Author Archive for Kate

Transparency, ownership, responsibility: reasons students should write on public blogs

Back in the spring, Deborah, Mikhail, Jill and I presented on blogging (with students, with fellows) at Baruch’s technology conference. Although we had lots to say about what we were doing, we also ended up saying quite a bit about the hows and whys of blogging with students, since the audience appeared to have a wide spectrum of experience with blogging.

Underlying every such discussion is that old chestnut– “Why blogging instead of Blackboard?”

I have reasons ranging from aesthetics and useability to more pedagogical ones. I like the primacy that’s given to the writer in a blog, as opposed to the threaded discussion format of Blackboard. But the biggest benefit in blogging for me is that students (or fellows, for that matter) are having a public conversation on a blog. Here on cac.ophony.org, our institute’s conversations obviously benefit greatly from the regular reader-contributors, as well as those just passing through.

For students, I’d argue the value of a public conversation even if “outsiders” aren’t allowed to comment (though I’d also argue that in most cases, allowing the public to comment is a good idea). This allows students to engage with interested parties who surf in. For our students, it also adds an extra layer to whatever blogging the class is doing: participants have to think of a wider audience. This is a responsibility that does not accompany other kinds of class writing. Many faculty ask students to imagine they’re writing for an audience besides the professor and classmates. With a blog, and a bit of publicity, there’s no need to imagine an audience.

What better way to prepare students for writing in the world of work, than to have them write in the world, while they’re students?
Many professors thinking of blogging for the first time with students are reluctant to leave Blackboard behind as a discussion venue due to worries about the public nature of blogs. There’s the fear that your comments will be filled with viagra ads. Most objections to non-password-protected blogs relate to a lack of understanding of how well spam filters can work to keep out the riff-raff and random garbage.
Sometimes there’s also a concern that participants won’t be able to write as freely on a given issue if the venue is public. I’d argue that even in cases such as faculty development, where bloggers might like to say some things privately to one another, it would be best to have writers mark individual posts as private and password-protected (for members only) and most others public. This does make things a bit more complex for people doing the posting (they have to remember to check the right box!) but it seems do-able. And most postings are unlikely to be of a sensitive nature.

I really like the reasons Weblogg-ed gave the other day for preferring blogs to discussion boards, especially the focus here on transparency and ownership:

… the interesting thing is that he mentioned that he doesn’t see how blogs are much of an improvement over discussion boards. I’ve been reading and reflecting a lot on the conversation from a few days ago, and some of the outcomes from my workshop this week, and I have to say I think the difference is obvious: transparency. When I post to my blog, it not only has a chance to be read by a billion people, it also lives on in the Google-able and Technorati-able world of content. It also gets linked to by other people having other conversations. And it also creates a real sense of ownership of the ideas and the membership in the community.

Alan Liu’s draft policy statement on student use of Wikipedia in research

Yes, sorry, I am posting about Wikipedia again. But I thought I would solicit your thoughts on Alan Liu’s draft policy statement on student use of Wikipedia (via Kairosnews). It has also been picked up by the Chronicle of Higher Education’s Wired Campus.

What do you think?

WikiPedia tightens its editorial policies… ever so slightly

I was not surprised to hear that WikiPedia was tightening its editorial policies. But after reading this article in today’s Times, I was intrigued and heartened by the limited way in which they’ve done so. According to this article, when Wikipedia limits who can edit an entry, it’s for a few days, a “cooling down period” to get vandals to lay off. Or they restrict an entry to editors who’ve been registered at Wikipedia for more than 4 days. Sounds quite lenient, really. And it sounds like it’s enough. The list of protected articles, which cannot be edited, includes “Human Rights in the People’s Republic of China,” and “Cuba;” articles which can be edited only by those who’ve been on Wikipedia for four or more days include “God,” “Michael Jackson,” “Christianity,” and (intriguingly) “Republic of Maldova.”

I’m sure we’ve all seen examples of Wikipedia vandalism. There’s a nice illustration of how it appears, and how swiftly those who see a particular entry as their “realm” may arrive to correct it, in Jon Udall’s amazing screencast “Heavy Metal Umlaut, the Movie” (which I’ve mentioned on the blog before as a wonderful illustration of how wikis work and how Wikipedia is edited–it’s interesting as well as really funny). In this example, vandalism appears and is corrected seconds later.  Other items, which are not so closely monitored, may retain errors much longer.  Those I’ve caught have been pretty blatant, and so not too “dangerous” to any but the most naive readers.

