This is the P2PU Archive. If you want the current site, go to www.p2pu.org!
Course Design Orientation
My recent threads
You haven't posted any discussions yet.
Recently updated threads
- The End of Courses: Capturing Meaningful Reflections Sat, 2011-05-14 18:03
- Welcome new organizers - please introduce yourself! (April 2011) Thu, 2011-04-28 19:10
- How is your course going? Let us know! Wed, 2011-04-27 05:31
- Become a tester on new.p2pu.org! Mon, 2011-04-25 22:03
- when not to run a course? Mon, 2011-04-25 22:00
accounting for shyness and/or introversion?
(See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shyness, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introversion)
I am finding that people who have not been shy about signing up for my courses appear much more shy about participating in them. Or are my expectations skewed? This is another question that I might have liked to know more about at the outset (http://p2pu.org/general/node/11464/forums/25458), but I'm wondering what I can do now -- because I think this issue is threatening to sink "otherwise perfectly good" classes.
I'm also led to wonder how good a course design really is, if it doesn't take into account how people really want to participate (rather than just what they imagine might happen). For example, in one of my courses, the participants said they mainly just wanted to write code. But are we going to have anything like regular "checkins", or are they just going to spend 6 weeks writing code on their own? In another course, I fear not much will happen at all if people aren't willing to stick their necks out a bit further. Maybe I could have designed the course in a "friendlier" way, but I don't quite know what it would have looked like. A "peer" course seems to require a certain amount of interaction! - but maybe less than I was thinking? Or maybe people are inclined to drop for some other reason than being shy about the topic?
I'm just feeling confused because last quarter I thought that the whole problem was to do with "structure" - and my classes now have structure! Buy-in still seems to be missing. I'm curious to know what I might have done wrong - or if I just need to be a bit more patient.
What I'm suspecting is that when people sign up for a course (even if it is fairly clearly described), they seem to engage in some "magical thinking". The only antidote I can think of is to more actively engage the course participants in shaping the course, before it even starts. Except, if people are going to be shy about that, then nothing will take off at all.
Feeling somewhat disappointed, but potentially a lot can be learned from this sort of experience (I'm not the only one who has it, I know that much), and we can assemble some tougher 'best practices' for course design as a result...?
The internet always will have this problem. No accountability / cost "what have I got to lose" = nothing.
Its just like on the street people hand you cards etc all day.
What is the response % ..not much.
You can offer free food ,and many will eat.
Tell them they have to cook it themselves, less will eat.
Tell them that they have to find a recipe, even less will eat.
Its the evolution of this learning style.
We discovered the need for two tracks so we split the course.
Oz
"We discovered the need for two tracks so we split the course."
Interesting - could you say more about that?
We discovered very early on that the requirements of the peers were vast. Some did programming , some did not. The original planned content was at pretty high level. ( needed to have at least one programming language under your belt)I looked at it and suggested to to Paraq ( the original admin ) that we create 2 tracks and I will admin the " lite " track. I created a quick questionnaire form and out of 77 folks that responded 32 wanted the lite track.
To create a new course would have been way too confusing for everyone.
Have you tried some "ice breaker" activities that didn't involve your course content but just fun get-acquainted kind of stuff? I've found that once a few people jump in, then everyone starts talking. Forums have been hugely successful for this for my course.
Well, I did ask people to introduce themselves to one another. Things remained rather silent. I agree that asking them to say "What's something awesome you've done in the last 6 months" or something like that would have different results... it's good advice.
But, that said, I do think the subject of your course and the subject of mine are quite different, and likely to attract people at different ends of the extrovert/introvert spectrum! Usually (in school) mathematics is something you just do on your own and then hand in the homework sheet. The idea of actually talking about it with other people is perhaps a pretty "advanced" concept (more's the pity).
I'll see what I can do here, but it's tedious to feel like I have to "save" the course after the first week (again).
Usually there are some "early posters", divide everyone into groups that include at least one of them and introduce a little bit of competition in addition to the touchy-feely stuff.
I agree getting mathy folk to chat is a bit tough, doable though.
Joe,
I remember a comment from Pippa (if I remember well) who rightly pointed to a crucial aspect, which we all - me included - tend to forget: we need to learn to be peers.
We might overestimate the competence to be a learning peer, - or, in case we have never learnt - the willingness to learn to act as a peer - and not a student in the conventional classroom model.
As for mathematics, I wonder: what does it imply to be a learner peer in mathematics? I had this thought after reading what you wrote:
"Usually (in school) mathematics is something you just do on your own and then hand in the homework sheet".
Are people ready to participate as peers (and not as students in the setting you well described) in a math course?
Hi Marisa:
I think you've put it quite well.
(1) How much are others ready to be peers in these courses? Maybe not a lot, if they aren't used to (a) discussions about the topic or (b) online discussions at all.
(2) How much am I ready to be a peer in these courses? Well, given the subject matter, I feel I'm more ready to follow along as a "tutor" or something. Which is not to say that the material is boring for me! My point is that I'm not going to sit there and do exercises in the subject any *more* than the other people in the course. So maybe I'm not in a very good position to "lead by example" in that course.
By contrast, for our course, or for the one that Charlie is running, I think I'm able to do just that.
And I also think I could "lead by example" in a mathematics context -- but it would likely not be in a course. Hence the nature of my Ph. D. project.
