Orchestrating additional expectations

The final question in this series on student engagement impacted by Web 2.0 tools is:

How could the use of the tools be made more effective in combination with some other methods, strategies or contexts?

An answer to this question occurred to me while learning from Nicola and minh in the extended series of comments on Same Old Class Discussions. My answer involves combining the use of tools with the expectations that learners are using amidst their experiences of new content, interactions and personal reflections. I'm considering the possibility that their expectations are highly influential in whether the tools increase or decrease their engagement.

Any tool is prescriptive by nature. It dictates how to use it, what to expect from its use, what it takes to avoid mishandling it, and what added payback to expect from getting practiced at using it. That set of prescriptions may encourage instructors to neglect orchestrating expectations beyond what the tools dictate. It may also put the expectations provided by the tools at odds with the instructor's "command & control" set of expectations. Both a laissez-faire and a no-win approach could undermine student engagement. This raises the possibility of some middle ground between those extremes.

What if the Web 2.0 tools are necessary, but not sufficient, to realize increased student engagement? What if the departure from controlled conformity, facilitated by the tools, is off to a great start? What if the tools need a toolbox that puts them in a larger context which then frames their effective use? What if the combination of tools and expectations realizes a "best-of-both" space for spontaneous and fulfilling engagement?

If those possibilities are right, then the students need to be given expectations about what can go wrong with the tools. The possibility of using the tools in ways that yield more disengagement -- needs to be explored as I've done in this series. The value of additional expectations ought to be considered. Expectations might also include how learning really happens, how it's possible to go through the motions and get no useful results and how to troubleshoot problems when learning is not happening. Then there will not be an over-reliance on the tools by instructors or students. There would be less defeat when the tools no longer offer the thrill of a new toy. There would be more responsibility taken for using the tools wisely in service of one's own learning journey.

Note: links have now been added to every answer I've explored to the ten questions on Inadvertently designed for disengagement?

Merely providing hiding places?

In the initial post in this series, I wondered "how easy is it to hide in classes making use of the tools of engagement and keep one's lack of interest, motivation or comprehension out of sight?" This calls into question a pattern I recognize in countless management situations, as well as in mentoring individuals who are carrying a lot of emotional baggage. Here's four hiding places can be easily recognized:

1. Hiding behind their job description: People who cannot think outside the box, risk making a mistake or solve problems that arise -- use their duties as an excuse. Rather than reference their incompetence, they avoid a challenge by blaming their job description for negating the possibility.
2. Making a show of commitment: People who cannot buy-in, follow through or convince others to commit, will give lip service to the rallying cry. They hide their cynicism, misgivings and lack of commitment behind a pretense of collusion.
3. Putting busywork on display: People who cannot improve their productivity, become more efficient or find useful shortcuts will compensate by appearing very occupied. They avoid getting asked to do more in the alloted time, to take more initiative or to volunteer for added responsibilities -- by being obviously too busy already.
4. Throwing their weight around: Weak leaders who cannot earn respect, command a genuine following or envision a beneficial advancement -- will intimidate others, demand respect and punish detractors to hide their incompetence.

If this pattern emerged in the use of Web 2.0 tools for increasing student engagement, I would expect signs to appear such as:

• a flurry of tweets and text messages lacking substance or value to the readers
• a bounty of blog posts that "read between the lines" as a message about "no learning happening here"
• the launch of a wiki or open document that gets plenty of links to it but no edits, added content or revisions
• uploads of "user generated content" that generates a chuckle, some thrills or another tweet, but no insights, realizations or deeper significance

Hmmm. Guess what pattern I'm seeing in the show of effort to increase student engagement :-)

Affordances that amplify disengagement

It seems likely there are affordances that amplify negative effects and dampen positive effects. Learners might be slightly bored before associating with such an affordance and then be "bored out of their skulls". Facilitated by the affordance, they could be watching an interaction for what to say and then feel "totally silenced" by the patterns they recognize. The learners could be on the brink of connecting new content to their own previous concepts, experiences and praxis until the affordance took affect and convinced them the work of connecting was a "complete was of time".