All of this is by way of saying that things are not bad in the Wikipedia world. Wikipedia users may not be up to 100% freedom, all the time. But they’re not doing so badly after all. The honor system works for most people, most of the time.

The best soundbite in the Times article was this:

Wikipedians often speak of how powerfully liberating their first contribution felt. Kathleen Walsh, 23, a recent college graduate who majored in music, recalled the first time she added to an article on the contrabassoon.

“I wrote a paragraph of text and there it was,” recalled Ms. Walsh. “You write all these pages for college and no one ever sees it, and you write for Wikipedia and the whole world sees it, instantly.”

That’s the first reason I love Wikipedia.

The second? A while back, I was co-facilitating at a seminar for teachers on ways to use blogs, wikis and so on. During a session in which participants looked at Wikipedia (in most cases for the first time), one teacher, new to Wikipedia, registered and started an entry on an African tribe that she noticed was not included. Within minutes, it had been added to and elaborated on by another user. It’s hard not to get excited about collaborative encyclopedia writing, in real-time, with complete strangers.

How are you using Wikis with your students?

Excuse me, sir, but your online persona is showing.

PhD student bloggers were warned last year by Ivan Tribble (writing under a pseudonym in the Chronicle of Higher Education) that blogs with one’s real name attached might pose a threat to one’s search for a tenure-track teaching job. The article was controversial. Some respondents on the Chronicle’s forums agreed, while others objected on the basis that having a blog could enhance one’s professional persona. The article’s author trotted out many examples of “academic” bloggers who exposed aspects of their lives that job search committees would find disturbing. Still other readers objected (pointlessly, you have to admit) to the very idea that potential employers might google applicants. Others felt that most people who wrote anything but 100% professional blogs had already realized they should only write to an anonymous blog. (Of course, Tribble, who himself hid under a pseudonym, made it clear that no blogs were good blogs as far as he–as a search committee member–was concerned.)

Then The New York Times addressed the phenomena of employee bloggers a few weeks back. And now, it has turned its sights to other embarrassing materials students leave scattered about online. Apparently, students post all kinds of embarrassing things on myspace.com, Friendster, and Facebook, not to mention personal blogs. It’s a reminder that we need, somehow, somewhere, to address students about these kinds of issues. I’ve always tried to do my little bit to support careers services by mentioning to students in my classes that they might want to have a professional email address to use with professors, and those who hire interns and employees, and frankly, anyone involved in one’s education or work career. It is not always readily apparent to students that “hotgirl357@hotmail” or even “RoyalsFan69@yahoo” is maybe not the best email to use in professional settings: they’re memorable, sure, but for the wrong reasons. Being a Royals fan is probably not going to lose students any interviews, but don’t they want email-ees to know the name of the person the message is coming from? When students are reminded of these issues, they usually get it.

But there’s more than embarrassing email addresses at stake. We should be encouraging students early and often to think about what they’re putting out there with their names attached. As this University of Illinois student who was looking for a job (who was cited in the Times article “For Some, Online Persona Undermines Resume”) discovered too late, students should consider who might be reading:

At Facebook, a popular social networking site, the executive found the candidate’s Web page with this description of his interests: “smokin’ blunts” (cigars hollowed out and stuffed with marijuana), shooting people and obsessive sex, all described in vivid slang.

It did not matter that the student was clearly posturing. He was done.

“A lot of it makes me think, what kind of judgment does this person have?” said the company’s president, Brad Karsh. “Why are you allowing this to be viewed publicly, effectively, or semipublicly?”

If they want to post less-than-professional descriptions of themselves on Facebook, myspace, or otherwise, students should think about the usefulness of pseudonyms.
They’re good enough for Ivan Tribble at the Chronicle, after all.

That’s the no-brainer, right?  Don’t attach your name to anything you don’t want your name attached to.  But the issue becomes murkier–and this is where Ivan Tribble invited all kinds of argument–when what students or employees or academics are putting online is more-or-less professional.  At that point, is Tribble right?  Is blogging still a no-no?  What rules should we follow when using our names online?  Assuming we’re sharing our views on higher-level issues than smokin’ blunts, and we’re not dragging anyone’s name through the mud, at what point does any online writing cross the line to become too personal?  At what point do we expose something we should not?

Towards a taxonomy of course blogs

Deborah, Jill, Mikhail and I are speaking today (Friday) at Baruch’s Ninth Annual Teaching and Technology Conference. One thing I am going to be speaking briefly about is different types of course blogs, and how they may lend themselves to supporting Communication Across the Curriculum. Since I have been dredging the ‘net to find samples, I have decided to post them here too.

