Generating New Theory for Online Writing Instruction (OWI)

 

SMARTHINKING, Inc.™ OWL Tutor Listserv Discussion

 

 

Background and Analysis

This section explores the complexity of online writing instruction (OWI) through the questions that SMARTHINKING Inc.'s™ professional OWL tutors have raised about their practices.  This exploration takes place within the context of one specific type of online teaching, the synchronous writing tutorial, which is a one-to-one (as well as potentially group-centered) activity.  Synchronous tutorials engage in real-time (or near-real time) dialogue between writer (student) and reader (tutor).  They elide and collapse old forms such as the typical student essay, textbook material, chat, and other Web-based interactive tools.  They can bring, and in some cases have brought, audiovisual and graphical elements to the flat screen of the textual tutorial, using new technology that challenges our already challenged thinking about online learning support for writers.

 

There are multiple ways that synchronous tutorials can be designed, each of them determined both by software and philosophical choices.  Among the types of synchronous instructional formats are chat alone; the Multi-user dimension, Object Oriented environment, or MOO (English, 2000; Love, 2000); document sharing with synchronous chat (Shewmake and Lambert, 2000; Breuch and Racine, 2000); multiple-media such as NetMeeting with chat, document sharing, whiteboard, and audio/visual capabilities (Enders, 2000, 2001; Thurber, 2000); and whiteboard with chat.  Currently, SMARTHINKING, Inc.™ has chosen a platform that uses the whiteboard with chat.  The synchronous modality, a whiteboard with visual/graphic capabilities and accompanying chat, focuses on idea generation and organization, and on grammar and local order issues.  The writing program also uses a web-based asynchronous modality for document sharing among students and tutors, where students receive feedback on essay drafts.

 

SMARTHINKING, Inc.’s™ tutors are professional, experienced teachers with graduate-level degrees or significant work toward those degrees.  They are self-selected for online tutoring in that they have applied to work in this OWL, have passed both the screening and extensive training, and have to some extent “bought in” to the concept that teaching and learning can occur for students in online environments.  SMARTHINKING’s tutors have never met each other personally, as they live across the United States; their training and subsequent communication, to include professional development activities, occur completely online and at a distance.  Their tutoring occurs both in the asynchronous modality with which most, but not all, are more comfortable, as well as in the less familiar synchronous modality.  They are aware of the newness of the online environment and tend to maintain some skepticism about just how well their tutorials help students.  This skepticism often is revealed in metacognitive reflections and listserv discussions, both of which are encouraged for the purposes of understanding their work better and developing new practices collaboratively.  As experienced teachers, these tutors come to the table with “owned” theoretical preferences that ground their teaching and tutoring. 

 

There is a complexity and richness to the ideas that the tutors discuss because they have been working deeply with both the asynchronous and synchronous modalities of OWI.  Although some of the teacher/tutors have engaged in more OWI interactions than others, collectively they have more experience in both modalities than most of their peers in other OWL settings. Indeed, their student-tutor interactions are richly varied and elicit high level, metacognitive thinking and discussions among them.  That many of them also are trainers in this environment, that all share in ongoing professional development, and that they regularly access a rich database of tutorials deepens the value of their conversation.  One of the greatest values of their conversation is in its potential to generate research questions, in that they identify issues that demonstrate gaps in knowledge about OWI.

 

The discussion presented in this webtext occurred over several weeks about three months after the teacher/tutors began to train and practice in the synchronous modality.  Not everyone participated in the discussion; typically, a number of tutors prefer to lurk on the listserv.  Because of their scheduled shifts, some tutors had more synchronous experiences than others.  The extended discussion was prompted by their coordinator’s request that they begin to talk about the synchronous tutorial, consider some examples from their training handbook, and imagine how an ideal tutorial and tutorial platform would look.  Their conversation reveals a number of things about them as practitioners and about their particular theoretical groundings. 

 

Themes found in the listserv postings:

 

• There are tensions where philosophical groundings meet technology.

 

• Particularly obvious is a tendency of some tutors, like James M, to attempt to adjust what some identify as a primarily Neo-Platonic, or Expressivist viewpoint against the potential to assist students using visual tools.  This tension comes out in concerns that “Socratic” questions ought to elicit from the students what they already know (in this discussion, often called “dialogue”) and that what to do with that dialogue can be difficult when the platform limits the amount of space for chat and offers potential to use graphical elements to highlight points.

 

• Social Constructivism is apparent as a guiding theoretical construct for those who express a need to collaborate with students.  For some of the analyzed exchanges, however, one cannot be certain whether the writer means “dialogic” to be collaboration with the student or more of a “Socratic” probing; it is possible that these two theoretical tenets are elided for some teacher/tutors represented in this listserv, revealing them to be a representative cross-section of the writing instruction population at large. Interestingly, there does not seem to be much tension about writing with or for the students that often is found in the collaboration-heavy professional literature about both face-to-face (f2f) and OWI.  Tutors seem fairly comfortable with the issue of writing with and for students, although Arial B and Kristi C mention trying to empower students by getting them to write on the board for themselves.

