U N I V E R S I T Y  O F  P I T T S B U R G H

TTimes Banner Teaching Times Teaching Times

 A newsletter devoted to the support of teaching and learning at the University of Pittsburgh 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Integrating Online Discussions Into a Literature Course

photo: Nick Coles
Photo by Jason Blair, CIDDE
“Often, conversations cut short by time constraints in class would be continued online. Posts began to blossom with attached artwork, links to relevant articles, chunks of independent research.”

By Nick Coles, English

THE DISCUSSION BOARD WILL NEVER DIE!!!

This comment posted in a student’s evaluation of my Working-Class Literature course last semester was the most exuberant of many remarks about how useful, even pleasurable, students had found their participation in online discussion to be.

I’ve been teaching Working-Class Literature at Pitt for 25 years. The course engages students in shared inquiry about the nature of work, the experience of class, and the uses of literature in a culture like ours (now and in the past). In part because I also teach English composition, frequent writing and guided discussion have been the primary means of learning in the class. This worked well when the course was an upper-division writing-intensive class primarily taken by English majors and capped at 20 students.

Change in Dynamics
However, the dynamics changed several years ago when the course was converted to 600-level, no longer designated as writing intensive and open to all students as a way to meet their literature requirement. It now regularly enrolls 35 students, freshmen through seniors, only one of whom last semester was a literature major.

These changes affected class discussion. Whereas I used to arrange my classroom in a circle, seminar-style, the students were now all facing me. Discussion was now mostly mediated through me and often dominated by those students who were most comfortable speaking to a large group (not always also the most thoughtful contributors).

Because this was the only literature course many of my students would take at Pitt—and I wanted to engage them in habits of close and attentive literary reading—I continued to use a form of reading log I had developed over the years. In this “double-entry journal” students recorded observations, quotations, and reactions to their reading on one side of a divided page, and made connections, developed interpretations and raised questions in writing on the other side. I’ve valued this form of learning log in part because students often write quite freely about their responses, and I am able to see their thinking process and comment upon it.

Nevertheless, I was growing dissatisfied with the sense that, although there was value for students in articulating their thinking to themselves and to me in writing, their insights and questions were not finding their way back out into the class as a whole to enrich our conversations. Similarly my own comments were being made only to individual students, one at a time.

Redesigning the Course
Recently I had been hearing from colleagues about online discussions—in particular, I was inspired by a presentation by Marah Gubar at the Teaching Excellence Fair—and also I knew it was time for me to get up to speed with Blackboard. So when I had the opportunity to participate in the faculty seminar on Communication Across the Curriculum (CXC), I decided to make it my project to learn about this online tool and to rethink the modes of discussion and informal writing in the Working-Class Literature course. My goals for this redesign effort were:

  • to increase participation in discussion by extending it from the space of the classroom into the online environment,
  • to engage students in looking closely at the language of particular texts, responding to, and posing questions for each other,
  • to learn how to do this work myself and what my role(s) as a teacher would be in facilitating it.

Three kinds of support helped me with the changes I went on to make: a morning of CIDDE training on working with CourseWeb; conversations with colleagues from several Arts and Sciences departments around the table in the CXC seminar; and one-on-one planning sessions with an instructional designer who has taught and studied writing in online environments for some time.

Introducing Online Discussions
When I taught Working-Class Literature the following semester, fall 2006, I replaced the double-entry journal with required participation in online discussion. Students were to post weekly to a forum focused on the current readings, writing about a page each in one or several posts. Their posts would be assessed on a point system adapted from Professor Gubar’s courses—based on relevance, attention to text, connections, and contributions to shared inquiry—and would count for 25 percent of the course grade. Students could respond to a set of questions posed by the group of classmates who initiated each week’s discussion, or they could start new threads with questions or comments of their own.

The impact on class discussions has been impressive. Often, conversations begun but cut short by time constraints in class would be continued online. Posts began to blossom with attached artwork, links to relevant articles, chunks of independent research. Some posts ran well over a page, while the shortest was the single word “Word!” offered in response to a particularly righteous statement by a classmate. A rough taxonomy of posting would include:

  • Points of interpretation in the texts under discussion: “It’s possible that ‘If you get there before I do / Tell all-a my Friends I’m coming too’ has a connection to religion. A common belief held by slaves was that they were being tested by God – to endure the hardships and adversities of slavery. This was an inspirational belief because it opposed the idea that they were being punished…”
  • Comments about historical context: “When you mentioned native homelands, you got me thinking about where the Lowell girls lived before working in the factories. I can’t help but wonder if most of the girls working in the Lowell system came, not from faraway nations, but from farms in the New England region.…”
  • Questions and possible responses to them: “How is Bertha [a prostitute] so chill? That is something I’m really wondering about…”
  • Proposing issues for in-class discussion: “I don’t understand the reference to Dives’s door either. I tried doing some research and I couldn’t find anything; maybe we could discuss it in class…”
  • Informal theorizing: “I believe to be emotionally stirred by a piece of literature like this is very valuable and opens a sort of gateway within oneself to the experiences from others…”
  • Bringing forward new material for discussion: “I would like to focus this post specifically on the poem ‘John Henry’ in comparison to the song ‘The Legend of John Henry’s Hammer’ by Johnny Cash. Following are the lyrics of Cash’s song:…”
  • Invitations to personal story-telling: “I don’t know if you’ve worked, or what kinds of jobs you have had, but if you have, look at your work experiences. What would your parents say about their work experiences?…”
  • Social maintenance / mutual support: “Let me start with a confession: I’m writing this post at this moment in order to push back the final processes of my paper for just a bit. Like many of us, I’m really struggling with getting my ideas pinned down…”

Most importantly, students’ evaluations suggest that for many of them, the goals I had in mind were met. For example, the following comments were offered:

  • I thought the discussion board was great. It gave students who usually don’t participate a chance to let their ideas be heard and responded to. It helped connect the class.
  • The discussion board took awhile to get used to, but the conversation on there was some of the best we had for the class. We put so many ideas on there, and I personally was able to work through some of the ideas I had posted, clean them, and use them for the papers.
  • I love the discussion board. … [It] offers interaction that is pivotal in getting students to participate.

I appreciated the process so much myself that I am using online discussion again in this semester’s Seminar in Composition. I especially value the spirit of engagement I witnessed in that forum, the quality of attention and insight on textual questions, and what it taught me about students’ thinking and, therefore, what we might need to address in up-coming class meetings. And I found myself looking forward to logging on and seeing what was being said, joining in as I was moved to — whereas I cannot honestly say the same about the fat sheaf of hand-written journals I used to carry around with me.


A newsletter devoted to the support of teaching and learning at the University of Pittsburgh

Center for Instructional Development & Distance Education
1996-2007 © University of Pittsburgh, CIDDE. All Rights Reserved.
Editor: Carol DeArment, Graphic Design & Illustration: Alec Sarkas
Questions or comments, please contact CIDDE Webmaster, 05/23/2008