Ken Ronkowitz :: Blog

http://weblogs.elearning.ubc.ca/chendricks/2008/12/whose_discussion_que

One of the courses I teach on a regular basis has a significant discussion component--after a two hour lecture each week, I and a group of about 20 students meet twice a week for 1.5 hours each to discuss the texts and lecture. I have found that I tend to develop a pattern of encouraging discussion on the questions I'm interested in, and somehow am not doing enough to generate discussion on students' own questions and ideas. I am not doing this on purpose, but this pattern has inevitably developed each time I've taught this course (this is my third year doing so).

Each year I ask that students come to class ready with something to contribute to discussion, be it a question or a comment, related to the text or the lecture or earlier discussions or just the topic in general. And each year, by the middle of the year (it's a year-long course), we have fallen into the pattern of no one having much to say but me. I ask at the beginning of each class if anyone has anything they'd like to ensure we talk about, and usually there is little to nothing. So then we go on to discuss the questions I have already planned.

I think I am discouraging them from taking the initiative in discussions without really recognizing that I am doing so (until I reflect on it, like I am doing now!). By having several things ready to talk about beforehand, and always moving straight into those when no one has anything else to say, I am setting in place a pattern where students can just wait and see what I want to discuss. They don't have to take the initiative because I always do so. This is understandable, of course: if I don't have anything ready, then we might just sit there looking at each other in uncomfortable silence. To avoid this, I have lots of discussion questions and topics ready to go. But it sets up a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy: out of concern that others won't have much to say, I prepare a lot, thereby ensuring that others don't need to have much to say and thus don't do so.

Besides not knowing if what I am bringing up for discussion is engaging to them or not, and not encouraging the opportunity for them to come up with things to discuss that are, by guiding discussion in this way I am also setting up the expectation that they don't need to really contribute that much overall. I am in charge of the topics we discuss, and since I've thought about them beforehand, I have the most to say about them. Students who are hearing these topics for the first time may not be as ready to talk about them as if they had thought them up on their own. Further, the atmosphere in the classroom tends to be less student-driven overall as a result: their only role is to respond to questions I bring up, and for many of them, not even that--too many students sit back passively for much of the time rather than taking an active part. And I am encouraging this by taking on the role of the one who is in charge of the discussion. Further, it can sound like I have something in mind that I want them to say in response to the topics I bring up (since I've thought about them beforehand), even though I try very hard to avoid these kinds of topics and questions and only ask open-ended ones that I don't have a clear answer to myself.

How to remedy this situation? Some preliminary ideas:

1. Hold students to the requirement that they come to class with something to talk about, perhaps by calling on them, or asking them to turn in their question/topic/comment/idea in writing. Ideally, it would be good if they could do so before the seminar, so I could take these into account when planning the seminar meeting. I have tried something like this before with having a few students per day responsible for a question/topic for discussion, and requiring that they send this to me via email before our meeting. It worked fairly well, though often students have questions/comments that I myself have little to say about, and that don't generate much discussion from others either. But at least it's an attempt. In the previous course I just had each student responsible for one day out of the whole course (b/c there were many students); whereas for this course each one would have to have a question/comment about every 2-3 weeks. That might be doable, but it is still a fair bit of work for me when preparing the seminar if I get the questions beforehand.

2. I have tried in the past to have student presentations in this course, where each student is responsible for speaking for about 5 minutes, giving a question for discussion and some background on their views about it, why they came up with it/found it important, etc. This has only been partially successful. Rarely has it generated much discussion in other students, and instead it tends to be me and the student presenter discussing their question.

3. I might try to do something like the student presentations in #2 in small groups, where other students might be more comfortable responding, and more likely to take the initiative b/c I am not there to fill in the silence.

For the spring term for this course, I think I'll try #3, and think about #1...

http://knewquist.edublogs.org/2008/12/01/itunes-u-and-open-university

Open University has deployed iTunes U, Apple’s free education version of its popular iTunes Store. This post talks about the OU’s adoption of the service as well as some of its early experiences with it.