 

• Neo-Classicism comes to the forefront in a focus on audience and a brief discussion of heuristics.  The focus on heuristics is relatively natural since most of that conversation focuses largely on invention methods, but it is interesting that more structured heuristics methods like Aristotle's Topoi, Burke’s Pentad, and Tagmemics are highlighted; a possible reason may be that these tutors are trying to think visually in order to use the graphics capabilities of the whiteboard and systematic heuristics tend to lend themselves to tables and charts more so than listing and journaling. 

 

• The Current-Traditional theoretical construct is not very apparent except, possibly, in Thomas D’s later posts about how the whiteboard itself can be constructed and then saved as an artifact that resembles an online textbook.

 

• Tutors, especially Arial B, compare their OWI and f2f experiences, which is one way that they appear to question their own assumptions about online teaching. In doing so, they tend to seek ways to make similarities work for them, but they also appear willing to interrogate the possible benefits and deficits of both environments.

 

• Perhaps most interesting, these teacher/tutors clearly are challenging their own closely held assumptions about what constitutes a good individualized instructional session.  Their greatest struggle seems to be in the tension between the primarily textual nature of written communication and the visual tools available to them in this platform.  The tension sometimes is expressed as a question of text versus visual elements, with Michael S and Arial B expressing a higher comfort level with graphic elements as “visual learners” and James M, Sandra L, Thomas D, and Kurt R expressing far less comfort with these same elements.  At times, this tension is expressed as a conflict between text and technology.

 

• Especially important for this webtext's argument, these teacher/tutors reveal that they are not entirely comfortable with the synchronous modality of OWI, in part because many imagine what they think would be a more useful platform than what they have available for assisting students in live learning situations.  They describe their “perfect” tutorials, and acknowledge that they do not know to what extent these situations and accompanying platforms actually would assist student writers.  In other words, they openly discuss the distinctive nature of the medium and question the efficacy of their efforts in OWI. Their discussion presents a useful example of challenging assumptions and asking practice-based questions that could spur research toward new OWI theory.

 

SMARTHINKING OWL Tutor Listserv Discussion © SMARTHINKING, INC.

 

Note: All tutor’s names have been changed.  Extraneous or proprietary material has been edited from the discussion.  The listserv discussion itself is the copyrighted © material of SMARTHINKING, Inc.™ and is used with the company’s permission.  I gratefully acknowledge SMARTHINKING, Inc. for providing me with this discussion.  Regarding the analysis, which was written partially during my tenure with the Company, I thank Christa Ehmann, Vice President of Education, for allotting me the time and providing the intellectual support to develop some of my thinking and writing.

 

 

(1)     Thread 1: What makes a “good” synchronous tutorial interaction?

(2)     Thread 1, Response 1 (James M)

Now that we've all had a chance to look at the Archives for Asynchronous essays, I wanted raise the issue of what Synchronous Tutorials should look like, and how we can learn from one another's models.  I am raising this issue with a bit of reservation in that I have never had a student in Synchronous Tutorial, so using Beth's Models sent to us earlier, are the only guide I have for what a good whiteboard session should look like--and frankly, all the practice Tutorials I accomplished on the whiteboard looked nothing like these models; with the exception perhaps of Model G.  This is for several, and most certainly biased, reasons.  I've never been able to change the color of fonts, and trying to produce split screens, circles to join thoughts, etc., has been generally time consuming--and thus, in a time-sensitive environment, not that productive; particularly in brainstorming sessions.  In such sessions, the graphic elements seem to be more of a bother and a distraction than a help.[blh1]   My tendency (perhaps the weakness of a philosophic background) is to create more of a dialogue with the student and to use whiteboard space to that end.  I ended up using graphic tools mostly for highlighting particular ideas, rather than structuring outlines. I have not been particularly focused on conserving space on the whiteboard either.  Secondly, my whiteboard sessions were more based on coaxing out of the student what they might already know, but have lost sight of because of being intimidated by an assignment, or by a failure to organize their own thoughts effectively.   I've then taken their thoughts, and simply organized them, showing where they might develop their thoughts into an essay format.  I could use some help on integrating the semiology of the graphics elements as they might work as a heuristic tool for stimulating thoughts, as well as perhaps a technique to use the whiteboard quickly to get to the heart of the matter, rather than simply as a glorified chat room.  So my suggestion is that we all take a look at Beth's models. . . . all of us are flying blind.  Could those of you who have had whiteboard sessions let all of us know if your sessions look anything like these models?  [blh2] Could some of you as well make particular reference to one model or another (which are all referenced by letters) and give a critical appraisal of why these particular models are typical, good or unobtainable?  I know for a fact that getting some discourse going between us in discussing these models is desirable to ST.  So let's start helping one another out in finding a common ground of what constitutes a good whiteboard session, and how best to accomplish it.  All responses are solicited and desired.  Best, James M

 

(3)     Thread 1, Response 2 (Arial B)

I have a few responses/ideas about your concerns, James M.  I have about a dozen archived boards that I can access from my homepage (probably mostly tests?) and I had 8 boards to process when that function became available to us, so I am getting pretty familiar with the boards, although, of course, some of them work better than others.  [blh3] 

>> In such sessions, the graphic elements seem to be more of a bother and a distraction than help.  My tendency (perhaps the weakness of a philosophic background) is to create more of a dialogue with the student and to use whiteboard space to that end.  
>>
>> Secondly, my whiteboard sessions were more based on coaxing out of the student what they might already know, but have lost sight of because of being intimidated by an assignment, or by a failure to organize their own thoughts effectively.   
>>
>> I've then taken their thoughts, and simply organized them, showing where they might develop their thoughts into an essay format.

