Surprised by Pedagogy!

Stevens, Carol J., et al. "Implementing a Writing Course in an Online RN-BSN Program." Nurse Educator 39.1 (2014):17-21. Web. 31 May 2014.

The article discusses the writing pedagogy issues faced by the nursing faculty of Arizona State University (ASU) as their program shifted from a traditional model at its inception in 1999 to a 100% online program by 2011. Drawing on research about the need for writing in nursing, the authors make a case for collaboration between campus departments to create effective classes that integrate an outcomes-based model with a WID approach (18-19). The authors observe that “few online RN-BSN programs integrate writing instruction into their curricula,” despite professional practice documents calling for “clear and effective communication” as a competency, and a discipline-wide understanding that writing and critical thinking skills are key in a health-care environment (17).  

As ASU migrated their traditional RN-BSN program to be fully online, they took the opportunity to use the increased necessity for writing in an online environment (both for instructors and students) to re-evaluate the program.  Previous attempts to improve writing via rubrics and feedback on completed assignments were deemed unsuccessful (18).  Collaborating with their technical communication (TC) faculty, they instead integrated scaffolded, workplace-based assignments (for example, a researched proposal to a supervisor for a patient information resource) requiring a variety of audiences and forms of evidence.  The TC members drew on the WPA Outcomes for first year composition as they developed the course. Outcomes were consciously “mapped to the nursing writing course…to articulate how the course met disciplinary outcomes for writing (genre, rhetorical concepts, disciplinary conventions, and critical thinking)” (18). 

Scaffolded tasks were handled via sequenced steps on discussion boards.  Students analyzed audiences and contexts more effectively as well as critically thinking about their research process and findings (19).  The discussion “facilitate[d] engagement with the planning stage of the writing process,” and allowed feedback to come earlier in the process (20).  Stevens et al argue that the goal of “students understanding how writing and communication contribute to professionalism was met (20). While the three-year assessment was primarily based on anecdotal evidence, a formal longitudinal assessment is under development at ASU.

While I’ve found many separate articles about online writing, distance learning for nurses, and WID nursing issues, articles that combine the three are less readily found.  The recent date of “Implementing a Writing Course in an Online RN-BSN Program” suggests this is a gap in the scholarship. While the ASU course design pulls heavily and admirably on writing pedagogy, it is offered in multi-sections with a full-time TC faculty member as course-leader and sections taught by part-time “faculty associates” all working from the same “shell” (20). Further, the class enrollments are higher (capped at 30) than those recommended by OWI principles. Nonetheless, the article offers a clear overview of a WID class in an OL environment. Further it models collaboration between faculty from different disciplines who found commonality between their disciplines’ values, and were pleasantly surprised to find they had unexpectedly achieved the “development of RN-BSN faculty writing pedagogy” (20). 

Anonymity In Blended Learning

Miyazoe, Terumi, and Terry Anderson. "Anonymity In Blended Learning: Who Would You Like To Be?" Journal of Educational Technology & Society 14.2 (2011): 175-187. Web. 28 May 2014.

Miyazoe and Anderson examined effects and learning outcomes of allowing students to be anonymous/pseudonymous in forums and blogs of their blended classes. Drawing on existing research showing anonymity mitigates anxiety when submitting work to an instructor in f2f classes (blind submissions) and when doing peer reviews, they ask whether online anonymity can be similarly beneficial.

The authors suggest increased freedom may aid comments and encourage lurkers to participate. A pseudonym allows for an online identity / reputation to build as opposed to all posters being “anon,” but, at the same time, the anonymous online environment assists in “masking various social barriers such as age, gender, social status, and language proficiencies” (176).

Online freewriting and other informal writing--with their decreased emphasis on correctness--may benefit from the freedom. At the same time, process writing with its interactivity and focus on revision also benefits from the anonymity.

