Here's a suggestion for confronting the disappointing fact that only about half the class typically fulfills the minimum blogging expectation in any given week. What if full blogging credit for anyonein the class were contingent on everyone's participating at the minimum level? This might leverage peer encouragement and support, and it speaks to the basic point of the assignment, which is that it reaches critical mass by drawing us all into the discussion.
I anticipate that many of you will react strongly to this suggestion; I urge you to make your case for or against very thoughtfully.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
As no classmate of mine has detrimentally influenced my blogging habits, I see no reason why they ought to be punished for said habits. Your goal is not to punish them, I know; it is to encourage more active blogging. I think that the proposed method will not be effective in bringing your goal to fruition.
I'm interested primarily in learning, not possessing an impressive transcript; and the little motivation I garner from grades comes exclusively from my own grades. In the end, I care little about the grades of my peers.
I've been inactive with blogging. I've not been inactive with reading the blogs. I go through and read many, many blogs. The half of class that does participate, equal to or above the minimum level, blogs the hell out of their thoughts. And oftentimes, there are blog-topics that I had thought to write upon (these blogs are a further discussion of a topic brought up in class). As for many of the others, they are either bogged down in over-eloquence or boorishness.
I recently had a conversation about my blogging issues with a friend, who suggested that the class use a forum (discussion board). Due to the formatting of a forum, it is much easier to actually maintain a discussion. Furthermore, a forum promotes deeper discussion of fewer topics (which is a part of our problem, I feel).
The proposed solution would in the end, I think, be more of a detractor in motivation than anything else. I think I wouldn't be able to help but think, "why bother?" when my personal effort is no longer reflected in my grades.
I guess my problem is, as with any intellectual pursuit in my life, if I'm not going to do it authentically, I'd rather not do it at all. Just because I can think of *something* to blog about to meet a deadline, doesn't mean it's actually worth blogging about, let alone reading and responding to.
Getting good at anything takes practice, yes. Adhering to guidelines in order to promote said practice, even when one may not feel like it, is also good. But doing the minimum to meet requirements and putting forth real, productive effort are different endeavors. I guess, in the pursuit of blogging, you have to determine which end is your true goal.
I think it's cool that you want to see what we're thinking about each week, but I have to admit that I've never felt part of a discussion through blogging. At most I've felt intrigued by an entry or a response, but they've always felt too scattered and random to add up to coherent discourse.
Instead, I think it might be interesting to see everyone respond to one person's blog each week. I don't know how that person would be chosen (randomly? alphabetically?), but I think it might better facilitate actual discourse outside of the classroom- not just better blogging.
This is a strange proposition. The new grading method would punish those of us who blog regularly by denying them full participation credit, and doesn't punish those of us who don't blog regularly because they wouldn't have received full credit in the first place. If some people are not motivated by their own grades, I don't see how the security of someone else's grades would motivate them to write more often.
Imagine applying this grading style to other aspects of our participation grade. It would be absurd to dock points from someone's grade because someone else did not turn in a paper on time. Even if the whole class but one doesn't turn the paper in one time, it is still unfair to the one person who did turn it in.
If someone thinks the new grading method is truly ludicrous, they may decide to blog less or not blog at all on principle, regardless of what happens to their own or their peers' grades. In other words, your plan to get more people writing regularly could backfire. (Although this is playing the devil's advocate against my own position, I will say that you seem to be succeeding so far in getting us involved).
You said that your purpose is to launch us into discussion, ("reach critical mass") but I feel that it is neither realistic nor motivational that we branch into several discussions about what could be unrelated ideas, and still remain attentive to each blog. In reference to what Alyssa was saying, I also think that authenticity is just as important to a discussion as the how many things that are being discussed. In fact I would say that it is infinitely more important. It would be ironic for the members of a philosophy of teaching and learning class to stunt their own learning by repetitively distracting themselves from pertinent topics and giving subsequently lackluster responses to other posts, compared to how one could respond if he / she focused on a topic. If we were to graded based off of everyone else's participation, we would be getting no closer to the truth of what we are discussing, other than the truth of how flustered people are with wanting to maintain their own posts, while also being tangled in 5+ other posts. I think most would agree that if one were to teach someone else how to learn or to teach, this method would be fraught with peril.