I have found that a few of the ideas in the brainstorming chapter help, and I printed them out as a handy reminder for myself.  The list follows; on my own, I made notes on the right about how to use them, or made up examples.  There are examples in that chapter that you can use, too.

BRAINSTORMING
Questions
Clustering
Freewriting
Heuristics

§         Definition

§         Comparison

§         Relationship

§         Circumstances

§         Testimony

§         Greater than and lesser than

§         Past fact and future fact

Burke's Pentad

§         What was done

§         Where or when was it done

§         Who did it

§         How was it done

§         Why was it done

Tagamemics

§         Particle

§         Wave

§         Field

§         Uniqueness

§         Changeability

§         Placement within a system

There is a pedagogical practice of asking students to draw pictures of how they look when writing a paper in order to get them thinking about the writing process.  I know it sounds a little silly, but I think about it when I think about using graphics on the whiteboard.  I know that students need a variety of ways of looking at an idea, and letting them create a diagram or picture of their ideas, or showing them how, can help them clear away confusion and find focus.[blh4] 

I am pretty much a minimalist in the use of language, so maybe this is easier for me.  My first and foremost technique, though, is the first item on the list--questions.  I ask a lot of questions, some of them intentionally from the perspective of an uninformed listener, because this lets the student be the expert.  I might say to the student in model D, that I didn't know anything about physics or that I had no idea the study of weather and radar technology was associated with it.  Then I would suggest, as the tutor does in model D, that his or her professor might be interested in that, because all writers need to imagine an interested audience that needs to be informed.  Most of our students think we know about everything and can't be informed by their writing.

On all those Hobbit models, or with any literary work that the writer said she knew, I would be the tutor who hadn't read the book, so the writer could explain it to me.  I have found that even when I really don't know the work and the writer is not confident about knowing it either, she will still come up with useful ideas if I ask enough questions.

The other technique that you see on most of the models is listing, and this is my favorite form of brainstorming (I didn't put it on my list because I think of it as vertical cluster of sorts).  When you suggest that you take the student's ideas and organize them, I think that is only one step removed from letting the student make her own organization by writing a list.  When you coax out an idea, ask her to write it on the board: "Can you write on the board what you find interesting about this book?"  "Can you make a list on the board of the things you like about this character?"  "Can you write a list of the reasons why you decided to major in physics?"

If you can't get the writer to write on the board, you can start a list as the writer is revealing ideas in the chat.  Then ask the writer to continue what you started.  Sometimes, I find that making circles, rectangles, or drawing arrows while the student is thinking about a question or writing a response saves time.  And I don't think that highlighting is a substandard form of graphics--if you only use highlighting or underlining--so what?  It's the visual reminder that the student will have when she prints that might make a connection clear.

I practice using the graphic tools when there are no students [blh5] (you can undo them quickly so that your welcome message is not cluttered.  But I also use them in my welcome message.  I put a box in one color around the main message, an ellipse of another color around a question (do you have a question?), a line of another color under my personal greeting--then I draw an arrow from the "Hi" to the main message and one from the main message to the question.  It shows whoever's watching that the board is more than a writing pad, and it gets me warmed up every day to using the tools.

I think the important thing to remember is that too much prose from us is overwhelming to the brainstorming process.  It's the students' ideas that are finally important and the organization of ideas that "they choose" that will make the writing their own.  

Like freewriting, let them doodle if they want to, if it helps them get somewhere--and don't be afraid to say, as I've said on more than one occasion, "Well, that didn't work out; let's try something else."  Practice using the delete object and region tool!

Did I say I was a minimalist?  Arial B

 

 

(4)     Thread 1, Response 3 (Thomas D)

Let me keep this short and sweet.  In the brainstorm/grammar areas, I like to think I am sitting across the desk from the student. The gadgets and gizmos don't really strike my fancy. [blh6] Rather, I just prefer things to flow along as if we are chatting towards a solution.

 

My boards will never get an award for pretty, but if the student says "I got it!" that's my goal.  In fact, it's pretty terrific when, all of a sudden, the student starts rocking along on his/her own.  And I agree with Mr. M that in a time constrained environment, you gotsta get to the point. By the time I get the art tools figured out, I have lost time I can better use to help the student.[blh7] 

 

Hmm, I think that's a whole nickels worth. Thomas D

 

 

(5)     Thread 1, Response 4 (James M)

