Hi Bonnie, Jackie and everyone,
 
I'm not sure I fully would agree that it's impossible to lurk in
different situations and still not get the same thing out of the event.
I completely agree that the ideal is in fact to 'close the circle of
learning' by getting feedback in some form from the user; being an
assessment and evaluation person, it sort of makes me crazy that the
online discussion list is the most difficult venue to receive this type
of feedback.  But in fact, this is the reality of this learning forum
and I have become more comfortable with this piece being unknown.  And
of course right at the moment, I'm beyond thrilled because that feedback
is being received.
 
I think that different learning styles and habits can play a big part in
what a person gets out of a situation.  I hardly spoke twice during my
graduate seminar on Don Quixote de la Mancha (in Spanish), but it didn't
stop me from devouring the book and contemplating the interpretations of
others in the class.  I just was not confident with my own
interpretations, and then in Spanish to boot.  Not only did I come to
know a great piece of writing, but I greatly improved my Spanish by
listening to (mostly) native speakers.  I also know that one of my
strongest learning styles is listening.  
 
One of the really great things about this venue though, is that the
options for 'doing something' with the material are pretty infinite - as
opposed to what might be expected of a student in a face-to-face class
or an online course.  And this is also where the rubber hits the road:
there ARE expectations when you attend a particular class or online
course and so it's much easier to gauge results.  But we have just read
a number of the ways that subscribers use the material that's presented
here, and I'm sure there are more ways as well.  So this fact makes this
learning environment much richer in ways than other types of forums, but
at the same time, closing that circle of learning is thus more elusive. 
 
And now:  enough from me!!  What do others think?
 
marie
 
-----Original Message-----
From: assessment-bounces at nifl.gov [mailto:assessment-bounces at nifl.gov]
On Behalf Of Bonnie Odiorne
Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2009 7:14 PM
To: The Assessment Discussion List
Subject: [Assessment 1993] Re: Participation Inequality
 
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 a huge 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/20090714/275fd0f7/attachment.html