Friday, August 30, 2013

Ready for Round 2 of 2.0

I was really glad to see  and read the set of literature on "quiet".  This is a concept I've been intrigued with for a while.  Some of the research I have done on small groups has involved this personality type and the surprising amount that they might contribute in online environments.  Oftentimes it's more about quality than quantity.  Below I will answer the set of questions...

>How does “Quiet” help you prepare for/anticipate the coming semester and your goals as a teacher?

This is a good question.  We, as professors, run the show and we normally just let the students participate as they will.  Sure enough, by the end of the first week we have all of the extroverted students' names memorized.  Contrarily, halfway through the semester, we might still not know the names of some of our more introverted students.  I think this is a wake up call to make sure to include all students in in-class discussions and to also provide for the fact that some students will just not be as active and vocal.  I, for one, tend to pad my classes with participation points, the rationale being that they are communication courses and that communications professionals need to be active communicators.  However, I may start thinking differently.

>When you reflect on students’ participation/engagement with the connecting activity you did—or
your own participation in Community 2.0 during this semester-— what seeds/tips can you plant
for the fall? Consider how you evaluate “quiet” people and how you address privacy.


·      How have your assumptions about collaboration/participation shifted or changed?
·      How can we use/take advantage of Web 2.0 platforms to “include” and enhance everyone’s

Hmmm... I'm going to have to think about the seeds/tips.  As for how I evaluated "quiet" people my system was either the student did or did not do the activity.  On reflection, this was quite a crude measure.  I think I will implement a system this term where the evaluation is equally qualitative as quantitative.

I think most professors who've taught online or used virtual tools know that some students really come out of their shells in certain online platforms.  We should make note of which ones, in which contexts, are really allowing these individuals to be fully present and contributing to the activity at hand.

·      What are other categories of students who might find voice in these Comm 2.0 activities?

·      How does thinking about “quiet” students (or faculty members) shape your understanding of the trivium—pedagogy, community, and Web 2.0?

I don't really understand what "other categories of students" is referring to...  Thinking about "quiet" individuals, whether students or faculty, helps to see the trivium as an integrated philosophy.  Web 2.0 programs are for the benefit of all and, likewise, for all to participate in.  I know from my work with online groups that the "whole" of the enterprise, and all those involved, will benefit if the best/most productive and inclusive teaching and learning programs are being implemented.