An unfortunate meeting

     I was not available to actually attend any of the four web conferences that were held during this course.  Instead, I have just finished watching the recording of the conference held on Wednesday, July 31, 2013, during Week 3 of the course.  I had heard that the conference was confusing and difficult to follow for a number of reasons.  I never expected to see what I have just finished watching. 

     At around fourteen and a half minutes, the audio seemed to go pretty much completely.  I could hear little to nothing even on the recording.  At that point, several students just started firing completely disjointed questions at the professor.  Without audio, these can only be deciphered in the transcript through all of the complaints about not being able to hear and so forth.  At about eighteen minutes and a quarter, everyone’s video went out.  About half a minute later, the professor’s audio came back, and most participants could hear again.  At this point in the conference, it appeared that the professor decided to nix the individual student webcam video and switch to sharing his screen or his camera in order to provide video for the conference.  In essence, the first twenty minutes of the recording was a wash with the brief exception of some tech tips for participating in an Adobe Connect Web Conference.  At twenty-one minutes and one half, the audio cut out again as the professor switched from sharing his screen to his camera.  By twenty-three minutes and a half, people were just bombarding the professor with questions faster than he could address them all.  On top of this inability to keep up with the deluge, many of the responses the professor did provide did not really elucidate anything: 

Q: “Do we actually have to create the web 2.0?  or just read about it and analyze it?”

A: “And yes, Jessica, we do have to create a Web point two zero.”

And then, a little later…

Q: “My understanding is that we do not do a LIVEBINDER, correct?”

A: “No, we do not, Rhonda. We do not have a binder…in this class. That’s correct. We do not have a binder.  It’s not a LiveBinder; it’s just a binder in TK20.” And then again a moment later, “We do not have a LiveBinder. It’s not a LiveBinder, Rhonda. It’s a binder. [then reading the text of a statement on screen] ‘the assignment talks about [a] livebinder’ We do not have a LiveBinder. And if it’s talking about a LiveBinder, I’m not sure what you’re talking about. I can go back and look and see what it says on…in Blackboard, but that’s what we have.”

     In the first of those two questions, the question itself was worded a bit strangely, but the professor’s reply only added to the confusion in the question by justifying it with his sanction. I’m not sure what it even means to “create” a Web 2.0, but telling everyone that we do, in fact, have to create one hardly helps to clarify the assignment.  In the second example above, the response simply reveals the professor’s unfortunate utter lack of awareness of the assignment that should have been clarified through this Web Conference.  The assignment for that week (which the professor later realized with some remorse) read thusly:

Week 3.1 - LiveBinder Web 2.0 Tools Collaborative Document

Complete instructions on this week's assignments are found in this Word document.

For this assignment, create your first Google Document.

·   Click the link below to access information about LiveBinders:

o    LiveBinders

From the LiveBinder link above, each member of your team must choose two collaborative web 2.0 tools within different tool categories for reviewing and discussing on your team Google Doc of how the tool may be used. Write a paragraph in your team Google Doc of the usefulness of this tool. How would you recommend the tools to teachers if you were the school principal?  What is a curator? Each team member must have one unique tool. Your team Google Doc becomes your curation of tools!

     Plainly, the assignment for the week made reference to LiveBinders although the particular LiveBinder to which the assignment link once led either no longer exists or is no longer actively available. At any rate, what was a legitimate question based upon the title and introduction of the assignment (and the conjecture necessary in the presence of a broken Internet link) was instead steered in the direction of TK20 and its “course binder” aspect.  The student’s question neither understood nor answered, the professor then compounds the confusion by intimating that there was a TK20 binder for this course which immediately results in a sense of dread clearly unknown to the faculty of Lamar University but felt to the very marrow by every one of TK20’s unwilling student victims.  This confusion became even greater later, when the professor pointed out that there was not, in fact, a course binder in TK20 for this course.

