by Rob Houser
Last year, I took a graduate course from the University of Minnesota and never left Atlanta. The course was Audience and Rhetoric taught by Ann Hill Duin. Before greed set in, I had considered returning to school for my Ph.D. and The University of Minnesota was one of my top choices. Their graduate program in Rhetoric is a strong one with a good mix of rhetorical theory and technical communication practice. I thought I would never be able to experience a class there until I found out that they were offering graduate-level courses through the web.
I signed up only a week before the course started. It was a paced course, which meant everyone would go through it at the same time – reading the same articles, discussing them as a group, completing the same assignments. [Sometimes they offer self-paced courses, but that’s another story.] I received my course package in the mail, a Kinko’s packet of articles and a book. An e-mail message directed me to the course web site, where I logged in using a password and reviewed the other course materials.
On the web site, I had a syllabus, a place to check in assignments, and notes from the instructor. Each module (one per week) had a page with questions about the readings, additional readings, a description of the assignment, sample assignments from previous classes, and even a place for transcripts from our weekly MOO sessions (like a chat session).
For class interaction, we had a list server set up for discussions during the week. We also conducted a MOO session once a week for two hours, during which we discussed the module as a class. The instructor also posted office hours when we could send e-mail and get immediate responses.
Our assignments were submitted via FTP through the web site. The instructor responded to our assignments via e-mail. After they were graded, our assignments were made public to the class so the other students could see what we had done (without the grades or commentary). We discussed these assignments through the listserv.
Interaction was the key to the course, and probably the biggest difference from learning in a traditional classroom setting.
Our class consisted of approximately 13 people, 12 of us working in the field at the time and 1 attending the University on campus full-time. We interacted with each other through e-mail between individuals, e-mail to the group through the listserv, our weekly MOO sessions, and even the telephone. Our interaction usually focused on undersanding the readings, completing the assignment, or double-checking the course schedule for the week. Except for the MOO sessions, it was mostly the kind of talk that takes place out of class – in the hallways, the library, or the student lounge. For the most part, we didn’t even need (or want) the instructor involved in these discussions, except to clarify her requests.
Although it didn’t happen in the public forums, I got the impression that all of us interacted with the instructor frequently. We talked to her via e-mail mostly, and of course through the class MOO sessions. Her prepared interaction was available through the web site, where she presented the class "lectures" before the MOO session ever began. We also submitted weekly response papers about an aspect of the readings to which the instructor responded via e-mail. Many times, these papers were our way to struggle with a concept or issue, receiving Sophistic direction from our instructor. The interaction could carry over into additional e-mails between student and instructor. Artfully, the instructor brought the issues back to the group through the MOO sessions where we discussed them as a group.
I must be honest and admit that I had a third kind of interaction (and advantage) in the class. One of my co-workers signed up for the same class, so we were able to talk to each other in person about the class and the readings. If one of us had to leave a MOO session for work, which we had to do a few times, the other could help us catch up. We could even talk across the hall during the MOO session for the "offline" commentary and questions. [i.e., what in the heck is he talking about?] Having a classmate to talk to in person probably reduced my online discussion via the listserv (as well as my anxieties about feeling separated from the rest of the class), but it increased my enjoyment of and benefit from the class tenfold.
The most difficult interaction to emulate (or replace) in our distance learning class was classroom discussion. As I have mentioned, our classroom discussions took place through MOO sessions. MOO sessions are like chat sessions that take place through the web using your own browser. You connect to a host server and log in. Once you enter a session, you assume the metaphor of walking into a sitting room, where people are sitting around talking. In theory, you can meander from room to room, engaging in different discussions in smaller groups. However, with a small class, we all remained in the same room.
This may be a slight exaggeration, but here’s sort of how a MOO session sounds at first:
[Moderator enters the room.]
[Rob enters the room.]
Moderator: Welcome to our MOO session!
[Amy enters the room]
Rob: Thanks. How’s the weather up there?
[Johnny enters the room.]
[Michele enters the room.]
Johnny: Hello everyone. Are we ready to talk about
[Kevin enters the room.]
Amy: Whew! Just made it. I was having problems
Moderator: The weather’s great today – only 20 degrees below.
Johnny: sorry, talk about Aristotle and his rhetorical triangle?
Michele: Me too. I had to try three times to log in.
Rob: Glad I’m in Atlanta.
Kevin: [a voice from above says] If you’re having problems logging in, try the alternate MOO host server at www.mootoo.com.
[Andy enters the room]
Johnny: Did anyone find Burke hard to follow?
Andy: Hi, all!
