Wednesday, November 30, 2016

Is OWI fun?

I am sometimes invited to visit -- mostly virtually -- graduate classes focusing on OWI pedagogy. The students ask me questions about teaching OWCs, questions that often only people just embarking on teaching careers can think to ask.

One question I get is a form of this: "Is OWI fun?" It’s a great question. I think teaching itself should be gratifying. How can you dedicate decades of your life to working with students if you're not intrinsically engaged and satisfied?

“Fun” is a special word, though, isn't it? I was hooked on teaching from my first substitute gigs at Eastern High School in the early 90s. When I began teaching composition as a TA at Rutgers Camden in 1993 (after severe initial nervousness), I realized teaching writing was for me, and that feeling strengthened at Temple during my PhD work in the late 90s and early aughts through Penn State Lehigh Valley and now at Drexel.

I think, though, it wasn't until I taught online that I began to understand why.

I always liked the conversations, debates, and dialogues that made up the core of my classes, and I enjoyed coaching student writers and loved seeing their writing evolve. When I first encountered online writing tools, at Temple, I discovered, unaware at the time of course, that those two things I liked so much, the dialogues and writing process, converged brilliantly with ed tech.

Modality of course altered the nature of the dialogue (the technology always changes things), but it was just that: Different, not better or worse. And in OWI, it was all writing. I discovered that cracking open a discussion board was, well, fun for me.

I tell inquisitive graduate students, though, that I do have the benefit of favorable material conditions. For one, reading on a screen is no problem for me, access or otherwise. Also, I type pretty fast. I just took a one-minute typing test at http://www.typingtest.com and while I’m not a “pro,” I’m the next category, "fast." Enjoying screen reading and typing fast together mean that the experience interface-wise isn’t onerous for me.

So, having a positive material experience combined with really loving the intellectual journey might equal fun. I tell in-training teachers that it may well be that they only find onsite courses enjoyable. I get it. If you only like being in the room with the students, regardless of the reasons why, then OWI may not appeal to you.

And you should figure that out for yourself. I think a profession like teaching should have not just an element of  satisfaction but play and fun too. Teaching writing is difficult, and it won’t all be giggles. But following students' thinking trajectory across written discussions through bigger written projects? Sounds like fun to me.

Labels: ,

Friday, September 30, 2016

GSOLE: Can we think about it all as literacy?

So I’m posting two consecutive “organizational” posts, but there’s a lot going on in the world of OWI, and I want to get it out there.

It’s not every day that you get to be part of a new organization/society/ association. This past April at the CCCC meeting in Houston, I was honored to take part in the launching of GSOLE, the Global Society for Online Literacy Educators.

GSOLE is the brainchild of my good friend Beth Hewett, and she is our first president. She has developed this idea that OWI should be broadened beyond writing to literacy, including reading and digital composition. From her letter on the homepage (https://www.glosole.org/):

We are an international organization of teachers, tutors, and researchers dedicated to diversity, inclusivity, and access in literacy-based online education. We share an understanding that the key component linking all of online education is literacy. Although online education tends to remove the immediacy and intimacy of face-to-face instruction, we suggest that successful teaching and learning in online settings are more deeply connected to literacy-based concerns than to physical presence or lack thereof. Three of the core literacies of the 21st century are reading, writing, and digital composition. However, these literacies largely have been studied and taught separately, and the resulting discussions about them have occurred in discrete sub-disciplines where their connections have not been fully explored or acknowledged.
Reading. It gets left out of so many higher ed conversations about learning. We assume students can/should be able to do it or don’t have the expertise to teach it or are too embarrassed to admit we don’t do it well & etc. I am this term again teaching The Peer Reader in Context, the Drexel course that prepares undergraduates to tutor in our writing center. I love our text, Bartholomae & Petrosky's Ways of Reading, which, in its introduction, asks students to focus on their practices and assumptions about reading. Textbooks, they write in that introduction, "are good examples of books that ask little of readers outside of note-taking and memorization" (5). (1) Reading in college is often simply transparent.

Digital composition. While those in the field of comp/rhet have written and investigated multimodality and digital composition for some time, you could argue that alphabetic writing still dominates, not only in pedagogical practice but in what we think of as composition or writing instruction.

