Writing
Overall, the collaborative writing didn’t go so well. The other schools did not have a built-in incentive for their students. This meant that the KU students weren’t really getting as much source information as I had hoped for: although they were still writing the papers, the loss of international perspectives was unfortunate. I was aware of the limited incentives initially, when it was decided that each teacher would grade his or her own students’ papers. However, the other classes had a “club” mentality more than a formalized academic experience. They met in the evenings to discuss the issues via the electronic network, they got to practice their English, but when their month of interaction was finished, they considered their work done. Also, this course was not part of their regular schedule and hence did not have the same level of academic importance. Many of these students had more demands on their lives, such as working for a basic living, and therefore they directed their energy elsewhere when the class meetings were finished. However, some of the American students have continued corresponding with the students abroad, an outcome I label as great.
Without incentives for the other three schools, the structure was not adequately developed. When I teach this course again, I will restructure it in an attempt to solve this problem. I believe the other instructors must be more involved, but I realize that they have obligations that limit their effort. For instance, the teacher in Azerbaijan is also an assistant to a government minister. Therefore, he can put in only so much time on the course.
Course content
It was a challenge to make sure that students got the core political science basics that I would have provided in a different format. The students came out of the class with ideas and interests about the rest of the world, and they expressed desire to go visit the other three countries. So, they went from not caring—sometimes not even knowing that a place was a country—to wanting to know about more of the world. I believe that engaging students in this way can spark an interest that won’t develop in a traditional class. As one student said, it “made it more real to me,” a typical reaction that created more interest in doing the work of the shared experience.
Suggested changes
I asked students for their feedback on how to improve the course. They had concerns about the collaboration—or lack thereof. They suggested that the course have a built-in debriefing day. If the course met on MWF, the first two days (Monday and Wednesday) would be used for collaborative interactions with the other students, and Friday’s class time would be available for debriefing and going over ideas.
Additionally, students suggested changes in the calendar cycle of interactions. That fall, each different university had only one month when they interacted with the KU students. Another model that might be more useful, according to the students, would be work with all three universities throughout the semester. This structure would provide more time for building groups. Initially, I thought that this type of interaction would get really confusing. Although I still believe it could be confusing, it could provide an option that would make sure all the students are interacting with each other. I could set up some activities to engage all four countries, a move that would eliminate the “my month is done so now I am too” mentality. For instance, on U.S. election night, my students and I met to monitor the state-by-state results. They participated with the Kyrgyzstan students, and they thought the experience was wonderful. However, they had not yet made the electronic connections with the Mongolia students who were just beginning their month of interaction, and the Azerbaijan students, their month done, had disappeared. This challenge—to get all students involved throughout the semester—is a goal for the next offering.
Final remarks
I look forward to teaching this course one more time, a commitment that I have made to the State Department. Because I’m now the director of the Center for Russian Studies, my departmental teaching load is one-one, plus I have other teaching commitments for the department, two conditions that will hinder my ability to teach this course beyond Fall 2005. I would like to see this class process used in other units of the University. I would be happy to help other classes or special projects become engaged with this type of format, which include the technology, the contacts with other countries, and the EGARC set-up. For instance, a Communication Studies class on intercultural communication would fit into the possibilities that this process offers.
| << Student Performance | ^TOP^ | Comments >> |
