We have now come to the end of another semester, which means that many things, including the class for which this blog exists, are coming to an end. The purpose of this final post is to evaluate my overall blogging experience. Additionally, I have created a portfolio of 4 of what I feel to be my better posts for Professor Arvan.
I will begin with the portfolio. Of the four blogs in the portfolio, one had to be from the first three weeks, and one from the second three weeks so that an accurate assessment of change (and hopefully growth) over the semester can be made.
I wrote this blog on Voting and Handwashing during the second week of the semester. I feel that it was a good post, because I felt that I had something to say, and was able to tie in the concepts discussed in class. A few weeks later, I wrote Intrinsic Motivation. Again, I feel that this was a good blog because I had a worthwhile opinion on the subject. As a general comment, when picking my blogs, I did generally pick out the longer posts, not because wordiness is better, but because the extra length was indicative of my feeling inspired and having more things to say. On the other hand, some of my other blogs were merely “bare minimum” in terms of length, and I usually really struggled to write them.
Let’s now jump forward in the semester. After writing a few posts, I started to settle into a more consistent writing style. One week we were asked to evaluate our view of online writing, which I have done in this post. In it I assessed the benefits and limitations of the blogging format for sharing our ideas. I feel that I was able to achieve an easy, conversational tone in this blog, but still my insight and thoughts on the subject.
Finally, I feel that I exited the blogging world (for now, and obviously excluding this post) with a bang with my post on Freedom and Self-imposed Restraints. This post marked my first time in deviating from the given prompt, and indeed the focus of the blog was to analyze the class’s propensity to stick to the given post to the bloody end, even if it felt restrictive. I would have to say that I think this was my best post, though I guess I am a bit uncertain as to why. Perhaps it was because I finally through aside all assumptions, and wrote a truly reflective and honest piece of writing.
So, as I am nearing the end of the last blog that I will be required to post, what are my thoughts? Overall, I was glad for the experience of blogging, if nothing else because it forced me to do something new. Do I think that I am a better writer because of it? Probably, though I would say that I am just a better blog writer. Thus, my overall writing style didn’t change much, but I have given it more breadth. That is, I have learned how to apply my previous knowledge to a different type of writing.
So, will I continue to blog in the future? I have to be honest and say “probably not, at least in the near future.” However, this at least in part hinges on the fact that outside of this class I really don’t have a blogging audience (except for a select few, who I am sure will be disappointed when I stop blogging!) But, perhaps in the future, when I have a different audience, and something to say, I will take it up again, and at that point I will certainly be glad for the experience that this class has given me.
So, to all of my readers (not that many, I know), "good bye and good luck!"
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Freedom and self-imposed restraints
We are now nearing the end of the semester, which means that for me, this is the penultimate (second to last- thank Prof Arvan for the cool word) reflection that I will be “coerced” :) into writing. The overall nature of the blog has been that every w eek Prof Arvan gives us a suggested topic on which to write, though we were also told that we were able to choose our own topic. It is that that I want to discuss today, because, per our class discussion on Wednesday, some very interesting points of view arose.
Of particular interest was the disparity between Prof Arvan’s and our view of the blogs, particularly with respect to the prompt. I will try to summarize some of the interesting points of Wednesday’s discussion, which, quite frankly would have been more beneficial if we had had at the beginning semester.
Let me begin by laying out, as best I can, what I perceived to be the student’s and Prof Arvan’s viewpoint on the blog prompt, as they came to light on Wednesday.
From Prof. Arvan’s point of view, the blogs are a means for us to think critically about a subject, and then put our views out in the open in blog form so that other people can read and comment on our writing and thoughts, hence opening discussion which leads to learning. Additionally, to maintain a focus for the class, the blog was to be on some topic related to the class discussion that week. In order to aid those who struggling to think of a good topic, Prof Arvan also posted a prompt.
Even as I write this (assuming that I got it correct) I marvel that our interpretation of this was so different. Firstly, I believe that I/we would agree that the blogs were to be a way for us to get our ideas on the table. However, despite Prof Arvan telling us repeatedly that we didn’t have to stick to the prompt, most of us tenaciously held on to the prompt, even if it felt constraining, or didn’t interest us. There were probably several reasons for this.
The most important was our misconception of the purpose of the blogging. Given the type of “hard driving, dedicated students” that we are, we view the prompt as “the assignment, to be done whether we liked it or not”. I don’t think that I speak amiss when I say that a lot of us suffer from what I would call “grade perfectionism”. Any class is a thing to be conquered, and the surest way to get a good grade is to just do what the teacher wants. Whereas Prof Arvan wanted the blogs to be a freeing, learning experience, with the prompt being just that, we all viewed it as a mandate. Sure we were given the option to deviate, but to deviate is a dangerous thing- better to just stick with the safety of the prompt, even if we don’t like it.
Clearly, this is an important difference, and one which quite honestly I would have realized much earlier existed. Would my blogging experience have been different if I hadn’t conformed to my self-imposed restraints? Probably, as I would have gotten more of the benefit of the true intent of the blog.
