Wednesday, July 4, 2012
MOO or Skype?
There are definite advantages to utilizing the latest technology in the classroom. It can offer students their first experience with new technology and make them more "tech savvy." In this debate, the question is whether MOO (a fifteen year-old technology with text-only capabilities) can offer more to the classroom experience than Skype (the latest in video communication technology). I tend to lean on the side of the text-only technology for two reasons: first, it forces students to communicate their ideas in written form both quickly and effectively. Second, it offers students a "safe" environment where everyone can communicate anonymously.
As we have read from several writers so far in our assigned readings, writing requires practice and the more a person writes, the more experience they gain in communicating ideas. In an age where email is the primary form of professional communication, it is more important than ever to be able to communicate nonverbally. Further, Janet Emig in "Writing as a Mode of Learning" claims that writing is a unique form of learning in that it develops higher cognitive functions by utilizing the skills of "analysis and synthesis." The same cannot be said of verbal communication, which does not require the same focus on content, syntax, grammar, etc.
It is also easy for students to remain anonymous in a text-only environment. Anonymity in the classroom can be advantageous by allowing students to be known for their ideas, and not physical appearance or other identifying factors. Michael Spitzer claims that nonverbal communication in the classroom ensures that "those people with powerful ideas will have more influence than those with powerful personalities." The text-only environment removes evidence of social and political differences, and allows the student's work to be experienced on a level playing field.
While video-conferencing and Skype-like technologies have their benefit and uses, I do not think that the classroom is always the best place for them. In this course, where the students are expected to move into a teaching role in the near future, the MOO system offers a unique opportunity for us to develop the skill of getting to know each other through our writing. This is a valuable skill because one-on-one time between student and teacher is often limited, and getting to know the students personally can be challenging.
Emig, J. (2011). Writing as a mode of learning. In V. Villnueva & K. Arola (Eds.), Cross-talk in Comp Theory (pp. 7-15). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Spitzer, M. (1986). Writing style in computer conferences. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communications, 29, 19-22.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Technological literacy is, of course, something highly relevant to FYC courses. Too, knowing how to be functionally literate (use communication tools common in workplaces) is critical. Nice connection to Emig.
ReplyDeleteThere's a concept called media-naturalness theory which suggests that the more "natural" a communication situation (such as it approximates face to face), the less likely there is to have ambiguity in the situation. Following that theory, Skype (with audio or even video) approximates f2f better than MOO (text only). Still, for some, the semi-anonymous nature of MOO over Skype, as you've indicated, can be useful to getting something out of a class. In fact, sometimes "known anonymity" (that is, the same anonymity every week), maximizes voice (Elbow) but understanding of the discourse community (Bartholmae) and responsibility. It is planned flexibility. Thinking about ways to give room to students to dedicate time needed (and the amount of time is different for every student) to build ideas, etc., before sharing them, is important. For me, text does that better than audio and video, where you're more immediately transparent or on the spot. For me, with online classes, I believe the cognitive development or "aha moments" are more developed with text, with grad students taking rhetoric courses, ultimately..
Heather - I, too, tend to lean toward text-only simply because it's safer for me and allows me to open up, share more, especially if it's anonymous.
ReplyDeleteDr. Rice made a suggestion on my blog to share with you the challenges Skype can pose for me because it’s important to understand that different modalities can be ineffective for some. I think it also would align with what you've said.
I am not sure if you are aware of this, but I have a profound hearing loss. I utilize spoken language, lipreading, and the use of residual hearing. Simply put, I cannot hear/understand 100% without depending on lipreading or some sort of assistance such as interpreters or captioning. My other class this semester uses Skype and at first, I panicked because I wasn’t sure how it might work. I requested remote captioning where the captioner calls into the class just like everyone else and transcribes via WebEx online. This works for me because I’m able to read what everyone says in addition to listening so the captioning supplements what I hear and I’m able to respond to the class either by Skype text or voice. For others in my situation, it greatly depends on their preferred mode of accommodation. Some who may depend on sign language may not want captioning because they depend on the conceptual meanings that sign language can convey and this can make for some difficulties when classes are conducted online. Any modality that involve voice or listening can prove to be difficult for some, but as with me, there are ways around it. Under normal circumstances, I can only rely on lipreading on Skype video or chatting via the chat box. Even lipreading on video can prove to be challenging because technological limitations or the person may not be understood when lipread.