Themes/theories to be researched

  • college environment theory
  • Habitus - Bourdieu
  • TAM - Technology Acceptance Model

Thursday, 21 March 2013

Who am I when I am online?



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