“If teaching is largely about faculty-student interaction that we have to recognize that human interaction is changing. Our interactions with students are all hybrid. We will need an equally hybrid strategy for creating courses that leverage the best of each world.” (Bowen, 2012)
The availability of technology has changed the way how faculty and students interact. Questions often arise when we have choices of different ways to communicate and interact with each other. Which way is the better way?
I remember there are times that students complaining that the posted office hour doesn’t work for their schedule but they still prefer to face-to-face interaction instead of emails. Conversely, many students contribute more meaningfully and frequently in online forum, than in the actual classroom. Just like what’s being said in the quote, our interactions with the students are all hybrid now. Even in an online course, there are still opportunities that you may meet your students in a face-to-face setting (if the student is on campus) in cafeteria, in the hallway or even in social events. Despite the variety of teaching approaches, one of the enduring goals of faculty-student interaction is to create a learning environment where the student is comfortably yet intellectually challenged, at the same time, providing relevant content and fostering life-long learning. The question today is how we accomplish these goals with thoughtful choice of the communication “medium”.
Traditional faculty-student interaction includes face-to-face lecture, discussion, case studies, and team projects. Good learning occurs in a collaborative and social environment. It is also widely accepted that sharing ideas and responding to others’ reactions deepens understanding and improves critical thinking (Chickering & Gamson, 1991). Chickering and Gamson (1991) also identifies seven principles of good practice in undergraduate education – contact between faculty and student, cooperation among students, active learning, prompt feedback, time on tasks, high expectations of students, and respect for diverse student learning styles. Almost half of these principles involve effective faculty-student and student-student interaction. From my experience, in a small class, it is much more effective to motivate each student on an individual basis. Therefore, the essence of human interaction leads to the very common concern that online learning cannot as effectively deliver content as traditional learning environment.
It is us who teach, not the magic of technology. Technology along cannot cannot create a learning community without sophisticated practice and reflective adjustment to suit actual learning needs (Babb, Stewart, & Johnson, 2010). Sense of community is measured by students’ perception of connectedness. It is composed of four elements: membership, influence, integration and fulfillment of needs, and shared emotional connections (McMillan & Chavis, 1986). Effective interactions in instructional process should therefore aim at building membership, encouraging influence, fulfilling needs, and sharing emotional connections. In online interaction these reduced social cues such as tones of voice, facial expression, can be conveniently (although partially) made up through video conferencing and individual video chat.
Understanding types of communication also helps instructor to decide what kind of interaction mode is the most appropriate for particular purpose. There are three types of communication (Haythornthwaite, 2002):
· Content-related: e.g. asking and answering a content-related question, sharing information or ideas
· Planning and Collaboration: e.g. planning work, allocating tasks, coordinated joint effort, negotiating and resolving conflicts
· Social support: expression companionship, emotional support, providing advice
These three categories are not necessarily exclusive. They all play a significant role in learning. Content-related communication is essential for learning; planning and collaborating-related communication is important to foster learning skills; and finally social support-related communication works towards cultivating relationships and creating positive learning environment.
I come to realize the determination of interaction mode (traditional or online) rests on the question of how well it enhances student’s learning experience. I will also keep in mind what the learning objective is, and particular learning goal is on certain learning stages.
When in-depth reflection on complex issues is needed for both instructor and learners, an asynchronous online interaction will be more appropriate. Emails may be the easiest way for individual content-based communication. Discussion board is useful for collaboration-related communication. If students are expected to reflect individually on course topics, they may be asked to maintain a blog. If students are expected to share reflections or critically assess their peers, I should establish an online discussion board. Traditional interaction is useful when a less complex issue is discussed or an immediate reply is needed. It is also a more effective way to get acquainted and create community. If possible, organizing a non-mandatory face-to-face meeting with online students, or coordinating a group conference call with off-site students are both effective ways in an online course to build social support.
For my teaching practice in the future, I’ve also come to a few thoughts of how I can bridge from virtual interaction to the real, especially when a physical presence is due to time and geographic restrains. In the very first class of the semester, I will let the students know the expected response time of emails, and let them know options of communication paths, and how quickly they will be responded. I will also make effort to reduce virtual proximity by responding to emails quickly, and setting up virtual office hours, and providing prompt and effective feedback. I believe the more accessible the instructors are, the more likely the students would interact with us. I am also planning to try audio/video feedback to compensate the lack of social cues in written feedback.
Creating a sense of community can also be achieved in a hybrid manner. In an on-site or hybrid course, collaboration related and social support based communications should be done in the classroom where my students and I get to know each other. I am also going to establish discussion forum topics online that require participation and engagement. So that the student-student interaction and faculty-student interaction can still continue when the class time ends. I will also participate in the online discussion more frequently to increase my own online presence. The sense of influence and fulfillment are indispensable elements for creating community. To increase the senses of influence and fulfillment, I also plan to let students be forum facilitators and allow them to construct learning more flexibly.
Overall, how to interact and communicate with students is all about the balance of humanity and technology. A hybrid interaction mode allows us to make the best use of tradition/synchronous, and online/asynchronous interactions to suit particular goals in teaching and learning.
References
Babb, S., Stewart, C., & Johnson, R. (2010). Constructing Communication in Blended Learning Environment: Students' Perceptions of Good Practices in Hybrid Course. MERLOT Journal of Onlien Learning and Teaching, 6(4), 735.
Bowen, J. A. (2012). Teaching Naked: Howe Moving Technology Out of Your College Classroom will Improve Student Learning (1st Edition ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1991). Applying the Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Educaiton. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 47.
Haythornthwaite, C. (2002). Building social networks via computer networks: Creating and sustaining distributed learning Community. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
McMillan, D. W., & Chavis, D. W. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 14(1), 6-23.
No comments:
Post a Comment