The idea behind GSOLE is to bring together writing and reading instruction with digital composition under one inclusive, virtual tent. As I suppose with any new thing, we spent a heck of a lot of time developing the name. We are still developing the organization's structure. We know we will have Webinars and a certification sequence for OWTs. We will have a journal. We will also, through our site, provide an opportunity for developing a community of those interested in online literacy education. We have, in my estimation, the right people involved to get it all done.

GSOLE is exciting because what we’re hoping is the idea of literacy can move to the forefront of OWI conversations. It's not so much that OWI will become OLI by nomenclature, but that our pedagogical and research agendas will reflect this broader concept of literacy. We think this is the future, and we hope you will join us.

Note:
1) I still like the 9th edition of this text.

Labels: , , ,

Monday, July 18, 2016

From OWI Committee to Standing Group, but the work goes on

In April at the CCCC meeting in Houston, the CCCC Committee for Effective Practices in OWI was settling in at 9 AM for its three-hour, packed-agenda annual closed meeting, when its members abruptly learned a surprising thing: Just that Wednesday, the CCCC Executive Committee had voted not to reconstitute us!

This was a tough moment for many committee members, and emotions were visceral for a variety of reasons. We called CCCC President Joyce Carter, who showed great leadership in coming to visit us on the spot. She fielded questions and explained her approach as Chair – a new approach – to committees, and she described the logistics of what had happened. She apologized for the way this occurred, reinforced the value of OWI work, and encouraged us to re-structure the OWI Committee as a CCCC Standing Group.

I do understand it all. Nobody at CCCC was out to get our committee. As many of you know, our committee had gone well beyond the boundaries – all for the good, of course –of a charge-driven, purpose-focused group. Specific, executable charges, Joyce explained, are what should characterize committees and structure their work. Groups with ongoing interests and work need a different structure. This makes sense.

Word of this has trickled out, so I wanted to let people know that our group has been speedily reconstituted as a CCCC Standing Group. CCCC was helpful fast-tracking our group’s application. Our Expert Panel, comprised of more than 30 OWI experts, and our structure are still intact. Our numerous in-progress projects will continue on, especially the OWI bibliography, spearheaded by Heidi Harris, and the survey of student experiences in OWCs, led by Diane Martinez.

I think this moment also helped people think about some of the other new sites for community, conversation, and contact for OWI teachers and scholars, especially The OWI Community, a growing Facebook site set up by Casey McArdle and Jessie Borgman, and the recently formed Global Society for Online Literacy Education, which I'll be talking more about here soon.

For our group, the name changes, but the work goes on. With the Standing Group, we will still have a clear structural connection with CCCC and NCTE. Such a visible, tangible presence is especially valuable to those of you those investing your careers teaching, administering, and researching OWI, people who often need not only a recognizable banner under which to gather to think, talk, and work, but an identifiable gathering “spot” to become life-long friends.

Labels: , , , ,

Tuesday, May 31, 2016

Observing and evaluating online writing courses, part 2

Last July, I wrote some thoughts about peer observations and evaluations of online writing courses (OWCs). I promised -- for you and me -- some further examination of this topic. So, last week, at Computers & Writing at St. John Fisher College in Rochester (a well-run and enjoyable conference -- thanks to the organizers and local hosts) my colleague from Kent State Mahli Mechenbier and I presented about conducting such evaluations.

In my talk I was able to show, I think, some progress on my initial articulation of an Elbowesque “movies-of-the- mind” approach to conducting peer evaluations of OWCs. I opened my session by giving the audience members a “task”: “During my session, take some notes about what happens and then imagine you would turn them into an observation letter you would give to me about the session.” I circled back to the "task" at the end. My point was that observations of things like teaching (or conference talks) are always subjective and related to the relative expertise of both evaluator and evaluatee. By understanding that dynamic, we can avoid the judgment-driven process that has done a bizarrely paradoxical thing: oversimplified evaluations while overcomplicating the evaluation process.

The “how” of this “movies-of-the-mind” approach is straightforward, I said: I simply write a letter to the observed faculty member describing what I see and experience in the course. With an OWC, the whole course is laid out in front of an evaluator, so the evaluation can be broader than the customary one-shot onsite visit. I did mention, though, that although I could see most of the course, I still want the teacher to guide me through, showing me only what they think appropriate.

By using this approach, the evaluator avoids reductive rubrics and metrics and instead simply narrates what they see from a colleague's teaching.