Thanks to Arial B and Thomas D for responding to my post that concerns the models for Synchronous Tutorials.  This discussion seems to me to be long overdue in light of the fact that we have discussed, examined, and implemented many models of an Asynchronous Tutorial. . . . I don't think we are even close to a consensus concerning the whiteboard, however.[blh8]   I personally would have more confidence on the whiteboard if we had a general understanding of what constitutes a good whiteboard Tutorial, and how to have this in mind even as we begin a live session with a student.   My impression thus far is (and this may be an over-generalization) that both Thomas D and I tend toward the dialogic on whiteboard, and Arial B tends to use a more holistic approach with a greater integration of graphic elements. [blh9]  My concern is that my own approach outlines, but does not particularly demonstrate, the principle that papers in their developmental phase are often structural, and that students, counter their own instincts, should be working inside that structure as a preliminary form of organization and focus.  Therefore I am not convinced that my own highly verbal (and by implication) "linear" approach is the most effective way of getting this across[blh10] : viz. that papers can be envisioned as a form of architecture, and that students can, using this model, construct a "blueprint" for a paper in "spatial" rather than "linear" terms[blh11] .  My experience is that students instinctively think of papers as linear.  Therefore, when they need length, they add a section to the end of a paper, rather than expand the paper from within an existing structure that has been well thought out in advance.  If another metaphor helps to illustrate this point, than I would prefer that students think of a paper as a kind of balloon that, once the outer skin is in place with no leaks, they can expand upon by blowing it up from within its parameters.  This form of "spatial" thought concerning developmental papers seems to be a way in which most students have not thought of their work, and also demonstrates the necessity of thinking out the entire project in conceptual terms before beginning to write the paper proper.  If they do grasp this point, many students loose that "edge of anxiety" they often feel in writing that it is a long run toward a cliff's as they proceed to extend themselves further, and further, out on a limb.  The spatial idea creates a set of parameters that, even before they begin, indicates that the project has a definition and therefore a conclusion: a place where the task has been completed.  If they encounter writer's block en-route, they can simply change "rooms" inside their paper and begin working on another section, returning later to a section that may have been giving them problems.  With this spatial construct in mind, reaching an impediment in one area of the paper does not halt the developmental project as a whole.  Instead, in my experience, students just want to get started, and then once running, take off in any old direction as their writing builds on their own momentum.  I'm not condemning this approach, but I am suggesting that it eventually leads to rethinking the paper in spatial terms anyway, once the momentum runs out of gas, and a kind of inevitable loss of control and focus occurs.  To remain firmly in the visual arena that is potential in the whiteboard format, it seems to me there must be a way of using our graphic elements to get this idea across to students, and to have them re-conceptualize their papers in alternative terms.  This in turn can lead to a new perspective for them on the process of writing in general as something other than a stinging together of words.  The "Tabula Rasa" of the whiteboard format seems to me to be a potential venue to accomplish this in a unique way.  Now if I could only figure out how.  Any suggestions?  James M

 

(6)     Thread 1, Response 5 (Kurt R)

I've found Arial B's, Thomas D's, and, especially, James M's recent posts on "whiteboarding" quite interesting because they replay so many of the questions that I (and I suspect most others) always have about teaching. It just happens that because the whiteboard is so very new to most of us that these questions return in new and refreshing forms. I'd like to offer my take on some of these questions (though certainly not all of them) by responding to two of the points raised in most of these posts.

First, what the hell are we supposed to do with the gadgets and gizmos? [blh12] Let me start my answer by admitting that I don't use these tools very well at all. I definitely fit into the "let's talk" school of brainstorming that James M and Thomas D seem to represent. In part, I take this approach because of my hands. None of you has ever seen me, but I have the hands of a potato-picker. Short stubby digits, designed to rip tubers from the earth, not to draw delicate pictures or even to create well-proportioned designs. [blh13] So, when I looked at the model tutorials--those on the Hobbit-- I was more than a little discouraged. I'd love to be able to create a whiteboard session that looked half that good, but it is simply not going to happen. However, this doesn't mean that I shouldn't take the time to work on improving my ability to use these tools. Just as I have learned, over the years how to use chalkboards more effectively in the classroom, I can also learn to use the whiteboard. I draw the gangliest stick people in the world, but I wouldn't dream of trying to teach "The Allegory of the Cave" without creating a visual representation, however flawed. I think each of us should take a piece of advice from Arial B and spend a little time during each session just to play with the tools available. We don't need, I think, to feel any pressure to create whiteboard sessions as visual and as ordered as the models we have been presented. But, we should, I think, play around with the toys enough so that we can use them, as needed, to augment our own pedagogical methods.

Second, what makes a good whiteboard session? My answer, at least in part, is implied by what I have said above. There is no single definition of a good whiteboard session, just as there is no single definition of what makes a good response to a paper, or a good method for teaching. [blh14] I agree with Thomas D: the success of a session is determined solely by what the student walks away from it with. And no single method, linear or spatial/visual will work for all students, which is, of course, something you all knew anyway.[blh15]  This probably means that we should consider developing a variety of models, some emphasizing the use of visuals, others emphasizing the use of dialogue.

Ok, end of rant. I hope this is at least marginally coherent, and that I have not misrepresented anyone's views. Thanks for bearing with me.  Cheers, Kurt R

(6) Thread 1, Response 6 (Arial B)

And I would like to add to the whiteboard discussion, that despite my fondness for technology and the tools (so glad I waited to go to college!), not all is well on the whiteboard.  While I would like sometimes to just say "yup," I have to talk, too. And that skinny little chat line is inadequate in so many ways for fostering dialog that we are all forced to use the board for "chat."

