the group were far more effective in encouraging students to share their writing with others.
2. Protocol-Based Discussions: While free-flowing discussions may sound appealing, the reality in the high school classroom is that students often need parameters to keep discussions on track. Therefore, I began outlining specific discussion objectives and assigning time frames to each section of discussion. For example, with my sophomores, I routinely use a simple "I Like, I Wonder, I Would" protocol in which students listen to an essay read aloud, then spend two minutes pointing out strengths of an essay, two minutes asking questions of the writer, and two minutes discussing what they might do in revision were it their own essay. I normally also allow the writer two minutes at the end to ask any questions they have of their peers. Such protocol has by far been the most effective way to organize the peer review process in my classroom.
3. Rubric-Based Agenda: Within even a simple protocol, I do ask that my students dialogue in relation to the most essential aspects of the essay as outlined in my rubric. Just yesterday, students in my senior-level writing classes engaged in peer review of thematic analysis essays they have been working on. Within their assigned protocol, they were advised to keep comments related to the following elements: thesis, organization, incorporation of source material, and literary analysis. In such a peer review situation, students have the freedom to comment on other important elements as well, but since they know these are the elements of the essay I will examine most closely, students typically do a good job of focusing their discussions on these crucial aspects.

These adjustments, though, have been primarily in the face-to-face review process. This year, I began experimenting more with the online environment for instruction, collaboration, and peer review so that I could free up more in-class time for actual writing and teacher/student conferencing. It is my goal that by next year, the online component of my writing class will play a much more significant role. As I work toward that goal, it seems increasingly important that I consider what policies and protocols might make the online peer review process as meaningful as the face-to-face event has become.

 

Warnock's list of guidelines on page 116 of Teaching Writing Online were particularly helpful for me in this area. Warnock's specific pieces of advice that stood out to me were as follows:

 

1. Avoid binary response questions.
2. Include a length requirement.
3. Do not allow an "answer the question" format.
4. Grade and criticize reviews.

Some of these practices are already in place in my approach to face-to-face peer review and should carry over to the online review; for instance, I have made a concerted effort to avoid putting students in situations where they merely answer yes/no questions. Additionally, I have worked to create a situation in peer reviews where students dialogue and critique rather than directly addressing a finite list of questions. However, Warnock offers solid advice here when he encourages instructors to use length requirements and to assess and criticize reviews. A length requirement in the online review acts in much the same capacity as the time limits I use to organize protocol discussion by requiring substantive investment of time and thought rather than allowing for cursory commenting that does little to help the writer. Grading and criticizing reviews also seems important because students need guidance as they learn to be better participants in the peer review process; giving quality feedback is, after all, a learned skill.

 

It is exciting to consider the possibilities that online or virtual peer review offer teachers. The idea that digital tools can enable peer review to happen outside of the classroom, synchronously or asynchronously, should be particularly appealing to teachers in both fully online and blended (online and face-to-face) classroom environments. However, for all the possibilities online peer review presents, it is clear that teachers must be conscious of and have a plan for making the process as meaningful and beneficial as is possible for all parties involved.

 

Warnock, Scott. Teaching Writing Online: How and Why. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, 2009. Kindle.

Posted with Blogsy

Tweet, Tweet?

A few years back, I reluctantly entered the "Twittersphere." Prior to joining, I was largely unfamiliar with Twitter, so I perceived it as nothing more than a stripped down version of Facebook. One thing I knew for certain, though, was that Brittany Spears and Justin Bieber both had huge Twitter followings; this was enough to keep me away.

As indicated earlier, however, I eventually caved. A tech-savvy friend of mine chipped away at my resistance and eventually won me over with this gem: "Dude, Facebook is where you interact with people you have to be friends with...Twitter is where you interact with people you WISH you were friends with."I don't know that such an admission speaks highly of my character, but it was the clincher. Later that day, I signed up for an account and prepared for amazement.

Initially, I didn't get it. The first few weeks I spent using Twitter largely seemed to confirm my suspicion that it was "Facebook Lite." Additionally, I found myself constantly at war with a 140-character limit I did not understand.

Eventually, I did begin to find my way in this new and unfamiliar world of tweeting. I found feeds that were professionally and personally beneficial. I began to understand the way discussions can be facilitated through hashtagging. I started to see how Twitter could give a person a potentially unlimited audience.

