How does thinking about “quiet” students (or faculty members) shape your understanding of the trivium—pedagogy, community, and Web 2.0?
Our classrooms are just one of the interactive environments our students inhabit. While I was reading and viewing the Quiet materials, I kept thinking of the spectrum of introversion to extroversion that I have seen in students (and that many people exhibit), depending on what's happening in class, or outside. I try to be cautious about how I interpret student behavior in class, especially with first year and adult ed students, because their academic identity may still be forming. For my own purposes, I find it safest to expect behaviors on a spectrum, and allow for some acknowledging of a tendency towards extro- or intro- as class relationships develop. I'm not sure about whether it's better to work on aligning behaviors in and outside of classes
It's my job to create opportunities for learning for everyone in all the classes that I work with: that means that students have to be asked to work with whatever materials being used in class in a variety of ways: in writing, discussions, presentations, formal assessments, and others...I think engaging students in multiple modes with the same materials addresses the needs of the quiet and unquiet. It's also a way for us to deepen students' understandings of concepts, instead of a splatter effect approach to skills development.
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.
We are going to implement a commenting activity on the student journal for adult literacy students. It's a modified type of peer review that instructors can lead in the labs they have for an hour or so each week. Some of the questions and concerns to address are:
how do we moderate the commenting--should it be turned on only during lab times, so the general public can't add to it?
should we let students post anonymously? does that somehow let quiet people stay "quiet?" would anonymous posting affect the quality of peer reviews?
What extensions can we do in person, aloud to bring actual voices to the conversation, instead of printed word. Can students post audio comments on wordpress (I don't think so, but maybe we could link recordings somehow.)
What are other categories of students who might find voice in these Comm 2.0 activities?
- working students who don't have time for on-campus activities
- students who are uncomfortable with spoken English
- students who are uncomfortable with hand writing (we still do a lot of that in class)
- students who aren't sure if they share anything in common with other LAGCC students
- people who need an opportunity to write for other purposes, or create multimodal presentations that engage other senses