The Trial and Error of Digital Pedagogy

Group post by Chris Clements, Austin Garren, Jazmin Jurkiewicz, Andrew Knight, Malle Schilling, and Brittany Shaughnessy

What do we mean by digital pedagogy?

Digital pedagogy presents a unique set of issues that one may not think of when first stepping foot in the classroom. Digital pedagogy hosts a myriad of definitions for different people. As with anything, digital pedagogy’s definition is situational–different disciplines could utilize digital pedagogy practices in unique ways. For us, digital pedagogy is where teaching practice and teaching philosophy intersect (Stommel, 2013), and the use of technology enhances the teaching and learning experience in our classrooms. Digital pedagogy can range from the utilization of laptops and phones to interact with a group assignment, or even responding to live polls regarding trivia or course content to engage all learners. It is vital to note the difference between digital pedagogy and online learning. Whereas online learning denotes the environment in which students and instructors interact, digital pedagogy focuses on the tools used to generate interaction and promote learning. It requires instructors to respond in real-time to their students noting engagement, adjusting as needed, and reflecting on what works and why.  

 

Students are able to shape the online learning experience and pedagogical philosophy by working with the instructor in real time to develop the most engaging and helpful class activities and assignments. Learning on the fly provides students with significant opportunities to give feedback and hopefully participate more in class that is based on their needs and interests. We believe that online pedagogy is constantly evolving to the students just like technology is constantly evolving and changing to the world’s demands. Furthermore, digital pedagogy is flexible and hopefully works toward including all students to have more confidence participating in more unique ways, such as through the chat, anonymous surveys, polls and comfort of being in their home space. If digital pedagogy is made for students to be more involved in class and feel supported, we believe that digital learning can be more interactive lead to greater student growth!

 

One important aspect that also needs to be considered when thinking about the different types of technology to incorporate into the classroom is the instructor’s style of teaching. Some forms, such as online games, are meant to be fun for both the students and the teacher. However, some teachers prefer to convey a more serious or informational tone in the classroom. For this type of teacher, trying to conduct a game when they are not completely comfortable with that style of teaching may come across as insincere or even simply boring for everyone involved. Similarly, in some classes, games may not be appropriate for the topic being discussed or a competitive aspect may not encourage all students to participate. With the rapid adjustment to online learning, many instructors had no formal introduction to digital tools and their adaptation to digital pedagogy has been done on an individual basis in addition to changing course material and content to fit the new teaching format.

 

We have discussed the trial and error aspect of digital pedagogy in the sense that teachers may have been thrust into the digital platform of teaching during this Covid-19 pandemic and have to ‘learn on the fly’ what works for both the teachers and the students. Three of us teach public speaking, with forty students in each section. In March, like every other faculty member in the United States, we had to take a public speaking course and move it online. Granted, this was an easier task than most, as the course was already using a hybrid model, but there was a lot of trial and error involved. Before we had started teaching after “second spring break,” we had a meeting that lasted all afternoon, brainstorming how we could keep students engaged when we were having a tough time engaging ourselves. I’m not sure if we ever found a “best practice” last semester, as it was trying to make the best of the worst possible situation. This semester, it looks like each of us have crafted our own digital pedagogy practices, each providing our own voice and teaching style to the online classroom. 

 

References

Stommel, J. (2013). Decoding digital pedagogy pt. 2: (Un)mapping the terrain. Hybrid Pedagogy. https://hybridpedagogy.org/decoding-digital-pedagogy-pt-2-unmapping-the-terrain/

Communication: A Haven for Case-Based Learning

In continuing my quest to show people how vast the communication discipline is, I present case-based learning. Before I start, it should be noted that not all communication classes use case-based learning, and sometimes it is not appropriate. However, even communication undergraduate studies are not centered around memorization and tests, but rather focus on how the student can apply this knowledge to the real world. As with any discipline, at times it can get theoretical, but there is always a silver lining: communication theory is typically applicable in real life, and not bogged down in molecular jargon. With this being said, I understand that sometimes the hard sciences require memorization. My boyfriend is an aerospace engineering PhD student and had a three-question test this weekend that took him the entire time. Without memorization, the test would not have been possible. On the other hand, I usually spend the last two weeks of every semester writing around 90 pages for my classes. I don’t even know what would happen if he was tasked with writing that much.

