Chat Rooms

We have just completed our second group adventure in chat rooms. Earlier, I commented on the negative perception I felt after our first attempt; but, I have to admit today's went relatively well!

First, I was under no time constraints. Last week, I had to get to class for presentations and was frustrated by being cut off even though I had given up some class time. Looking back at it, I think what frustrated me the most was not the lack of my input, but delaying the students. I can empathize with students who are about to present being put on hold. The nervous energy must have been skyrocketing! But the group that did perform did a good job. This week, I have the flu and had called out for the second day in a row. (My wife turned me on to that term: "called out." She said you can't really "call in" to stay out! Made sense. I've been using the term ever since.) So physically I was trashed, but mentally I did not have the "Must Go Now!" mentality.

Second, obvious rule changes had taken place with respect to entering comments. This new norm was NOT spoken about, it just happened. That is why I had a problem with the group charter being declared "a list of our normative behaviors" because the research I have looked at says norms are created mentally, not in writing, and you only know you have broken a norm by breaking it and receiving the "punishment" of the other group members. In this chat, we specified who our comment was directed to versus just commenting. I had asked that we do that early on last week, but got no responses. This week, people would start or end their post with the name of the person the line was directed to instead of simply making a statement. "Yes, Ann, that is a good idea." "No Josolyn, I haven't heard from Grace." "Does that answer your question, Brent?" This new normative behavior was very successful and helped keep the conversation understandable. Biggest point? This was the perfect example of a group norm developing as it was unwritten and the "punishment" for not following it was a quick rebuke: "Who does that 'Yes, I agree' go to Stanley?" A "real" group norm!

Third, multiple people kept the conversation on track. Michelle, last week's group leader, joined Ann (this week's group leader) in reminding people what the question was and the need to finish the discussion of that issue before moving on. For example, Brent asked early on about naming a new group leader for next week. His post was ignored as we were discussing a different issue and when he brought it up again, I wrote that he was correct that it was ignored! Michelle then wrote a summation of what we were talking about and all agreed with the recap BEFORE we got to Brent's comment.

Finally, the phases of group development theory came out over the last two weeks as well. When groups first get together, they suffer from what Bales called "primary tension." Last week we were all wondering how we would work together, what our roles were, wondering about the class, etc. and our communication was kept, for the most part, in the abstract. This week, the communication was more concrete and very little use of abstraction took place. If somebody was being more abstract, "I think I should shorten my answer" for example, someone would immediately enter "Yes, Stanley, answer the question without all of the supporting material as we know that already. Refer to it and then answer the question." The preceding was a good example of how we switched to more concrete language choices in today's group.

We did suffer from what Bales called "secondary tension" when we were discussing who would be the next group leader as, initially, nobody wanted the responsibility going into our last week. As our charter specified that we would go in alphabetical order, Stanley should have been the Leader in Waiting (someone to help the leader out during the week) this week, but he had begged off. So I took his place as my name would never come up in the rotation for leader (being a "W"). So for next week it should have been simple, but the next person in line has not been as active as a leader should be due to outside issues. My name kept coming up and I really did not want to do it explaining that I had served the group already. Josolyn said she could not be the leader, but could serve as the LIW, so Stanley finally volunteered (as he was next in the alphabet) to lead us next week. This secondary tension should occur every time a group gets together and we are lucky that the conflict was substantive and not interpersonal (which we experienced last week).

Overall, a much more positive outcome for us this week in the chat room versus last. Moral of the story? I believe that we need to limit outside interference when meeting synchronously, enjoy the new norm of naming people when writing, and allow some of the socio-emotional aspects of the group to come out, but temper it with the need to fulfill the task at hand and our chat experiences should run smoothly. Chat rooms can work for a group!

Accessibilty for EVERYONE?

Kind Folks,

I was absolutely amazed watching the videos sent by AIM (Accessibility In Mind) as the thought that the internet was NOT available to everyone never crossed my mind. Although, like this semester, I have hearing or sight impaired or ESL students in class; I have always been able to compensate for them: interpreter/speakers, discussion folks, and ESL tutor help.

When I first started taking on-line classes, I never dreamt that I would have students with disabilities. I thought that, per chance, if a class is on-line then the understanding of the English (actually, American) language, the need to be able to see and hear and write American was a "given."

I am saddened that my view was so myopic. I am, however, happy as hell that I have been given the opportunity to be all-inclusive! POUR it on! Make my site Perceivable! Make it Operable! Make it Understandable! Make it Robust!

For the "P" in POUR, I need to make my site enlarge-able for the vision impaired. Absolutely never crossed my mind even though my Dad has worked for the Lion's Club (helping the visually impaired) for over 50 years. I need to make sure the site works with both screen enlargers and screen readers.

