Mabrito, Mark. “A Study of Synchronous Versus Asynchronous Collaboration in an Online Business Writing Class.” The American Journal of Distance Education 20.2 (2006): 93-107. ERIC. Web. 20 May 2010.
Online writing instructors have numerous questions to answer before they begin teaching their courses, one of the key questions being whether the communication and collaboration of the course will be synchronous, asynchronous, or a combination of both. After his study, Mark Mabrito concludes that we should consider using both methods. And while this may seem a little indecisive, Mabrito does offer some interesting findings that should make distance-writing instructors consider the methods of communication they rely on more fully.
After noting that learner-learner interaction generally receives less attention in the scholarship, especially regarding how the learners evaluate their own interactions and after a brief review of some of the literature and the benefits and flaws of each method of communication, Mabrito points to the four issues he wants to explore in his research: differences in the amount of interaction between students, in the focus of conversations, in the patterns of conversation, and in the students’ perceptions of the methods. For his study, he used his online business writing class of sixteen juniors and seniors (eight men and eight women). The class was in four groups (which had the same members throughout), and each group worked on two separate collaborative writing projects. For the first project, two groups used asynchronous communication and two used synchronous; the groups’ methods of communication were switched for the final project. He analyzed the exchanges based on four categories of communication: “text planned” (writing plans), “text written” (revision), “group procedures,” “group general.” He then also categorized communication as either a topic (a new point or line of inquiry) or a comment (a response to a topic or another comment).
Some of his findings were predictable. For instance, the synchronous communications produced a greater number of exchanges than the asynchronous ones. Additionally, the synchronous conversations produced many more new topics than follow-up comments (which was significantly reversed in asynchronous discussions), suggesting that the synchronous discussions tended to be somewhat “shallow.” A little more surprising was that almost two-thirds of the synchronous conversations focused on procedural and general matters, while almost 85% of the asynchronous conversations focused on the writing project. But most interesting were students’ perceptions of the methods. Three-fourths found the synchronous meetings productive and only half felt the same about the asynchronous meetings. But the majority (88%) also realized that the asynchronous meetings better helped them complete their projects.
Mabrito’s study may be rather narrow in focus (one small class over one semester), but I find it valuable for teachers who might be quick to favor one method of communication over another. While I do not think that a combination of methods is necessarily the best for every assignment, I agree with Mabrito that we should consider the values of each method in relation to the goals and needs of the students, especially the need to develop a sense of community, and not just the practical end of completing a particular task.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Article #2: Web 2.0 and Research and Writing
Purdy, James P. “The Changing Space of Research: Web 2.0 and the Integration of Research and Writing Environments.” Computers and Composition 27 (2010): 48-58. Print.
James Purdy astutely observes that composition courses tend to “compartmentalize” writing and research, establishing them as separate entities. Of course, experienced writers know this is rarely the case and that these two work in close conjunction with one another. He claims that Web 2.0, and four technologies in particular, can help us demonstrate the interconnectedness of writing and research.
Wikipedia (“Writing publicly in the research sphere”): Purdy first explores Wikipedia. Despites its faults (which he readily admits), he states that because visitors to the site can both find information on and write about any number of given subjects it provides an excellent example for our students of research and writing as related activities.
JSTOR and del.icio.us (“Customizing the (re)search experience”): JSTOR has gone from simply a database of journals to a customizable research tool. Researchers can save settings, searches, and citations and can export what they find to citation management software (e.g., EndNote), which “frame[s] [JSTOR] as a space of activity” and “explicitly links [it] to writing venues” (52). Users of Del.icio.us can customize their research experience by creating their own tags rather than relying on categories created by others.
ARTstor and del.icio.us (“Co-locating writing and research”): ARTstor is an image database that allows its users to view and analyze (within the database and not in a separate space) images. This permits students to see, through proximity, the close relationship of writing and research. Del.icio.us “co-locates” writing and research through its customizable tags. Furthermore, del.icio.us allows access from anywhere rather than just from the computer on which the bookmarks were created. Therefore, “Research becomes less about being in a particular place (e.g., an archive or library) and more about engaging in a particular activity” (54).
Del.icio.us (“Promoting research and writing as social activities”): Not only can users customize their own bookmarks and tags here; they also can share them with other users. Students thus learn the collaborative nature of research and writing and how to use the knowledge of others to build their own knowledge. And since the tags for a given Web site can vary, students learn that others view information differently, helping them understand that research materials need to be approached critically from various perspectives.
