Insidious pedagogy: how course management systems impact teaching

Insidious pedagogy: how course management systems impact teaching

A. T. Wyatt -
回帖数：1
This article was published on First Monday (I was alerted to it through my twitter network).

http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2530/2303

Abstract:

Course management systems, like any other technology, have an inherent purpose implied in their design, and therefore a built–in pedagogy. Although these pedagogies are based on instructivist principles, today’s large CMSs have many features suitable for applying more constructivist pedagogies. Yet few faculty use these features, or even adapt their CMS very much, despite the several customization options. This is because most college instructors do not work or play much on the Web, and thus utilize Web–based systems primarily at their basic level. The defaults of the CMS therefore tend to determine the way Web–novice faculty teach online, encouraging methods based on posting of material and engendering usage that focuses on administrative tasks. A solution to this underutilization of the CMS is to focus on pedagogy for Web–novice faculty and allow a choice of CMS.

I found it very interesting. Particularly this section:

Expert users contextualize their resources fluidly and organize materials effectively, while novices just upload and share files, hoping students will find them (Reanut, et al., 2006). When faced with a different interface or online environment, novices are inclined to utilize only the aspects they understand from a non–Web context. Posting a Word document online makes sense, but not creating an HTML page, because a word–processed document is a familiar unit of presentation but a Web page is not. Similarly, e–mail is the current incarnation of the familiar process of writing a memo, but there are fewer guideposts for instant messaging or video conferencing. The addition of hardware peripherals, such as a webcam or microphone, further increases the distance between the professor and familiar modes of teaching.

Brings back memories of hot discussions here about default settings, ability of admins to simplify interfaces, etc. Of course the focus here is on the instructor, not the student/user. But there is much food for thought in this article!

I hope you will take a few minutes to look at it.

atw
平均分： -
回复A. T. Wyatt

Re: Insidious pedagogy: how course management systems impact teaching

ben reynolds -
My favorite part was

Most professors think in terms of the semester, and how their pedagogical goals can be achieved within the context of time, rather than space. Some think in terms of topics they want to cover. Blackboard/WebCT’s default organization accepts neither of these approaches in its initial interface. It forces the instructor to think in terms of content types instead, breaking the natural structure of the semester, or of a list of topics.

Although Lane talks about Bb/WebCT as pushing a "linear pathway" through the content, I found WebCT 4.1 to be a "go over there" experience. Her figure 1 of a more recent Bb reinforces that. You move from the left side navbar to some hidden place on the right. If this version works like WebCT 4.1, the navbar follows you and is your stargate
from hidden place to hidden place.

The contrast with Moodle is obvious, and Lane makes it. I like to say that, with Moodle, students just fall down the page through the curriculum.
Blackboard main page
平均分： -