I’ll be curious to see what impact this has on iTunes U/Moodle integration. OU is a huge Moodle school, and I have to think that they would want seamless integration between the two services.

http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Socialtech/~3/384562595/4th-alt-c-ed

http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Socialtech/~3/382286349/digital-divi

I'm off to ALT-C next week, along with most of the UKs edtechs and learning technologists. I'll be pretty busy, supporting the 4th annual ALT-C Edublogger meetup, helping host the Emerge reception & live radio broadcast, and contributing to the F-ALT fringe activities.

I'm really excited to be teaming up again with with Frances Bell, Helen Keegan and new girl Christina Costa to be delivering our second ALT-C slam workshop. Last years session explored what web 2.0 meant to participants, and went down really well. This year we're trying to be even more reckless ambitious and inviting old and new friends from all over the world to pitch in to this years slam topic/competition, which is, in keeping with ALT-C's over-arching theme, The Digital Divide.

What we hope to get out of the session is a wide ranging exploration of dimensions of the digital divide: To produce and collect short real-world and digital pieces on what the digital divide means to people, how it can be interpreted, and what it's impacts are. In other words, what does the digital divide mean to you?

Obviously whole we're hoping for a reasonably diverse bunch of participants on the day, there are going to be limits on the heterogeneity of a group of people at an ed tech conference in Leeds on any particular afternoon. So we'd really like to encourage other people to join in. We are looking for participants from all over the world to contribute to building a resource which is interesting, innovative, and engaging topics. We'd like to build a cross cultural snapshot mosaic of what the digital divide can mean and how it's experienced.

The workshop will be running next Wednesday, 10 September 2008 at the University of Leeds, and participants will be creating and performing 'slams' around the digital divide theme - performance pieces which tackle issues in multiple ways. Checkout last years slams for some ideas of this experimental format, and this years wiki for more of an explanation.
   

We'll be capturing and uploading content until midnight GMT on the 10th of September, and then giving everyone a chance to vote for their favorite slam, from those created and performed on the day and those contributed by educators across the globe.

We're producing some sample slams for you to explore, and you can find information about how to upload your own contribution here.

So, interested in experimental, collaborative and distributed research processes? Thinking our session sounds like fun and might end up being a useful resource? Then join in!

1. Come along to our session! This time it's scheduled at a reasonable hour :)

2. Create something for the wiki. You slam could be a picture, a slideshow, a podcast, a 90 second Flickr video - anything. Tell us one thing the digital divide means to you.

3. Already been working on the digital divide? Great! Repurpose something already up or just send us the link if it's already in a fast, accessible format.

4. Checkout the entries once they're up and vote for your favorite.

5. Keep your fingers crossed for us! 

"If you, as an individual or small group, have got something to say about the Digital Divide between now and midnight Wednesday 10 September 2008 check converter, then you can create a slam, publish it here, comment on slam pages.
Then you can vote for your favourite between 11 and 14 September (deadline midnight GMT). We will announce the winners here and by message to members on Monday 15 September. That means that people from around the world can join in, not just those coming to our workshop. You can run your own workshop, or create your own slam, maybe with your friends. More details on how you can participate, just stick to our few simple guidelines."

There will be prizes! Probably not very good ones, but prizes nevertheless.

falt08

http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Socialtech/~3/289285527/edtech---mob

http://weblogs.elearning.ubc.ca/chendricks/2008/06/foucault_and_kant_on

I am working on a book review of Foucault and Freedom by Johanna Oksala for a journal, and in the third part she argues that "by linking his thought to the Enlightenment, Foucault makes the normative move of adopting the ideals associated with it--critical reason and personal autonomy--as the implicit ground on which his critiques of domination, abusive forms of power and reason rest. The Enlightenment provides him with the historical--not transcendental-- values on which to base his critiques" (187).

