Creating a backchannel in class

To immediately follow up on the previous post and give an example of the sort of thing I have been looking into, "backchannels" are slowly making their way to classrooms. A backchannel is essentially a way for an audience to communicate its thoughts as it is attending a presentation, in real time, typically via the web and onto a screen. Think of the moving captions that one typically sees at the bottom of TV screens during the news, sometimes emanating from viewers. It is therefore a web-based, 2.0ish, class-room integrated chat.
Backchannels emerged in the last few years, particularly in techy conference, as a way to foster interactivity. I have heard some commentators refer to it as "listening to the murmur". Typically, in any large audience, only very few people will muster the courage to ask a question. We are all familiar with the phenomenon in class. Although the eager participants may be some of the best students, it is also a significant drawback to only ever hear from a minority of the class, and the active ones may "crowd out" other voices with the passage of time. A backchannel allows you to bring into the conversation the "silent majority" of students who do not normally participate. Not only that, but I think it allows you to bring them in in a new way, less formal and constraining perhaps than an oral question, which students may fear will be irrelevant or for some reason or other expose them to ridicule. In a future post I will explain what tools I have used for this, and which I recommend, but in this post I will only reflect on the nature of the tool as a pedagogical device.

First, a few warnings:

• Students will begin using the backchannel as a way to make jokes. This is de bonne guerre, as far as it goes. Once the tool becomes more familiar, useful and constructive comments will be made. Notwithstanding, you may want to indicate a few ground rules (no personal comments, no derogatory comments). I find that jokes are ok as long as they are funny and actually related to the content.
  
• This is the SMS generation so we should become accustomed to short, nimble comments. This is just as well because that is probably no more than you can read even as you lecture. However, the shortness does create a certain beat, which you want to surf on rather than constrain.
  
• It will be in the nature of some of these comments that they are not questions, or comments that require much futher comment. Not all comments are worth responding to. Students will read them. Comments should be seen as part of the development of thoughts proposed in the classroom.
• Anonymity or not is an issue. I think it does encourage students to participate, but there is always the odd risk that things will get badly out of hand. I am not committed either way just yet. Some students have logged in under their own name, whilst others have chosen pseudos. I think it is not unreasonable to let them decide.
• Some profs have experimented with moderation, typically by an RA (you wouldn't want to be moderating as you teach). This is not a bad idea, but it depends on the size of the class and how much you think your students are the kind that need to be moderated.
  

I am not totally settled on whether this is a fantastic idea or a really bad one yet. What I can say is this:

• Students responded positively and I think like the classroom as a place of experimental pedagogy. In fact, the rapidity with which they started participating suggested that this may have been something that they had started expecting would emerge sooner or later. Needless to say, I did not have much explaining to do about the technological aspects
• The possibility of making smart comments online is probably a motivation for some students and may make them more attentive
  
• I tended to notice comments sometimes after they were made, which created some awkwardness when I tried to backtrack to whatever (good) point a student had made.
• I need to get better at multitasking on a podium. I can see the potential for classes becoming a lot more chaotic and less linear. Maybe not a bad thing?
  
• Quality of comments went up with sessions
• I got a distinct feel for how at least some students felt about the subject matter. The critical comments were most noticeable, and it occured to me that maybe they were easier to make using this medium.
• I think good backchannel participation sends a positive signal to the class by highlighting a certain level of engagement with the ideas discussed.
• You may have a problem if only part of your students use laptops in class. I am planning on remedying this by exploring options that allow students to send messages by SMS. I think the ubiquitous netbook is probably not far down the road.
• There is a danger that even if the comments are good, students will be distracted by them and wander off.
• It may be useful to ask questions specifically for the backchannel rather than just wait for spontaneous comments. If you have lots of students, though, that poses instant problems of aggregation for which other tools may be better suited.