Thus, in recent years, I've become a bit of an evangelist when it comes to Twitter. I often find myself saying things like, "No, Twitter is not just a place where people post arbitrary Instagram photos of their latte." I have even attempted to incorporate Twitter as a part of my College Composition courses at my Bolivar High School, though I must admit that our school's filter has largely kept my students and I from getting every possible benefit from its use.

Though the possible applications of Twitter in the classroom are vast, here are a few of the main ways I see it as an extremely useful tool for educators and students:

Research and Generation of IdeasThough latte photography is certainly not in short supply, Twitter is also where some of the most current and dynamic news and commentary on almost any topic can be found. A decent number of my students last fall, when stuck in a search for essay topics, turned to Twitter to find their ideas. Those who followed feeds from news outlets such as NPR or professional organizations such as The National Science Foundation were rarely short on ideas or thought-provoking resources.

Extended Discussion

As teachers, we are constantly fighting against time constraints. There is only so much in-class time and there are only so many course meetings. Thus, if conversations can occur beyond the confines of the classroom, it is to the advantage of both teacher and student. Through hashtagging, classroom discussions can be organized, facilitated, and easily accessed by both teachers and students. These conversations can be asynchronous, allowing students and teachers to communicate at their leisure; this both accommodates schedules and gives each student valuable autonomy in that they can participate when they feel confident and ready to engage.

Collaboration and SharingOne of the goals I have for my writing courses is that they will always be collaborative writing environments. Though I evaluate each student's writing ability individually, I want to create an environment where students are encouraged to work collaboratively to make each other better listeners, thinkers, and writers. Twitter allows students to collaborate in numerous ways; for example, students can quickly share links to resources by tweeting links to each other. Students might also tweet each other previews of thesis statements, the 140-character limit serving as a reminder to be direct and concise.

Authentic AudienceWhen I began blogging, I had no audience and no real plan on how I might assemble one. Thus, I'm pretty sure the only people who read my initial blog postings were my mother and me. Eventually, it became clear to me that social media is the premier vehicle for driving traffic to a blog. Thus, when students are allowed to, encouraged to, or required to become bloggers themselves, social media outlets like Twitter become invaluable resources through which students can get their writing out to an audience that is only limited by their ability and motivation to network and build a following. For any teacher seeking to move students toward writing with authentic audience, the use of social media is not merely an option; it is the primary tool by which that goal can be achieved.

Professional DevelopmentAs school budgets become tighter and tighter, schools are becoming more and more selective about how professional development funds are spent. In my own high school, it used to be common practice to send multiple teachers to expensive conferences all around the country. However, in recent times of budgetary constraint, that has become increasingly less frequent a practice. Twitter can be an invaluable tool for school districts and individual teachers in this regard as it allows teachers opportunity to network, learn from, and collaborate with teachers from all over the world. For example, I am currently conversing and sharing ideas with an educator (from another state) who is working to move his district toward embracing Twitter as an educational tool. It should come as no surprise that I initially became acquainted with this teacher, a science educator in Tennessee, via Twitter.

In chapter six of Blogs, Wikis, Podcasts, and Other Powerful Web Tools for Classrooms, Will Richardson goes into specific detail on how Twitter can be of benefit to a teacher and even how teachers might employ Twitter as a classroom tool. Stil, he does offer the caveat that Twitter "is a bit too Wild West for most school situations," seeming to suggest that there are pitfalls teachers need to be aware of when employing Twitter academically (Richardson, ch. 6).

One such pitfall is demonstrated by the story of a young teacher from Kansas City who was recently placed on administrative leave based on tweets which clearly crossed the line of both professionalism and ethics. The full article from KCTV 5 can be found HERE. In short, the teacher in question tweeted numerous inappropriate comments both about and to students through a private, locked account which he had allowed students to follow. While many would see this as example enough to prohibit use of Twitter in academic settings, I would argue that this presents educators with potential for one of the most relevant, important lessons they can teach, a lesson in digital citizenship, responsibility, and ethics.

