Jackie, and all,
I agree that there are f2f lurkers in class, who may or may not "get away" with it for long (remember, I teach first year college students). In an online list serve I lurk all the time; if I repled to every post I'd have no tine to do what I'm "supposed" to be doing, but you better believe I'm filing resources for future reference (assuming I ever have time to get back to them :-). I do consider list serves my continuing education. So I'm improving my practice even when lurking. In an online class, however, it's impossible to lurk: in a discussion board that's graded, non-participants get graded down very quickly, and one can keep track of how often they view and/or post. If they're "absent" for very long they get an e-mail from me. Analogously , I've heard from colleagues that while companies have found group work f2f to be not as productive, for the same reasons students often don't like it, because some do all the work, and some lurk, even f2f,
 or don't show up with a crucial piece of the group's work. Online group work, on the contrary, because it's monitored, is more purpose-driven, and more productive, because participants know that higher-ups (the teacher, in the classroom) can tell the level of participation. Not that we can't f2f, but often it might involve peer evaluation of the group process to really get a good picture. A list serve, obviously, is not the same as a working group with a task and purpose that will be evaluated in some way. Volunteers post the same way they post to the ALE Wiki for example, because they want to; they're kinesthetic learners and need to be doing something.
    As for what brought us to the term "lurker" to begin with (I, too, like "peripheral productive user") is because numbers of participants is never a valid measure of a group's effecftiveness, not without a lot of scaffolding, surveys, and he like. A non-participant can send a post or a link anywhere, and its impact can be immense. As for Mr. Sticht's implicit claim that "the field"'s interest is not aligned with those dictated by government policy, so what? I've worked both in workplace and family literacy, both of which are very hands on and very context-dependent, programs varying according to the needs of the particular participants. How one does that may be crucial and material for discussion; doing it is not that difficult, and again, is very resource driven and not that much, perhaps, open to debate. Content-based education is precisely that, building necessary skills and competencies needed to function in a given environment for very
 specific goals and tasks. Any "meta" embedded (and it's my feeling it must be) is practitioner dependent, not program dependent. Enough from me. This would not fit in a tweet...
Best,
Bonnie Odiorne, Ph.D. Director, Writing Center Adjunct Professor of English, French, First Year Transitions, Day Division and ADP
Post University, Waterbury, CT 




________________________________
From: Jackie A. Taylor <jackie at jataylor.net>
To: assessment at nifl.gov
Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2009 2:22:29 PM
Subject: [Assessment 1992] Re: Participation Inequality


Hi Phyllis and all,
 
Phyllis, I totally agree; I don't like the term "lurker" either. I think of myself as a "peripheral participant" in most communities. In fact, this is probably the most I've said on this list! ;-) I believe Etienne Wenger, the guru of online communities of practice <http://www.ewenger.com/> calls lurking "legitimate peripheral participation."
 
Once, the Professional Development List got into ahuge spontaneous discussion about the term lurker; at the end of the discussion they officially abolished the term on that list! People learn and participate differently, and that’s OK to me. 
 
Jackie Coelho asked, “And aren't there some 'lurkers' in a face to face class? What is the connection if any?”
 
Great question. I think one difference is that in a face-to-face class, you can gauge participation through observation: does the learner appear engaged, or disconnected? Does she appear to have a question but may be afraid to ask? Is she taking what she’s hearing /seeing / reading and using it in a way that’s meaningful for her? 
 
These types of things are much harder to know online, on a discussion list where we cannot see one another. The only way we’ll know whether others have questions is if they voice (post) them. We can’t know if others are reticent about posting; we can only hope that everyone feels comfortable enough to post a question when they have one. 
 
In a face-to-face class, how long might students go without asking questions? Can we take advantage of down time here on the list (in between guest discussions) for asking questions that may lead to more spontaneous discussions?
 
What else helps? (Here’s my 2 cents, what do you think?)
 
·         Hearing how you use the information you receive, any subsequent questions, issues, or challenges that raises for you
·         Sharing back with the list what others in your program have been discussing about assessment issues
·         Hearing how our discussions here are informing policy and research
 
(I do not think that “ditto” types of responses help.) 
 
So I find myself wondering, we’re resources for each other right now; are we sure that we’re making the most of it? (and maybe we are!)
 
Enough from me. I want to know what you think.
 
Sincerely,
 
Jackie Taylor
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.nifl.gov/pipermail/assessment/attachments/20090711/e2736ab1/attachment.html