Being Funny Online

From LiteracyTentWiki

Subject: [NIFL-AALPD:1274] being funny on-line - is it all in the eye of the beerholder? (with apologies to Kinky Friedman)
From: Heide Wrigley (hwrigley_at_aiweb.com)
Date: Wed Mar 31 2004 - 13:00:22 EST

Hi, Jackie and thanks for encouraging all of us to share our experience with on-line conferences and e-learning.

I'd like to offer a few thoughts on my own experience and would love to hear from others. I've given several distance learning workshops through a state-wide system in Texas (thank you Stan Ashlock and Texas State University at San Marcos). I've also lead an on-line conference lasting several weeks on Youth Literacy through Literacy, B.C. in Canada (we'll do another one in the summer). And, I've been a "guest speaker" for a couple of on-line discussions on special topics, such as ESL assessment, on these here list serves.

Yet I fret and worry ....

I used to teach large ESL/EFL classes and enjoy doing PD workshops but found the distance part a bit challenging and somewhat intimidating. Talking into a TV camera in a studio means not being able to see the faces and gauge the reactions of the audience. So my usual shtick, including some killer lines that I borrowed (ok stole) from Janet Isserlis, didn't seem appropriate for the electronic medium. (If you tell a joke and you can't tell if anyone is laughing, is it still a joke?)

Not being able to see people's faces made me wonder if I was hitting the right notes - did I sound too glib or too arrogant? Did I sound too sarcastic or too irreverent vis a vis our funders? It's easy to throw off a line that could be considered mildly amusing at the time you are typing it but may appear offensive once it appears on the world wide web- so the medium can be a bit constraining.

QUESTION: What have been the experiences of others in that respect? Have you been turned off on these conferences because of tone (because the facilitator or guest speaker was either way too earnest or didn't seem to take things seriously enough?) Or perhaps (s)he was just a tad too preachy?

When doing on-line conferences, I love hearing about the ideas of others who share strategies and resources. But I keep worrying about the ones who had signed on but don't talk or who only say something once and then disappear from the discussion. Were they bored? Overwhelmed with work and kids and contemplating the future of the world? Or perhaps they ditched us for some other more entertaining conference somewhere else. May-be we raise expectations with our advertisements and folks end up feeling under whelmed because they had been expecting more?

When working face to face, I generally work very hard to keep everyone involved, so I wonder if there is some trick I'm missing if only 30% of the official group participates. What's your take on these things?

One more question, if there are some problems with the technology initially, do most people just leave in disgust never to return or do they work it through and are then quiet for other reasons?

Cheers

Heide Wrigley
(somewhere over the North Pole as I write this)

Subject: [NIFL-AALPD:1330] Re: [NIFL-AALPD] being funny on-line ...
From: Duren Thompson (solveig@utk.edu)
Date: Mon Apr 05 2004 - 08:24:56 EDT

At 01:00 PM 3/31/2004 -0500, Heide Wrigley wrote:

“QUESTION: What have been the experiences of others in that respect? Have you been turned off on these conferences because of tone (because the facilitator or guest speaker was either way too earnest or didn't seem to take things seriously enough?) Or perhaps (s)he was just a tad too preachy?”

I find video conferences/presentations to be overrated. Once i was over the "cool - neato" part, most presenters were wooden. Interaction was always at a very minimum (one question here, another question there, and then it was over). They all seemed to be overly concerned with "looking professional." So no, "glibness" and too much humor was not an issue for me. Then, of course, in web-based video there is he nasty delay and grainy-ness of the video itself. I hate it when the speaker is talking about 2 seconds before their mouth moves.

We, as practitioners, need to be *actors* with *editors* and *directors* in order to make best use of the video medium. Think about it. If you video-taped a "typical class" of yours (especially from only one position in the room) - would it make for interesting viewing? Or would we be bored? What makes video most interesting to us is generally the ‘’’story’’’ - and the way the story is told. What was the last documentary ‘’’you’’’ watched all the way through? And those *have* stories and editing. The GED Connections videos, Crossroads Cafe videos, TV411 and Madison heights videos are all of very high quality. And yet even they do not "catch" some of our learners. Of course video conferencing has the "interactive" component - but how interactive *is it* - really? How often do you get "called on in class."

On the other hand - for some folks - the face-to-face component is

  • essential* to feeling a part of an online community. In one of our courses we worked hard to take pictures of each learner and upload them. For a couple of folks this was *very* important. (It required face to face and took a significant # of man hours - cost-benefit -wise we decided to skip it in the future).
”When doing on-line conferences, I love hearing about the ideas of others who share strategies and resources. But I keep worrying about the ones who had signed on but don't talk or who only say something once and then disappear from the discussion. Were they bored? Overwhelmed with work and kids and contemplating the future of the world? Or perhaps they ditched us for some other more entertaining conference somewhere else. May-be we raise expectations with our advertisements and folks end up feeling under whelmed because they had been expecting more?”
”When working face to face, I generally work very hard to keep everyone involved, so I wonder if there is some trick I'm missing if only 30% of the official group participates. What's your take on these things?”

I have gone to a number of workshops and conferences where, if it is not required, I don't talk much - or interact with others (and I'm a bit on the chatty side - the kid who always raised their hand in class.) I don't need conversation in order to learn - although I learn just fine with it. Conversation requires effort. Written conversation requires time and even more effort. Typewritten conversation requires skill, time, and more effort. Reading is easier. Lurking takes less time. As Debra points out - I don't have to talk to take in the information I need and go. So don't always assume it is *you* or *your course*  :)

Somewhat unintentionally, we have built in some *impetus* to talk and to stay in our courses. Not only do we have specific start and stop times for a group of practitioners in the course, but we "control" the access to the information as well. We only *turn on* one set of assignments & readings per week. Thus if you want to get all the information, you have to stick around for the whole course. In addition, we created a "drop" policy - if we don't "hear from you" for 2 weeks (and we actively e-mail and call you and or your supervisor/peers at your office) we remove your access to the course and the information. So if you want the info, you have to "talk" to stay in the course, and you have to stick around the whole time to get it all. Lastly, we also leave access to the course materials "on" for up to 6 months after the course is over. Participants can access course materials, links, etc. long after the course is over. So they don't have to get it all in 6 weeks - they have longer to explore and learn. (Truly these decisions were all made separately - for other reasons. It just turns out that they work together this way.)

"One more question, if there are some problems with the technology initially, do most people just leave in disgust never to return or do they work it through and are then quiet for other reasons?”

We find the key to this is Tech support, Tech support, tech Support. And calling them when they *don't show up.* Some will leave disgusted, but many, with some support, will hang in there and finish.

Lastly, your course needs to “fit" their perception of their needs. We are fortunate(?) here in TN in that the majority of our AE practitioners had little or no systematic professional development before 2001. They were/are *hungry* for *any* tools to help them in the classroom. A smaller sub-group of our practitioners had received a *lot* of systematic PD for a couple of years before the online classes (our welfare to work AE classes). They seemed more likely to drop out. One of our theories is that they already *had* all this "Adult Learner" and "Teaching Tools" stuff - they may have felt we weren't really meeting their needs with the content of these online courses.

(Ok, like you Heidi, I *always* feel bad when I lose one. I always wonder what I could have done differently. I always worry about how to get them to talk more, to delve deeper, to talk to each other more. I don't have all the answers - nope, not me. But I'm willing to tell you what we've tried  :)

Duren Thompson
Center for Literacy Studies

Retrieved from "http://wiki.literacytent.org/index.php/Being_Funny_Online"