1. There is a fundamental tension between two of my basic goals: the desire to teach in two separate settings with multiple agendae, on the one hand, and the desire to utilize collaborative and active pedagogies even in the traditional setting on the other. As the semester progresses, the limited days in a traditional classroom leaves little time for traditional modes of discussion and analysis. Increasingly then, I am inclined toward teacher-centered, presentation style teaching. Collaborative pedagogies take time. There are several ways to address this I believe, which I'll elaborate below. But, this is a basic tension to be negotiated if both goals are maintained.

Here are two student responses which address this issue:

I think that this double session was necessary because the course would have otherwise lacked discussion ( of the novels, etc) but I always found myself enjoying the Wednesday (comuter sessions) better than the discussion ones. This may have been a result of the slow moving discussions (the students?) Or simply a disinterest in the way we were going about reviewing the novels. A suggestion is to have more group work or exercises than open forum discussions where only a few people participate. (2c: junior/english)

The double-mesh was interesting and novel, but one problem I see is that because we had so little time each week, dividing the course in a way short-changed the topics we were discussing. For example, I think we could and would have gone into much greater depth in all of these books if we had the time to focus on them two times a week ina classroom. On the other hand, I think we could have used technical procedures much more if we had more time in the lab. It seemed as though we didn't have enought time to adequately cover the materials by splitting the class--so we ran through a couple of passages on Monday and flipped through the internet briefly on Wednesday. (2k: junior/English-theology)

2. Although I was satisfied that students were able to open up their notions of form; I did not produce in them a high sense of rigor and responsibility for their writing to the extent that I wished.

The following responses inform this concern:

I enjoyed it more because I didn't have to go as in depth with the same passage for pages and pages. I liked visually seeing the connections I could make. I didn't have to worry as much about the flow from section to section as you do in a traditional paper because the links were easy/direct connections. (Hyperreflections)

I think in many ways I was not as organized from the start. I usually start by brainstorming and then forming some kind of outline. This time I just jumped right into it and kept changing my ideas because I realized my argument, if any, was weak. Finally I had to print everything out and start from the beginning. Finally I got everything into some semblance of order. (Hyperreflections)

I think that there is less of a tendency to"plan out" this type of a paper (though perhaps there should be more) than a traditional one. I simply sat down with my original quote, wrote my main page, and then worked from there. I had no outline, rough draft, etc. (Hyperreflections)

3. Students need to be eased into writing in hypertext, through small assignments that begin with traditional rhetorical forms and branching out. In this course I believe that is the most productive way to go. I started them off with too extensive an assignment. It was very productive in opening up their approach to writing, but it was nearly overwhelming and bogged down the course in the middle.

Evaluating the Moby-Dick project, a few students emphasized this point:

The idea is very good, and goes along with what I have said about a "web of thoughts". The inter-class discussion on the web was certainly interesting and stimulating. I wonder how it could be improved, and maby it can when the class discusses, say, one books less, and start a little earlier "labelling" what they have written--so that it is easier to surf others' ideas. Maybe you could require students to make an entry on their web-page every week--just questions warming up, and thoughts on issues discussed. Of course, students would have their web-pages earlier, and "register" their weekly writings with a headline and maybe one more sentence on the course home page. Thus, acces to others might be easier..a very good method I found the discussion of one paragraph in relation to the book, and the use of search-engines for works, as in Moby-Dick. (2a: Senior/govt).

gee, the internet is a good place to get informatoin and exchange thoughts...and I guess I learned a great deal about how to do it, and how to use the Internet to build and represent a web of thoughts. I'll try to creat my own homepage in that style one day.....maybe we could have learned stuff before Moby Dick, it was kind of hard to fcous on the very extensive first project and on learning tools. (3a: Senior/govt).

I am no longer scared but rather intrigued by all the things that can be done by internet/computer. [It was valuable] using very accessible/easy resources; learning to build web pages/hypertext. What could be improved is the immersion into technology (--although I know it was harder because of G drive problems). So, maybe give out the "master sheet" from the beginning and have students work on several mini projects before the Moby-Dick one. (1m: junior/English)

4. Adjustments need to be made regarding the technical and structural aspects of the course. Most of the student evaluation critique revolved around one of these two elements: they felt that there needed to be more time spent on ironing out technical skills and glitches; and/or they felt that there was too much to do (studying the novels and learning the technical skills for treating the novels) in a two-day a week, three credit course. Somehow the balance and proportion of time needs to be adjusted. It is probably the case that the course should be a four credit three day a week (200 minutes) course, instead of a two day a week, three credit (150 minute) course.

A number of students commented on this issue:

I really enjoyed switching between the classroom and the lab. I thought the lab really complemented the overall course. The computer lab was very interesting and informative to learn more practical computer skills to explore new sources of informatoin. I thought we could use more time on the computers though. (2q: junior/english)

On the whole I believe the dual classroom idea worked well. I enjoyed being able to often contextualize things we had discussed on a Monday during one of the following Wed classes. One personal thing though: I found it occasionally difficult to compose/work on individual projects during Wed classes. Sometimes I felt like I needed more time to process information I had found, rather than immediately going to a keyboard and writing. But then, I see how this could be beneficial as well. I definitely felt that the hypertext aspect let me see the texts in a wider literary context. (2f: soph/undecided)

It is much fast and more efficient to type thoughts out than it is to write -- I liked having that option in class. I would like more instruction (detailed demonstrations) about how to run the programs (websites, etc..) Instead of typed out explanations. (3d: junior/english)

Obviously any knowledge about computers will be helpful in the future. I do think that (at least for people with no computer knowledge) an explanation packet concerning all of the drives, saving, linking, etc. info would be helpful if given out on the first day that way more time for focus on novels. (3i: junior/English)

The basic knowledge of being able to create a webpage and to utilize the web to enhance experiences was very valuable. I was apprehensive about this course because I don't know a lot about computers, but I think it went well. I think maybe, however, that some more time needs to be spent, not necessarily in class, but figured into the Moby-Dick project on technical aspects. (3y: soph/English)

Most valuable would be learning the basics about computers but I think that it was assumed that we knew too much from the get go and this really hurt me on my paper. I spent so much time figuring out computer skills that my paper was mediocre at best. (3j: senior/English)

Yes, I thought it was an exciting new medium to work in, yet it sucked up a lot of valuable time in sheer procedure-learning. But I found the hypertexts unique and they resonated in what we have been talking about in class. Using the internet provided many stimulating ideas. (4l: junior/English-theology)

5. The demands for balance and integration in this course would be better served in a different kind of physical space. Optimally, I need a teaching space that could accommodate both technology work and discussions (e.g., the "hollow square" model). Additionally, I cannot teach the course again with more students than computers (28 computers, 34 students).

As one student suggests:

I enjoyed going to the lab to use alternative resources but do not think it mandates half of our time. Possibly using the lab every other week would be more efficient, and give us more time to look at the works themselves. Work in the lab is not as time efficient as normal classroom material. An alternative is to have a longer session in the lab every other week, maybe 2 ½ hours. This way, there is time to get a significant amount done. (2v: senior/Finance)

Argument Sections

Burden of Proof * Intentions * Design * Indications * Complications

Course Portfolio Homepage | Course Portfolio Index