The goal for week 9 of class was “Critical
Perspectives”. We were asked to “consider,
as you read the papers for this week whether we can have multiple theoretic
frameworks inform one another, or are they separate "solitudes"? Can
we work towards a broader more eclectic perspective than given by
constructivist or critical perspectives alone?” The papers (listed at the
bottom of the post) introduced ideas of intercultural communication in online
environments, “embedded power relations and values in immersive online
environments”, and issues arising from linguistic and cultural differences of
users in an online environment. What was most fascinating for me was the fact
that in both discussion groups, and despite three very different discussion
thread prompts, much of the ensuing discussion revolved around the question of
personal identity and how students choose to represent their identity online.
Looking back at the posts that week and the insightful
learning journals of Megan
and Sherida,
three thematic questions emerge from our class exploration of “critical
perspectives”.
1.
Does disembodiment occur? If
yes, what are the consequences?
2. Do students intentionally misrepresent themselves online? If yes, is
it for nefarious reasons or because of lack of self-esteem?
3.
Do students know the difference
between the “chatter” of the fun and easy online environment of social media
and the formal discourse in a challenging academic online environment?
Disembodiment
The argument made in both the Dare and Vander Valk
articles was that the academic online environment has the potential to allow
for reduced bias in peer-to-peer as well as student-to-teacher interactions.
Dare states:
“Precisely because online education
erases the question of bodies so effortlessly and pervasively, in this essay I argue
that this “erasure” can provide a starting point for talking about and reworking
our understanding of how raced, classed, gendered bodies learn, travel, and interact
online.” (page 2)
I found the discussion on the concept of disembodiment
interesting because I don’t know that as a class (or a smaller discussion
sub-group) we came to consensus on whether or not there is in fact disembodiment
online. While obviously there is no actual body in the online environment,
current technologies allow for each user to post a profile picture, posts can
be in text, video, or audio format, and many users will also post a bio with
links to their Twitter, Tumblr and FaceBook accounts. It would not take much
effort for class members to learn about each other’s race, gender, and even habits
and preferences. While I am encouraged by the idea that an online environment
reduces many biases that occur in the classroom, I don’t see the “erasure” Dare
speaks of in her article.
Misrepresentation
Dare suggests several advantages disembodied online
environment. She speaks of the ability of online courses to increase
accessibility to higher education opportunities by drawing in from different
groups of traditionally underrepresented students. This drawing in of a diverse
study body leads to another advantage in the diversification of ideas and
perspectives. A third advantage is that students who may speak less in the
face-to-face classroom (whether due to oppression from dominant culture or
shyness or an inability to react quickly and speak on the spot) to make an
increased number of contributions to class discussions.
Again, I was most fascinated by the week’s posts because
a discussion of dominant culture ontology presenting itself in an online environment
sparked a detailed discussion of how student represent themselves online. I
found this to be an interesting twist in the dialogue. My only experience teaching
in an online environment has been teaching a blended class where students spent
three hours per week in class and then were responsible for posting one online reflection
and responding to other’s reflections each week. In this environment, I found
the students to be very open and honest and, in fact, more themselves online
than in the class. The students shared deeply and were extremely supportive of
one another online. In class, their tougher exteriors resurfaced and they didn’t
share as deeply. (For context
sake: I was teaching a group of 16-19 year olds who had been kicked out of one
or more high schools and were enrolled in a special program in the college.
Many of the students were crown wards and most had grown up in poverty. The
course was designed to look at personal issues in preparation for post-secondary
schooling. )
I have no doubt that people misrepresent themselves
online, but I think it is often done to protect oneself or to present a “better”
image. In my experience teaching the class above and in my three years working
with college students and exploring their learning management systems (an academic
online environment – but not always course specific), I found the students to
be fully authentic in the academic online environment.
Social Media
versus academic online environments
A student behaving one way when using social media and
another in an academic environment brings me to the third theme. I think just
as most students know that how to dress, talk, and behave on a Friday night at
the bar is not how they conduct themselves in a classroom on Monday morning, I
think the average student knows the difference between online behavior using
social media tools and functioning in an online course.
An excellent question sparked by the Dare article and
brought up in the week 9 discussion thread is: should students be pushed into
discomfort for purposes of social justice? Should teachers – whether they teach
chemistry, college student success skills, or critical theory be introducing
social justice into the online course environment? I think this can be done and
the Dillon, Wang and Tearle article discusses some course design elements that
can facilitate this. I also argued in my post
that inclusiveness and social justice can be woven into mindful course design.
Just as when I taught at a school for dyslexic
children and learned that teaching students with leanring challenges is just
plain old good teaching - so too, incorporating cultural and linguistic
differences is just good online practice.
Excellent online teaching is ....
1. Multi-modal - it incorporates text, video, and
other online tools
2. Builds community - models and encourages personal
interaction
3. Is Interactive- creates opportunities for input
from students and intervention from the teacher
4. Is flexible - asynchronous and synchronous options
5. Explicit - expectations of the course are laid out
at the start and guidelines for appropriate interaction are made explicit,
introductions to the technology to be used is given and extra help is offered
to those who need it.
Teachers who empower all students by making the rules
of engagement explicit help those from other cultures understand the
"unwritten rules". Flexibility in the course allows those who need
more time to compose a response that needed time. Teachers who build community
enable students to see each other as fellow humans and build the necessary
relationships that break down barriers.
Dare,
A. (2011). (Dis)Embodied Difference in the Online Class: Vulnerability,
Visibility,
and Social Justice, Journal of Online
Learning and Teaching,7(2).
Vander Valk, F. (2008). Identity, Power, and
Representation in Virtual Environments. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and
Teaching, 4 (2), 205-211.
Patrick Dillon, Ruolan Wang & Penni Tearle (2007):
Cultural disconnection in virtual education, Pedagogy, Culture & Society,
15 (2), 153-174.
No comments:
Post a Comment