Such a board may be good for math, but I think we need equal space for dialog and graphical representation. [blh16]  I imagine the screen space divided horizontally in half, with the top, the same board we have now, moveable to reveal more space, and the bottom half a chat space that works . . . how? As it does now?  Like the board on top?

A vertical split could work, too.  What do the rest of you imagine, and is re-design for an OWL-only board a real possibility?

BTW I conducted 13 f2f conferences this morning and found as I always do, that I doodle while students talk, and that my doodling becomes a cluster/list/map of the drafts they are explaining to me[blh17] --I do not ask them to draw or contribute to the map, but I do give it to them at the end of our conference and unless I'm really easily fooled, they seem to appreciate to have the picture (it's no work of art, either).  I think they like the lines and arrows that I draw to show them connections they hadn't thought of, and I hope it's a quick reminder of what we talked about.  Arial B

 

(7)     Thread 1, Response 7 (Arial B)

Here's another idea about using the graphics on the whiteboard.  I admit I haven't tried it on the whiteboard yet, but I've had good results in class/office hours[blh18] : 1. Ask a student to draw a picture of her paper, if she already has several ideas for it.  Each point or paragraph can be put in a separate circle or square, and the size of the square can correspond to the importance of the point--or alternatively, to the relative specificity--(really general things get big shapes).  If some shapes are way bigger than others, you can talk about restructuring the essay to balance this out.  2.  If the student doesn't feel comfortable doing this, make some lists with her and then draw the picture with her help.

This is especially helpful, because, as James M says, students often have problems thinking holistically about their essays.  They have several points, but they don't know how to frame them together.  Once you get all the shapes, you can point out that these squares need a bigger one to contain them all, and you can talk about what's in that bigger frame. (I like to do this because I have a pet peeve about those 3-paragraph essays with 3 little parts with no transitions or overall, conceptual linkage. I have been getting tons of these in asynch lately, and I wish I could use the whiteboard with these students!)  Of course, as everyone's pointed out, this will work better with some students than with others--not everybody's as visual as I am.  Arial B

(8) Thread 1, Response 8 (Sharon P)

I actually think that how we use the chat line and the whiteboard really depends on the tutoring situation[blh19] : the question/issue at hand.  If we're helping a student come up with a good topic in the Brainstorming Center, it might make more sense to reserve the whiteboard for that work and reserve the chat for discussions.  If, on the other hand, we're dealing with an ESOL student who needs constant visuals and movement and urging, perhaps conducting most of the work on the whiteboard would make more sense. Sharon P

(9)     Thread 2, Response 9 (Michael S)

Most of the time, I do my best thinking about things after the fact.  I am a great one for saying, once it is too late; "Oh!  I shudda said that"!  Then I come up with some great rejoinder.

  Working on the whiteboard is like that.  When I look back, I think of something better I could have done.  The following is a reconstruction.  Student question is paraphrased. Here is the example: 

 

Student: I need to write a paper on some book I like for Eng 101.  I know what book I like, but it seems to me like a really big topic and I don't think I can boil it down to just three main points.  I ask the prof what she wanted me to do and she said, "Whatever works for you!" So, what works for me?  I don't know!  I don't want to summarize the whole book.  How can I get a handle on it?

 

In chat, I tried to focus the student on a character she liked as an organizing theme, since that would get away from the problem of summary, and would provide the student with a conceptual framework that might assist her to express her ideas.   [blh20] I asked her to clear the board.  [Possible mistake, since this resulted in the loss of the expressed question.  However, I doubt that the student will forget the frustrating circumstances she was in.]  I had her then place on the board,

 

·         The qualities she liked about the character.

·         How the character acted that demonstrated these qualities. 

·         Why she identified with the qualities.

 

This resulted in a board that looked something like this:

 

Loyal                kindhearted

revere              determined

idolizing

shows respect

                        demonstrates reverence through

            shows through imitation

                  striving to attain his brother's trait  of intelligence

                        openly  expressing his affection towards his brother

 

The chat contained most of her reasons for identifying with the character and a lot of her processing her animosity toward her professor.  The session lasted too long (she had plenty of animosity) and the resultant whiteboard leaves many things to be desired.

Why you may ask, have I bothered to tell you about all of this and the mediocre results that were attained?  I don't want to say that the session was a loss, but there are many ways it could be improved.

Because, at the heart of much of our work, is self-reflection[blh21] .  After thinking about the session, I recognized a number of things.  The ploy of using character to organize such a typical assignment is very useful.  Both the problem and solution are somewhat common and may be re-encountered, by myself or another E-structor.  As an individual tutor, the chances of this question again may be negligible, but as a group, I think the possibility of re-encounter is more substantial.  I can improve my readiness to professionally present this concept through pre-planning. 

THE VALUE OF PLANNING

 

As you know, the whiteboard allows you to capture non-whiteboard areas.  I created this illustration, which I saved as a jpg file.  The board that had been produced might have looked like this if the file had been available.