They also discussed earlier research showing that, when an option, concealing gender is often selected by women. Anonymous women’s comments also received more feedback than when they posted as female. Mizayoe and Anderson designed a study that asked:

• What are the participatory behaviors of students’ in face-to-face (with real names) and online (with pseudonyms) in blended course designs? 
• How did the students perceive and evaluate the different online writing tools using pseudonyms?
• What are the students’ learning outcomes? (177)

The object of study was three ELL sections offered by the same instructor. The class included f2f class lessons and online writing sessions. Students’ online identities were concealed from all (including the instructor until the end of the semester).

Students reported feeling less embarrassed by mistakes and less inhibited in stating opinions. Female participation was markedly higher in frequency and volume.

Crucially, the authors observe that online writing’s “nature of discourse changes from writing to speaking to what is referred to as writing speech” (183) and the usual meta-language of comment/critique is hard to differentiate from writing it is commenting upon. This is one area where “efforts in reproducing classroom strategies may not work with online writing tools” (183).

Mizayoe and Anderson’s findings are persuasive, and meshed with my own experiences of online writing where I usually use a gender neutral name. Among many examples, the notorious treatment of women bloggers who venture in to tech territory, for example, also, if anecdotally, jibes. Nonetheless, as Mizayoe and Anderson note, anonymity can backfire leading to trolling and flame wars.

It’s important to note that the students are not US students, but ELLs, and the authors are based in Canada and Japan. Some of the participant comments focused on the social discomfort /inability to criticize the work of others, and the social/cultural rules that inhibit opinion. As a member myself of a “polite” culture, the Canadian/Japanese participation experiences perhaps resonated more; however, the freedoms afforded to comment and be seen objectively without gender/social standing being factored in are likely to hold true in the USA.

Review of "Being a Supportive Presence in Online Courses: Knowing and Connecting with Students through Writing."

Diekelmann, Nancy, and Elnora P. Mendias. "Being a Supportive Presence in Online Courses: Knowing and Connecting with Students through Writing." The Journal of Nursing Education 44.8 (2005): 344-346.

This article appears as part of a regular series, “New Pedagogies for Nursing,” in The Journal of Nursing Education. The authors begin with the premises that online courses are valuable and that being a supportive presence to students is crucial. Teachers may, however, “struggle with how to best know and connect with students from a distance” (344). They argue that writing responses to students is a method of being supportive.

Using a method called Narrative Pedagogy, they use “Concernful Practices” to build relationships with distance students. Narrative Pedagogy requires a “shift in teachers’ attention to language” (344). To substitute for the f2f rapport (voice, expression, chatting), teachers respond in a more personal tone than they might usually do in an academic setting. They couched the academic answer to queries in a friendly and personalized response. “Cutting to the chase” is seen as a temptation to OL efficiency but as detrimental to communication and learning. “Eclipsed communication” may ignore the students’ real concerns and focus on the literal answer (345). Replying to the students’ anxieties may not necessarily be a longer response, but the teacher should focus on the “meanings and significance of their responses” (345). The article offers several examples of student queries and how faculty responded to them using personalized “concernful” messages. These communications let students know they are being listened to as well as simply answered.

Narrative Pedagogy asks teachers to “reflect on how practices, such as knowing and connecting, influence the nature of the experience they co-create with students (345) and to be conscious of how they use language from the students’ point of view.

The article is a useful reminder that our students are an audience – moreover, and audience of whom we are asking cooperation. Building rapport in a regular classroom is often a function of personality, and the article gives pedagogical reasons for allowing personality into our OL environments. The article specifically focuses on one-on-one student interactions and answers to concerns; however, combining these techniques with “Dear Class” letters could prove to be a valuable community building strategy. The article assumes the reader knows what Narrative Pedagogy. I needed to look it up at the US National Library of Medicine and found that it is nursing education specific and “is an approach to thinking about teaching and learning that evolves from the lived experiences of teachers, clinicians, and students.” While “concernful practices” initially sounds rather jargony, the action of mindfully fostering “knowing and connecting” via writing is a useful corrective to the possible impersonality of OL learning spaces. While using theory, the article is brief and is primarily a praxis piece. I would recommend it as refresher in the importance of being “human” with our students both OL and f2f.

Introduction

This is my blog for ENGL 824 On-Line Writing Pedagogy Summer 2014.