I would recommend this article to my peers and those interested in trying out new technologies in their distance writing courses (or even in their on-site writing courses). The benefits of this article are that, first, it reminds writing instructors not to disjoint the practices of writing and research. As Purdy states, we must be conscious that the message we send is not one of compartmentalization but one of interrelation. Second, this article helps those who teach writing at a distance in particular because these instructors search for innovative and student-centered ways to simulate the collaborative work that takes place in an on-site classroom and that help students understand concepts (such as the unity of writing and research) in more tangible ways even though students might not have the benefits of face-to-face interaction with the instructor or with classmates. The technologies Purdy examines can supply some of these simulations and practical lessons about the relationship of research and writing in a distance course.
However, my recommendation comes with a few caveats. First, we must remember that any technology (Web 2.0 technologies or pen and paper) pose the same dangers of compartmentalization. The problem is not simply the technology or medium we use to teach how research and writing are interconnected; the problem is more about the message we as instructors send to students about research and writing. Unfortunately, Purdy’s article does not provide specific ways to maintain that unity using these newer technologies. Second, for distance instructors, newer technologies may be a bit of a double-edged sword, especially in lower-level courses. Student difficulties with technology are hard to trouble-shoot asynchronously and from a distance. This, too, receives minor attention from Purdy. In short, the article offers some interesting examination of a few new technologies but does not supply specific application of those technologies in either a distance or an on-site classroom environment.
James Purdy astutely observes that composition courses tend to “compartmentalize” writing and research, establishing them as separate entities. Of course, experienced writers know this is rarely the case and that these two work in close conjunction with one another. He claims that Web 2.0, and four technologies in particular, can help us demonstrate the interconnectedness of writing and research.
Wikipedia (“Writing publicly in the research sphere”): Purdy first explores Wikipedia. Despites its faults (which he readily admits), he states that because visitors to the site can both find information on and write about any number of given subjects it provides an excellent example for our students of research and writing as related activities.
JSTOR and del.icio.us (“Customizing the (re)search experience”): JSTOR has gone from simply a database of journals to a customizable research tool. Researchers can save settings, searches, and citations and can export what they find to citation management software (e.g., EndNote), which “frame[s] [JSTOR] as a space of activity” and “explicitly links [it] to writing venues” (52). Users of Del.icio.us can customize their research experience by creating their own tags rather than relying on categories created by others.
ARTstor and del.icio.us (“Co-locating writing and research”): ARTstor is an image database that allows its users to view and analyze (within the database and not in a separate space) images. This permits students to see, through proximity, the close relationship of writing and research. Del.icio.us “co-locates” writing and research through its customizable tags. Furthermore, del.icio.us allows access from anywhere rather than just from the computer on which the bookmarks were created. Therefore, “Research becomes less about being in a particular place (e.g., an archive or library) and more about engaging in a particular activity” (54).
Del.icio.us (“Promoting research and writing as social activities”): Not only can users customize their own bookmarks and tags here; they also can share them with other users. Students thus learn the collaborative nature of research and writing and how to use the knowledge of others to build their own knowledge. And since the tags for a given Web site can vary, students learn that others view information differently, helping them understand that research materials need to be approached critically from various perspectives.
I would recommend this article to my peers and those interested in trying out new technologies in their distance writing courses (or even in their on-site writing courses). The benefits of this article are that, first, it reminds writing instructors not to disjoint the practices of writing and research. As Purdy states, we must be conscious that the message we send is not one of compartmentalization but one of interrelation. Second, this article helps those who teach writing at a distance in particular because these instructors search for innovative and student-centered ways to simulate the collaborative work that takes place in an on-site classroom and that help students understand concepts (such as the unity of writing and research) in more tangible ways even though students might not have the benefits of face-to-face interaction with the instructor or with classmates. The technologies Purdy examines can supply some of these simulations and practical lessons about the relationship of research and writing in a distance course.
However, my recommendation comes with a few caveats. First, we must remember that any technology (Web 2.0 technologies or pen and paper) pose the same dangers of compartmentalization. The problem is not simply the technology or medium we use to teach how research and writing are interconnected; the problem is more about the message we as instructors send to students about research and writing. Unfortunately, Purdy’s article does not provide specific ways to maintain that unity using these newer technologies. Second, for distance instructors, newer technologies may be a bit of a double-edged sword, especially in lower-level courses. Student difficulties with technology are hard to trouble-shoot asynchronously and from a distance. This, too, receives minor attention from Purdy. In short, the article offers some interesting examination of a few new technologies but does not supply specific application of those technologies in either a distance or an on-site classroom environment.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Article Post #1
Wilson Lundin, Rebecca. “Teaching with Wikis: Toward a Networked Pedagogy.” Computers and Composition 25 (2008): 432-48. Print.
In this article, Rebecca Wilson Lundin explains that wikis are not simply a novel for composition classes, but they also provide a tool to help composition teachers better incorporate the social constructivist pedagogies that inform many instructors’ practices. She supports her perspective by examining four key current pedagogical beliefs: “new media writing, collaboration, critical interaction, and online authority” (434).
