Ann Woodlief, Virginia Commonwealth University
Most teachers of literature would agree that students need to learn how to build their own interpretations of texts, individually and as a group, not just replicate the teacher's interpretation. Yet this process is difficult to enact for each student in the ordinary classroom. Ten years ago I began using computers as an interactive medium, with students all writing, reading each other's papers, and rewriting after thinking through alternative interpretations.
Pedagogy must dominate tools, especially with the computer, but the tools do make a qualitative difference in the effectiveness of the interactivity. For years, I used e-mail lists for papers and feedback, but writing within student texts was disruptive as students were sometimes offended by being "overwritten." For the past five years, I have used Connect.Net from W. W. Norton and threaded forums as part of Web-Course-in-a-Box (which includes archives, ability to edit, e-mail links, and closed postings). Both are effective and can be adapted for different pedagogical goals yet they create somewhat different kinds of interaction.
Pedagogically, I am trying to teach my students to become active and interactive readers, by leading through them through a process of reading and deep re-reading to create multiple interpretations for comparison and negotiation. The process generally ends with reading process reviews and focused critical analyses. Technically, this means that students post responses to their reading, often guided by prompts, questions, and contextual materials on-line (linked to the Syllaweb), read the postings of a group of 8-10 students and discuss them on-line synchronously (if possible). They may re-read the text and continue on-line discussion until some consensus of interpretations is reached; then they may write thesis papers or review the on-line work. All postings and discussions are available for students to read, even those that did not participate, offering many ideas for these final, more focused papers.
Results for both modes of discussion are quite positive. All students must participate as part of their grade. They do learn to read much more closely, as they see details and thoughts they had missed and have to defend their own ideas to questioning students. In time their abilities to interpret, to be more analytical and supportive, expand, as they can be called for slopping thinking and unsupported conclusions by anyone in the class. The relative anonymity of the interaction (although they always use their names) greatly adds to the frankness of the critique. They also learn from each other by coming to recognize the "gold" from students with stronger reading and writing skills. Although teacher comments on papers are still important (I do give the final grades!), the students probably learn more from each other by figuring out the elements of good reading and writing.
There are some differences in the interactions. Connect.Net (see review) seems to encourage more serious initial writing from students. They use WORD with its resources and an on-line CONNECT Handbook for quick grammar checks. They write in full paragraphs, filling at least one "screen" and often two (rarely more) for initial postings. The discussion feature, where they write comments on papers in a small box "on" the posted paper and can insert passages for discussion, creates a sense of immediate conversation, although comments tend to be shorter and more informal. Students note that this discussion feature (and the fact that they can easily send private messages to each other) seems more "alive." Since they have to type in the name of the author of a paper, they quickly come to "know" each other.
The downside of Connect.Net is that it is a WORD macro program working through a variety of Internet servers. Crashes, freezing, and viruses are not at all uncommon, raising the frustration level. The learning curve is relatively steep, requiring at least two class sessions before students begin to feel comfortable. There are excellent instructions on using the program in the Connect Manual, but students often want to learn on-line and not read the book. The next version should be more Web than WORD-based.
The forums offered by Web-Course-in-a-Box, such as these, are fairly typical of any good forum, offering threaded discussions, archives and other teacher choices. It is much easier to learn and access is no problem, since it is totally Web based. It also works better asynchronously and for distance learning than Connect (although I much prefer the synchronous interactions). Forums can also be combined with student portfolios for group critique (example).
There can be negative side effects with forums, however, for the kind of serious writing I am looking for. Students take less care with their writing, and spelling and sentence errors abound. Clearly they rarely work over their writing when it is being written in a box, and even having the ability to edit does not help. Accustomed to chat groups where coherence and capitals are often optional, they may revert to that style. They write much less, because they are writing into a box and not on a full screen; the visual space does make a difference. Given a choice, students generally chose Connect, once they have mastered it. They like the idea of formal posting and informal discussion, and in fact, the results are generally more substantial from my perspective.
However, both tools can be easily adapted to create
a community of active readers who learn how to think and interpret for
themselves. They ensure that all the students become full participants,
not just a few bold ones, and class conversation is far richer than it
could be in the ordinary classroom.
© 1996-2000, Universitat de València Press
© del grupo "mmm"
Comentarios a: fores@uv.es
València 15th September 2000