English 101: College Reading and Writing College Reading and Writing is a foundational writing and reading class for first-year students. I have been teaching the class for over 15 years; however, this is the first time that I taught the class as a hybrid (or blended) class. I created the following three components for IBIS:
Discussion Questions: Rather than hold weekly discussions F2F, on Wednesdaysmy blended class held discussions online. I created thediscussion questions at first, but after the first four weeks they were responsible for creating the discussion question that they forwarded to me to be posted on myCourses.
Wiki: My blended class created a wiki used to post concepts and terminology from class.
Peer Review: My blended class accessed peer review rubrics online and completed peer review on their semester project outside of class, rather than in- class.
Discussion Board Guidelines
Students work in groups of 3-4 students each
Each group creates questions for online analyses of written, visual, and aural messages from a variety of media including radio, DVD, television, You Tube etc. Questions are posted by Monday with links to medium.
Each individual responds to the posted discussion question by Wednesday’s class.
Sample: Week Six Discussion Question Watch the Cooper/Shirvell CNN interview after you read Chapter Five. The link to the interview is in both discussion folder and web link folder. Who has the stronger argument? Both have claims. What are they? Be specific. How well do both use appeals to ethos, pathos and logos. How does Cooper use definition, example, and evidence? Shirvell? What kinds of fallacious reasoning does Shirvell use? Does Shirvell have any strengths in his argument? Why? Why not? Anderson Cooper and Andrew ShirvellCNN interview
Sample Discussion Responses “In my opinion, it is quite obvious that Cooper has a better argument because Shirvell targeted a college student just because he was gay. Cooper claims that Shirvell is targeting a politcal campaign runner for his sexuality. Shirvell claims to be protesting a campaign as a whole and it's obvious that he's stalking the college student due to his sexuality and not his political standpoints. For example, he drew German militant symbols on pictures of the college student. Ethos, pathos, and logos are present in Anderson Cooper's case. As a person, he's a better public speaker and provides information that shows Shirvell is lying about the entire ordeal. He's logical in a sense that he has a better argument and his point of view is simply the most logic. Pathos is seen through his anger in this dilemma. It is quite concrete that he has strong feelings of disgust toward Shirvell's opinion on homosexuals. Shirvell presents ethos simply by the way he talks. He is obviously against homosexuals and targets Chris Armstrong due to his sexuality and not his political standpoint. He has no logos behind his argument because he is simply wrong in this situation. Alas, pathos is present because it's easy to see his emotion toward the campaign candidate. Cooper defines Shirvell as a cyberbully; one who bully's people over the internet. He provides example and evidence by pointing out Shirvell's recent activity of drawing a swastika on Chris' face. Shirvell didn't really have any information to share other then his continuous repetitive claim. Shirvell just continued to state that Chris' political opinions were his reasons for his argument and not because of his sexuality. In my opinion, I don't think Shirvell has any strength in his argument because he is simply wrong and he eventually realizes it but is too much of a coward to admit his wrong doings.” “I agree with all the posts saying that Cooper has the better argument. Cooper read the definition of what the state of Michigan uses to identify a cyber bully and applied it to what Shirvell has been doing to Chris. The definition states a "cyber bully is someone who uses technology to harass, embarrass, intimidate, or stalk someone else" the definintion also says "The types of content a cyber bully may send include the following : Vulgar and argumentative message, cruel offensive and insulting remarks." Shirvell replies by saying that the definition does not aplly to him, but then Cooper uses the example of how Shirvell stood outside his house and videotaped him but Shirvell calls that protesting not stalking.” “After watching the Cooper/ Shirvell interviewing I can't imagine who would agree with Shirvell, other than people who are prejudice against gay people. Cooper pins Shirvell with several vital points in favor of Armstrong's case. The strongest point brought up is that Shirvell perfectly fits the definition of a cyber bully. Cooper builds a solid argument against Shirvell using logos or logical claims. Cooper also uses ethos through presenting credible sources. Shirvell lack of ethos leaves him vulnerable to strong public opinion against his case. Although he attempts to say that he is merely campaigning and ‘exercising the first amendment,’ Cooper makes it clear that he has clearly crossed the line and cannot defend his point.”
Creating the WikiWhile the hybrid class used the WIKI to post images and visuals related to the terminology, the traditional class kept notes in their notebook while they read through the book chapters. Both the hybrid and control group were given an in-class final exam on the terms which I reviewed with each class at the end of the semester. SampleWIKI Postings
Peer Review Both the control group and the blended glass were trained in using a peer review rubric. After each class completed a final draft of their “conversation” essay (a well-researched position paper using summary, analysis and synthesis), I had them complete a peer review. My goal was to see if the hybrid class would use the peer review rubric as successfully as the traditional class. I measured this by completing my own peer review and comparing it to the peer reviews completed by the students The control group completed the review in class with more guidance from me, whereas the blended class had to access the rubric online and complete the review on their own outside of class. I completed a peer review for each paper and measured the students’ results against my own results. Scores on peer review: Hybrid Class: The average student scored the rubric 3.3 % higher than my score. Incidentally, paper scores for the hybrid class resulted in the following: 7 As, 9 Bs, 2 Cs, and 4 Fs. Traditional Class: The average student scored the rubric 3% higher than my score. Paper scores for the traditional class resulted in the following: 1 A, 11 Bs, 4 Cs, 6 Ds, and 1 F.
Author of paper____________________________ Example Assessment Rubric for English 101 Professor Nancy Benson 4 Accomplished 3 Proficient 2 Emerging 1 Marginal Areas of Assessment Argument/Thesis 4. Thesis is clearly indicated and arguable; claims are clearly stated, well reasoned, and supported; closing paragraph(s) draws a larger conclusion, proves the thesis, and projects into the future and/or offers an action. 3. Thesis is present and arguable; claims are stated, demonstrate sound reasoning, and are supported; closing paragraph(s) draws an important conclusion, proves the thesis, and projects outward. 2. Thesis is not arguable or is unclear; evidence is unreliable or fails to support the thesis; closing paragraph(s) fails to draw a conclusion or project outward. 1. Thesis is neither clear nor arguable; claims are unclear, poorly reasoned, and unsupported; closing paragraph(s) does not draw a conclusion or prove the thesis. Audience/Purpose 4. Writer’s purpose is fulfilled by appropriately and specifically addressing its intended audience, through appropriate use of examples, tone, and language choices; purpose is clear. Writer’s ethos is established. 3. Writer’s purpose and audience are discernible through use of examples, tone, and language choices; writer has a developing sense of ethos. 2. Writer’s purpose and/or audience are inconsistently addressed; examples, tone, and language choices are inadequate. Writer appears to have little understanding of ethos. 1. Writer’s purpose and /or audience are not addressed. Ethos is not established.
Results * Most students really like the flexibility of the discussion board because they could respond at their convenience * Students who are not verbal in class felt more comfortable “speaking up” on the discussion board * Students liked the ability to edit their work before they posted it * The wiki was problematic because students kept erasing it * Out-of -class peer review produced similar results as in-class peer review My Conclusions * Discussion board works well, but students need a lot of support with developing meaningful responses in the beginning. * Some students will fall behind on the discussion board and need reminders to catch up. * Maintaining a wiki and a discussion board at the same time is too much work for both students and instructor. One or the other is better. * Students can successfully peer-review outside of class if they have the proper training in-class. * It is easier to get to know students’ individual needs in the traditional class. * Independent workers may work better than others in an online setting