 |
| (Tapscott, 2009) |
Consider how the topic of inspiring online discussion can be made interesting, and write a response to this post which expresses two ideas which can be compared and contrasted in a short response of two or three paragraphs.
The scoring rubric may be downloaded from this link. Review the rubric before writing a response.
References:
Payne , L. V. ed .). Chicago , IL
References:
Tapscott, D. (2009, October 14). Student collaboration [Photo]. In wlibrary's photostream. flickr. Retrieved from http://www.flickr.com/photos/99107397@N00/4011844231/in/photostream
I updated my post. Changes included expanding my original summary paragraph and providing a more detailed assignment, while not changing the essential character of either paragraph. I also updated the rubric to better fit the current assignment. The original rubric was a short essay rubric I created for another assignment. That rubric is located at http://www.rcampus.com/rubricshowc.cfm?code=X5A423&sp=yes
ReplyDeleteI intend to add a graphic to this assignment, but a suitable graphic has not yet been found.
I agree that incorporating controversy and personal experience make a discussion prompt more interesting. Here is a “before” and “after” example:
ReplyDeleteBefore:
Post your thoughts on the advantages and disadvantages of assessing online collaborative work from the perspective of the instructor and the learner.
After:
Assume you are the instructor in online course. Your students have been given a project that requires collaboration with two other students to complete the project. One of the students emails you expressing a reluctance to participate in a group project. The student asks you if you if he can work alone on the project.
Write a two to three paragraph response to the student in order to persuade the student to participate in the group project. Be sure to include the benefits to the student in participating in a group project as well as addressing any potential objections. Also, explain how a group project helps you (as the instructor) assess a student’s work.
Stephen
Response to Inspiring Online Discussions
ReplyDeleteCreating interest in anything requires getting and maintaining someone’s attention. With the proliferation of information and vehicles for accessing information, the requirement for getting and maintaining attention has risen sharply. The case could be made the this rise parallels that of technologies such as cable television, personal computers, the internet, cell phones and smart devices. Marketers, educators, and parents can all attest to the changing behaviors of consumers, students, and children as they attempt to gain and maintain their attention. If there is no end in sight to the increasing information flow and the proliferation of technological devices that consume human attention, then instructors of online courses must find new solutions or old solutions that have proven successful if they have any chance at making topics more interesting to inspire online discussion.
I agree with the post that a controversial twist increases interest in readers. I’d also like to suggest that the book “Made to Stick” (Heath & Heath, 2007) provides a solid overview of important Sociological and Psychological research focused on gaining and maintaining attention in humans. Of particular interest here is the strategy of “creating a knowledge gap.” The authors, Chip and Dan Heath, suggest that knowledge gaps are used effectively by writers and TV producers to tease the reader or audience because the natural tendency is to want to close the knowledge gap. Soap operas and the evening news are notorious for providing a “teaser” or “cliff hanger” to get you to tune in. Online marketers have figure this out as well as they sell e-books titled, “The three secrets to getting you teenager in Harvard: for free.” There appears to be much that can be applied from using the “create a knowledge gap” strategy for online discussions.
References
Heath, C. & Heath, D. (2007) Made to stick : why some ideas survive and others die.
New York : Random House.
Evaluation of “Inspiring Online Discussions”
ReplyDelete1. Thoroughly enjoyed the topic and appreciated the conciseness of the instructions (with one exception below #3). I’m not a fan of the images on Blogs in general, but I can see the connection to students being interested. So, I think it’s an appropriate use of the image.
2. The omission of readings for which the students should focus their assignment appears to provide less direction and structure for the assignment. You can make the case that this is OK depending on the learning outcome, but you open the door wide when it’s time to grade the assignment because parameters have not been established. I do recognize that there is a restriction with this (our) class assignment because we were not given designated readings to choose from.
3. I would have preferred to have one or more prompts or model questions as a basis for my post. This would have helped me because I really didn’t know what was meant by, “Consider how the topic of inspiring online discussion can be made interesting, and write a response to this post which expresses two ideas which can be compared and contrasted in a short response of two or three paragraphs.” I’m sure it’s crystal clear to you, but to me, the post has suggested that a topic needs to be controversial (or have a twist) to increase interest in readers. Now you’ve asked me to response to the issue of a post needing to be controversial with “two ideas.” Am I supposed to respond in a manner that supports or refutes your position? Should I offer an alternate position? R, is there another possible direction for my response? It is here that I believe the model questions could have provided more clarity.