Especially after these recent experiences, I'm having doubts about whether others will participate as peers in such a setting -- but I guess that as long as I can at least imagine myself participating (BTW, in answer to your question, I think that mainly means by contributing and solving problems) then there's a chance that there will be some likeminded people who want to do the same thing. That said, it's challenging, because I'm not currently working towards a mathematics degree but towards a computer science type of degree. I hope I don't just go and engineer a system that no one wants to use!
Anyway, to sum up, it seems P2PU is doing more to serve my "theory" side than it is to serve my "practical" side. I don't know what to say on behalf of the people who signed up for my courses -- do they feel well served or not? I have no reason to think they feel much of anything about the courses, actually.
I hope I can learn some things from these experiences. Certainly I wouldn't think I could run a successful P2PU course until I figure it out a bit further. And yes, I think the idea of engaging as a peer (rather than just as someone who thinks peer learning would be neat if it was to work) is going to be one of those key points. And as I mentioned I'm glad to have had a taste of the sweet aspects of that experience in the non-math courses instead of just the bitterness associated with math courses that don't do what I want them to do.
Joe
I've been following this thread closely and have been waiting to jump in - mostly because I'm so curious to see a conversation develop around this idea: unlearning student roles and embracing "peer" status..
I think you've all highlighted key issues, many of them non-technical, rather social.
I do believe that P2PU puts too much of the "evangelizing" responsibility on course organizers. I would love to have this conversation turn into an input session for how P2PU, as a whole community, can welcome brand-new folks and simultaneously ease them into the role of peer rather than student - taking some of the burden off organizers. That way when a course begins the expectations are already set.
Keep in mind P2PU is rolling out a new site form scratch that will allow for social networking and distribute administrative functions for easier use... so technical suggestions should go to the dev list.
Some suggestions that have come up is additional formats for learning, not just rugged courses, but fluid study groups and facilitator-less groups..
Other ideas are having participants "accept their acceptance" into a course...
Hi Alison:
Thanks very much for the comment, and I share your enthusiasm about P2PU learning from all the different experiences people have around the site.
I think we could sum up the point about "peers vs students" in another way -- namely, if people have to go too far out of their way to participate, they won't do it. If we organise courses around things that might already happen anyway, that's a chance to "add value".
I think I've already shared all of my existing suggestions for P2PU in the various lists!! Any technically-oriented comments I made in the posts above were likely just me addressing myself. The "additional format" that I'm personally thinking about would emphasize solid support for self-study, but with plenty of ways to "break out" for peer support. There's an niche here, very close to the content itself, that's rather different from P2PU or OCW+OpenStudy -- at least as they are currently manifested. This is what I aim to work on with PlanetMath.
In the spirit of improving on things that might happen anyway -- if it turns out there are good ways to collaborate with P2PU people in this "content-rich" mathematics learning field (or with similar approaches in adjacent fields), I'd definitely be gung-ho about pursuing it!!!
Best,
Joe
Joe, I don't know if this would work with the type of math course you're doing, but one thing I've done in other learning environments is to have students use interactive whiteboard-type software to show how they solved different problems for others to see. (This could be done synchronously or not, through screen captured movies.) Invariably, with math, there are different ways to approach problem solving, and different methods resonate with different people.
Hi Karen:
Another useful idea - but again only likely to work if people really want to engage with each other and with the course subject. To a certain extent the selection of tools WILL influence that -- but still, tools can also be selected organically by engaged participants, so I don't exactly feel that the initial selection of tools makes or breaks it for a course. I do think it would be nice to collect some "make or break" conditions that describe "engagement" itself.
Best,
Joe
One thought (in the case of introverted people as opposed to shy people) is to just wait! Participation in one of my courses (Math for Game Designers) seems to have reached a relatively steady state - not high traffic, but things are happening. The other course (Short Calculus) is pretty much silent.
I wonder if the Calculus students are authentically more "shy". As I was thinking about this recently, I was realising: to be a beginning mathematics student and ask questions in public can be scary. To try to solve problems "on the chalkboard" can be even more scary. Doing it on the internet for the whole world to see could be a nightmare!
This is concerning to me, because my "main" research project involves building a space for people to solve and share math problems over the internet. What if most people's natural shyness would make that a non-starter?
Or is "shyness" even the right word here? If people are present online behind the "mask" of an avatar of some sort (http://blogs.ischool.berkeley.edu/masks/) maybe they can be more bold?
Accordingly, I think the problems with the Short Calculus course design are not *just* that people are shy. I would appreciate a critique or review of the course from anyone who could offer ideas about how to make it go better next time!
Link is here btw: http://p2pu.org/math-future/short-calculus
Karen> ... have students use interactive whiteboard-type software to show how they solved different problems for others to see.
I think all courses held online in the style of P2PU need to find tools that fit the communication needs of the members and collaborative tools centered on the subject matter. It is a simple tool but perhaps your short calculus can make use for this symbolic integration tool:
Int (P^2+PU)/x dx = P (P + U) log(x)
http://integrals.wolfram.com/index.jsp?expr=(P^2%2BP+U)/x
There have to be other online symbolic math consoles and interactive plotting packages (matlab, octave, R etc). Here are two resources I found with a simple Google search:
http://www.univie.ac.at/future.media/moe/onlinewerkzeuge.html
http://www.numberempire.com/derivatives.php
I have posted a roll call thread asking for participants who are still going to, well, participate to respond. We had INCREDIBLY low participation this last week, which is pretty bad because I have given them a more involved task and slightly more involved reading list.