 

 

Illustration of template for the whiteboard

                       

                            Character

 

Quality:                                                     Ways shown:

demonstrates reverence through             shows through imitation  striving to attain his brother's trait  of intelligence openly  expressing his affection towards his brother

Loyal kindhearted revere              determined idolizing shows respect

        

 

 

       

 

 

 

Why do you identify with the quality?                           

 

I have created a folder where I can keep such things handy, ready to be pulled out of my bag of tricks, if the occasion arises. 

            Note how the image not only adds visual interest, but also is critical to the division of the whiteboard.  This image is heavily content loaded, with robust features particularly appropriate to literature analysis.  However, we could use images that were more abstract and could serve across themes.  The form of the board, here with the three strands; character's qualities, manifestation and reasons for reader identification, could also be used for other themes, for example; cause, effect and purported mechanism.

Now, I know many of you are straight concept people, and shun the bells and whistles.  But, as a visual learner, I find such features add cognitive digestibility to knowledge acquisition.[blh22]  You know the type: decorated classroom or office, visuals everywhere.  I will enjoy and remember the information better when presented in interesting ways.  There is some evidence that visual presentation aids memory formation.

Although there may not be visual components to the many ideas we share, I believe it is important for us to analyze our work, to identify when we meet questions and solutions that may become part of the repertoire of both the venues.  Michael S

(10)  Thread 1, Response 10 (Lena N)

I hope a lot of you are reading what Michael S has sent us -- he brings up some excellent ideas we need to discuss and work toward, especially if we are to fulfill our common pedagogical goals.  I tend to be a pretty verbal teacher, and I'm not good at incorporating too many visuals[blh23] , but I think it's important, and Michael S is proposing some ways we can more easily and effectively incorporate visuals to enhance language learning, both at the idea level and the mechanical level.  I want to learn how to more effectively help visual and kinetic learners, especially in this verbal-heavy venue of on-line learning.  What do some of the rest of you think about what he proposes?  Let's open some discussion while we have the time to work some of this in before a lot of students come our way (it's gonna happen, sooner or later!).  Lena N

(11)  Thread 1, Response 11 (Mary J)

I really found Michael S's diagram of character traits, and how they were demonstrated, valuable, and I think that this type of visual division can be very helpful to students because it emphasizes the importance of evidence. We could probably use this diagram with other elements of literary analysis besides character.  For example, suppose a student must write a paper about "Setting and Meaning in Beowulf" (this is the first English paper yours truly had to write as an undergrad).  In the first box, the student can describe characteristics of the setting--what she thinks it does for the poem.  In the second, she can list reasons why she thinks so--the evidence. Hopefully, this type of diagramming can bypass unsupported arguments. [blh24]  (In general, I'm a big fan of drawing empty boxes on chalkboards and asking students to fill them--maybe they just humor me, but it works a surprising amount of the time!) Mary J

(12)  Thread 2: What would a “perfect” teaching interaction be on the whiteboard platform?

 

(13)  Thread 1, Response 1 (Kristi C)

Hello!  I'll give this a first try:

 

[Students] would receive two benefits: immediate answers to their current problems, and a long-term understanding that could be applied to other similar issues in the future. The unique opportunity of the synchronous tutorial is that it allows this to happen in a somewhat Socratic manner Tutors can ask questions and students can discover answers that, in turn, they can immediately employ in examples. This dialogue is the key. It sets the whiteboard apart from asynch tutorials.

 

In an ideal world, everything would be saved for the student to view: the dialogue, the specific examples, and, most importantly, the universalized rule/summary.

 

The student should learn how to solve the current dilemma (what do I write about for this assignment? what's wrong with this sentence?) and how to apply the lesson learned to future endeavors (how to brainstorm, how to avoid run-ons). Somewhere in the mix, students should also learn to be confident in asking questions and to be comfortable in SMARTHINKING's environment, as well.

 

The tutor would learn how to use his or her training and experience, coupled with the vision and technological tools SMARTHINKING provides, to meet the unique needs of students with different learning styles, educational backgrounds, and levels of competence. [blh25] As each case is different, the tutor would learn in each tutorial a new way to (or not to, depending on how the whiteboard session goes!) approach a student and lead that student to discover answers for himself/herself.

 

Students can be best served by being drawn (or dragged, if necessary!) into participation, guided to but not simply told answers whenever possible, and then shown 1) what they accomplished, 2) how they did it, and 3) how they can do it again on their own.

 

As I said, I'm still mulling these ideas over. Anybody else?  Kristi C

 

(14) Thread 2, Response 2 (Thomas D)

What would a "perfect" synchronous tutorial look like using the our whiteboard technology?

 

As I looked at this email, I started thinking about a model whiteboard/chat configuration[blh26] . And here is what I came up with.

 

Envision a chat that scrolls a la an AOL chat room. No limitations on size or having to tell students how to type. And because the chat is continuous, there is no need to go back and forth between boards. Keep the idea of "done" alive to ensure things don't get confused.