Digital Citizenship

Today's students are growing up in a far different world from that in which I and my peers were raised. This is true in many ways, but this stands out to me: the majority of my most immature and unwise moments as a teen only exist today in memory While there is likely a CSI-worthy trail of evidence, one would have to dig pretty hard to unearth most of my youthful lapses in judgment. This is not the case for today's student; their youth is catalogued on servers which readily offer this information to the public, via Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, and other social networks. Thus, many youthful mistakes today's students make may very well be held against them in a more real (and costly) fashion than mine might be. Potential jobs, scholarships, or even relationships may be put at risk or lost because of the permanence digitization attaches to our interactions.

Because of this, it is imperative not that teachers run from or live in fear of social networks such as Twitter, but rather that teachers must embrace them as an opportunity to teach and show children what ethical, responsible behavior online looks like. To do anything less seems to be irresponsible practice, at best. Social networking is a present and future reality, and educators have a responsibility to train productive members of the digital world.

Ultimately, Twitter may not be for everyone. I would never portray it as the most revolutionary tool a teacher could make use of in his or her daily practice. It is merely one medium through which the practice of teaching writing can be meaningfully enhanced and supported in a relevant and current format. However, digitally-minded educators can (and should) leverage this powerful tool for the purposes of learning, collaboration, communication, and of course, the obligatory posting of overpriced Starbucks beverages.

 

"District Places Teacher on Leave after Private Tweets." KCTV 5 News. KCTV, 13 Feb. 2013. Web. 24 Feb. 2013.

Richardson, Will. Blogs, Wikis, Podcasts, and Other Powerful Web Tools for Classrooms. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Corwin, 2010. Kindle.

Posted with Blogsy

Creating Digital Conversation

During my high school years, the formula for a writing assignment was fairly simple and consistent. Teachers assigned essays, students composed, teachers reviewed and returned essays, and students made revisions based off red-pen feedback written on the essay. At that point, a grade was cemented on the writing via a red pen and entered into a gradebook, never to be altered further.

This pattern largely continued on even into my early college years until an Advanced Composition course I took during my sophomore year. What was different about this particular course? The change was quite simple, yet quite profound; the professor in this course stressed the idea of actually talking about our essays. It seems strange to suggest that such a simple idea as conversing about writing was so revolutionary to me at the time; at this point in my career it seems like common sense.

In this class, students were required to meet individually with our professor in both the prewriting and revising stages of the writing process. These meetings offered us a chance to pitch ideas, ask questions, express concerns, and seek the feedback we needed most as we crafted our assigned essays. Additionally, class time was routinely used to seek the counsel of our peers as we were not encouraged, but rather expected to share our current writing endeavor and solicit meaningful feedback from the rest of our classmates.

In light of this experience, it seems apparent that conversation is a crucial component of effective writing instruction.

Thus, it makes total sense that one major contention listed in the NCTE's "Beliefs about the Teaching of Writing" states, "Writing has a complex relationship to talk." Elaborating on this point, the NCTE states that in multiple contexts, "writing exists in a nest of talk," suggesting that writing often springs out of ideas and thoughts that are rehearsed orally and shared in writing conversations with others to elicit feedback.

In my nine years of teaching, it has become quite apparent to me that this conversational aspect of writing instruction is crucial in the development of young writers. Young writers need the opportunity to talk out their ideas and to have trusted individuals (instructors and peers) act as sounding boards in the prewriting process. Additionally, they need to be offered the opportunity to converse about their writing product as they seek to make the most appropriate revisions based on audience and purpose.

However, in the educational world, time is at a premium for instructors. The pace of public school does not afford the luxury of time for nearly as much face-to-face conversation as most writing instructors would like to offer.

Therefore, it is clear that in an age flooded with digital communication, teachers employ tech-driven methods of extending writing conversation beyond the time constraints of the typical school day. Troy Hicks points out in his book The Digital Writing Workshop that when writing teachers confer with students through digital means "the learning doesn't have to stop at the end of workshop time" (Hicks, ch. 3).

Two ways I've attempted to extend writing conversations beyond the classroom through digital means are as follows:

1. Google Drive
• Students used a face-to-face, protocol-driven discussion held during class to elicit initial feedback, but were then asked to continue their discussion by commenting twice on each other's writing while also replying to at least one other group member's comment. I also chimed in on the online discussion.
2. Twitter
• Before major essays, students were asked to tweet a preview of their thesis statements by finishing the following statement: "I want to say/show/prove that _____." Thesis previews were to also contain the hashtag #ealove21 so that other students could locate and, if they chose, reply to proposals.