Note that these are extreme reactions that follow tentative explorations. Something about the "amplifier affordance" must be translating tentative experiences to extreme formulations. That raises several follow-up questions:

• Does the affordance appear to be going to extremes itself, and inducing "monkey see monkey do" imitation behaviors?
• Does the affordance send a message of exclusivity, superiority or intolerance which transforms the experience of the learner into feeling excluded, inferior or rejected?
• Does the affordance prescribe a range of tolerable participation, interaction and contributions that excludes what the learners are ready, willing and able to share?
• Does the affordance downplay early signs of student engagement while making a big deal out of controlling the conversation, staying on message and covering the material?
• Does the affordance send mixed messages like "do as I say, don't do as I do" or "do what's required, don't recognize toxic patterns in this relationship"?

If the answers to any of these questions is "yes", there is a disconnect between form and function. The affordance was not designed to escalate disengagement. The effects are unintentional. The evidence of amplifying disengagement would likely be dissociated, put into denial and poised to shoot any messengers who expose it.

Fixing the negative amplification is not easy at the level of the affordance. Like the steaming tea kettle that will explode by plugging the hole that's whistling, there's a need to find a way to turn down the fire producing the steam, not fix the affordance. Situations like these work themselves out when they are open to user feedback, seeking to align with user experiences and receptive to user ideas for improvements. Discovering the tool plays into amplified disengagement gets regarded as a gift, lesson or invitation to collaborate. of course, the opposite reaction occurs in closed systems devoted to the use of the affordance "at all cost" without regard to whether it's working or how it effects the users.

Not enough connecting?

Over the past few weeks, I've read two books about Actor-Network Theory: Reassembling the Social and Prince of Networks. Like the CCK09 course on Connectivism, there's a big emphasis in these books on connections. Bruno Latour makes a wonderful distinction between intermediaries who pass along what comes through like an empty conduit and mediators that do the work of translating the throughput. Rather think of networks as systems of pipelines or subway systems, he considers a network as a reflection of the quality of the translation work. The higher the quality of the mediation, the larger the network that results. While that facet of networks are emergent results that simply happen, he explores the work of making connections when faced with resistance, tests of strength and black boxes seeking to remain closed.

This morning I was reflecting upon all the different kinds of work that connecting involves. I wondered if student engagement, like Latour regards networks, could be a reflection of the quality of all that connecting work. The Web 2.0 tools, that are being relied on to generate increased student involvement, could be under-performing the students expectations as a support system for all that connecting work. If that pattern is occurring, we could expect the tools of engagement to result in increased disengagement.

Here's what I'm thinking is the full spectrum of "connection work" that tools for engagement ought to support:

1. Seeing connections: Recognizing "traces" of interrelationships is far from easy. Latour recommends eliminating distinctions like global/local, context/content and macro/micro to detect subtle connections.
2. Making new connections: Getting help, support, or follow through is difficult when we're facing resistance or apathy. This work calls for political maneuvering and negotiation skills.
3. Experiencing connections: Connections can be very enjoyable, gratifying and fascination when something we've put out there goes beyond our launch, getting translated, transformed and combined with others.
4. Articulating connections: Connections get stronger by exploring both ends, conversing back and forth, comparing viewpoints, and exploring tough questions together. The value of the other end of the connection becomes more obvious and refined.
5. Using existing connections:  Well established connections allow for cooperation, collaborations, P2P projects, and crowdsourcing to get things done faster, more resourcefully and even more creatively.
6. Blocking connections: When we set up boundaries, filters or black boxes, we keep out others from seeing what to connect to or from making connections. Our form of isolation may be done to protect property rights, avoid piracy, control a brand/reputation or many other motives.
7. Abandoning connections: Connections are usually high maintenance if they prove to be useful. Cutting down on the maintenance workload results in the loss of neglected connections.

If the tools for engagement got all this work done "on steroids", it seems very likely that student engagement would be "through the roof". That may not require any change in the tools, only a change in how they are used. Perhaps the only problem behind the "declines in student engagement" is "not enough connecting" getting done, supported and celebrated.

Tools that transform us

When we use Web 2.0 tools on social networking platforms, there's a login button to click on. There's usually a check box to indicate if we want to remain logged in on the computer we're using. We think nothing of those buttons and boxes. When we're blogging, adding a comment to a blog or contributing to a wiki or discussion thread, there's a publish button to click on. It seems pretty silent as we use the tool. When we're reading the feeds we've subscribed to via RSS, Atom or email, we click on messages or folders to see what's inside. There's plenty of content to look over but no apparent communication in the feed reader or email program itself.