 

Now merge with this concept the idea of a table box format like the one in Word.  This box would feature a distinct background to make it clearly different from the chat. Think about textbooks that use boxes to highlight the key ideas, or add extra information to supplement the information from a given chapter. The tutor could simply open such a box on command when a specific model or brainstorming concept would be discussed. Voila, the information is there WITH THE CHAT, and at the same time, a clear, precise model appears highlighted so the student could view it clearly.

 

        a) The student could maintain a continuous chat, rather than moving back and forth, uninterrupted and focused on the brainstorm or grammar discussion.

        b) The student could quickly view the highlighted areas for a quick reference, with the appropriate chat RIGHT THERE.

 

Everything would be in one place to quickly scroll over. However, I am no tech, but I imagine this is doable. Archive the whole package for easy reference, the way we currently archive the boards.

 

Like any interaction, the student should have both an immediate and long-term understanding of how to handle the issue he/she came to discuss. Would it be feasible to create a side window panel of ST URLs that could accompany such a set up?  That way, the tutor can focus on helping the student, and the other tools are right there.

 

The tutor would be able to view the "whole package" of the tutorial to see how to improve his/her assistance. Plus if someone was asked to evaluate a tutorial, how much easier could it be than to see everything right there.  Personally, I learn as much from constructive feedback as I do when looking back over my own work. This could simplify the process.

 

"Chat" is two people working out a problem, the real goal of this venue.  "Visuals" are a smart way to show the solution to a successful chat in a way that the student can refer to at his or her convenience.  Chat is the process; visuals are the product.[blh27] 

 

 [Are the chat and whiteboard mutually exclusive?] Mutually exclusive?  Heck no.  The chat sets the table for the whiteboard. Students simply won't remember everything that was said, and who does? Properly used, the whiteboard is a memory jogger, reference source, and thoughtful way for a student to revisit the chat as needed for a complete experience. In my model, everything is there at once. The student can then choose what is necessary, and let the rest go.

 

[To help students best we should] Provide uninterrupted chat so the student can focus on the issue without becoming "subservient" to limitations of the technology (works for tutors as well). At the same time, create a technology that allows the integration of key models in a clean window for quick, simplified reference. This will eliminate the over-typing, smeared colors, etc. that damage the package. And create all of this in a way that students will feel in control of the process and enjoy the experience. I hope such a package is viable.

 

Whew!  Boy, who let the dogs out?   My two and a half cents, adjusted for inflation...Thomas D

(15) Thread 2, Response 3 (Lena N)

Kudos to Thomas D the cool and brilliant!  I ditto what he says -- I just can't imagine how much better I would do if I didn't have to keep thinking "okay, this needs to be on the board -- damn!  I have to ask the student to retype it up there!  Wasting time, wasting time!  Now, my response is ....  Is this a chat thing or a board thing?" [blh28]  I feel a bit schizophrenic, having to judge what needs to be on the board to save and what is "just talk" -- so many times we can't know what will be important until we get there and actually say it!  That writing process thing.....I must ask the students too many questions, I guess, because the majority of my conversations with them wouldn't fit on the whiteboard unless we used 6-point type!  (Okay, okay, I exaggerate, but not a lot!) Lena N

(16) Thread 2, Response 4 (James M)

Well, let me qualify this posting with the notation that I teach a lot of philosophy, that I am particularly partial to Platonism and therefore have no qualms about offering up "Ideal" requests with little, or no, expectations that they will become real in any other sense than the abstract (which may be more important anyway)--So with that in mind, here goes:

While working a Synch Shift with Lena N we exchanged some of our complaints and wishes concerning the Whiteboard that may be relevant to the subject at hand.  I'll work toward the Ideal from the negative vantage point of our complaints, and thus try to arrive at the "Ideal" inversely: namely, by weeding out what we didn't like in a good faith attempt to reveal the ideal hidden within:

 

1.  Lena N and I felt initially that the "Tools" on the Whiteboard were extremely valuable, but at times more oriented toward technical and mathematical problems relevant to schemata and formula, and therefore, in their entirety, not "Ideal" for those instructing writing.  I expressed the somewhat cynical viewpoint that writing was a "language" media, and that the tools were of help to me as form of underlining points of emphasis, or distilling key, or problematic, phrases or passages.  Whether I did this by highlighting or using circles, however, was somewhat a matter of indifference.  It was all simply underlining from my point of view.

 

2.  The other tool I use is the arrows when they help in reorganizing ideas, or restructuring thematic development.

 

3.  Other than that, it seemed to me that at times the remaining tools were a bit superfluous.

 

4.  I confessed that I was a bit prejudiced concerning this matter.  I've had many students who have attempted to use "Fonts," "Colors," "Diagrams" etc. (including some really fantastic Cover Pages announcing themselves, and their topics, as if an invitation to a Royal Convocation) as a kind of cosmetic in their papers to cover-up an inability to express themselves in writing.  In that A: I am not teaching Graphic Design; and B: I suspect that compensating for content with appearances is symptomatic of an epidemic of very glossy illiteracy in our time, I tend to see a lot of this as potentially a form of camouflage on the part of students, which is at times possibly encouraged by a bit of science envy on the part of people in the Humanities---some of whom are easily impressed by all this seemingly syllogistic precision presented in codes, diagrams, and schemata. I do like "Structuralism" and the "Architecture" of writing, but only insofar as it informs writing, not as a substitute for it.