Though I cannot say that my incorporation of these two tools into my courses was flawless on the first attempt, I definitely feel that they did allow for numerous writing conversations that, if confined to the typical class period, would not have occurred.

 

Ultimately, writing instructors cannot undervalue the relationship that writing has to talk. If writing is indeed to exist in a "nest of talk" as the NCTE suggests, writing instructors must look for the best available means to afford students as much conversation as is possible and beneficial.

 

Hicks, Troy. The Digital Writing Workshop. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 2009. Kindle.

"NCTE Beliefs about the Teaching of Writing." NCTE Comprehensive News. National Council of Teachers of English, Aug. 2007. Web. 13 Mar. 2013.

Posted with Blogsy

Learning the Hard Way is Better Than Not Learning At All

About four years ago, I had what I thought was an educational epiphany. At the time, I was trying to resuscitate a dying course offering at our high school whose target demographic was seniors who were on an academic track leading away from post-secondary schooling. Understand, I do not mean to insinuate that the reason this class was on its last leg was its clientele. Quite the opposite. In reality, the course was on the ropes due largely to low expectations on the part of our faculty as well as the misguided idea that it would be good to isolate a large, mainly heterogeneous group of struggling readers and writers together in their own class. It was my task to find a way to refashion the course into something more meaningful than what it had become over the previous few years.

Thus came my epiphany; my students would become bloggers.

One of my main aims was to get my students into the habit of writing; however, I did not merely want them writing for me. Instead, I wanted them to write for a wider audience, to write as if they were not simply pleasing their teacher but rather communicating with a potentially unlimited number of readers beyond the walls of our school .

Early in the semester, I announced these intentions to my students (who were noticeably underwhelmed) and we marched down to become bloggers.

And, sparing the gory details for now, I'll simply say that this experiment tanked miserably.
Why did this happen? Are blogs meaningless in the landscape of education? Absolutely not. Blogs as educational tools can be tremendously powerful, but incorporated poorly, educational blogging can quickly be robbed of its potential for positive impact. In the years since, I've come to realize that I made several rookie mistakes that doomed the project from the start. Below are a few, some of which were clarified and reemphasized for me in my reading of Will Richardson's Blogs, Wikis, Podcasts, and Other Powerful Web Tools for Classrooms.

1. I did not allow students to pursue an existing interests and build expertise on that topic. Whereas instructor Ken Smith advises that "we should assign [students] to go read and then link to what interests them and write about why it does and what it means" (qtd. in Richardson, ch. 2), I peppered them with a variety of my own interests and concerns, expecting they'd latch onto them and blog to answer questions they had no interest in answering in the first place.
2. I did not provide sufficient examples of quality blogging. I did not provide examples of exemplary blogs which took a sustained approach at examining topics by bringing together and processing relevant content from varied sources. Thus, my students saw their blogs as a lesser MySpace (yes, that was big at the time) and treated their blogs as such.
3. I did not teach and stress the art of synthesizing information. Richardson suggests that a minimum, real blogging should contain "Links with analysis and synthesis that articulate a deeper understanding or relationship to the content being linked and written," but perhaps due to the aforementioned failures, my students' blogs seemed more or less personal journals that occasionally contained uninspired posts about topics I, not the student, found interesting.
4. I did not blog. In hindsight, this seems like a failure in common sense. Professor Babara Ganley rightly questions such practice by asking, "How can a teacher expect her students to blog . . . if she doesn't use it herself, exploring the impact it has on her thinking, writing, research, and creativity?" (qtd. in Richardson, ch. 3). Though my aim in having students blog was to train them for real-world writing situations, the fact that I was not a blogger certainly debased the credibility of the task.

In the aftermath my first foray into the world of student blogging, I could easily recognize that I had a much larger hand in the endeavor's failure than did my students. While I wish I had not made some of these errors, all addressed in Richardson's text, I have found that each of these mistakes provided a learning moment for me, the instructor, and have helped me know what pitfalls I need to avoid as I continue to employ blogging as an instructional tool in my courses.

Richardson, Will. Blogs, Wikis, Podcasts, and Other Powerful Web Tools for Classrooms. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Corwin, 2010. Kindle.

Posted with Blogsy