Tena Crews

Jim,

Ah - good point. So many times we concentrate on students not participating, but those that "hog" the conversation can be disruptive as well. Thanks for bringing that up in this forum.

lance Jones

Code of communication is needed not only to stop communication that is beating the question to death. But also to give other students an opperutnity to get in on the discussion.

Melinda Korenchuk

The rubric also can be a way of clarifying what is expected.

Tena Crews

Lance,

Good point. We do have to keep the communication on track. Thanks so much.

Tena Crews

Melinda,

Definitely! The more clear the expectations, the more the students understand how to work toward the learning outcomes.

John Bohn

Jim,

This is a fantastic idea! Setting the “code” up proactively BEFORE any discussion boards start helps prevent the uncomfortable relatively obvious reactionary posting due to “you-know-who” on the discussion board, so to speak.

I will try something like this – Thanks!

I have not had so much “conversation hogs” as three other problems:

A) “Fact Spouting Experts” (or not): - These students post erroneous or need-to-be-qualified “facts” – or opinions masquerading as facts --based on their alleged career working in such and such field. Sharing personal experience is great and encouraged, but there is a certain uncomfortable level of “Self-appointed Class TA” that is problematic, especially when spouting a mixture of truths, errors, opinions, and sweeping global conclusions.

At times I even wonder if their often insensitive, rigid, pseudo-authoritative and often-off-topic verbiage (along the lines of “No parent should ever….”, or “ If people really cared about their aging parents they would….”, and so on) may unnecessarily bring fellow classmates to shame or silent tears for “doing it all wrong”.

It is a difficult task to correct the errors-made-public (esp. after receiving so much praise from a subset of fellow students who post effusive responses (“WOW! I didn’t know that before – thanks -- you are such a font of knowledge in this area!”)

B) “Tangential Support Group Seekers” – There is often great value in sharing one’s personal story, especially as it relates to the weekly discussion topic.

However, I have had a low level of problematic recurring “discussion topic diverters” who successfully manage to expand this into what appears to be a bid for a support group atmosphere. It escalates to a point that the course topic gets derailed so they can be supported and affirmed by well-meaning classmates in regard to whatever personal life issue is the “angst du jour”. …over and over.

Within reason this is fine, but there is an “enough already“ feeling that I can sense between the lines in many classmates after a while. The challenge is to bring the discussion back on track without appearing cold or uncaring.

C) “MY story = THE topic” Fillibusters: Sometimes there is a much milder variation on this theme where a student will take a poignant personal life experience -- perhaps tangentially connected to the weekly discussion topic to start -- but then go off on this extensively while ignoring to answering the discussion question topics. It is as if the student feels that describing “What they have been through” is equivalent to actually following the discussion board directions.

These last two situations must also be handled with great sensitivity also, as their “story” is often one a great personal significance to them.

The BOTTOM LINE: All of these potential situations might also be “headed off at the pass” by a well-worded “Code of Communication” that you referred to.

- John Bohn

Tena Crews

John,

WOW! Thanks for all of your input and ideas. Keep them flowing! I like your "bottom line."