First, regarding new media writing, she claims wikis can encourage students to approach their writing practices more thoughtfully. Most wikis offer their users a blank screen that allows for numerous means of conveying information, helping students understand “that the inclusion of multimedia elements is a rhetorical choice” (436). While the desire to include more multimedia texts is not new in composition, wikis may provide a new way to ease this transition.
Second, composition pedagogy, for at least the last twenty years, has claimed that collaborative work can greatly enhance learning for students. Yet the solitary author remains as the key figure in composition. By their very nature, wikis encourage collaborative work by allowing the users unrestricted edits. As Wilson Lundin states, “Essentially, the transparency of the technology encourages students to understand and reflect upon their collaborative activity, and reflection is an important part of negotiating collaborative work,” and she predicts such reflection will carry beyond online environments (439).
Third, wikis can encourage greater critical interaction. Recent composition theories have encouraged students to engage critically with the course material, each other, and the instructor. Because students can respond to each other in a variety of ways and in more detail, they can embrace more fully such critical interaction. Certainly, interaction isn’t always effective and some students may respond with offensive comments, but careful teacher interaction can limit these problems.
Finally, wikis challenge the control of the teacher. Recent composition pedagogies have emphasized the need to limit the traditional hierarchy of the classroom that places teachers in complete control; instead, such pedagogies encourage turning over some control to students to allow them some autonomy and responsibility in their education, which can give students a greater sense of power and control. This also helps them understand that nothing is beyond question, as wikis allow anyone to edit anything, including assignments and syllabi. But students can accidentally (or intentionally) delete material; however, page histories and community awareness from teacher and students can mitigate such problems.
I found this article to be particularly useful, especially for any composition instructors who, like myself, plan to incorporate wikis into their classes. And rather than being a how-to article or addressing wikis as simply a new tool to use, this article examines wikis in terms of pedagogical discussions currently occurring in rhetoric and composition. The author is also careful to note the potential drawbacks that come with wikis, and she notes that wikis are no panacea for pedagogical problems. Instead, the author draws reasonable conclusions about the pedagogical implications of wikis from her research and personal experiences, giving wikis greater legitimacy and not just the power of novelty.
In this article, Rebecca Wilson Lundin explains that wikis are not simply a novel for composition classes, but they also provide a tool to help composition teachers better incorporate the social constructivist pedagogies that inform many instructors’ practices. She supports her perspective by examining four key current pedagogical beliefs: “new media writing, collaboration, critical interaction, and online authority” (434).
First, regarding new media writing, she claims wikis can encourage students to approach their writing practices more thoughtfully. Most wikis offer their users a blank screen that allows for numerous means of conveying information, helping students understand “that the inclusion of multimedia elements is a rhetorical choice” (436). While the desire to include more multimedia texts is not new in composition, wikis may provide a new way to ease this transition.
Second, composition pedagogy, for at least the last twenty years, has claimed that collaborative work can greatly enhance learning for students. Yet the solitary author remains as the key figure in composition. By their very nature, wikis encourage collaborative work by allowing the users unrestricted edits. As Wilson Lundin states, “Essentially, the transparency of the technology encourages students to understand and reflect upon their collaborative activity, and reflection is an important part of negotiating collaborative work,” and she predicts such reflection will carry beyond online environments (439).
Third, wikis can encourage greater critical interaction. Recent composition theories have encouraged students to engage critically with the course material, each other, and the instructor. Because students can respond to each other in a variety of ways and in more detail, they can embrace more fully such critical interaction. Certainly, interaction isn’t always effective and some students may respond with offensive comments, but careful teacher interaction can limit these problems.
Finally, wikis challenge the control of the teacher. Recent composition pedagogies have emphasized the need to limit the traditional hierarchy of the classroom that places teachers in complete control; instead, such pedagogies encourage turning over some control to students to allow them some autonomy and responsibility in their education, which can give students a greater sense of power and control. This also helps them understand that nothing is beyond question, as wikis allow anyone to edit anything, including assignments and syllabi. But students can accidentally (or intentionally) delete material; however, page histories and community awareness from teacher and students can mitigate such problems.
I found this article to be particularly useful, especially for any composition instructors who, like myself, plan to incorporate wikis into their classes. And rather than being a how-to article or addressing wikis as simply a new tool to use, this article examines wikis in terms of pedagogical discussions currently occurring in rhetoric and composition. The author is also careful to note the potential drawbacks that come with wikis, and she notes that wikis are no panacea for pedagogical problems. Instead, the author draws reasonable conclusions about the pedagogical implications of wikis from her research and personal experiences, giving wikis greater legitimacy and not just the power of novelty.
Friday, May 14, 2010
Welcome!
Welcome to my blog. My goal is to use this blog to explore and evaluate some different methods of teaching writing at a distance using different collaborative tools and strategies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)