Now, politics do emerge in the process. We conduct these evaluations in the context of the academic hierarchy. Mahli emphasized this in her session, pointing out evaluation “issues” that include rank, power disparities between faculty, lack of a true peer relationship, being unknown to an evaluator, and that the whole process can be viewed as a “waste of time.”

As she does in a lot of her work, Mahli focused on contingent faculty. Especially because so many contingent faculty are asked to teach online, the issue of how such faculty are evaluated and by whom is a big topic, she said. Your campus might use Quality Matters or even (however unlikely) have developed its own approach/methodology of evaluation, but who has the expertise to conduct an evaluation -- especially if all of the online teachers are contingents but the institution requires tenured folks to evaluate!

I ended my talk with a big zoom-out, as the reductive evaluations we do in our classes continue up the ladder until we're creating stupid, standardized test-based metrics of entire schools. Such evaluations have had devastating impact to communities.

We discussed these issues in the direct context of the C&W crowd, and we're going to focus on the administrative side of OWC evaluations in Council of Writing Program Administrators conference in Raleigh in a month and a half.

Labels: , ,

Monday, March 28, 2016

Multilingual students as online course moderators

I use student moderators in my online and hybrid courses, as I described here a few years ago. Through time, I think I have improved at defining moderation for my students. I now send them a message like this:

Thank you for signing up to moderate next week. Moderating is not difficult, but it does take some extra work for the moderators that week. I think many of our moderators for the most part have done a good job this term, so you know. 

As moderator, please do NOT start a new thread. Simply post early in the week in one of the existing threads letting everyone know that you will be moderating that thread. Note that you each only need to work in one of the threads in this week’s forum.
 

You can moderate the conversation in any way you like, but please do the following:
  • As I said, write a short post letting everyone know that you'll be moderating the conversation on your thread. Do this early in the week.
  • Keep up with what's being written.
  • Try to move the conversation forward with questions and new ideas. Basically, your goal is to build the conversation on the thread.
  • **At the end of the week, please post a message summarizing the activity on your thread and your participation on it as moderator.**
Please note that moderating is a 15-point grade and that your moderator posts are separate from your other graded Discussion posts this week. You still must fulfill the other posting requirements for the week.

Again, if you have any questions, please let me know.


As you can see, moderating is a graded assignment. Many student moderators do a superb job, including in their end-of-week wrap-up of their thread. (Some moderators in the first-year writing course I just taught did such a great job that I felt almost intrusive and unnecessary getting involved with their threads.)

Moderating provides teaching advantages, including leveraging teaching time, but, more importantly, it provides many learning opportunities. I wonder if it might particularly help multilingual/ESL students.

There is some debate about the effectiveness of online environments for multilingual writing students. Recently, a multilingual student in my course was straightforward and articulate in describing how the moderating experience helped her in the course and with her writing. In her end-of-week summary (which I quote as is here), she wrote that “as a non-native speaker student, I should take every chance to read, as a way to improve my thinking in English. But in the previous weeks, I failed to force myself to read all the posts because some of them are really long and hard to understand. But as a moderater, it's different. You have to read all the posts and understand them, thun you can ask questions to encourage the discussion going on.”

In this brief metacommentary, the student emphasizes the careful reading and writing she had to do as moderator. She, to me, makes it clear that moderating created a productive pressure for her.

The dialogic exchange of the discussion board and the broadening of audience to include fellow students seem to be what is key here: The inherent written conversation may put productive pressure on students that helps them, as this student says, not just with reading and writing but with thinking through -- rhetorically -- their communicative role in the community of our class.

This is one story, of course, but it may help us think specifically about how moderating -- and similar assignments/roles -- encourages our multilingual learners.