Case-based learning is just that–a case-by-case basis approach to learning. It is getting students to see how your content can be applicable to not only their life, but to situations that have (or have not) occurred in reality. In communication, it is not difficult to pull communication theories into reality and make your students realize their utility. This is especially easy because many communication theories are founded in reality, based off of real phenomona. Nevertheless, it is crucial to remember that these are just theories, and none of them can be “proven.” Instad, they can be explained by using real-world examples:

Agenda Setting Theory

Defined (roughly): The news media set the public agenda for what is important in the public eye. “The media do not tell you what to think, but rather what to think about” (McCombs & Shaw, 1972).

Case example: The Vietnam War was the first time that the media’s opinion differed from what the government was saying. The United States government was stating the the United States was winning the conflict, and that is why they had to stay deployed. Meanwhile, Walter Cronkite and the media interviewed soldiers on the ground, that stated they did not know what they were fighting for. This all came to fruition with the publication of the Pentagon Papers, which stated that the government knew the United States did not have a chance at winning. This media coverage set lots of public agendas, but most saliently the agenda that the United States should not be in the Vietnam War. The public listened.

Framing Theory 

Defined (roughly):  An application of the media’s gatekeeping (choosing what the public reads in a news article) power — the power to take tidbits of information and make them newsworthy, spinning a story in a direction that makes them stand out from other news organizations (Shoemaker & Vos, 2014). When there is a breaking news story, there is often more information available than a journalist is able to publish, forcing them to focus on one aspect of the story and tell the story through that lens.

Case example: Following a mass shooting, journalists often pick one frame to write a news story about. For instance, this frame can be a gun control frame (e.g. this shooting would not have happened if the perpetrator did not have access to guns), a video game frame (e.g. this shooting happened becuase the perpetrator played violent video games), a familial frame (e.g. the perpetrator had a tough childhood, leading him to commit this crime), etc. If you were teaching a communication theory class, you could ask students what they would do if they were the journalist in this position. Maybe don’t pick such a violent topic–I only chose it because it is my research area.

Expectancy Violations Theory 

Defined (roughly): In all interactions, whether interpersonal or with technology, people have expectations for how it will go. These interactions can end in one of two ways: your expectation is met, and leaving you satisfied, or your expectations can be violated, often leaving you frustrated.

Case example: John and Heather are on their first date after meeting online. John and Heather have been texting for several weeks before meeting, and think that they have a good grasp on each other’s persona. Upon meeting, John realizes that Heather has a very aggressive personality–one that was not expressed through initial text messages. John’s expectations were violated, and there was no second date.

I could go on, but it is evident that there are many different case-based approaches to teaching communication theory. Communication does not stop at theories, but the entire discipline derives from reality, which I think is pretty neat.

In the communication classroom, especially the graduate communication classroom, there is rarely a day that goes by without a case applied to the topic at hand. I distinictly remember my undergraduate media effects class, where the class was always enthralled with what the professor had to say. Although we were learning theory and other phenomena, all of the concepts were applicable to the real-world, with constant examples played in class.

I can get behind case-based learning, as I have seen it’s potential unfold in not only classes I have taken, but classes that I teach. I agree with Foran (2001) from the University of Michigan case-based teaching page: case-based learning increases student engagement by miles.

References

Foran, J. (2001). The case method and the interactive classroom. The NEA Higher Education Journal, 17(1), 41-50.

McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(2), 176-187.

Shoemaker, P. J., & Vos, T. P. (2014). Chapter 6: Media gatekeeping. In D. Stacks & M. Salwen (eds.), An integrated approach to communication theory and research. Taylor & Francis Group.