In response to a comment by Clara on the post before this one.
>I wonder though if either of those guidelines are ‘best practice’. What makes them a credible source? Not that I am saying they don’t ring true in some ways – but I’d encourage you to think about how robust their claims are. Are they drawing on the research and literature to evidence their claims?<
I had done a search on ERIC first on the topic of discussion boards and the results drove me mad (like they always do when you hardly know what you're looking for, new subject, especially when you're using library systems). I referenced one of the articles I found through ERIC on the discussion board and it was way too theoretical for me, though resonated with the first source I cited above which I found through a Google search. The other source was mentioned by another student on the discussion board and Educause Quarterly is to me a reliable source. And hey, yet more overlap. Now, why wasn't there a core reading article or chapter on this topic, just so we could get started with the more 'robust' material?
The more general question I have regarding this comment is whether I have made the right decision in joining the MScEL program. I don't have a theoretical background in pedagogy / didactics and really don't have much ambition in that direction. Just for fun, I went through the articles in the Journal of Computer Assisted Learning special issue on Net Generation this evening, topic of next week. Every article rehashed the same literature, there was much cross citing going on, some original survey work (dataset from 2006, oops) and gosh, all students are different. Practical implications for e-learning? Hardly. The best practices I cited above rang a bell with me though, especially as I could see how the IDEL team is applying them, except, for now maybe, relating the discussion to the course objectives (other than to get acquainted with discussion boards and community development, so I guess to be the objectives of the first week, correct me if I am wrong).
>Do you think those guidelines would help resolve the issues arising in our stories from the dark side?<
Yes I think they would, see my contributions in the discussion boards. Although most cases really don't give you enough information to get a feeling for what was really going on. Alright, I could have asked more questions before starting to give answers.
>How do their claims align with your own professional practice or experiences as a learner.<
Hardly, I don't have much experience with discussion boards in my professional practice, and my learning is basically from reading, reading, reading. That's why I jumped to ERIC in the first place.
>It might be useful to think about how similar situations could arise in your professional experience with offering support to colleagues (imagine your colleagues as learners perhaps?).<
You've just mentioned one of the reasons why I am quitting my job ;-).
>WebCT can be clunky and difficult. For me, I’m not sure a blog is ideal either for many-to-many dialogue – as it can create a false sense of linearity.<
Not sure what you mean by 'a false sense of linearity'. I was complaining about a lack of overview. Scrolling through a discussion is less hassle than clicking all the time. And like I said in one of my first posts, I'll get over using WebCT, don't worry.
>Have you found the ‘compile’ button? It’s the icon that looks like a few circles overlapping with a cross on top that follows the subject line when you are in a forum view (not in an individual post). Quite handy!<
Nope, can't find it either after reading your description (screen dump, please?), not sure what you mean by 'forum view', but maybe it's getting too late for me.
Keywords: IDEL10
Comments
Hi Hans
We figure that in the first week everyone’s quite busy getting their accounts set up, getting used to the new environments, starting to get to know each other and building up a shared idea of how we might learn together. Doing reading on top of that seemed like an unfair demand. Don’t worry – you’ll get readings aplenty in the next few weeks! :)
Knowing what kind of journal a source has been published in does give a in towards how reliable a source it might be, but also knowing things about what kind of evidence the source is using, how cohesive it’s arguments are, how it matches up to other arguments etc is also useful.
The reason a lot of articles seemingly ‘rehash’ or cross-refer to existing work is to show how their particular bit of work fits within the wider field. Imagine you are trying to locate and navigate to my office on a map – giving you the street name isn’t enough. It’s useful to know that Edinburgh Castle is to the west, Princes Street to the north, Arthur’s Seat is to the south and my building is directly opposite Old Moray House. With research (and in professional practice, I’d argue) you need to do the same thing. There are intellectual landmarks that we have to locate ourselves around, to acknowledge how they might have influenced our thinking, how we might be challenging them or moving away from them.
For that reason, even though I don’t think being a brilliant theoretician should be an aim for you if it doesn’t take your fancy, I think it’s still worth seeing the literature (both the more empirically based research and the theory stuff) as being important parts of the landscape that can help you think about how you are engaging as a professional in everyday practice.
I do think ‘ringing a bell’ is an important thing too. If what you’re reading seems to intuitively make sense, then that’s awesome. And it’s interesting to think about why it makes sense, how it aligns with your experience and knowledge. That’s all part of holding the theory up to the light and examining it critically. So, in exploring your gut feeling about the best practices, you’re already underway.
(I’d also say noticing things like that the dark side stories didn’t give enough info to really develop complete answers is taking a critical look at things!.)
> You've just mentioned one of the reasons why I am quitting my job ;-).<
:)
> Not sure what you mean by 'a false sense of linearity'. I was complaining about a lack of overview.<
By ‘false sense of linearity’ I meant that it could make things seem like they unfolded in a way that they didn’t. For instance, putting everything in chronological order, when someone came along much later but was responding to an early post.
I’m not sure what you mean by lack of overview. Are you getting to the discussion board each time by following the link from the individual stories, and thus not seeing the whole discussion board? In which case, there’s a ‘discussions’ link four icons down on the left hand navigation menu which takes you to the whole course discussion board. (it looks like a bulletin board pin).
For the compile button, the image isn’t showing up in this post, so I’ll email it to you.
Cheers
C.