So, while it is a bit late in the semester for this to have a huge effect (though apparently not too late, since the astute reader will realize that I have thrown this week’s prompt to the wind), how can this information be put to good use. Said another way, why was there such a difference in the class’s and Professor’s view on the blogs, and “whose fault was it”. I guess I don’t exactly know the answer, but would have to say that it was probably a shared responsibility. We as students need to get out of the “grade oriented” mindset and focus more on the “learning oriented mindset”. This would make it much easier to try something new, and not worry about failure. I suppose, if we had been paying attention, we could have learned firsthand from the fact that Prof Arvan really didn’t have a clear vision for the class, but still wasn’t afraid to try new things.
That being said, I feel that from the students perspective, the fear came from our lack of vision of where the class was going. Since we didn’t know what was going on, it was easiest to just take it week by week and do exactly as we were told. Finally, as a direct suggestion, even though it was clear in Prof. Arvan’s mind that the prompt was just a springboard, I think that given our preconceptions, he should have made it doubly clear, viz., “This week write about something we talked about in class. If you can’t think of anything, here is a suggestion…….”
Well, that is it. I wrote an entire reflection without the aid/crutch/restraint of a prompt. Thank you. Thank you.
Just kidding. In all seriousness, I wish I had been doing this all along, because I feel that what I have just written is an honest reflection of my thoughts on the subject, and much closer to the overall purpose of this blog. Which means it is now your turn- if you liked/ disliked/agreed with/etc anything I said, let it be known, so that the discussion can begin!
(Disclaimer- I use the collective “we” a lot in the blog to refer to the students in CHP 395/396. However, I realize that not all of the students in the class will agree with what I say, but using the word “we” felt more natural than “I”, especially given the fact that, for the most part, I feel that I am accurately speaking for the class. If that is not the case, I apologize, and please let your opinion be heard!)
Of particular interest was the disparity between Prof Arvan’s and our view of the blogs, particularly with respect to the prompt. I will try to summarize some of the interesting points of Wednesday’s discussion, which, quite frankly would have been more beneficial if we had had at the beginning semester.
Let me begin by laying out, as best I can, what I perceived to be the student’s and Prof Arvan’s viewpoint on the blog prompt, as they came to light on Wednesday.
From Prof. Arvan’s point of view, the blogs are a means for us to think critically about a subject, and then put our views out in the open in blog form so that other people can read and comment on our writing and thoughts, hence opening discussion which leads to learning. Additionally, to maintain a focus for the class, the blog was to be on some topic related to the class discussion that week. In order to aid those who struggling to think of a good topic, Prof Arvan also posted a prompt.
Even as I write this (assuming that I got it correct) I marvel that our interpretation of this was so different. Firstly, I believe that I/we would agree that the blogs were to be a way for us to get our ideas on the table. However, despite Prof Arvan telling us repeatedly that we didn’t have to stick to the prompt, most of us tenaciously held on to the prompt, even if it felt constraining, or didn’t interest us. There were probably several reasons for this.
The most important was our misconception of the purpose of the blogging. Given the type of “hard driving, dedicated students” that we are, we view the prompt as “the assignment, to be done whether we liked it or not”. I don’t think that I speak amiss when I say that a lot of us suffer from what I would call “grade perfectionism”. Any class is a thing to be conquered, and the surest way to get a good grade is to just do what the teacher wants. Whereas Prof Arvan wanted the blogs to be a freeing, learning experience, with the prompt being just that, we all viewed it as a mandate. Sure we were given the option to deviate, but to deviate is a dangerous thing- better to just stick with the safety of the prompt, even if we don’t like it.
Clearly, this is an important difference, and one which quite honestly I would have realized much earlier existed. Would my blogging experience have been different if I hadn’t conformed to my self-imposed restraints? Probably, as I would have gotten more of the benefit of the true intent of the blog.
So, while it is a bit late in the semester for this to have a huge effect (though apparently not too late, since the astute reader will realize that I have thrown this week’s prompt to the wind), how can this information be put to good use. Said another way, why was there such a difference in the class’s and Professor’s view on the blogs, and “whose fault was it”. I guess I don’t exactly know the answer, but would have to say that it was probably a shared responsibility. We as students need to get out of the “grade oriented” mindset and focus more on the “learning oriented mindset”. This would make it much easier to try something new, and not worry about failure. I suppose, if we had been paying attention, we could have learned firsthand from the fact that Prof Arvan really didn’t have a clear vision for the class, but still wasn’t afraid to try new things.
That being said, I feel that from the students perspective, the fear came from our lack of vision of where the class was going. Since we didn’t know what was going on, it was easiest to just take it week by week and do exactly as we were told. Finally, as a direct suggestion, even though it was clear in Prof. Arvan’s mind that the prompt was just a springboard, I think that given our preconceptions, he should have made it doubly clear, viz., “This week write about something we talked about in class. If you can’t think of anything, here is a suggestion…….”
Well, that is it. I wrote an entire reflection without the aid/crutch/restraint of a prompt. Thank you. Thank you.
Just kidding. In all seriousness, I wish I had been doing this all along, because I feel that what I have just written is an honest reflection of my thoughts on the subject, and much closer to the overall purpose of this blog. Which means it is now your turn- if you liked/ disliked/agreed with/etc anything I said, let it be known, so that the discussion can begin!
(Disclaimer- I use the collective “we” a lot in the blog to refer to the students in CHP 395/396. However, I realize that not all of the students in the class will agree with what I say, but using the word “we” felt more natural than “I”, especially given the fact that, for the most part, I feel that I am accurately speaking for the class. If that is not the case, I apologize, and please let your opinion be heard!)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
