Crossposted from Iridium’s Day of DH 2014
Last term I delivered a course entirely through social media. Well, I actually showed up in lecture hall one evening to announce that this was to be the case – so not entirely, but pretty close. The mode of delivery was necessitated by physical circumstances, but also seemed very germane to the nature of what we were studying – Social Computing.
Although the initial reaction of the students to this mode of delivery was mixed (quite justifiably because they had enrolled in a regular lecture-based course) the final reaction was largely positive. Moreover, as we were largely studying the phenomenon that we were participating in, I decided that it was entirely appropriate to make part of their assessment an evaluation of the effectiveness of myself as facilitator and the way in which I delivered the material. I was surprised by the thoughtful and critical appreciation of the experience and this provided some early and valuable feedback on eLearning and online engagement. I will note that this may differ from many of the current eLearning initiatives as it employed public and popular social media tools for delivery rather than relying on a dedicated LMS.
I am currently in the process of coding the responses for further analysis, but there are a few immediate lessons that I felt quite valuable and worth sharing as we consider digital pedagogy.
1. Deliberately forcing the use of social media as a means of engagement – and evaluating such participation seems contrary to the ethos of the medium. I was genuinely surprised by this reaction and also by the number who expressed this same concern. Basically, the reaction was one demanding that in the purest sense and with respect to the nature of how the popular sm tools are used – you abstract from their intent by attempting to turn it into a numbers game. You can’t measure engagement based on raw volume – nor amplitude on original contribution versus response to peers. Most indicated that they felt they would have more valuable interaction were they not feeling they were expected to respond to all comments or to generate filler contributions. Fair point. There is actually nothing technically infeasible for allowing for such latitude (there is a huge challenge in attempting to track for the marker – especially when things like twitter hashtags may be omitted and multiple obfuscated usernames are employed) – but this is a challenge to the facilitator and better methodology can be devised to allow for this truer communication.
2. Not a huge surprise, but you can’t go 100% virtual and remain effective (without possibly being some superhero social media maven). As I mentioned, it wasn’t by deliberate choice to make this bold leap into the social media abyss. However, one of the takeaways from the experience was the diverse level of skills with the various media that the class sample represented. The reality is that many need some initial guidance offline in order to go online. You can’t just flip the switch and go asynchronous. Preparing for the delivery is necessary in a lab environment at least for some of the participants. Moreover, the need to engage in face-to-face sessions to keep things lively, to allow for some real connection and to deal with technical issues is also probably necessary to create a more effective delivery. In response, I have to also argue that this is necessary from the instructor’s side of the equation as well. I felt isolated myself. I really missed having direct face-to-face engagement with the class and would argue that I’d play to my own strength in the lecture hall rather than on the other side of the pipe. There’s something from the in-person discussion that we have yet to manage to replicate. It can’t be entirely addressed though semi-direct engagement via Skype/Hangouts or other virtual presences. They get you closer, but a blended approach is called for. Concurrently, one more astute observer, realising that the distance approach was a pragmatic dictate made the comment that it the asynchronous solution did allow for continuity of access to me as lecturer (blush) and in that same vein suggested that maybe it would allow for additional latitude for employing guest speakers and not demanding their own physical presence either. Clever.
3. While asynchronous delivery has the potential to allow people to choose when it suits to engage and participate, this requires a lot of personal discipline and many find it easier to show up, learn and walk away.
Most initial reactions did admit their first blush of relief that they’d gain an evening a week where they could avoid coming on campus and imagined a world where they tuned in when it suited, participated when they were using the media for something else or using time far more strategically. Unfortunately most admitted that they were challenged in this and found that without setting out fixed times (often the lecture times itself) it was just far too easy to let things slide. In point of fact, most found that they wanted to engage more than the stock lecture hours allowed and to their own surprise found that the asynchronous participation was more time demanding than the conventional . Ultimately from an instructor’s perspective (especially not relying on a managed LMS) there is a huge increase in the workload when deciding to undertake asynchronous delivery such as this. You open yourself up to the same necessity to manage far more avenues of engagement, find yourself drawn into participation of greater depth and this is all on top of (in my case) having to troubleshoot your own technical infrastructure.
This all said, I am looking forward to a fuller analysis of the feedback and to applying many of the lessons learned. Delivering a course via social media in this instance was a very rapid response to a situation and if one had pause for thought one may not have embraced the opportunity as wholeheartedly or as boldly. Sometimes you need a good kick …