Marshall McLuhan disagreed. He said "the medium is the message". What the tool tells us speaks more loudly than the content conveyed by the tool. In his day, he saw televisions saying a lot more than the TV programs we watched on them. Nowadays he'd say a wiki, blog, feed or social networking platform tell us much more than what we thought we were being told by the content in them.

Bruno Latour agrees with McLuhan (and me). He regards Web 2.0 tools as actants that function just like actors. They perform for us in ways that move us, stabilize us or combine something about us with them even though they are not human. Through our relating with any actants and/or actors, we are made to act differently ourselves. They mediate, translate and transform whatever made them act they way they did. We pass it on by mediating, translating or transforming what made us act.

So the question I've been exploring lately can be reframed this way: Are the Web 2.0 tools of engagement making us students disengage, lose interest, act bored and cut back on our participating? if we assume those tools don't tell us anything, the answer is obviously "no". Once we accept how profoundly we get transformed by media/actants, the answer is "yes". The next question is "how?".

Perhaps when we click on a login window, publish button or message, we come under a spell. What if we're made to act in the same way as everyone else who clicks on those. Maybe we're transformed into acting more selectively, expressively and exploratorily. Perhaps these tools feel like powerful extensions that amplify our inclinations to socialize, connect, get understood and validate others.

If that's occurring without our conscious intentions, then we've slipped into an echo chamber. We're indulging in consensus and collusion. We're thinking alike and doing the same things as everyone else. We've lost contrasts and contradictions. There are no differences that make a difference in our understanding of ourselves, others or what's called for right now. It would then make perfect sense to disengage. The tools would make us act less involved emotionally, less active in contributing and less interactive with others. We'd seek ways to make a difference outside the echo chamber. We'd be made to act more effectively by escaping the conformity and collusion.

Banging the drum easily at first

Back during my middle school years, I spent several months (not years) learning to play the baritone horn. I found it easy to get a sound out of it, but difficult to get my fingering fast enough to keep time. I knew I had it easy compared to friends playing the clarinet, sax or flute. I figured the baritone horn was more difficult than any percussion instrument. I bailed on the baritone when my frustrations outgrew my diminishing satisfactions. When my father rented a vibraphone several years later, I had no regrets about the abrupt ending to my brass instrument days.

I've been wondering this morning what connections there are between learning to play musical instruments and using the Web 2.0 "tools of student engagement". I imagined that all the tools are easy to use at first, like a percussion instruments that support "banging the drum" with no practice, sheet music or metronome signaling the beats. I then questioned whether the Web tools also have the equivalent subtleties of coordination, timing and expressiveness. Could there be a phase of learning the technique that gets followed by "playing with feeling"? I suspect the answers to both questions is "yes".

It then follows that lots of people could become discouraged as they used the Web 2.0 tools like I did with the baritone horn. It's not the the tools discourage engagement and deeper use. It's that the challenges beyond the beginner stage take considerable determination, intrinsic motivation and social support. It's not for the casual player or those with a fainted hearted interest.

Where the tools invite exploring personal freedom, self expression and one's own curiosity, they also demand a level of practice and proficiency. There's no freedom in the work involved, dedication required and patience called upon by setbacks. Perhaps we are over-emphizing the liberation and downplaying the confinement when the tools of engagement backfire, yielding more student disengagement.

Same old class discussions

Back when I was teaching college courses, I found a gem of a book: Small Group Teaching - A Troubleshooting Guide. Richard G. Tiberius had compiled a wonderful set of questions for diagnosing why class discussions fizzle out. In brief, he recommended exploring:

1. unclear goals
2. unattainable goals
3. unacceptable goals
4. lack of interaction (2 way conversations)
5. teacher dominating the interaction
6. students participating unequally
7. students tuning out (emotionally and motivationally)
8. teacher tuning out
9. students not cooperating

I've wondered if blogs, wiki, threaded discussions, comment boxes and tagging of shared content -- would changes these dynamics. Could the digital context for class participation revise how the students felt, reacted and interacted? Always the optimist initially, I assumed the answer was "yes". I presumed the Web 2.0 tools would offer more freedom of expression due to the added time to think up what to say, the 24/7 windows of opportunity and the exposure to others' contributions. The pressures to think up what to say in a hurry would be alleviated. The possibility of learning from classmates "modeling the desired performance and revealing their own preparatory processes" could make it easier to join in.