I will offer these samples which represent a simple taxonomy of course blog structures:

1) Teacher writes, students read: this course blog is really a tool for professors making announcements, offering links, and clarifying assignments. Some professors post lectures or podcasts, or notes. While it is useful on many levels, the student is not actually involved as an active communicator (writing, speaking, or otherwise). Since it doesn’t satisfy the reasons I’d recommend course blogs, I won’t offer samples of these, but I will say that a google search will yield an enormous number of “course blogs” where they only person writing is the professor. All of the other kinds of course blogs I’ve seen, by the way, also include professor’s links, assignments, and the other items included in this category of blogs, but they also include the students’ presence to a much greater degree.

2) Teacher writes, students comment in detail: this is a big departure from the first category. Students are not writing the blog posts, but they are commenting / responding to them. Many professors, including this one at the University of Maryland, use this model in order to post assignments, ideas, or announcements and have students complete them in one place (the comments thread); ideally, the students are talking to each other as well as the professor. Matt Kirschenbaum says of the blog, in his syllabus for the course,

I will use the blog to post announcements, assignments, updates to the calendar, and other administrative items. I will also post questions, provocations, and items related to our current reading and discussions. You may respond to these in the comments section of each entry. I will take blog comments into account when evaluating class participation.

Here’s a sample posting, and the students’ discussion in the comments.

3) Students and teacher take turns writing to the blog and they all comment: since posting on the blog is in a sense primary (you go to the blog and you see the blog posting), and commenting is secondary (you have to click on “comments” to read them), this shifts the balance again. This structure is setting up a different kind of discussion. An example is this website for a course taught by Terra Williams and Charlie Lowe at Florida State: Writing, Researching and Reading the World Wide Web. In this entry, a student’s posting elicits comments (and comments upon comments).

4) Small groups of students have their own group blogs, and the teacher checks in on all of these: this might be useful for courses with group projects of some kind.

5) Teacher has a blog, every student has a blog, and they are all linked together via a central site: everyone posts, and everyone visits the various blogs and reads them. This may sound like a lot of work, but Bloglines or another RSS feed reading tool make it easy and quick to read lots of blogs on one page. It is a good structure if students are doing some sort of projects, as here, in Jane McGonigal’s Game Design as Art Practice course at the San Francisco Art Institute. This model gives every student their own space and they can complete assignments there, then visit classmates’ sites (or read them via an RSS feed reader). Here are two of the students’ blogs (which are linked from the central blog that the professor uses for her own announcements and assignments): kittyparty, and Imperfect Information.

Here’s another example: the Creating History in New Media course taught by Paula Petrik at George Mason. Here are two students’ blogs: Phyllis E. Slade-Martin’s blog and Robert Harless’s blog.
Here are some articles which might be of interest as you consider adding blogging to your course:

Weblogs in Education: Bringing the World to the Liberal Arts Classroom (Note: also applicable to non-Liberal Arts classrooms!)

The WiKipedia entry for blogs.

I have some others, but am out of time. If folks would like to comment below with their favorite blogging-in-college-courses links– preferably ones available online– I will add them to this list.

writely.com, anyone?

Have any of you tried using Writely? It’s a site where you can share the writing and editing of documents, collaboratively. Teachers are beginning to use it as a space where students can write a document together, or do peer review. It would be useful for faculty who are co-authoring, too. Registration is free and takes two minutes. You can create documents there, or upload and download them in various formats (Word and others).

To: Professor@University.edu Subject: Why It’s All About Me

This article in today’s New York Times caught my attention. It’s about the emails students sometimes send professors (which are sometimes demanding, inappropriate, abrupt, etc.) and the way professors sometimes feel overwhelmed by these.

At first, it struck me as another article about how technology and education are a bad mix. Usually these are about school districts that have banned student blogs, because students reveal too much personal information online, or about how IM-ing is allegedly ruining students’ ability to spell properly. The general tone of this genre is negative. Some of it is true, but a lot of it is sensational.

But at closer look, I saw this article as having some interesting insights: first, that we need to train students to communicate over email. And it does not have to take up a huge chunk of time. But what could be more relevant in communication-intensive courses than to spend a moment on what kind of communication is appropriate? At Baruch, where we’re preparing students largely for the world of business, teaching students to email professors is relevant to teaching them how to interact with people in companies they may work with.

