have been lucky
enough to have taught the full range of our freshman / sophmore undergraduate
offerings as both an onsite and online instructor. While I have
thoroughly enjoyed both formats - and very much so - I must admit that my
experiences online have been *much* more positive than onsite instruction. Let
me try and elucidate:1. While in the onsite classroom you have the
opportunity to think on your feet and challenge and be experiential on your feet
to reactions to the students who speak, in the online classroom, you are able to
meet *every* class member and challenge their minds and ideas. The students who
would normally be lost in a classroom of 35-40 are met and developed each day or
week at their level and pushed to consider ideas they might not have considered.
2. I am able to reach the entire class through multimedia exhibits in
each of the weekly units - journal articles, non-copyrighted film clips (and
many from our university's purchased collection under an agreement for both
onsite classroom and online classroom use), photography, art, patents, etc, that
the students would not see - or would otherwise ignore - in an onsite classroom.
We incorporate this information into our discussions and make it part of the
larger whole of history.3. Each student and I - on the phone during
office hours or in e-mail - discuss the creation of their term papers - and
discuss midterm and final "anxiety" issues - and as they are used to the online
format, and regular communication with me through the discussion boards, they
respond much more readily than onsite students, whom I have found I have to
pressure to talk to me. 4. I am able to accommodate students from around
the country - and around the world. I have had enrolled in my class students
from Japan, Indonesia, India, England - and many other countries. As a result, I
have set up a *very* specific Skype address *only* for use of my students. They
are required to set up the time and day with me ahead of time and I need to
approve that request, but for them (and for some of my students scattered all
over the state and US), the face time is invaluable in helping them feel
"connected" - and I am more than happy to offer it. 5. As the software
upgrades, the possibilities of what I can offer become more and more amazing,
and the ease of use for both me - and for the students - becomes
astronomically better. Many have never known the software, so they don't notice
it - but those who have taken online courses before cheer it on. Software does
not achieve backwards. As very few of these issues are met by the onsite
classroom, I am leaning more and more toward the online classroom as the better
mode of instruction. Yes, there are times I *really* miss the onsite
opportunities, but then I think of the above distinctions and realize that yes,
I am where I should be, and virtually *ALL* the students are getting far more
for their money than they would get in an onsite classroom. This is the
wave of the future, and it holds such amazing promise. Already I think we are
seeing clear and fruitful results, and if academics receive effective - and
continuing - instruction and support from the very beginning, I cannot imagine
why one would ever go back. The only reason I can think of *not* doing this is
if the instructor has his or her *own* fear of computers. Beyond that - please,
please jump on the bandwagon, swallow your fears, and learn how to do this with
vigor. I don't think you will ever be sorry.PhD2BinUS
Misha Miller on 20 May 13"Conversation is key . Sawyer succinctly explains this principle: "Conversation leads to flow, and flow leads to creativity." When having students work in groups, consider what will spark rich conversation. The original researcher on flow, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, found that rich conversation precedes and ignites flow more than any other activity.1 Tasks that require (or force) interaction lead to richer collaborative conceptualization. Set a clear but open-ended goal . Groups produce the richest ideas when they have a goal that will focus their interaction but also has fluid enough boundaries to allow for creativity. This is a challenge we often overlook. As teachers, we often have an idea of what a group's final product should look like (or sound like, or…). If we put students into groups to produce a predetermined outcome, we prevent creative thinking from finding an entry point. Try not announcing time limits. As teachers we often use a time limit as a "motivator" that we hope will keep group work focused. In reality, this may be a major detractor from quality group work. Deadlines, according to Sawyer, tend to impede flow and produce lower quality results. Groups produce their best work in low-pressure situations. Without a need to "keep one eye on the clock," the group's focus can be fully given to the task. Do not appoint a group "leader." In research studies, supervisors, or group leaders, tend to subvert flow unless they participate as an equal, listening and allowing the group's thoughts and decisions to guide the interaction. Keep it small. Groups with the minimum number of members that are needed to accomplish a task are more efficient and effective. Consider weaving together individual and group work. For additive tasks-tasks in whicha group is expectedtoproduce a list, adding one idea to another-research suggests that better results develop