For the "O" in POUR, I need to make my site operable for multiple student impairments. Whether a student is visually, aurally, or motor impaired; the site needs to be able to BE accommodating. I still wonder about how many "cognitive impairments" I need to cover on my web site, but that is best left for a future blog.

The "U" in POUR is for understandable. Every connection needs to flow together, every "color" (made clear to the sight impaired) needs to make sense, every graphic need to be -not necessarily easy- but understandable. When students ask me if my class is "hard," I always respond "Yes! But it is understandable!"

Finally, I need to make my website robust to cover the "R" in POUR. Suzie Ama has set up her course so there are multiple dimensions a video can be viewed, because the more ways a person can experience a video, lecture, talk, etc., the better. What about a blind student taking my on-line class? What will I do for him/her? What about a deaf person? How much video can s/he understand without the needed subtitles? What about the motor-impaired student? Can I construct Cascading Sheets that they can actually understand?

Wow! A lot of stuff that I never thought about.

I will try to get it all completed as I firmly believe that all of my students can succeed. Why stop those with impairments?

C-ya.

I found the material in building an online community fascinating. particularly as we are experiencing each step along the way! Do you think the professor has read these yet? Let me explain:

In the article by Khalsa and Hildreth (2000), they explained how a professor can take an on-line group and bring them to a "optimal" standard. They explained that building a virtual community would require the need to set the right tone at the start through supportive participation that leads to collaboration, facilitation, and application. After that, the professor needs to take this budding on-line community and help them evolve. By evolve, the duo meant that the on-line group would then explore, apply, put what they've learned into practice, and then report back to the group.

We have followed this model through the first week's assignments which gave us the background knowledge necessary for an understanding of on-line classes place in life-long learning. Our professor also stated clear objectives and outcomes that set the tone for the course. She helped to maintain the community by individual responses to each participant during the initial assignment which served to spur the communicative event that was occurring and to further the need for us to keep communicating with each other. All of sudden, she disappeared from our posts because the framework of the class allowed us to join with others in small groups where we began to create our social capital.

To build social capital, or the "learning of the collective self," we needed to participate in activities that promoted the community good. This was accomplished by our group building the group charter. We all agreed upon the outcome and used or created networks directed to completing the only issue facing our community: Completing the charter. Our transition from individuals to a group took in both formal and informal learning. Formal learning from the readings and informal learning from our interactions. I learned straight-away that in order for the group to prosper, I had to back away from my normal "straight talk (ala John McCain)" that I normally reserved for groups in the past. Because of my knowledge of groups and group activities, I thought of myself as an expert for the group. I started to become frustrated when I was not asked to share what I know. Then we attempted a synchronous learning episode.

On Tuesday morning of this week, we "met" in the chat room. I had already explained to my class that I would have to delay the start of their assignment as I was involved in this group and my subject matter would be brought up late in the agenda. This was my first "chat room" experience, and I soon became frustrated at the delayed response time, the fact that I would write something and hit enter and nothing came up, the fact that some group members would stray off topic, and the fact I had to go last as the meeting was soon eating into my class time. Then, just before it was my turn to participate, I furiously typed out my section for the group to read just as all of the group members signed off! I became furious that I had just wasted the time that 37 students had for completing their assignment on time and the anger built up. When given the first opportunity, I laid into the group leader for not calling on me and for quitting before the end of the agenda she had written. Instead of an apology, I received a "I thought we were done" message followed by an explanation of what I was to do even though I had already done it. Any social capital that had been built up in me went completely out the door.

During this time, I was also experiencing complications from some medications and I withdrew from the group completely for two days. Initially, because I was angry. But after some time, I finally figured out that it was all experiential learning and that I needed to get back to the group. So now, with the meds figured out and the anger dissipated, I am ready again to build on the social capital that was ours by actually rejoining our community's discussion.

I figure that this interaction was actually good for me and, therefore, the group because I am now ready to face the remaining assignments with the awareness that nobody really gives a damn about who you were, but who you are right now and the need to apply our learning to our community and beyond. I will definitely be using this knowledge gained through the informal learning process in my classes and share what I learned to help apply these ideas to the communities I am involved with outside the on-line environment; thus completing the process of creating an optimal on-line community.

In summary, setting the tone, setting the expectations, maintaining the community, evolving the community, and then applying the knowledge to other environments are the core steps in creating the optimal on-line community. Because of the way the class was designed, and because of the nature of the interactions with the professor, we have followed all of these steps and have built up social capital that I hope we can share throughout the process and beyond.