« Back from the Moon & Reflecting on Online Learning | Main | Online-ifying and Online Identity »

June 12, 2007

You Can Call Me AL ...

"Authentic" tasks is a buzzword in this seminar, and have I no objections to the idea. I am struggling, however, with the task (is it an authentic task?) of applying these ideas to what I do.

So let's back up and get the big term/idea out on the screen:

Authentic tasks are defined as having (at least) the ten characteristics you can read here. My biggest stumbling block is the first one, which is also the characteristic most commonly associated with it: "authentic tasks have real-world relevance." This feels, in some ways, to be oxymoronic in the context of English literature.

Maybe that's my problem. Maybe last week's intensive effort (successful!) to finish a literary theory article, and the class I will be teaching on children's literature when I get back from New York, have combined to really cram my brain into lit mode.

I'm going to lunch now. I'll try to de-compartmentalize my mind a bit to bring in possibilities from the CyberCulture class or the digital composing class. (Or the composing digital narratives class I'll be teaching in the fall.) So many options!

Back from lunch. While a poorly-wrapped chicken ceasar salad wrap disintegrated all over the sandwich tray as I tried to pick it up, I also realized that the rhetoric class provides bunches of examples of real-world, complex tasks.

I also reminded myself that in Herrington's big article* on authentic tasks, she only requires her examples to meet 6 of the 10 criteria. That makes me feel a little more comfortable.

Some Contenders:

And, to top it all off, I just found an article** that argues that "those who read and teach literature have been speaking authentic learning all their lives." So there. More on this later when I've had a chance to read beyond the first few pages.

For now, I'll just take the first one, the motivated opinion piece, and think about ways to make it more authentic. (You know what? I really, really hate that term. From now on, I'm going to refer to it as "AL" (for authentic learning; I'm sure Herrington et al. are very proud of themselves for coming up with the label, but I really hate the way it stigmatizes everything else).

The motivated opinion piece was one of three options for Invention One, the first major writing assignment in the Writing Bodies: Rhetorics of the Flesh course. Invention One was intended to get the students working critically with the rhetorical terms and techniques we had been studying in class. Knowing that I had students in the class with different interests and strengths, I tried to give them the option of either performing a sophisticated analysis of a rhetorical performance, or composing a sophisticated rhetorical performance of their own. Perhaps not surprisingly, most students chose to write their own rhetorical opinion piece.

I required the students to ground their piece in their own lives and experiences by addressing an issue that affected them directly as UVM students. The results were mixed, with some being very good, and others... not so much.

It's already pretty AL. It has "real-world relevance;" it is "ill-defined," as almost all of my writing assignments are (I'm a hard-core constructivist in my composition pedagogy); to perform well, it requires "complex activities to be investigated by students" (and, though this isn't really one of the criteria, it requires complex application of complex issues and tools); it is "integrated and applied across different subject areas and leads beyond domain-specific outcomes;" it "creates polished [I hope] products that are valuable in their own right;" and it "allows competing solutions and a diversity of outcomes." That's a lot of AL right there.

But to make this assignment even more AL, here's what I'm thinking about changing.

I want them to do more research at all levels. I want them to research the issue they're addressing, I want them to research the previous discourse on the issue, and I want them to research the rhetorical strategies they're employing. The personal connection I insisted upon between student and issue seemed to suggest to the students that they already knew enough to write persuasively about it. And for some of them, that was the case. But all of them would have benefitted from more research. (And the number of research venues is massive, which makes this especially "ill-defined" and "student-directed.")

I think I would also like students to work together in groups. I might also want them to work against other groups. The challenge of listening to and thinking through the arguments and concerns of actual human beings is much tougher than just thinking up a devastating smack-down for the evil voices in your head.

I was thinking when I started this post (years and years ago... I know, I'm rambling) that I wanted this experience to include more discrete steps, and at first I thought that should include a more concrete module about choosing the topic. Now, however, I think I would like to shift that additional work from the beginning to the end. Instead of working more with the topic-selection phase, I'd rather have them respond to each other's positions in writing (or in whatever medium they have chosen). Like a debate in slow motion.

Hmmm.... What do you think about this?

* Herrington, Jan, Thomas C. Reeves, and Ron Oliver. "Authentic Tasks Online: A Synergy Among Learner, Task, and Technology." Distance Education 27.2 (2006): 233-247.

** (Fitzsimmons, John. "Speaking Snake: Authentic Learning and the Study of Literature." Authentic Learning Environments in Higher Education. Ed. Anthony Herrington and Jan Herrington. Hershey, London, Melbourne, and Signapore: Information Science Publishing, 2006.)

Posted by reparent at June 12, 2007 3:57 PM

Comments

Just wanted to let you know that I am really impresed with your blog! Also thanks for all your help so far this week. You have definitly merged tachnology and education---congrats!
Jim

Posted by: jim at June 12, 2007 8:31 PM

Richard (or should I say AL):
I have to confess, I mostly saw blogs as pretty meaningless to anyone but the writer and, while I could see lots of good in-class value to them, did not really think I would ever want to read any for the pleasure or the information. But your blog changed my mind; it's Plato's "ideal" of a blog, not one (like mine) written in a dark cave. Really nice! I learned from it, I enjoyed the style, and I found things in it to think about after I read it. I too struggle with the idea of making things like "how to correct run-on sentences" authentic. (Would that I taught literature--what is more real than the timeless themes and beauty of language there?) Still, I've come away with some ideas to try, and, like you, I'm going to start with one idea and hope to bring it to fruition.

Posted by: linda at June 12, 2007 11:25 PM

Richard, I understand your concern regarding the "authenticity" of a task. In literature it may not seem that a topic may have real-world relevance! But I believe it actually has, in the sense that every theme must be contextualized within its proper context. The same happens with abstract algebra! When George Boole developed his boolean algebra, there was absolutely no use for it... till a century later! So, I think: if we consider a given subject area (which may be very abstract, with no real-world -whatever that means!- significance), we can still develop tasks that are-in-the-world!

Posted by: Antonio at June 13, 2007 3:52 PM

All I can contribute right now is to say, I enjoy your blog. It is quite impressive!

Posted by: marta at June 13, 2007 4:12 PM

Richard,
Thanks for the insight into Als. As I struggle with Als I am at a loss to confirm successful implimentations. I do look forward to trying it out. Let's keep in touch about implimentation.

Posted by: jim at June 14, 2007 9:06 AM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)