As an introvert (at least moreso than an extravert considering it as a spectrum) quiet is important to me in terms of reflection on the past semester and moving forward with course augmentation for the following term. Determining what worked, what didn’t, how to improve, or if something needs revamped entirely comes from this process. I have never had a course stay the same, from the syllabi to the assignments, as I’m on a constant search for improvement, as well as trying to democratize the classroom where possible allowing flexibility in learning and student ownership over their education.
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?
To be straightforward, in terms of the Community 2.0, while I feel what is bring put together for us is very beneficial, I always feel ‘rushed’. Thoughtfulness and time limitations aren’t close companions. I realize, of course, we are bound by a set period of hours for our meetings, but as I tell my students, your first idea is almost never your best idea, and time and patience is the commodity that is what develops the best of what we can offer.
In terms of the student assignment, the connecting activity worked on some level and needs improvement this semester. It will be written into the syllabi to reinforce the importance and requirement.
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 presence?
I feel that collaboration via the web allows for both types of people. It creates a social sphere but also allows for time to give significant thought which may not be accomplished within a live environment. As Cain put it in her TED Talk, we aren’t looking to isolate, but strike a better balance between the two types.
What are other categories of students who might find voice in these Comm 2.0 activities?
Other students, regardless of their impairments or otherwise, may find online environments more comfortable. I think that's what we're pursuing, using the technology for its benefits, to allow students to be communicative in a variety of environments, and letting everyone work in both their arenas of strength and weakness. The world won't make accommodations necessarily, so while we pursue them in education, the idea of discomfort and internal strife in some educational settings is appropriate and can even be transformative.
How does thinking about “quiet” students (or faculty members) shape your understanding of the trivium pedagogy, community, and Web 2.0?
I feel it’s imperitive to think about the personality types within the classroom. How we structure a class, whether online, hybrid, or physically based in the classroom, is our responsibility. Certainly, we could go with the traditional model, read the book, listen to lectures, take the exams and leave. But this is a very one dimensional way to challenge students to go further, to develop, to change.