Summary of Experience/Resource
In this post I reflect on “Home sweet home: achieving belonging and engagement in online learning spaces” (Leewis and Ross, 2022). The authors describe using Miro to create a digital space where students work together and co-create work – supporting their connection with one another throughout the course. Their context was an online course in Design. Leewis and Ross (2022) suggest several techniques for creating a “shared world” for the students, using Miro to mix personal and communal. By balancing the teacher-student, student-student, and student-space, relationships, they also connect their use of Miro to students’ autonomy cf. self-determination theory (Ryan and Deci, 2000) and placemaking (Tibbitt, 2017).
Reflection on its Relevance and Application to Context
I use Miro often in class; many students request to use Miro instead of pen and paper because it is “easier”. However, in my teaching, I find that Miro doesn’t help to foster connections amongst the students as Leewis and Ross (2022) suggest. A key difference is that I use Miro for in-person classes, projecting students working in groups onto the whiteboard. I usually mimic the table room layout in Miro, so that students in physical tables can work on their digital table together. I suggest that this approach with Miro actually makes students work independently, within their group, without engaging in wider discussion – instead communicating through board contributions. Specifically, I think back to a recent class, where I noticed long periods of silence in the room, not discussing their work. I observed that some students quietly performed contributing to the Miro, leaving the work to a group “leader”. This is supported by logs of the Miro where one member of each group has approximately 5 times the number of contributions to the board than other members.
Next Steps
One technique used by Leewis and Ross (2022) is to hide parts of the board and reveal them through the lesson, adding mystery and intrigue. I will try this approach as creating opportunities for curiosity might help to spark quieter students to engage and contribute to the board.
Leewis and Ross (2022) also included a “hot off the press section” where each student has their own private space in Miro to add their ideas and shape them to their personality. I will add a similar area for my activities to give all students the opportunity to contribute their unique perspectives. This will also make their unique contributions visible in the group work context to encourage engagement. Furthermore, this allows them to co-design their own space (Tibbitt, 2017) and shape the Miro board to their liking – supporting their autonomy cf. self-determination theory (Ryan and Deci, 2000).
Lastly, I will be reading more about ways to encourage quiet students in group working settings, to better understand their own thoughts and feelings. For example, to find ways to mitigate their reluctance to share, or their having to perform sociality even if introverted (Medaille and Usinger, 2018). I will also experiment with Brechtian techniques (Demirdiş, 2021) – perhaps by exposing Miro’s contribution log to students – as discussed in my other blogpost (link).
References
Demirdiş, M. (2021) ‘Bertolt Brecht’s Theatrical Techniques’ Connection with Critical Pedagogy and Their Usability in Learning Environments’, in. Available at: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:252019494.
Leewis, L. and Ross, S.L. (2022) ‘Home sweet home: achieving belonging and engagement in online learning spaces’, Spark: UAL Creative Teaching and Learning Journal, 5(1), pp. 71–81.
Medaille, A. and Usinger, J. (2018) ‘“That’s going to be the hardest thing for me”: Tensions experienced by quiet students during collaborative learning situations’, Educational Studies, 46(2), pp. 240–257. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2018.1555456.
Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2000) ‘Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being’, American Psychologist, 55(1), pp. 68–78. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68.
Tibbitt, J. (2017) ‘Placemaking and the University – Opening the University to the Community’, PASCAL International Observatory [Preprint]. Available at: http://pascalobservatory.org/pascalnow/pascal-activities/news/placemaking-and-university-%E2%80%93-opening-university-community.