The idea of not doing blogs and instead doing forums, I actually proposed in the beginning of class, and I STRONGLY agree with this idea. In fact, just one new topic weekly between all of us, would be far more compelling and effective than the method of discussion we are currently employing.
Well, as I expected, that suggestion got the attention of some of you.
Anyone feel manipulated?
There is more personal than pedagogical analysis here, but some ideas emerge.
Regarding the proposal of a single discussion forum, for a number of reasons (many of which others articulated in our earlier discussion) I think this format better suits our purpose. I also do not think it would address the question of participation.
The One Big Topic approach to discussion has its place (we sometimes do this in class), but decentralizing has many virtues as well. I'd have thought those of you perennially uncomfortable with the way Socrates controls the conversation would resonate with them.
Quickly, since I'm at lunch - is a grade designed to teach you, or to reflect what you learned?
The question may presume a false dilemma. The content of the grades themselves ought surely reflect the quality and consistency of the students' work. Since concern about grades seems common and ineradicable, however, that concern becomes a potential motivating force to leverage attention to the work (among many other motivators).
In the instant case, some students are letting their peers down in not contributing regularly, thereby preventing the blogging process from achieving critical mass. In so doing, they negatively affect the educational experience of everyone's else, so indirectly lowering everyone's grade. The suggestion intended simply to make this effect direct, in hopes of changing the behavior.
I think the point you make is a reasonable one - and therefore I support the change - but a) I don't think it very ethical to change the requirement after the initial syllabus, and b) I'm quite certain it will not influence student behaviors.
If, as a group, we are not discussing education outside our classroom, then as a group, we are not learning from the sulennnt people. Therefore our exploration of the topic is stinted and our grade should reflect that reality.
However, I don't think it will change behavior. The behavior exhibited is that of not acting for the group's good, and punitive measures seem unlikely to appeal to people who have already demonstrated their relative apathy. Yes, the group suffers. But the group is already suffering from their silence. Will raising the stakes change anything?
I guess the other possibility is that we turn all Lord of the flies and vote nonparticipants off the island? The idea of peer pressure convincing anyone seems a stretch to me because I doubt we have that much influence in each others' lives.
If you are right that it would not change behavior (and some comments do suggest the rumblings of resentful resistance -- maybe it would compound the problem!) then of course there would be no reason to do it, as participation is the whole point here.
You are correct that it seems a bit unfair to change horses in mid-stream. It's not clear, though, that we want to make it an iron law that we can never change something from how it was in the syllabus -- what about being responsive to how things are actually working?
Almost all of you have treated this suggestion as a threat of sorts, rather than a conversation about teaching and motivation. That was largely my doing, of course, but still, it tells me something.
It told you that we're seeing education as a personally owned commodity?
Sharon,
Ignorance may create silence, but it is not the only creator. Silence does not equate to ignorance. Furthermore, if one is in need of discourse to explore a topic, there are other avenues than these blogs. We should not exclusively rely on this small group to further our understanding. I think that our education is hurt by frivolous and boring blogs, which discourage returning, far more than silence.
Also, I too do not understand how it is unethical to alter the syllabus mid-course.
Matt,
You are not providing manipulation. You are providing motivation. You have found a topic that is interesting, and demanding of attention. I do not think that we have reacted in a threatened way, nor have we loaded our words with latent resentment or resistance. The topic of conversation is one that is pertinent to us, interesting, and poignant. As such, does it not seem reasonable that we would respond in a more potent manner? I am curious, however, about what it is that you garnered from the suspicion that we imagined it as a threat.
Post a Comment