Re: A question for Kathy
Kathy Ahern (kahern who-is-at unlinfo.unl.edu)
Thu, 16 May 1996 16:55:23 -0500
Hello Mike Cole--Thanks for the thought provoking questions, since I have a
tendency to "lurk" rather than participate, especially in new situations
and settings.
Let me see if I understand the situation. A number of UC classes
meet at different times, but share a focus on exploring diversity and
development?
Up front I'll say we never sought this "twist" in our situation.
We worked with groups in two time zones, a real challenge, because we
wanted to meet and begin our group discussions simultaneously in "real
time." In contemplating my own experiences with SEER and live TV
broadcasting, we intentionally designed a seminar workshop approach, where
we acknowledged that TV is essentially a monologic medium. The critical
job we set for ourselves was to promote a more dialogic situation, to
"penetrate the glass wall" to "create and retain the interactive illusion
in televised distance learning."(G. Gutenko, 1991. Can.Comm.Assn.Conf.
Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario). To this end, we assumed that we
would act as "discussion starters" and begin by sharing what our
interdisciplinary development group viewed as the more salient points of
interest on radon and water. At some level, the technology needs to be as
transparent as possible to foster discourse. Having a burning question or
comment to share; an audience (1 will do) ready to listen, and a manageable
means to to get timely responses. Therein lies the challenge.
I think that the most important thing we did was acknowledge the
need to promote human interaction and communication through as many means
as possible. We tried everything we could think of, from encouraging a
local group of two or more per site, to every other means of communication,
electronic or otherwise, we could access. We promoted weekly e-mail
journaling around two or three open-ended questions that dealt with the
weekly program topic. Each of the participants were encouraged to
communicate directly with an assigned development team member, who was
expected to reply as if in conversation with that individual. Not every
participant chose to engage electronically. Some wrote letters, others
FAXed us, still others talked on the phone during or after the program.
Every site where participants met had at least one FAX machine. We
expected each group to share the job of summarizing the group's weekly
discussions and FAX them to us. (We made a 1 page form to write on and
send. Some groups wrote more.) Groups with more than 3 members seems to
have worked better than the 1 pair did. I leave readers speculate at this
point as to why larger groups appeared to work. Feedback from others on
this list is welcomed!
Mike, my experience is different than the one I interpret you to
intend. What I say at this point is my "best guess." Encourage each group
to negotiate a summary of their class discussions and share that job as
creatively as possible. I think that reflective writing is another key
point. I have encountered my significant "distant teachers" by writing
reflective reader responses to their work, then sharing within an
electronic discussion group.
Do students at your institution have access to e-mail? Could you
set up a class listserv or electronic discussion group? I believe everyone
in the class should write for themselves, and also to share ideas with
someone else. Is there a way to initiate a random exchange of written work
among students on an occasional individual basis? (Paper as well as
electronic?) Can class groups (or subgroups within each class) draft brief
discussion papers and post these electronically?
It might help to negotiate a group understanding of integrity in
reader responses. How might one challenge an idea without being
disagreable or insulting? Is it possible to disagree without being
disagreable? How might one read a challenge without being defensive or
taking insult? (Maybe this sort of trust-building activity is just a
Nebraska cultural phenomena, but it seems to work.)
In short, I have questions, and a willingness to try virtually any
means available to foster communication among a community of learners, as
well as participate actively. How closely does the teacher monitor and
mediate the class discussion? According to my observations, teachers tend
to err on the side of doing too much, and talking too much, and students
too little. But teachers talking less is unsettling to students as well,
especially if they are not used to valuing their own questions and
discussions.
How many ways can learners in distant places communicate with each
other and still foster the sense of personal connection? How do we
validate an individual's desire to communicate, to be heard, and to respond
to each other with support and dignity? This might be a point of
discussion that others on this list take up.
Kathy
*****
Kathryn A. Ahern e-mail: kahern who-is-at unlinfo.unl.edu
SEER Water Project phone: 402-472-4162
N-160 George W. Beadle Research Center FAX: 402-472-7842
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Lincoln, NE 68588-0664
The Water Project is an interdisciplinary distance learning project of the
Satellite Education and Environmental Research (SEER) Program.