Moderator: Okay, it looks like we’re all here. Let’s start out discussing the readings for the week.
Amy: Yeah, I don’t really think Burke has much to do with my daily work.
Rob: Hey, Andy!
Michele: When are our final papers due?
Johnny: I could relate to the Reddish article.
Moderator: September 15 (maybe September 18 if you need the weekend).
Moderator: Relate how?
Michele: Thanks! I’ll take the 18th. I’m going to be out-of-town delivering training the entire week before.
Amy: I thought Reddish combined the reading to learn and reading to do…
Rob: Me, too! I’ll take two weekends.
[Michele exits the room.]
Johnny: I don’t think users are ever just reading to learn.
Amy: in a practical way that could result in saving time and money.
Rob: I just got a call from Michele. She can’t get logged into the MOO session again.
Okay, I don’t want you to think we never had productive discussions during the MOO sessions. But, the first few times we tried the MOO sessions, it was very much like the example I gave. We all spoke out of order because of the varying typing speeds and internet connections. We also had a lot of side conversations, which everyone else could hear. Multiple branches would take place in the discussion, appearing out of sequence. It was hard to follow any one of them at times. By the time someone thought about and typed a two sentence response to a question, the discussion had moved on in another direction. A lot of us tried to make jokes and comments during the discussion, which further added to the confusion.
We asked our instructor to "take over" the discussion, but she was reluctant to become the focus on the MOO sessions. Her hope for the MOO sessions was that the class would conduct the discussion, not her. However, after a few times, it because obvious that we were never going to get into any detail if someone didn’t step in and moderate the discussion in some way.
It was too easy to change the subject without a moderator. Suppose someone hadn’t read one of the articles, then they would just change the subject and the rest of us would follow.
We devised our own methods for adding order to the chaos. If you were answering a question but still typing, you would press enter after a few phrases adding an ellipses to the end to show you weren’t finished. If we were answering a question form the instructor, we each got to speak once in turn before opening the floor to discussion.
Part of the problems with the MOO sessions resulted from our lack of familiarity with the medium and etiquette; the other part resulted from the limitations of the MOO application. For instance, the software didn’t help track multiple threads of conversations. It also didn’t have much formatting to make the text more readable.
Overall, tough, the MOO sessions provided the most traditional class-like interaction we had. To me, the most interesting aspect of interacting through a distance learning class was that we continually tried to make it more like a traditional classroom. Perhaps that’s not unusual for people experiencing a transition from one form of communication to another. Perhaps the metaphor of a classroom is too strong to redefine overnight.
My experience with the University of Minnesota web-based class was enjoyable, challenging, and educational. I found the duality of being a student and working as a technical communicator refreshing. Many of the readings challenged my assumptions about what I did at work or why I did it. I can’t say every project resulted in a deliverable for my company, but that wasn’t my goal. [I did mange to get a few journal articles and presentations out of it though.] I took the class because I wanted to stretch my way of thinking, to build my foundation of knowledge about my field, and to learn something that wasn’t going to be outdated in one year like the tools we use often are.
Another reason I took the class was to experience distance learning from a student’s perspective. Our company was moving some of its stand-up training to an internet format. I developed a much better understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of distance learning. The accessibility, flexibility, and cost-savings were obvious even before I took the class. However, the issue over how to interact with a virtual community as opposed to a traditional classroom was not so obvious until I experienced it.
I would recommend this way of studying technical communication, especially if you can coordinate your taking the course with someone locally. It was inexpensive, available to an individual (didn’t require corporate sponsorship or expensive video-conferencing equipment to participate), and full strength – it was just as good as it would have been in person. I will take a class this way again.
I only hope that one day I can pursue a Ph.D. in Rhetoric and Technical Communication by taking classes from more than one University. Many Universities are moving towards distance learning because they see the demand and the money coming from working professionals. However, academia is still too limited by its own rules (and maybe a little pride and greed) to allow for a multiple institutional degree. Still, I have hopes that one day such a degree would be possible from the same reputable institutions that we see advancing the theory and practice of our field. That would be the real advantage of distance learning to this working professional.
Rob Houser is co-founder of User First Services, Inc., a technical communication consulting company based in Atlanta, Georgia. User First Services designs and creates information solutions including online help, self-guided tutorials, wizards and cue cards, web-based training, computer-based training, web sites, user and reference manuals, quick reference job aids, and stand-up training materials. They also provide consulting in the form of expert evaluations, tool selection, prototype development, user interface design, contextual inquiries, and style guides for documentation and graphical user interfaces. Rob is First Vice-President of the Atlanta STC Chapter. Rob can be reached at rob@userfirst.net.