Self reflection

Kay and Lisa:

I again am so impressed with the ongoing discussions in our class and the module 2 SoCo reflects how far discussion can go with instructional design, provocative reading, motivated participants and caring moderators.

I have improved in my use of discussion so I would give myself a 4.4 on this activity. I checked 4 due to rounding, but if I compare my performance on the 3 criteria you provided as well as the ones below, I give myself a 10 per cent improvement.

1. Use of protocol. While you did not list this as a criteria, in my case I was so deficient in module 1 that I concentrated on addressing this issue. As of the completion of this evaluation on Feb. 15 at 6am I had 16 posts (out of 62) in the discussion thread under review. Of these 16 1 was an original post (completed by Wed - satisfying criteria 1 by Kay and Lisa) and 15 were replies. I used the ? correctly in the subject line 5 times, I changed the subject line in all replies, and I responded to each classmate who replied to my original post and I replied to each of my classmate's original posts. This is my expectation of myself, part of these expectations are reflected in the discussion board rubric in our class, part are my view of the role of a caring collaborator in a discussion. My 16 postings occurred on Feb. 11, 12, 13, 14 and 14 (satisfying the 3rd criteria that postings be on at least 3 separate days of the week)

2. Evidence of reading and application of relevant material properly cited.

My original post included:

Vygotsky's constructivist theory, which is often called social constructivism, has much more room for an active, involved teacher. For Vygotsky the culture gives the child the cognitive tools needed for development. The type and quality of those tools determines, to a much greater extent than they do in Piaget's theory, the pattern and rate of development. Adults such as parents and teachers are conduits for the tools of the culture, including language.

In a reply to a classmate I referenced our reading for the week:

So, I first turn to Lehmann and, like all good writers, my question is not directly answered. However, her introductory (past paragraphs of page 4 and 92) and table 4 (pages 24-7) lead me to conclude that the underlying assumption of How to be a Great Online Teacher applies across all disciplines - including the 3 I mentioned earlier.

Then I turn to Pratt (I love saying that) and Palloff and they are much more clear in supporting the first proposition or question rather than the last (xiv - Table 1, 5, 16, 34 . . . 163).

In the same reply, I refer to "relevant" material for the discussion from a previous UofW class:

I do believe it is possible to bottle what Susan Manning in EDUC 763 called "magic dust" that stimulates community and analyze that. Clearly you see this in your face to face classes, and I am intrigued by an approach that seems to address many (most?) learning styles.

In a reply to another classmate I write:

Great comment - this takes me back to an Ed Psych class years ago at ASU. The professor indicated a successful lesson would engage the heart, the mind and the body. I have experienced this as a learner in my spin classes and I have facilitated this - rarely in my macroeconomics classes f2f. I hope to achieve this in my online classes down the road.

The above reference to a previous class would fall under "relevant" material in an effort on my part to integrate past learning with current learning and synthesize and express this in a meaningful way.

And a final example of citation of relevant material, in reply to a question posed to me by a classmate about my level of engagement when I am in the role of facilitator rather than student I wrote:

I just started an online Economic History of the US class on Monday Feb. 11. I have sent 3 class e mails, via class distribution - a welcome e mail, an FAQ e mail, and an overview of module 1 e mail.

The discussion board for the introduction ice breaker, click over to E Learning for Educators to get a sense of what I am doing, has a total of 43 posts (these college students are much less active that grad students) of which I have 2.

So, I know you don't believe this, at the end of the first week, I have 5 communications or one per day. Now, I do log into my online classes multiple times daily to check for student e mails (I have a 24 hour response policy), review progress by students through the course material through the tracking functionality, read discussion board posts, evaluate activities that might be ongoing. But as a visible part of the class, other than my voki persona (see my Teaching Philosophy Statement if you are curious) I am rather absent. This citation of "other relevant" material would be reflected as above average in application of the grading criteria number 2.

Overall, I feel engaged with the discussions and material. I feel progress in my use of protocol, extension of the discussion with my classmates and, as I said on the discussion board, the depth of community in this particular class is much "deeper" than previous classes. I feel close to many of the students in class, not only Bill, April and Heather (who I had meet in prior UofW classes or in other settings) but co participants who I have known for only 3 weeks. These colleagues have evolved from participants to colleague to, in many cases real people who I know and, for the most part, really, really like.