Using Distance Video with Guest Professors in Class
Yesterday eight students participated in a video chat via Google Hangouts with Dr. Andrew Joseph Pagoda on the subject of racialization, white privilege, and some other similar topics. I had arranged with Pagoda weeks ago not only to open the conversation about these topics with my students, but also to test the technology available on our campus. Pagoda had sent some documents that the students were asked to read before to give students some experience in the topics to be more comfortably engaged.
Some observations:
1. My college feels that students should not be engaged in these long distance video conferences. With a student population near 20,000 students, we are not prepared to have these conference where students actually engage with another voice. The potential for unidirectional video is easy -- nearly any room could show a talking head using the banking model of education throwing words at a class. But what has appeared more difficult is to arrange an actual conference where both students and the invited guest can have a two-way conversation face to face.
This was exemplified by the hassle of finding a conference room for the event. Though our OTS (IT) department does have a means for video conferences, it is designed for something like one-on-one video interaction, not groups. When I asked to use the vice president's conference room, which would be ideal because of its configuration, I was told that "students are not permitted in the conference room." I didn't ask why, but ... well, I'll leave it there. When I then was told to speak to another organization, we determined that one room might be possible, if very tight, but that room doesn't actually have video equipment -- only audio. The only other room for such a conference would the the President's office, but the initial response was resistance, and only after the tactful interaction with a miracle worker were we permitted to use that room.
Even then, the technology isn't appropriate for such engagement. Only one camera, limited point of vision, poor sound for a regular conversation, etc. It's obvious that this college has little experience with real 21st century educational technology.
2. Though OTS was very helpful, they were in fact not really aware of the possibility of student-guest scholarly engagement via video. Apparently no one had considered this before. One potential solution is to use a regular computer "enhanced" classroom with each student looking into her own monitor. But wait -- these PC's have cameras, but no microphones. So, once again, this would be a unidirectional banking model of education -- the talking head, with added student faces, but no student voices. No different than most of the classes I hear about.
3. The idea that these nice comfortable conference rooms with their dark faux-wood tables and leather chairs are acceptable for administrators (especially) and faculty (sometimes) but students (never) bothers the hell out of me. This is another example of the disconnect between corporate colleges and the ostensible purpose of the college -- to serve the students. Of course, I can't determine what part of the budget paid for these chairs, but I do know that similar budgets aren't paying for sufficient full-time faculty, smaller class sizes, or even peer mentor tutoring for writing. Each of those expensive chairs, used only a few times a week, could pay for multiple books for my students who can't afford over-priced textbooks.
Aside from this, what is important is the relationship between Dr. Pagoda and the students. Observations there:
1. Students are unfamiliar with the rhetorical environment. Need more practice with this video technology, including projecting voices, not overspeaking, etc.
2. Dr. Pagoda is a master teacher. For each question asked, he responded with another question, expecting the student to think first about the question, including his or her own experiences. This andragogical model is precisely the one we need -- not the unidirectional banking model, but a respect of students with their histories, experiences, perspectives, and previous knowledge.
3. Some students still expect to be fed without feeding others. Some still quiet and uncomfortable about speaking before others. More opportunities for students to create their own public spheres are needed. When prompted, the students had essential information to add to the conversation, but without prompting, they lack confidence. I suppose that's partly my job as facilitator -- to prompt the conversations. Otherwise, I stayed out of the conversation.
4. Don't overlook the freakin' obvious. As I left, one Hispanic student told me he was impressed and learned completely new ideas. He then asked if we could organize a similar video conference en español. I was honestly struck. I've only known this student for two and a half weeks, and now he has the confidence to suggest a totally new instructional model -- video conferencing with experts on Arizona bigotry and the Texas border rhetoric. For all my own validation of multicultural rhetoric and writing, I hadn't yet thought of precisely this specific audience -- our Spanish speaking students who would be more comfortable having this conversation in Spanish. I quickly thought of a few names and sent off some e-mail requests.
Students told me later that the experience was positive, engaging, important, and appropriate for their learning needs. I've got another video conference scheduled with Vershawn Ashanti Young of U Waterloo in three weeks. Hope we can get the tech settled by then. Would be nice for students to sit in nice leather chairs, perhaps for the first time in their working class lives.