 

5.  Well, in contrast to the graphic elements of expression, there is as well the literate "excitement" in the discovery that language, in its written form, contains the lyric of the mind, the potential for discourse

across time-space, the in-depth vivid imagery of description, all transcending even mortality[blh29] --and I would rather, in teaching writing, foster that notion as a counter-stroke to the culture of doodads and special effects which they get from unending TV shows, Movies and a seemingly unending parade of media drivel.  But the reward of literacy can be the discovery of meaning, and I believe students do have this capacity within them, as well as the ability to use reason to refine this ability into critical thought, commentary, and self discovery.

 

6.  So how do we create a Tutoring Platform oriented toward fostering this unique literate ability?

 

Well, first by not disowning language in favor of other media.  Therefore Chat, without self-consciousness or fear of making mistakes, is crucial to the task.[blh30]   Therefore, an "Ideal" conversion of the Whiteboard we have to hand would have a Chat area that is integral, rather than an addendum, to the Platform.  Secondly, minimizing the amount of tools that eat up memory in Java, down to the essentials, would dedicate this memory enhanced Java Board with (1) an online dictionary (I use my own now), (2) an easy way to paste in passages and references from "written" sources without going through all that graphic capturing-time consuming process, and (3) thinking of the Board as a Space where in split screen format we could discuss ideas freely, while placing in the other space of our split screen, some concise conclusions mutually arrive at.  I think that the Boards, the way they are, potentially use precious memory for graphic elements that can, at times, make our task that much more difficult, and that as a result of this we end up compensating, manipulating, and trying to adjust these superfluous elements to accomplish an entirely different task.

 

The rest of the "Ideal" would conform to a standard that can only be as good as we are at the task.  But if we are to be as good as we can be, I think we need a more language friendly, and less technical and graphic oriented, environment, which uses graphic elements to point out areas of concentration, but remains focused firmly on language as our major---and very magical---tool of self expression, thought, criticism, and discovery. So that's the ideal from this limited perspective.  Now back to reality.  Cheers, James M

(17) Thread 2, Response 5 (Sandra L)

Here, here. I think somehow you've gotten into my brain. I second James M's thoughts. I am generally a frustrated whiteboard e-structor who tries to give the student my best thoughts as an experienced reader. I find the visual tools very difficult to implement and the space so limited [blh31] - and since I am not a highly visual learner I have that much more difficulty using them for the writer's benefit. It seems like we are trying to teach and show and grow as writers in a way that should be conversational, fluid and natural ( a reader responding to ideas with questions, or a reader responding to grammar) in such an unnatural state on these whiteboards - by trying to limit conversation and fluidity. It just doesn't make sense to me. So now that I got that off my chest....sorry. Sandra L

(18) Thread 2, Response 6 (Cynthia T)

This is so great! As I've read the posts on this topic I've thought: "Yeah! Exactly!" or "But what about this?" So here I go–

*What a "perfect" synchronous tutorial would look like? I also imagine a space where the chat and the whiteboard features are more integrated. I like the idea of having one space with the ability to insert a text box or table as in WordPerfect (still trying to save the world from Word) where both the tutor and the student could write. I imagine this surrounded by lots of white space to work on. This is my biggest dream in terms of the ideal: more space. Even in shorter tutorials, the space is often limited. I miss those training days when we had the board that let us go to a new page. I think the ability to do that would be wonderful, not only because of the space it would allow us, but also because we could initially get some really messy work done[blh32] , then use a second page to review and re-think with the student, and archive on our own.

Presently, I use the chat line for greeting the student, exchanging names, talking about the tools, and finding out more about his/her initial question. Then move to the whiteboard space. As the tutorial goes on, I may ask questions in the chat space and ask the student to write the answer "up there." The one thing I do like about the separation here is that it keeps us from taking up space on the whiteboard with greetings, instructions, and farewells.

I've got to get this in somewhere, so here's a good place: I hate the "done" thing. Yes, I do have it on my whiteboard greeting, but only use it when a student initiates it. I find it awkward and interrupting. (I see my grammar professor cringing at that last word.) This usually happens with students who are excited and I like to see that. In that case, it makes me—and the student—pause to think a bit. Eventually it all works itself out. (End of soapbox speech.)

Back to the ideal. Okay, so we have more space, more space, more space. I like the idea of a split screen, using one side to chat and one to "work," but again that comes down to more space.

Basically, because we would have more space and the tools would be more efficient, it would save time and keep us from having to think about the space we have left, letting us spend more time thinking about the student's question.

I think it should be saved as is. Giving us more space–even if it's just the ability to go to the next page would let us integrate our discussions into the whiteboard; we could get rid of the chat. Having a separate chat line seems to imply there's a difference between working on writing issues and talking about them. Is there?[blh33] 

I would think the student and tutor would learn that often writing is a messy process, even in terms of grammar, where you have to scratch and scrawl, then step back and look at what you've done to bring it back together in a manageable way.

In the end, it comes down to space and simplicity. Cynthia T