Since then I watched many online forums, blogs, wiki, etc -- fizzle out. The dynamics look to me like the same old class discussions moved into the digital domain. When I recently returned to Tiberius's protocol for interrogating disappearing class discussions, it appeared to me that the Web 2.0 tools would simply "pass through the dysfunctional dynamics". Once the thrill was gone from getting to play around with new technology, it seems very likely that the "tools for engagement" would restore the familiar patterns of student disengagement unchanged.

Coming up with something to say

A blank sheet or paper or empty screen can make things worse when someone has a bad case of writer's block. The opportunity to appear before an audience can heighten fears of making a fool of oneself. Whenever Web 2.0 tools contribute to decreased student engagement, it's possible the tools are no help with coming up with something to say and the courage to face the consequences of having said it.

A majority of people rank "public speaking" as their greatest fear. It's likely each has internalized nightmare experiences of getting teased, shot down or embarrassed in front of others. Survivors of abusive relationships are ashamed of exposing their thoughts or feelings. They believe they are mistakes that are not worthy of respect, not one of us humans who make mistakes.

When I've provided a preamble to students about to deliver class presentations, I attempt to de-escalate the adversarial context that fuels their fears. I remind them how school typically penalizes them for making mistakes and how learning to do things better only occurs by making mistakes. I offer them the choice of appearing perfect from the git go or appearing dedicated to further improvements. I suggest they can cling to their past history or let go of it to face the opportunity with less familiarity. I'm deliberately creating a context that supports risk taking, tolerance of imperfections and getting better ideas "for next time" after the presentation.

Web 2.0 tools may be getting offered as course requirements without any supportive context. They may "stare back at the students" like a blank sheet of paper. They may look as bad as standing up on stage in front of a hostile crowd. They may stir up lots of bad memories that inhibit self expression, sharing with others or learning from classmates contributions. In these cases, the "tools for engagement" could easily backfire and yield more disengagement.

Wrong tool for the job?

You may already had the experience of replacing a car battery when the alternator, generator or ignition switch needed replacing. Like me years ago, you may have tried to get a ton of school work done by staying up all night when the work would have been done faster and better with more sleep. Every problem situation challenges us to make a correct diagnosis. When we fail to identify the job that really needs to be done, we have set ourselves up to select the wrong tool, remedy, solution or intervention.

Situations where student disengagement appears to be a problem are rife with opportunities to unwittingly make a misdiagnosis. We won't realize how disengagement is not the real problem. We won't consider the network of related problems. We'll become overconfident that the student disengagement is the real problem to be solved. It will seem obvious to us that "tools for engagement" will solve the problem.

There are many other problems for which student disengagement is merely a warning sign, symptom or lagging indicator. Here are some of those possible real problems indicated by evidence of student disengagement:

1. "learned helplessness" or "morbid dependency on authority figures following years of getting told to comply with classroom dictates
2. chronic anxiety tied to pending crises in other contexts which interferes with paying attention, making a contribution and subsequent reflection upon new information
3. insatiable addictions to escapes from burdensome obligations offered by socializing, gaming, media consumption or substance abuse
4. loss of reading comprehension from prolonged and repeated exposure to audio-visual, conversational and micro-text communications
5. devotion to a counter-dependent stance that gains approval from a peer group whenever choosing to act defiant, deviant or disinterested
6. internalized damage from abusive relationships which dismisses personal validity, voice, viewpoint and receptivity to recognition
7. repeated incidents of confusion, disorientation and defeat from under developed resources for critical thinking and conceptual manipulations

If any combination of these dynamics are functioning as the real problem, then wiki, blogs, and comment boxes are the wrong tools for the job. No amount of open-access opportunities to contribute, collaborate and learn in public view -- will alleviate or remediate these problems.