Labels: , , , ,

Friday, January 29, 2016

OWI Committee’s activities at CCCC in Houston

This year at CCCC in Houston, our Committee for Effective Practices in Online Writing Instruction will be in the final stage of a three-year plan following the publication of our Position Statement. During the past two 4Cs, we've chosen a theme/focus for our many conference activities. Year one was Institution Matters. Year two was Faculty Matters. This year we will be focusing on Student Matters.
It's important and appropriate that we're concluding with student-focused concerns about OWI. Our committee and its members have several projects underway to help sharpen the field's understanding about the student experience in OWI so we can move the overall OWI research agenda forward. A big piece is our recently piloted survey about student OWI experiences, which I wrote about a few months ago in this space.
If you're headed to Houston and interested in OWI, we have a number of activities planned for CCCC that we welcome you to take part in:
  • On Wednesday, April 6 from 9:00 am to 12:30 pm, we will be offering the half-day workshop, “Taking Action with Student Retention and Success: An OWI 'Student Matters' Workshop.”
  • On Thursday, April 7 from 3:15 to 4:30, our committee will offer a panel, “CCCC Committee for Effective Practices in Online Writing: Student Matters”(I'm part of this panel).
  • Friday night, we’ll be having our Special Interest Group (SIG) meeting from 6:30 to 7:30
We’ll also be having our closed committee meeting on Friday morning.

The Student Matters theme will run throughout the conference for us. All these student-focused activities and the accompanying dialogue with our colleagues should help us considerably with the next major tasks our committee faces, including revising the Position Statement.

Labels: , , ,

Monday, November 30, 2015

Breaking the ice in your online writing course


The first week of an OWC presents teachers with some big opportunities that they can capitalize on with a good icebreaker.

An icebreaker/introduction activity can help in any course, but it's particularly valuable in the writing-focused OWC.

For one, icebreakers can be integral to constructing the author-reader relationships that drive the course; I think students need to learn quickly who the audience members (including me) are who will read them over the next few months.

Icebreakers provide students with an early low-stakes opportunity to develop their voices. Who are they in this online course? Even simple things like how they sign off on this initial post can help create the personalities the rest of the class will "see" and interact with.

Icebreakers also give teachers opportunities to develop voice and to model message board behavior. More on that in a moment.

Of course, in a broader sense, an icebreaker can help establish course community. In our committee’s A Position Statement of Principles and Example Effective Practices for Online Writing Instruction, Effective Practice 11.2 states: “OWC teachers should develop course community early by employing ‘icebreakers’ and other activities that make use of the LMS and that engage student writing.” Students can learn about each others' interests and make person-to-person connections while learning the course interface.

I use various icebreakers. Here is one that I think has provided good first-week results:
SUBJ: Who are you?
Dear members of English 102,
Make sure you read and follow the directions below carefully.
I'd like to get to know you a bit and, perhaps more importantly, for you to get to know each other. So, could you please let us know a few things about yourself?:
Tell us who you are and where you're from.
-What is your major? What are you interested in pursuing as a career?
-Describe one thing--and it can be anything--that you have that helps demonstrate an important aspect of you. Think of it this way: if we were in a face-to-face classroom and I asked you to bring something that demonstrates an important aspect of you, what would you bring and why?
-What are some topics that you like to debate or that you have strong feelings about? (Note: You don't even have to reveal which side you're on; just tell us what the topic/subject is.)

Please provide your email address, and sign this post the way you would like us to address you (i.e., do you go by a nickname?).
Looking forward to hearing about you,
Prof. Warnock

Some online teachers might resist the idea of going retro and asking students what they would bring to an onsite class, but this simple request has worked well. In their responses to each other, I’m struck by how many of them build connections that they sustain throughout the term. Once a student talked about loving elephants and attached a picture of an elephant figurine. Surprise, surprise, another student also expressed a love of elephants. Friends for life!

I require and grade the icebreaker post and a secondary response post (1), so they also get a sense of how the course grading works (it's all very low-stakes).

I do work hard during week 1, as I respond to every student’s icebreaker post. I think it’s important to establish connection from the go with them. I also, in this textual environment, want to establish myself as a real person and model how to engage on discussions.

So I write to them. You would bring your Philadelphia Eagles jersey? I share your pain. Live in Blackwood, South Jersey? I'm from near there. Bring in your Led Zeppelin IV vinyl? That's the first album I ever bought ($2 at the Berlin Auction). Are you an engineering major? That’s how I started out. Bring in pictures from your trip to India? I’d love to go there some day.

You no doubt could come up with cooler ideas (2), but any activity that gives students a chance to write about themselves helps them establish themselves in week one of an OWC – and allows you to do the same.

Notes
1) I discussed my grading approach a few years ago in "Rubric for evaluating message board posts."
2) A simple search for "icebreakers" will provide you with many good suggestions.

Labels: , ,