The use of online modalities such as blogs,
forums, chatroom, and other similar venues have increasingly played a strong
role in teaching writing the last decade. This is a result of the use of
computers and the Internet in distance learning.
The cartoon featured at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Internet,_nobody_knows_you%27re_a_dog has the caption “On the Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog.” The
context of this cartoon is related to Internet anonymity – computer users on
the internet are able to traverse the net in anonymity. For distance learners,
I believe the use of MOO and Skype does not afford them 100% anonymity.
This brings up some thoughts related to the
Internet that I would like to share.
My Composition Theory class at Texas A&M
was conducted in the computer lab where we all chatted online in the same room,
both the lab and the chatroom. It was a new type of delivery and experience
that the department was trying to introduce to the students (around 1992-1993).
There was no anonymity because our chat was linked to our name. There may have
been some anonymity in terms of what we shared and our emotions were not shown
unless we described them in our words. Some people did not know who others were
in spite of seeing them in class, we did not have much opportunity to introduce
ourselves verbally by name to make connections to the online text. It was a bit
odd now that I think more about this. We rarely had verbal f2f conversation,
most were online.
My first semester at Texas Tech was my first
experience with MOO. I had to join in the class as a guest which made it cumbersome
because other students were identified by name and I as well as one other
student had to identify ourselves every time we “spoke.” Eventually, I got my
username straightened out. Interestingly, since the MOO was connected to
Moodle, we were able to get everyone’s background information. That itself was
intimidating for this first-year MATC student. This intimidation diminished
after a few MOO sessions – getting to know fellow students a bit more, getting
a sense of personality by how they type, etc.
This semester is my first experience using
Skype. There is some anonymity in the Skype sessions in such we can utilize
chat or we can speak. In some ways, we can be anonymous just chatting – no sense
of revealing emotion in what we say as we would speaking. There’s also
anonymity in the sense no one seems to know what we all look like since Skype
is chat/voice, no video.
Of course these experiences do not reflect
the gist of the cartoon in question. But taking that context, I feel that there
is something to be said for anonymity – many students may reveal more of their knowledge
without the intimidation of being known. I know I do when I’m anonymous – there’s
a feeling of freedom to share thoughts and opinions without fear of being known
outside of that anonymity. However, there is a need to know who they are, as an
instructor, to effectively teach and grade performance. If I had to choose
between MOO and Skype, I’d choose MOO simply because I feel that more is shared
that way than just by voice/chat. Also the plus side of MOO is receiving transcripts
as notes.
By the way, my dogs, Sarah (5) and Foxy (14), do not
think they are dogs.
Nice pics! I like the idea of including the personal into public spaces.
ReplyDeleteAt some point it might be useful for you to comment on how Skype may be a specific challenge for you, in others' blog posts, as a comment. It's important for us to know how different modalities may or may not be effective for everyone else.
There's a concept called media-naturalness theory which suggests that the more "natural" a communication situation (such as it approximates face to face), the less likely there is to have ambiguity in the situation. Following that theory, Skype (with audio or even video) approximates f2f better than MOO (text only). Still, for some, the semi-anonymous nature of MOO over Skype, as you've indicated, can be useful to getting something out of a class. In fact, sometimes "known anonymity" (that is, the same anonymity every week), maximizes voice (Elbow) but understanding of the discourse community (Bartholmae) and responsibility. It is planned flexibility. Thinking about ways to give room to students to dedicate time needed (and the amount of time is different for every student) to build ideas, etc., before sharing them, is important. For me, text does that better than audio and video, where you're more immediately transparent or on the spot. For me, with online classes, I believe the cognitive development or "aha moments" are more developed with text, with grad students taking rhetoric courses, ultimately.
Julie,
ReplyDeleteAfter reading your post, I thought back to my f2f classes and remember the lectures in class and the students responding more directly with the professor than one another. At least in the MOO you can, "(Julie) Sarah and Foxy look like they get along great!" without being too much of a distraction. I've been in some MOO classes where there have been multiple threads of conversation ongoing at the same time, which can be a little distracting, but at least you can ignore their text and move to the next line that you're interested in reading. In class, you might get "that stare" from the professor before she continued. So, the MOO might just be more conducive to learning personalities. But then with the anonymity factor, would those same people be willing to speak as freely in f2f - I know I would as I try to be the same person whether sitting at my keyboard or in person. Sure makes you wonder.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete