Kairotic Design: Building Flexible Networks for Online Composition

Making Space Work (Lance)

Inflexible Classrooms: Online and Virtual

As an instructor at Miami University, I've always struggled with classroom space. Due to increased student population and the need for more composition sections, I was assigned classrooms in the Geology building, where I taught first-year composition for both domestic and international students. Although several of these classrooms were mobile and spacious enough, there was one room in the building that gave me problems and felt like the last scrap of space available for teaching.

Desks resembling castaway postwar lab stations created three layers of semicircles in a rather haphazard fashion. Moving such behemoths required a Herculean effort from the students each and every day. Clearly set up as a lecture-centered classroom, the space was hardly conducive to the collaborative workshop I hoped to create with students using laptops. Compounding the complexity was that students gravitated to the back row of the last semicircle, nearly inaccessible to me or any students who needed to collaborate. This type of space was mostly conducive to what Douglas Walls, Scott Schopieray, and Dànielle DeVoss (2009) called "individual isolated learning" (270). Thus, if I wanted to group students together for peer response and other collaborative learning activities, I had to concede the battle with classroom space and find ways to strategically maneuver around the immobile room. To make the classroom work, I needed to "hack" the space in ways that did not require mobile or even circular desks (Walls et al.). I tried to get as many students as possible to sit in the first semicircle, where I could at least walk around and engage individuals or groups. I also could not have groups of more than three students, because it was nearly impossible to huddle around an individual computer on a long table. This room is an example of a system-centered design approach where "the design determines activity and users are forced to adapt" (Walls et al.).

When considering spaces to teach online, logging into Miami's Sakai-based learning management system, Niihka, felt much like walking into the Geology building. Admittedly, Sakai does allow for design flexibility, but not much of this is passed along from the instructional technology programmers to the instructor—at least not as our LMS is structured at Miami, where the design vision for Niihka seemed to be based on our former LMS, Blackboard, which itself is system-centered, modeled mostly on a lecture classroom. From my experiences with the Geology building and Niihka, I came to realize that spatial conundrums, whether online or elsewhere, lie not necessarily in the space, but the inflexibility of the space, which often makes teaching a writer- and writing-centered course difficult. Many interfaces being developed by universities are set up as online lecture halls, and each element that comprises the online classroom is often just as immovable as the massive desks in the Geology building..

From my experience, there are three spatial modalities to a writing classroom: (1) space for lecturing or providing instruction; (2) space for students to work collaboratively in groups of various sizes and configurations; and (3) space for the instructor to interact with each group and respond to the class as a whole. Obviously, it is the last two that get lost in spaces like the Geology building and online spaces like Niihka, because they require flexible space. Inflexibility often leads to stubbed toes (metaphorical or otherwise). This is why I moved my class completely outside Niihka and into Google+ and Google Apps. I had stubbed enough toes.

Working with Google+ has shown me that flexibility in how space can be used is the most important element to a collaborative classroom. In other words, when designing an online course, I'm not attempting to recreate particular kinds of traditional learning spaces; rather I am using spatial modalities, or ways of using space, to "hack" the classroom space, much like I might hack the Geology building if I had superhuman abilities.

Creating a Stable "Home Space"

As I see it, the typical premise of a lecture hall is that classroom space should be divided into two spaces: student space in seats listening and instructor space on stage talking. Although there may be some interaction between instructor and student, it is usually limited and highly controlled. Obviously, not all traditional classroom spaces are lecture halls, and classrooms can be designed with flexibility in mind. For example, in our laptop classrooms individual desks are very mobile. Desks can be moved in rows, into a circle, or into small-group configurations depending on what kind of interaction we want to create. If we want students to discuss, we change the design of the classroom to help facilitate this. Writing classes, particularly ones emphasizing peer response and interaction, need to facilitate at least these three teaching and learning modalities: lecture or instructional, student collaboration, and instructor–student interaction.

Yet even in flexible classroom spaces, there is usually a sense of where the "front" of the room is—where to direct attention when in doubt. In most online spaces, the front of the room may manifest itself in many different ways... or not at all. Often, it is not a space, but a way of using space. Even so, my experience teaching online has shown that students do need a stable space, which usually functions much like the front of the classroom. I use a Blogger site, which integrates well with Google+, while other instructors have used spaces like Niihka. In the Blogger space, I post all the course materials and detailed assignments for each week. I also post short videos about student drafts (called "About Your Writing") or technology issues (called "Tech Chats"). If students have issues or questions, this is always "home base," though they often opt to contact me via Google chat or Google+.

Although I leave the commenting feature on and even encourage students to post comments, this happens very rarely. These blog posts usually contain video lectures and assignments for the week with detailed instructions, much of which would have been easily done at the front of a classroom.

Figure 7.1. Screenshot of "homebase"

blurred screenshot of Lance Course Site showing image of YouTube video, course assignments, and class notes

The course documents are accessible in the top menu, while each week’s assignments, along with videos about student writing are posted chronologically on the left side. As an instructor in traditional classrooms, I spend some time at the front of the classroom, conveying knowledge about particular assignments and activities, talking about student writing, and even demoing technology. Online, all this happens on the Blogger site. Unlike in the lecture hall, though, students must actually initiate the videos, click on the readings, or find the information they need, making this a much more interactive space than me standing and delivering information from the front of the room. I also post what we call kairotic video lectures, where I take drafts or activities from the class and discuss what I see or draw together some of the ideas that students are talking about. In part, this is my way of giving them some of this "front of the room" space.

Admittedly, the Blogger site I've created may seem like how Miami has structured Niihka, where course material and resources are available in the left menu bar. Announcements and assignments can be easily displayed on the front page for all the students. But my site is different in some key ways. Embedding multimodal materials and encouraging student interaction is difficult in our LMS. In fact, one might note how "My Workspace" is segregated as its own tab (see figure 7.2).

Figure 7.2. Screenshot of Miami’s Niihka LMS

blurred screenshot of Niihka page, showing class calendar

In my Google+ class, individual workspace is networked and shared with the entire class. Obviously, students can have their own personal space in Google Drive, so the expectation of collaboration is more clearly communicated when integrated with this "lecture space." For example, on my top menu bar there is a link to the shared Google Drive where students post their drafts for peer review.

Creating an Interactive Third Space

When looking at student space in a traditional classroom, it is easy to see that space can be reorganized into something more interactive. But when thinking in online terms, just where is "student space" and how do you reorganize it?  In most cases, student space is relegated to discussion boards, which are still inflexible, system-centered spaces. Sharing drafts or multimedia is unwieldy, often requiring downloading. And there is only one structure—linear. Although these spaces allow for discussion and commenting, there is no shared space—each person posting has his or her own space. Although files can be attached and links created, networking information is quite difficult, especially in comparison to social media platforms not traditionally considered as LMSs.

Because I opted to have my class outside of Niihka, I used three Google spaces in various configurations, depending on the need and students’ own workflow: Google+ Stream, Google Hangouts, and Google Docs/Drive. These spaces were not segregated from other space, but often integrated, linked, or networked with each other.

Google+ Stream. Although the course site might be seen as homebase for the course—the place to go for just about any type of information—it was not a substitute for interactive aspects of classroom space. The Google+ Stream was mostly where classroom interaction happened, though this manifested in different ways.

Similar to the discussion board space on course sites like Niihka, I assigned many different kinds of discussions. Students could write text, share media, and comment on each other’s posts quite easily. Much like in a physical classroom, I could also sum up some of the discussion and draw ideas together in my own posts. As our proficiency with Google+ developed, it became obvious that the flexibility of this space allowed for more interaction and created more interconnectivity. For example, I could post changes to the course site or +1 a particularly good student blog. In fact, I originally had students comment directly on each other's blogs, but we found it easier to share the blog in the Google+ stream and comment there.

Google Hangouts. Video chats in Google Hangouts created a workspace where students could write together. I tried lecturing and peer groups, but I found that writing activities made the best use of the space. Lectures are better suited for unidirectional videos, whereas peer review was much more effective in Google Docs. What makes hangouts so powerful is that we can have up to nine students participate and Google Drive connects to the hangouts space. In other words, students can write together, look at each other’s writing, and discuss just like in a traditional classroom–in fact even better than a traditional classroom because nine could be together so much more easily. No stubbed toes moving desks and chairs. Additionally, these peer response sessions could be videocaptured and broadcast and recorded on Google+ , so even students who can’t attend can watch and participate in the Google+ Stream (see figure 7.3 and video 7.5).

Figure 7.3. Presenting a PowerPoint in Google Hangout

blurred screenshot of Google Hangout showing participants and slide being discussed

Video 7.5. Students writing in a Google+ Hangout

 

Google Docs. Google Drive (or Google Docs) is where peer review happened. Overwhelmingly, students liked peer review this way the best. Originally, the intent had been to use the hangouts for peer review, but the process went so well in Google Docs that doing peer review in hangouts was redundant. In a typical writing classroom, everyone gets a "copy" of the text and makes comments; then the writer reads them all in order to get a general sense of the comments. In Google Docs, everyone's comments exist side by side (see figure 7.4). In fact, students can respond to each other's comments. After each peer review, students would send a brief note to each of their peer group members through Google+, summarizing their thoughts.

Figure 7.4. Peer review on rough draft in Google Docs

blurred screenshot of  comments written into Google doc


Permeable and Transformative Space

One reason I chose to discuss spatial modalities (or ways of using space) rather than kinds of spaces is because how I viewed each space shifted and transformed throughout the class. In fact, this still happens as I continue to use these spaces. For example, as I began to look for more ways to engage student writing as a whole class, I relied more on the kairotic lectures that we describe in the "Space Decisions" section. These are lectures that I produce while the class is going on (as opposed to those that I develop before class for multiple uses). Before the summer class, we produced video lectures where the instructor presents ideas or strategies for a specific part of an assignment that are reusable across sections, for example,"What is Rhetoric?" or "How to do Research?" One might see this as the vertical aspect of class that goes one way—from teacher to student. Then you have the discussion forums or Google+ for class discussion, adding a horizontal element between students.

But what we've come to call kairotic lectures brought horizontal elements to the course site, showing not only how these spaces are permeable, but also how activity in one can transform the other. It's easy to see the video lectures as a passive student exercise that exists in a separate space... and in many ways, that is exactly what they are. But I've been learning in my online teaching experience that the online lecture shouldn't really be viewed as self-contained. Rather, the video lectures are networked with the rest of the class. Although the instructor, in most contexts, is the sole creator of video lecture content, students can participate in constructing the video lectures if given the space. So often, when I'm constructing my video lectures, I build them out of content already created by the students themselves, for example, from online discussions, hangout discussions and activities, rough drafts, blog posts, and so on. These more fluid aspects of space are not restricted to online spaces, but exist even in physical spaces. Teaching online has simply highlighted this fluidity for me.

My greatest joy in teaching writing has always been the unique, the unexpected, and the challenging. As an engaged instructor, every class I teach has its own special ecology—different participation dynamics, different linguistic or cultural backgrounds, different contemporary contexts. Teaching the same topics the same way doesn't excite me (or the students). Developing strategies that allow me to adapt to these different ecologies and discover new aspects of composition (digital or otherwise) with students is what drives me pedagogically. How I use space, whether online or not, is a component to this strategy.

Ten years ago, if I had been told that I would be teaching writing completely online, I would have said, "No way!" Nothing online could replicate the interactive and engaging environment I found face to face. But now, as online technologies have developed, not only do I "tolerate" teaching writing online, in many ways, I enjoy it more than traditional classroom teaching. My teaching will be forever changed not only by the availability of spaces like Google+, but by what I learned about "hacking" any kind of classroom space. If I was assigned that awful room in the Geology building again, might I be able to hack the physical space using online space? I think so.