Professors cited in the article complained that students were emailing to ask what kind of notebook they should buy, to request paper drafts be read days before the final draft was due, or to give excuses for absences (the example was not a serious one, but a student taking the day off class to play with his child).

Though they had many complaints about email content and delivery,

Still, every professor interviewed emphasized that instant feedback could be invaluable. A question about a lecture or discussion “is for me an indication of a blind spot, that the student didn’t get it,” said Austin D. Sarat, a professor of political science at Amherst College.

College students say that e-mail makes it easier to ask questions and helps them to learn. “If the only way I could communicate with my professors was by going to their office or calling them, there would be some sort of ranking or prioritization taking place,” said Cory Merrill, 19, a sophomore at Amherst. “Is this question worth going over to the office?”

But student e-mail can go too far, said Robert B. Ahdieh, an associate professor at Emory Law School in Atlanta. He paraphrased some of the comments he had received: “I think you’re covering the material too fast, or I don’t think we’re using the reading as much as we could in class, or I think it would be helpful if you would summarize what we’ve covered at the end of class in case we missed anything.”

Students also use e-mail to criticize one another, Professor Ahdieh said. He paraphrased this comment: “You’re spending too much time with my moron classmates and you ought to be focusing on those of us who are getting the material.”

Michael Greenstone, an economics professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said he once received an e-mail message late one evening from a student who had recently come to the realization that he was gay and was struggling to cope.

Professor Greenstone said he eventually helped the student get an appointment with a counselor. “I don’t think we would have had the opportunity to discuss his realization and accompanying feelings without e-mail as an icebreaker,” he said.

A few professors said they had rules for e-mail and told their students how quickly they would respond, how messages should be drafted and what types of messages they would answer.

Meg Worley, an assistant professor of English at Pomona College in California, said she told students that they must say thank you after receiving a professor’s response to an e-mail message.

The bottom line is that professors just aren’t used to that much contact with students. And students are sometimes so comfortable with email as a quick and rough medium for communication, that they forgo the niceties of polite communication. It seems like some of the comments students were sharing according to the article (such as requests for feedback on drafts, or requests that material be handled more slowly or more quickly) might even help professors tweak their courses to better suit student needs.

As with classroom face-to-face interactions, it does not hurt to make the ground rules clear. It also doesn’t hurt to remind students of the amount of time it can take to type out answers to lots of questions–and that often a quick word at the end of class, or a quick phone call during office hours might be more efficient.

For professors who might want to share some emailing advice with students, say in a link from a course website, “How to email a professor,” from Orange Crate Art gets to many of the complaints in the NYT article.

WAC and service learning?

Are there any service learning courses at Baruch? Are they Communication Intensive? I am kind of curious, since service learning is popular right now in higher ed. In any case, I am sure this will be of interest to someone.

Call for Papers: Writing Across the Curriculum is a permanent section of the Midwest Modern Language Association. The 48th Annual M/MLA Convention will be held November 9-12, at The Palmer House Hilton, Chicago, Illinois.
This year’s theme is “Service Learning: Writing for/about the Community.”

This panel invites papers from all disciplines on Writing Across the Curriculum and encourages proposals from community colleges and online learning institutions in addition to traditional four-year colleges and universities.

Panel Description:
This panel will explore the various ways that the pedagogy of service learning and civic engagement are incorporated into English composition courses and writing courses across disciplines. Through analysis and discussion, we will examine the relationships between theories and institutional practices and explore service learning as a framework for discovery, engagement, and professional development.

Please email a 250-word abstract to Joseph A. Barda (Section Chair) by March 31, 2006.

Joseph A. Barda
Curriculum Chair- Humanities and Social Sciences
Robert Morris College
Chicago, Illinois

(From the Literary Calls for Papers Mailing List)

More on Pedagogy and Technology

From InsideHigherEd, an article by Laura Blankenship, “Technology as a Liberal Art,” focuses on the uses of blogging and other forms of technology in a liberal arts setting.
There’s more reportage here on how professors are using technology as a tool for commenting on papers, or for offering lectures via podcasts and screencasts to be consumed before class meets:

At Bryn Mawr, Michelle Francl, a professor of chemistry, is recording all of her lectures for her physical chemistry course. She’s capturing her computer screen and her voice, saving the video and the audio file, and posting them to her blog. For now, these recorded lectures, or screencasts and podcasts, serve primarily as review for the students. In the future, however, she plans to assign these recorded lectures much as she would assign a text and use class time for something more engaging than a lecture.

