Hall of Mirrors: Week 3

The group task for us during Week 3 was to... "continue with the collaborative learning theme and reflect in a group about the performance of the group" (George Roberts).

We had to produce a summary of the discussions we had that were related to the task in Week 2 (see previous blog). Introspective stuff.

Week 3 was not easy for me, because I had some very heavy commitments elsewhere that took up lunchtimes and just about every evening; this, combined with the ongoing problems that are a repercussion of the flood at work two weeks ago, meant that I got way behind on this one, and only contributed right at the end of the week.

Fortunately other team members did a good job, under Jenny's stewardship.  Overall I don't think that many of us matched the previous week in terms of input, but then again that would take some beating.

We started off by pairing up in order ask each other questions about how we felt the previous week went; some pairs produced considerable input.

Jenny then came up with a series of questions we should ask ourselves, and this progressed by a number of us each taking Jenny's initial list of questions, and typing in our own responses

She then summarised these responses in a table; on the horizontal axis:

"The questions we asked ourselves"
"A summary of our answers"
"Critical incidents that affected our group performance"
"Additional Comments"

Then on the vertical axis:

"What kick started us? How long did it take to get going?"
"How did we establish the roles within the group and how happy were we with our individual role and that of others?"
"Which roles did we feel were most significant for this task?"
"Which events/actions were critical to the completion of the task?"
"What were the strengths of the group?"
"What were the weaknesses of the group?"
"Would we have worked any differently f2f?"
"How would we evaluate our final submission?"
"If we were being assessed for the submission, how well do you think we would have done?"
"If we were being assessed by our peers for our contribution, how well do you think we would have done?"
"What could we have learned from Yellow and Blue groups (the other two groups from the cohort)?"

Each cell of this table comprised a summary of the answers we gave to the list of questions that were originally as circulated by Jenny.

Our final submission was OK - but Jenny really did most of the work here.

The plenary task asked of us was to each prepare an inventory of good practice in e-moderation.

What we've learned so far was reflected in these postings.

I believe that if you're a good f2f teacher then you'll probably make a good e-moderator, although I don't think it's necessarily the case the other way round, due to the additional demands and pressures that face a classroom teacher. However, it is my opinion that a good e-moderator will make a good f2f tutor.

I tried express this view by looking at what an authoritative text said about being a good teacher; or rather a special kind of teacher - the preacher; the text was the King James Bible, 1 Timothy, chapter 3, vv 1-7:

"1This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; 4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; 5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) 6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil."

Nobody can doubt that these are fine principles to abide by, and there are very specific reasons why a Christian preacher should conform to each and every one of them.

Are they relevant to any teacher? Of children - I think so; are they relevant to a University lecturer? And one that isn't of the Bob Jones, Grace or Lipscomb ilk? That's an ideal, though how far does one want to go? Tutor George Roberts (the Development Director for Off-Campus e-learning at Brookes)  answered my applying this text (in attempting to put together an inventory about what makes a good online tutor), by asking how blameless we have to be to teach, citing the current Ericsson furore, where, it might be argued, sanctity is expected even of those who teach football.

I certainly believe that key principles derived from the above passage can be applied to tutoring, and if applied to the process of e-moderation, will result in very effective e-moderation indeed.

What's needed is to apply these principles to the current context; I would do so initially by applying them with respect to Scollon's "Maxims of Stance", which are given in our course material (Scollon, 1998). The gist of this calls for consideration initially to be given to the "channel". I take this to mean the medium of communication - is it possible to do what we wish to do, or need to do, as tutors, in the environment offered, and how should we go about it.
The next consideration refers to "relationships" - the practice of refining interaction between tutors and students so that it becomes productive in terms of meeting learning objectives. The final consideration is the "topic", or subject material. It's significant that this is the final consideration, implying that a good online tutor should meet initial generic online tutoring criteria first; only then can specialist subject knowledge be effectively applied.

I didn't have time to actually do this, stopping short at a series of general principles.