Four teachers from Shoreline Community College presented his session. The session was billed as “advanced” but message was the basic “it is good to talk”. I am not sure if this would have impressed people at the SHU Bb conference in 2002, but I have to admit that I seemed to be in a minority there
As for the depth of pedagogic knowledge on display, they kept referring to Bloom’s taxonomy as the oracle, and I kept thinking that this is why the people who came to the ELI conference presentation a few weeks ago looked the way they did – a mixture of fear and astonishment.
There were four sections:
Collective brainstorming on the DB Boardwalk (discussion board)
- Students do more writing, and are more conscious of “audience” and “the reader”
- They were writing for each other not just the instructor
- “discussions are like transcript of a f2f class” (large ahem from me)
- the discussion board serves as collective brainstorming, becomes a collaborative writing project
no evidence to support any of this was offered, and my favourite bit was when someone asked if the discussions are graded, the answer was yes, but only a small part of grade, essays are the main assessment component
Skills and talents of ESL learner
As the session went on, it seemed that they were merely replicating a transmission model of pedagogy online, or perhaps they were not doing themselves justice. There were certainly elements of the Gilly Salmon e-tivity stuff in there, and an awful lot about getting the students online in the first week
I kept expecting them to mention information literacy, but it never happened.
Promoting critical skills
At this point, I realised that the presentation was somehow cumulative – we were moving up Bloom’s taxonomy (apparently), so this section was about when the students have moved onto a higher level, up to critical thinking attributes which happen with his top three. It also turned out that we were talking about a History of jazz class, and I was thinking that it just couldn’t get any better, could it?
We were shown examples of questions that promoted critical thinking:
What is the author assuming? What would someone who disagrees say? “when you say X, are you implying Y”, how could you answer the objection that X would make” “where did you get this idea”Is this question easy or hard to answer? Why? (the presenter reckoned the last one was his favourite)
And this is how we get to evaluation and synthesis, and then we finished off with…
Writing about race class and gender
Which is “scary stuff”
This works better online than f2f. It is a core course to meet multi cultural outcomes, the content is controversial the pedagogy is challenging (not my words)
We were shown a slide that had this on:
- Definition of learning environment –
- ideas,
- content,
- folks to bounce ideas off of
And were finally shown some examples. One of which was something the presenter claimed is always there on this course but never comes up in f2f class, about a student feeling persecuted as a white male for all the other problems. I couldn’t see this, if it doesn’t come up in class surely the teacher can change that…
They allows anonymous posts, and students can modify their posts at a later date – I would have liked to hear more about that.
They said that they cannot let the students talk among themselves for more than 6-8 hours, and the tutor has to be there, and the students are asked to post every day.