Twittering Under Way

A few folks have taken me up on trying to use Twitter to stay connected during the course. I wanted a way for us to connect in a more playful, informal way...as we would if we were on-campus together. Just regular chit-chat, in contrast to the much more formal communication done in the course shell via asynchronous threaded discussion. I'm enthusiastic about it because I think it will also help folks connect with the larger community of practice. For example, Nancy Duarte (author of one of our texts, slide:ology) and Garr Reynolds (we are reading an excerpt from his Presentation Zen book) are on Twitter. Also, some notable IDers and ITers, such as David Wiley, Bernie Dodge, and David Warlick.

However, I keep thinking about what to contribute. Is this important enough for me to share? It is an interesting process, and I think it will take awhile to get used to. But, I am wholeheartedly trying, and have connected with a number of folks in and out of the course so far.

Anyway, the experiment is underway. [By the way, my Twitter username is jonidunlap.]

Not using a week-by-week structure

Typically, I set up my online courses in the LMS using a week-by-week structure. However, I have never really liked that structure because it seems more natural to me to think in terms of activity, especially when those activities occur over multiple weeks. From a student-scheduling perspective, I realize that a week-by-week structure might help folks. But, I am always afraid that the week-by-week structure hides the complexity and context of projects...potentially causing important details to be lost.

When I started working on this course, I kept thinking about what I would do in an on-campus course in an attempt to simplify things, and get the workload for students (and me) under control. So, all of the structure for this course is based on what I do in on-campus courses. I provide descriptions of activities and projects with the syllabus. Then I use weekly agendas to drive what happens each week, with pointers to the various activity and project descriptions. For me, this seems more manageable, simplistic, straight-forward.

I am not sure what the students think about this structure, especially given the fact that many of them have spent a year in online courses that followed a week-by-week structure. So, my decision to structure the course based on activity type -- with weekly agendas for reference -- could fall flat. My hope is that the folks in the course will share with me their views on the design of the course so I can continue to enhance it while in progress and for the next run of the course.

No required discussion...working?

One of the things I've been concerned about with my design for the course is my decision to not requiring weekly discussions, as previously mentioned in this blog. For the first two weeks I did have an organized discussion set-up in which participation was listed on the Weekly Agendas as a to-do. My thinking with these early discussions was to make sure people were connecting to the course, each other, and me. In addition, I was hoping to sort of get people into the habit of sharing, comparing, advising, chit-chating about the activities and readings...so that when we transitioned to no-required discussion weeks that people would still want to connect and discuss in the Self-select Study Groups forums.

I really haven't given it enough time at this point. I am, as I anticipated, disappointed that people aren't clammering to discuss the readings (this week, Dr. John Medina's Brain Rules). I know that everyone has other demands on their time...and even if they wanted to participate, time just doesn't allow.

Just in case, though, I did post an announcement today as a reminder and invitation to join the discussion, if desirable. I also listed the questions I had posted in the forum so folks reading the announcement would know what was going on in the forum. There has been a little more activity since then...we'll see.

If the discussions are not relevant, then I don't want people to feel they have to participate. Then it is just busy-work...

Culminating Projects and assessment

There are three Culminating Projects for the course. One is focused on print, one on stand-alone presentation, and one on multi-modal presentation. I am pleased with the projects, and think that they will lead to quality products that are relevant to the students' workplace or community, and relevant as professional portfolio examples.

But, here's my problem. I don't like creating assessment tools for projects. I'm not good at it. It is really time-consuming to do it well. And, I have to do it because people need to know how they are being assessed. So, my next task is to get those finalized. I have drafts for all three projects, but once I post them to the course they are real...and we all have to live with them.

I'm not sure why I struggle so much with this part of teaching. I always have. I just want to provide the directions and assume that everyone will simply follow the directions and do their best. Grade = A. But, that isn't very realistic. And, again, adult learners are simply too busy -- have too many demands on their time -- to live in that much ambiguity about assessment. A little ambiguity is fine. In fact, it is the way of the world, of living in the world. But, too much ambiguity in this context leads to frustration and disconnection. So, I will get it done.

I find that searching the Internet for examples of how others have assessed this, that, or the other thing, to be very helpful. That is what I did this time too. It makes a difference because it gives me ideas, shows me alternative approaches and structures, pushes me to be better.