     The professor went on that evening to review the Performance Objectives for the course which, while worthwhile to know and to have in one’s head in order to enhance understanding throughout the assignment, did not really clarify what we as students needed to DO that week.  At this point in the conference, the students briefly descended to merely commiserating over the lack of clarity in the course’s instructions and the further confusion created by the lack of coherent instruction in the conference.

     When he finally reached the assignments in his review of the week’s Overview document and realized how he had misinterpreted the earlier question about LiveBinders, he simply apologized and stated that “LiveBinder is correct”.  This still left the student’s question unanswered.  That statement ended his review of the assignment, and he moved into asking a series of questions devised by another professor and himself.

     For a moment, then, some students simply began to ignore him and attempt to answer one another’s questions among themselves until other students unleashed an avalanche of responses to the discussion question about encouraging faculty to use Web 2.0 tools in our future leadership roles.  Throughout the discussion that followed, I couldn’t help but notice certain comments drowning amidst the tide of students racing to answer the professor’s questions.  With the exception of Tami’s direct question, all of the following statements and questions went by without reply:

• My ADHD is not allowing me to follow any of these conversations.  People have questions that are unanswered.  People are confused.  I'm very frustrated with this.

• wow, i think that I will need a drink after this web conference.

• Dr. -----, are you going to answer questions about the assignment? (his reply: Tami--you should call be [sic] after the class.)

•  I would be frustrated if I were a student trying to learn here or even get simple clarification on my assignment especially when we are asking questions that aren't being addressed

• I still don't understand exactly how the 2  assignments are to look.  How do you showcase your tool?

• …I don't think any of us quite understand. The instructions aren't clear. I know my group mates are just as confused as I am. I thought the web conference was to get clarification of the expectations of the assignments. Good luck!

• What about the Live Binder...?

     A Web Conference that left so many students feeling confused, frustrated, and isolated from help must do little to inspire technological novices to move forward with the idea of incorporating new technologies in the classroom and across the campus.  I remain grateful, after watching this recording, that I am not such a novice and have never been afraid to integrate technology to the highest degree possible given the hardware available to my students and me.  I am even more grateful, though, that because of this knowledge I felt assured enough to move forward with my best conjecture about the unclear assignment instructions throughout the course.  If I had felt the need to turn to the Web Conferences for help, I might have just gone insane.

     Upon reflection, I completely understand what the professor was trying to accomplish during the conference.  He had an agenda for the meeting, and he clearly felt the need to keep to that agenda regardless of the wishes of a considerable handful of the eighty or so students who attended. I also understand why he wanted to engage everyone in the conversation that consumed the last half of the conference.  That is, I imagine, the theoretical purpose for these things.  The only problem with that idea rests in the lack of clarity in the instructions for our assignments in several of the courses we’ve taken over the last year.  Many of my peers have grown very, very used to receiving that clarity during our weekly meetings online.  In this class, the instructions were so convoluted, unclear, and often derailed by outdated links and directives that some amends for clarifying the assignments should have been made.  In other words, this was decidedly not the class in which the professor needed to stick to his guns, ignore the pleas of confused students, and demonstrate the benefits of online discussion.  The very irony drowns any possibility of achieving that goal.

     One possible solution for this might be to hold two different Web Conferences each week with two separate intentions.  One conference could be facilitated exclusively through the professor’s prepared questions and reserved for group discussion of the concepts and theory that form the basis for the course. The other could be more like “e-office hours” where the students direct the substance of the session through their questions about the content, the assignments, or anything else that is on their minds and for which they wish to turn to their professor for guidance. 

     Another solution, and I have suggested this in the past, would be hold two or three conferences each week at different times and/or days with students assigned by section or last name or whatever to a certain conference date and time.  That solution might have made for the first third of this conference being eminently more successful than it was.  This is the second or third course in which the number of students trying to attend the Web Conference has been beyond what Adobe Connect is able to bear.  Either way (or another), something must be done to make this program’s Web Conferences more profitable for students and less stressful for our teachers.