This is a complicated and controversial point, but it is similar to an argument I made in a recent article in the journal Philosophy and Social Criticism, that in emphasizing the connection between his own work and that of Kant, Foucault may have in part been trying to encourage an audience of fellow theorists to consider how their theories can address and impact concerns in their own historical present (as Kant did in some of his texts). Oksala argues that for both Foucault and Kant, philosophy can have an important social and politcal role as critical thought aimed at promoting human freedom and autonomy. I think much more could be said than either I or Oksala have said about how Kant's critiques and his other texts use philosophy as critical thought, as a means of promoting freedom. The point is not only to find the conditions of possibility of knowledge and morality (I leave aside the 3rd critique for the moment, as I am not much familiar with it), but in so doing to promote freedom by releasing us from heteronymy and dogmatism. What further values could we promote or hinder in philosophical pursuit of truth or criticisms thereof? Is it that the question of truth is enough in itself to drive philosophical thinking, or should we consider what else we can do with it? Can doing and teaching philosophy aim towards human freedom? If so, what kind, how, and why is this important? How can we avoid upholding practices and discourses that hinder it? (A Foucauldian question.) What role does the pursuit of truth itself play in hindering freedom? (Another Foucauldian question.)

http://weblogs.elearning.ubc.ca/chendricks/2008/06/back_from_maternity_

Well, well...it's been awhile. Far too long. I have been busy at home with a new baby boy, and have completely let this blog go. Letting blogs die a quiet death is a common blogger experience, I think. But this one is not quite dead yet. I am back from maternity leave, and though much of this summer will be spent working on research, I plan to add some new posts on teaching here as well. Coming back to the classroom after a year without teaching is, I hope, going to be an interesting and refreshing experience. I am excited to start up again, and catch up on the world of pedagogy blogging, in philosophy and other subjects.

My research this summer will focus on a paper about Michel Foucault's views of the political role of intellectuals. This, actually, is relevant to teaching philosophy: part of what I am thinking about in that paper is what philosophers might do to "educate" their audience, to bring about social and political change, to be active citizens in their own communities. So I will be posting a bit about that, as well as about my thoughts on preparing for my upcoming courses.

http://knewquist.edublogs.org/2008/11/24/bannerluminis-message-broker

This Moodle plugin uses a heavily modified version of the IMS Enterprise plugin to integrate Moodle with Banner. I haven’t tried it yet, but one of my goals for the spring semester is to get exactly this sort of integration up and running so I plan on trying it soon.

• Banner/Luminis Message Broker Plugin for Moodle

http://benwerd.com/2008/11/links-are-context-so-are-link-a

Chris Sessums has written about the educational WordPress Multi-User hosting provider Edublogs’ switch to inline context ads. These turn words within each blog post into ads, without the original author’s knowledge or permission. This is annoying in the wild, but takes on another meaning entirely when the blogging service is marketed for students and teachers:

For example one student mentioned the word “energy” in her blog entry and I found a pop-up link directing me to Exxon/Mobile. Hmmm? I thought and I read on. This same student also mentioned “college” in her entry wherein a hyperlink associated with the University of Phoenix popped up. I found this rather odd, since the student was currently enrolled here at the University of Florida.

The rest of Chris’s post is understandably angry. Links in blog posts are part of the flow of the text; they provide context. The link above allows you to read Chris’s blog so you know I’m not misrepresenting him. The following sentence in isolation:

I hope the criminals in our society receive the sentences that they deserve.

Is different to this one:

I hope the criminals in our society receive the sentences that they deserve.

By auto-linking words to sites for money, a new thrust or subtext can be added to the post. In other words, with this kind of advertising - even when it’s been marked out in the user agreement and everyone knows it’s there - advertisers are buying a little bit of your intention. (Users may not always understand the full scope of what they’re agreeing to, as they don’t see the ads themselves.)

Print publications often have very separate advertising and editorial departments, for similar reasons. Ads on pages should be clearly marked out as being such, and they should never, ever, ever infringe on the actual content itself. This on any site is bad; on a site for use in education is clearly immoral.

As a footnote, one of the user forum posts Chris highlights says this:

Content Links in the middle of my posts which include unauthorized advertisements is unacceptable. One of the reasons I moved my blog to Edublogs was to avoid ads in my blog, and this is even worse than Adsense found off to the side which people can easily ignore.

There is a very simple consumer protection maxim that it’s worth remembering for any product: if it seems too good to be true, it is. Everyone needs to make money; if you’re using a commercial product with no clear business model, ask yourself how they’re going to claw back their investment - it’s not always going to be in the ways you’d like.