Getting used by our tools

While I don't know that it's actually happening, it's very possible and likely that our Web 2.0 tools are using us. Whenever tools use the user, the user is unaware of getting used. Tools don't share our interests or serve larger purposes. This offers one possible explanation for our "tools for engagement" yielding the same level or more disengagement among learners while the use of the tools is multiplying exponentially.

There are a few examples that have gained a lot of traction for this "tools using the user". It's been proposed that our petroleum burning vehicles are using us in ways to maximize travel distances and time behind the wheel in spite of our discomfort with smog, traffic jams, long commutes, loss of pedestrian environments and depletion of oil reserves.  In The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins proposed that DNA is using human bodies as disposable instruments for its own replication and survival. Our specie's intense survival and mating instincts, accompanied by sporadic incidents of civilized conduct, lends credence to this reversal of "who's using who?". More recently, it's been proposed that the World Wide Web is using all of us contributors, searchers and shoppers to become more knowledgeable while maintaining the illusion that we humans are enhancing ourselves by using the web.

Our minds are very susceptible to getting used by our tools, proficiencies and expertise. Systems designers describe this pattern as: "the solution dictating the definition of the problem". The pattern is more frequently described as "to the kid with the hammer in his hand, everything looks like the head of a nail". There is no concept of there being "too much of a good thing" and no way to question any overuse or misuse.. There's no limit to how much, how often or how selectively to apply the tool. There's no awareness of the bigger picture, consistent pattern or neglected alternatives. This "solution dictating the problem" is easily observed in countless professionals:

• lawyers see contentious misunderstandings as requiring litigation and legal services, not mediation, arbitration, financial support, counseling or training
• team building consultants see breakdowns in business functions as a lack of teamwork that can be remedied with their expertise
• surgeons see painful symptoms as requiring surgery, not changes in diet, exercise, sleep, medications or relationships
• highway engineers see problems with congestion, travel time or access as a need for more and wider highways

If this pattern fits the use of Web 2.0 tools for learning, then the tools would be used for problems with motivation, attention span, compatibility with classmates, etc. We would be over prescribing the use of the tools while being very much unaware of getting used by the tools.

Inadvertently designed for disengagement?

Most online and blended courses are making greater use of Web 2.0 tools, regardless of their closed or open enrollment. There are wiki or other collaborative documents for participants to expand, revise and edit. There are forums with threaded discussion lists to contribute to and follow others' inputs. There are course archives or links to public platforms where writing, slide shows, graphics, recordings and/or videos can be uploaded, tagged, linked to and commented upon. There may be real time gatherings via phone call, meeting or collaboration software. There are usually subscriptions to RSS/Atom feeds from most archived uploads pages as well as from periodic searches for keywords. All this is expected to increase learner engagement with a course's content offering and fellow participants.

As more instructors, curriculum developers and course designers try out this abundance of "tools for engagement", there is increasing evidence of inadvertent disengagement. There are always a few active participants just like the front row in a conventional classroom. There are also the exceptional few who engage with the subject matter deeply and balance the formalized experiences with considerable personal reflection. Yet the majority of "participants" seem to be showing either no change in their level of engagement or a regression to increased disengagement. These unintended consequences of Web 2.0 tools has raised many questions in my mind for further reflection:

1. Do learners need "something to say" before tools for sharing, publishing, uploading and/or archiving will seem beneficial to them?
2. Do the tools yield no positive effects like making it seem easy, inviting or emblematic of membership to contribute shared content?
3. To what extent are the active users of the Web 2.0 tools actually getting "used by the tools" like the user of a "hammer that makes everything look like a nail"?
4. How competent does a learner need to feel about using the tools or about expressing themselves to use the tools as intended?
5. To what extent do the tools merely replicate the dysfunction of F2F class discussions where most students get silenced, intimidated or bored?
6. How could the Web 2.0 technologies be functioning as "the wrong tool for the job" even though they appear very well suited for increasing engagement?
7. How could the Web 2.0 tools be making delivered content seem even more boring, propagandistic or insensitive than it comes across as in conventional classrooms?
8. To what extent do the tools invite the formation of echo chambers, collusion and self confirming evidence rather than contrasts and comparisons?
9. How easy is it to hide in classes making use of the tools of engagement and keep one's lack of interest, motivation or comprehension out of sight?
10. How could the use of the tools be made more effective in combination with some other methods, strategies or contexts?