As she said recently at a conference, “I used to always show the students the easy case during the lecture and send them home to work on the hard case, but that’s just the opposite of what I think I should do. Now we can work on the hard case in class.”

I liked this for a number of reasons. First of all, in some courses, lecturing, in some form and at least some of the time, is actually necessary. (This flies in the face of the pedagogical styles most writing and literature folks, like myself, have been moving towards, but for some types of content, lecturing serves an important function.) Secondly, Francl is using the technology to spring-board her in-class work to new levels. Rather than offering podcasted lectures as a way for absent students to catch-up, Francl’s method challenges students with information needed for the next task they’ll do together.

I can also see some barriers here. Faculty need support in identifying creative and useful ways–like those Francl has found–to use technology to enhance existing courses. This means time, money, and human support (skilled people who can help with the process). I hope that colleges see the value in this work, and invest in it.

(Why) can’t Johnny (B.A., honors) read?

Today’s Inside Higher Ed includes an article on the new report from the Education Department “The National Assessment of Adult Literacy,” which makes some alarming claims:

Not only does it find that the average literacy of college educated Americans declined significantly from 1992 to 2003, but it also reveals that just 25 percent of college graduates — and only 31 percent of those with at least some graduate studies — scored high enough on the tests to be deemed “proficient” from a literacy standpoint, which the government defines as “using printed and written information to function in society, to achieve one’s goals, and to develop one’s knowledge and potential.”

“This seems like another piece of hard evidence, a fairly clear indication, that the ‘value added’ that higher education gave to students didn’t improve, and maybe declined, over this period,” said Charles Miller, the former University of Texas regent who is heading the U.S. education secretary’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education. “You have the possibility of people going through schools, getting a piece of paper for sitting in class a certain amount, and we don’t know whether they’re getting what they need. This is a fair sign that there are some problems here.”

There are, of course, also always problems with these sorts of reports, and these sorts of statistics. I also hope that Charles Miller is not assuming that a change in student outcomes rests solely on the actions of educational institutions, and college-level ones at that. I have not yet read the full report, which can be downloaded as a PDF here, but I have seen many similar reports, as we all have.

Anyone who has ever been forced to sit through one of Jay Leno’s lame routines, where he asks American college students wandering the streets of Hollywood to identify the current President and Vice President, or to find Germany or Hawai’i on a map, and heard their so amusing, so very silly answers, knows Something Is Terribly Wrong Here. To watch Jay Leno, you might believe that “75% of college graduates are not proficient from a literacy standpoint.” Can things really be that bad? Are 69% of graduate students also lacking proficiency in everyday literacy? Am I, to put things another way, completely surrounded by the 31% of grad students who are equipped to survive, literacy-wise? One explanation for the shockingly low numbers is that researchers classified people into three groups: basic, intermediate, and proficient. That’s a bit odd, isn’t it?

While I am skeptical about these numbers, I am ready to agree that the education system is not doing enough for students. I do think it is a bit silly to talk about the failures of higher education in this area as if students’ abilities, skills, backgrounds, and most especially their preparation at earlier levels of education were not also factors in the literacy levels they reached at the college age. As the Inside Higher Ed article notes, this point was not lost on the researchers who “agreed there was significantly more work to be done to determine whether (a) colleges are taking students who have been significantly underprepared by their previous schools, (b) the colleges are failing to catch those students up, or both.”

You don’t need a fancy study. Ask College students what they have trouble doing. Ask what skills and tasks are new to them, or rarely asked of them. Ask them what tasks are. What’s missing?

And how do we get more students–at every level–into the “proficiency” (i.e. winners’) circle? Reading Across the Curriculum is not a term you hear bandied about as much, say, as WAC, or CAC, or WID. But it is an integral part of this work. The study identifies different types of literacy: prose literacy (reading the Times or understanding a brochure), document literacy (interpreting a chart or graph), and quantitative literacy (dealing with numbers: checkbooks, percentages). One thing I actually appreciate about the CUNY Proficiency Exam (and I don’t, as a rule, go around appreciating high-stakes tests) is that the second part requires a combination of the latter two forms of literacy. But do we require these of students, outside of the testing scenario, often enough? The article also cites a study at Illinois State which “found that honors students were assigned an average of fewer than 50 pages of reading a week, and that two of five students acknowledged completing less than half of that work.” What exactly do we do about the students who don’t (carefully) read what’s assigned?