4. I did like that the scoring rubric was easy to obtain and read. However, I do believe that there are a couple areas in the rubric that could be improved:
A. I believe that some of the criteria were subjective. For example, for Creative Analysis, the description of the “Fair” category was, “Discussion intelligently summarizes research.” I’d prefer to see “intelligently” replaced with a more objective descriptor or a set of concrete representations of what it means to intelligently summarize research.
B. The descriptions in the “Technical Analysis” dimension were confusing to me. The use of “fewer than six and “fewer than three,” did not provide me with a distinction between the categories that is quickly and clearly understood. I’d prefer a clear range such as 3-5 or 1-2 to insure there is no confusion or overlap.
Rudy, Thank you (I mean it) for your constructive criticism. Mostly likely I will review your comments frequently as I plan future assessments.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your criticism of the word "intelligently" the rubric. The word is dripping with harmful implications. In this context "fairly" would have been an appropriate substitution to convey my intended meaning, with "fairly" contrasting with biased unfair summarizations.
I agree with you that learners should be provided with detailed instructions. You suggested that I should include specific readings and prompt for specific kinds of responses. I would generally agree, but my goal was to push for synthesis of ideas I had not considered. The topic is an issue I had already been mulling over in my mind. I thought this assignment would provide a way to get other peoples ideas. I also wanted to chose a goal for this assignment that would keep the requirement simple.
Another shortcoming of this post was the failure to include any deadlines. Students ought to be given a clear understanding of expectations about due dates.
Not related to clearly communicated due dates, I started this assignment late. I posted a skeletal response Wednesday night, and I "fleshed it out" the next day. As I added detail, I felt it was important to ensure that nothing added could conflict with possible responses already under way.
Rudy, thank you for the suggestion of the book “Made to Stick” (Heath & Heath, 2007). I copied your reference. I will check that out.
ReplyDeleteI recognize the proven value of cliffhangers and "hooks," but when I recognize I have been hooked, I get angry and turn off the television. I respond that way because I have experienced news hooks that did not accurately headline the news. I don't appreciate being manipulated or mislead.
Misleading hooks aside, I am intrigued with the idea of selling knowledge gaps. I want to know more!
References:
Heath, C. & Heath, D. (2007) Made to stick : why some ideas survive and others die.
New York : Random House.
Steven, I am impressed with your creative response. Your description made me just a little bit angry. I want to do that assignment and teach that impudent student a "lesson" which I can assure you will be very will documented!
ReplyDeleteI also liked the way you contrasted two ways of presenting the same assessment. Clearly the second approach motivates a response much better than the first.
Reflection on dialog
ReplyDeleteConcluding this assignment, I am supposed to write a reflection on this experience of creating a discussion post and moderating discussion. I am to write about whether the discussion was “lively,” why I think it was or wasn’t lively, and what I might do differently in the future.
I’m not sure how to define “lively.” I was very impressed with the creativity in Stephen’s response. It was precisely the kind of unexpected display of creativity I had hoped to inspire. On the other hand, there was not a lot of back-and-forth dialog. Each person posted, and then there were comments that were as much about this assignment as they were about the discussion. I was very pleased with the initial posts, but I would have liked my “students” to comment on each other’s posts.
I suppose I am partly at fault for the lack of secondary discussion because I did not do anything to engage my “students” beyond the initial post. I could have asked questions. I could have asked students to comment on each other’s posts.
Rudy provided a useful meta-discussion post that helped me think about what I would have liked to do differently. He pointed out that my rubric used the word “intelligently” inappropriately. In the future, I will pay closer attention to how my choices of words can convey unintended and possibly negative meaning. In my rubric, the word “fairly” would have better described my intended meaning.
Rudy also pointed out that my posted instructions were open to interpretation, and without the kind of specific guidance that can help students to focus their writing on pertinent topics. I did not provide any specific discussion points in my assignment. Another aspect of an assignment that I should have included are clearly defined due dates. Without due dates, students are likely to put off posting until discussion is not practical.