Be strong, and courageous.
Dixi et salvavi animam meam
Google +
Twitter @comstone
Professional Blog
Some observations:
1. My college feels that students should not be engaged in these long distance video conferences. With a student population near 20,000 students, we are not prepared to have these conference where students actually engage with another voice. The potential for unidirectional video is easy -- nearly any room could show a talking head using the banking model of education throwing words at a class. But what has appeared more difficult is to arrange an actual conference where both students and the invited guest can have a two-way conversation face to face.
This was exemplified by the hassle of finding a conference room for the event. Though our OTS (IT) department does have a means for video conferences, it is designed for something like one-on-one video interaction, not groups. When I asked to use the vice president's conference room, which would be ideal because of its configuration, I was told that "students are not permitted in the conference room." I didn't ask why, but ... well, I'll leave it there. When I then was told to speak to another organization, we determined that one room might be possible, if very tight, but that room doesn't actually have video equipment -- only audio. The only other room for such a conference would the the President's office, but the initial response was resistance, and only after the tactful interaction with a miracle worker were we permitted to use that room.
Even then, the technology isn't appropriate for such engagement. Only one camera, limited point of vision, poor sound for a regular conversation, etc. It's obvious that this college has little experience with real 21st century educational technology.
2. Though OTS was very helpful, they were in fact not really aware of the possibility of student-guest scholarly engagement via video. Apparently no one had considered this before. One potential solution is to use a regular computer "enhanced" classroom with each student looking into her own monitor. But wait -- these PC's have cameras, but no microphones. So, once again, this would be a unidirectional banking model of education -- the talking head, with added student faces, but no student voices. No different than most of the classes I hear about.
3. The idea that these nice comfortable conference rooms with their dark faux-wood tables and leather chairs are acceptable for administrators (especially) and faculty (sometimes) but students (never) bothers the hell out of me. This is another example of the disconnect between corporate colleges and the ostensible purpose of the college -- to serve the students. Of course, I can't determine what part of the budget paid for these chairs, but I do know that similar budgets aren't paying for sufficient full-time faculty, smaller class sizes, or even peer mentor tutoring for writing. Each of those expensive chairs, used only a few times a week, could pay for multiple books for my students who can't afford over-priced textbooks.
Aside from this, what is important is the relationship between Dr. Pagoda and the students. Observations there:
1. Students are unfamiliar with the rhetorical environment. Need more practice with this video technology, including projecting voices, not overspeaking, etc.
2. Dr. Pagoda is a master teacher. For each question asked, he responded with another question, expecting the student to think first about the question, including his or her own experiences. This andragogical model is precisely the one we need -- not the unidirectional banking model, but a respect of students with their histories, experiences, perspectives, and previous knowledge.
3. Some students still expect to be fed without feeding others. Some still quiet and uncomfortable about speaking before others. More opportunities for students to create their own public spheres are needed. When prompted, the students had essential information to add to the conversation, but without prompting, they lack confidence. I suppose that's partly my job as facilitator -- to prompt the conversations. Otherwise, I stayed out of the conversation.
4. Don't overlook the freakin' obvious. As I left, one Hispanic student told me he was impressed and learned completely new ideas. He then asked if we could organize a similar video conference en español. I was honestly struck. I've only known this student for two and a half weeks, and now he has the confidence to suggest a totally new instructional model -- video conferencing with experts on Arizona bigotry and the Texas border rhetoric. For all my own validation of multicultural rhetoric and writing, I hadn't yet thought of precisely this specific audience -- our Spanish speaking students who would be more comfortable having this conversation in Spanish. I quickly thought of a few names and sent off some e-mail requests.
Students told me later that the experience was positive, engaging, important, and appropriate for their learning needs. I've got another video conference scheduled with Vershawn Ashanti Young of U Waterloo in three weeks. Hope we can get the tech settled by then. Would be nice for students to sit in nice leather chairs, perhaps for the first time in their working class lives.
Be strong, and courageous.
Dixi et salvavi animam meam
Google +
Twitter @comstone
Professional Blog
