developing online practice as teachers

I was at an Open University staff development day yesterday and helped to run two workshops on the topic of developing online practice. My aim for these sessions, with two different groups of people, and each lasting only an hour, was to have some brief mention of the tools available now but more time on the pedagogical issues which surround the changing face of our work with students. The participants varied both in terms of the subject/faculty they teach and also in terms of the level (openings to PhD). Many of them are also undertaking further post-graduate study themselves and this brought another dimension to our discussions. I was struck that we need to continue this debate and that the medium we were discussing might well afford the means to do so.

I started with an image (with due thanks and attribution to @republicofmath from Twitter):

the difference between wondering how and wondering what ...

I proposed the following suggestions:

• In any context, pedagogy should be embodied in the environment
• Web 2.0 is more about creating content than consuming it

We discussed briefly the concerns we had regarding web 1.0, in terms of teachers - was the information the students accessed valid? How would we ensure critically evaluative skills from students? We then moved on to consider the tensions with web 2.0 - co-construction of knowledge versus plagiarism, our self perception as teachers versus guides towards creative learning. I used video recording to enable me to enhance the notes that I made and also to promote discussion about the possibilities within teaching.

Across the two groups of people, several common themes emerged:

• we need to be wary of a tool without a purpose
• does the use of moodle forums promote academic rigour (especially if students are more used to participating in different ways via social networking)?
• Might rules about re-tweets actually enhance our explanations of proper attribution?
• how can forum participation be used for assessment purposes - and should it?
• Elluminate - is it more suited to some subject matter than others?
• what about equality of access?
• harassment issues, managing mischievous threads that could snowball quickly whilst the moderator is not there
• developing as writers, getting peer feedback
• peer review versus crowd review
• developing an argument
• workload for students and teachers
• more study skills packages
• the use of the media for staff development

There was much sharing of good practice:

• setting guidelines and boundaries within welcome letter
• giving generic feedback on the forum and personal feedback via assignments
• ensuring that any perceived authority or validity which is promoted by having a record through written or audio/video podcasts is openly acknowledged
• getting students to summarise threads
• sending reports of online interactions to staff tutors to help build up a bank of evidence
• being aware of ethical considerations

We just began on the debate about creativity and whether this is truly possible for undergraduates. We began to consider the role of collaborative assignments through blogs and wikis and how this could lead to an artifact of benefit not just to the participants but to a wider audience.

During the morning sessions we had, in different groups considered many other issues surrounding teaching and learning - especially in a distance learning situation where there is some online interaction and some face to face meeting time. The module on which I tutor involves students aged from early 20s to 60s and most are teachers or trainers. I often ask why they want to do MA study and other people do not. So far I have never come up with a definitive answer! But something said yesterday by a colleague was that 'learning should be troublesome'. In other words, learning is a perturbation - and I think that this may be taking us towards an idea of why some people do and some people do not. The same colleague mentioned the 'choreography' of the tutor - in both face to face and online contexts. None of this should be underestimated, nor the trepidation with which some students face these interactions - and how we can help by using avatars and audio podcasts and so on. As another colleague pointed out, only ten per cent of communication is via words - consider body language, facial expressions, gestures, even pheromones - though it's difficult to engineer that last!

I would love to continue the debate - perhaps here on this blog or through other ideas. If you were there, I have deliberately not named anyone but feel free to name yourself in a comment. Whether you were there or not, I would welcome further thoughts.

Oh just adding this: I forgot one brilliant suggestion that we do a Twitter backchannel next time so that others can follow and join in the discussion.

Also some reading:
Mitzmacher, J. (2010) Transparency as Pedagogy, A Floor but no ceiling? http://www.mjgds.org/mitzmacher/?p=135


Truss, D, (2007) Pair-a-dime for Your Thoughts http://pairadimes.davidtruss.com/statement-of-educational-philosophy/

Wheeler, S.(2010) Communities, spaces and pedagogies for the digital age http://www.slideshare.net/timbuckteeth/communities-spaces-and-pedagogies-for-the-digital-age#

phronesis

was reminded about phronetic research today - something I haven't thought about for a while

I wrote this some time back - any comments gratefully received

Flyvbjerg (2001) takes a articular view of the role of the social sciences in being able to generate theory. He asserts that there is little point in trying to generate empirical theories, such as in the natural sciences, since the very matter being subjected to investigation cannot be suitable for that approach. He bases his work on the Aristotelian division of knowledge into episteme (scientific, know why, irrefutable), techne (craft, know how) and phronesis (ethics, values, variable, context dependent). If we are investigating what is basically a value-laden human phenomenon, Flyvbjerg suggests that we should take a phronetic approach to our methodology. In such methodology, he suggests we ask the following questions (2001: 60):
1. Where are we going?
2. Is this desirable?
3. What should be done?
4. Who gains and who loses; by which mechanisms of power?

As he states, this means that there is an implicit investigation of values but he denies that this lays the approach open to criticisms of relativism since (ibid: 132) a “focus on relations of values and power” leads to interest from others than the researcher. These others will evaluate the research themselves so the phronetic researcher must deliberately assimilate the context and learn from it – without ‘going native’.

Henstrand (2006: 16) actually embraces the idea of ‘going native’, stating that “proponents of ethnomethodology” actively encourage the researcher to become involved with the group being studied in order to “understand the contextual meanings and avoid distorting the vision of the world” – here she cites Adler and Adler (1987: 32); “going native is the solution rather than the problem”.

On the topic of the richness of data and how this can lead, if not to a simple theory, then certainly to a clearer understanding of the situation, Flyvbjerg (ibid: 133) says that phronetic researchers must begin by asking “little questions” and, with patience and attention to detail, focus on Geertz’s (1973) “thick description”. Flyvbjerg would probably agree with Wright Mills: the problem with Grand Theories is that they are too general to ever be empirically observable.