Over the past several semesters, I have modified the class e-mail list so
that we have moved away from one that requires students to "post one or
two messages, of any sort, to the list" to a more structured, first
"answer the teacher prompt, then talk if you wish" list. I have also
supplemented that e-journal with the traditional
double-entry one which I
collect at specific times throughout the semester. The reasons that I
have changed my requirements are many.
However, I recently returned, somewhat reluctantly, to a student-generated
list for all four sections of my freshman composition classes in order to
provide documentation for my reasons. That documentation, as well as my
reasons, follows.
In my 9 o'clock class, 7 people - only a third of the class - accounted
for 70% of the 233 messages posted since the beginning of the semester.
That leaves 30% to be shared by the rest. But even with that 30%, there
is a problem, because 5 students, who for the most part had completed the
required number of posts, accounted for 21%, while the remaining 9% had
been generated by 6 students. Although that is troubling, even more so is
the fact that of those 6, all of whom had fewer than 5 posts each, 3 had
repeatedly requested information or help from the list which had never
been answered, at least not on the list; and I think not at all. In fact,
variations of this pattern (list domination by a few, nominal response by
several, and minimal response by the remainder) were repeated in 2 of my
other 3 classes.
In section 31, owner of the most active class list with 336 posts
generated thus far, only 5 people - a fourth of the class - generated 50%
of all posts. Of the 50% left, 45% were produced by 14 students who had
done all of the required posts, as well as a few more. But most
troubling, again, were the 3 students who had produced only 5% of the
posts, even though one of those students had invited comments or asked for
answers in 5 of her 8 posts.
In section 41, owner of the least active list, 5 students - again a fourth
of the class - generated 45% of all posts, while 7 were responsible for
35%. The remaining 10% were written by 6 students, all of whom had under
5 posts. Since e-mail advocates claim that e-journals allow all voices to
be heard, I would challenge all teachers who use student-generated lists
to create a
sociogram to determine who is actually interacting with, or
talking to, whom and who is voice is being
silenced.
Although these are not the only concerns, it is now time to ask some hard
questions: Does reliance on the e-journal -- as the chief means of response
-- marginalize those students who aren't familiar with the technology, who
may already be marginalized, either academically or socially? I've heard
the word "Gatekeeper" used in reference to Freshmen Composition. Is the
use of e-journals really helping incoming freshmen adapt to academia or
are they simply another method used to sort out those who don't "belong"?
Conversely, are we privileging students who feel comfortable with
computers, or students who initially may not but then later willingly
embrace the new technology?
Also, is the techno-savvy teacher influenced by how frequently they hear a
student's voice on the list, and by how well that student responds in
electronic text? Is that same teacher then influenced by the "Halo
Effect" that ensues when that student's name appears on an essay? In
other words, is there a transference of expectations from list to essay?
And by the same token, what of those students whose voices aren't heard on
the list frequently, or at all? Do teachers expect less of them -
students who won't complete a "simple" requirement of the class?
Moreover, is there a correlation between e-mail activity and grades?
And if there is, is it because that same student who would work hard to
complete all assignments also works hard so that his or her papers come in
complete and done well? Or does he or she do well because the teacher
expects the paper to be done well, after hearing their voice frequently on
the list? These questions beg to be addressed.
I said earlier that I would have more, and this is it: One of the claims
made by e-mail proponents is that the e-journal builds
community, but
does
it? To answer that question, I'd like to present some more figures from
my classes.
In one of my sections, no one dominated the list. However, of the 195
messages posted in section 27, 145 of those were monologues (meaning that
they were general in tone, rather like diary entries which might have been
written thinking that someone might eventually read them; or in other
words, written carelessly and without passion, showing little concern for
audience). Also, of those 145 posts, 83 concerned the weekend, either the
one coming or the one past. Of that number, only 23 expressed an
invitation for others to comment, but these weren't answered. Clearly,
75% of the messages on this class list did not reach out in any meaningful
way to connect to the others in the class, while the very few which did
were left unanswered. This occurred even though two members early on
expressed an interest in beginning a thread, with one even initiating a
controversy which went nowhere. Occasionally, it was sad to see the
questions which were left unanswered by the members of the list.
As I analyzed all posts generated, it became apparent that, even in active
classes, monologues and weekend posts made up substantial numbers: in
section 09, 30%; in section 27, 75%; in section 33, 28%; and in 41, 40%.
In addition, another 8% of the total posts (608) for all classes were
simply e-mail forwards, even though all classes had been advised not to
send forwards.
And even when it seemed as if students were responding to other posts,
those messages could be deceptive, since of all the classes only three
people were responsible for the most responses. That was how they had
completed the required posts; they had chosen someone else's post to
respond to.
Occasionally a thread would begin, but it was generally short-lived, with
only one lasting more than a few days and several posts. One other
curiosity noted was that two of the more active contributors actually
didn't come to class much, at all. So, I guess that does indicate
community, but not in a way that I feel comfortable with.
Finally, from a survey that I administered a few days ago, let me present
these figures:
Of the 72 students who answered the questions, 60% either strongly
disagreed, disagreed or were unsure that they "always felt as if [they]
had a real audience," even though 49% agreed or strongly agreed that "the
class list was enjoyable." Clearly, most liked writing about themselves,
but with little or no idea of creating a community. Also, fifty-three
percent either were not sure, agreed, or strongly agreed that "the e-mail
list was a chore to do," while 52% were not sure, disagreed, or strongly
disagreed the "the e-mail list was enjoyable." Rather disturbing figures,
I think.
Of the suggestions voiced by my students to the final question on the
survey: "If you could, how would you change the format of the class list
for future classes," I think that I will continue to follow the advice of
one of several people who said, "I would add a few subjects that needed to
be responded to, rather than having weekly e-mails about 'My e-mail for the
Week.'" Perhaps by doing that all voices would be heard, instead of just a
few; and that those voice would have something of substance to say.
Kathleen
O'Donnell-Brown's
Response
