What do we do here?
I would suggest that this blog be used, as I mentioned last week, as a temporal device - when we find something interesting, have something to say about a recent reading, or just in general orient this as more spontaneous, maybe even emotional, than the discussion board. The wiki should be used in a more spatial way, like a repository for our class knowledge. This is the place to say anything and be flexible; the wiki is for focus, for posterity.
- Mike
- Mike
posted by CUNY GC ITP Core2 at 7:29 PM
6 Comments:
Leave a comment by clicking on the "x comments" link. - Mike
Perhaps I am just a structure freak, but I am getting the feeling that the laissez faire mode of approaching Wiki and Blog "instruction" is leaving us a little at sea. That's not really a complaint: I'm interested in seeing what students do and don't do in the laissez faire environment, too. But I wonder if it doesn't detract from a sense of urgency. I keep asking myself "what are we supposed to be discussing," "what's my assignment???" Yeah, I guess I *am* a structure freak...
What the authors we've been reading would lead us to believe is that the technology itself is somewhat a motivator for younger students, and that once they start they'll enjoy the electronic interaction and continue to learn through research and from each other. ... yeah, I don't buy it either. However, I'm quite interested in using hypertext structures to make learning not more "fun", necessarily (although that would be great! ... and that's for future projects of mine), but but easier. If students find out it's easier to learn than the way they previously were, they might actually do it. Now, for future generations who are started on this, I don't know just yet. Maybe too much hand-holding. I guess we'll find out.
I am going to follow Mike's advice and simply go for the blog experience. I'll leave the "serious stuff" for the Wiki.
I have to say that this approach is already liberating. It is as Michelle said: "we are too graduate students in the bad sense."
On the other hand, I believe we need not only "structure," as Bradley suggested, but also a purpose, a mission, a goal, a something to write. I believe that the blog, the wiki and Bb are amazing tools. The problem is to have the need for it. I feel like we have a great bottle opener but we are still looking for the wine. I'm looking...
Having said that, I'm thinking to use Wiki to write about my interim paper.
Since I couldn't open this window before I ended up posting my comments on http://mvictoriasblog.blogspot.com under the title Helpful Multimedia activities: I found some websites of interest for my present and future courses: basically constitutional law issues
The article on CMS left me with more questions than answers. I basically agree with the use of CMS as a supplemental tool but I see their proposal of CMS as an organizing tool extremely fuzzy.
Probably I suffer from excessive attachment to "traditional teaching styles." But I am not sure because first of all they do not define what is "traditional" specifically; and second, they do not prove that there is something wrong with "traditional" either.
This article has not convinced me beyond generalizations that there is a need for me to change and contemplate CMS as more than a supplemental tool. E.g.
I can see the advantages of tracking student performance with software that is neutral (if the final grade consists in how many times the person has posted to the discussion board, the calculations are not affected by biases against certain students). Nevertheless, somebody has to design the grading function of the software and if they lack real understanding of latent biases the neutrality is lost. Maybe an explanation for my position is that I usually have clases of less than 30 students.
_________________________________
Does everybody agree with the authors that student interaction and participation increases when they propose their own questions and subjects? Personally, I do not think this statement applies to all undergrads. A related question: does the quality of the interaction matter?
Post a Comment
<< Home