However, as you’re thinking about how to implement—no so much technologically as structurally—I point out that the MeFi Guidelines—although perhaps most honored in the breach—are succinct and flexible.  They imply some basic ideas about “why one posts” in their attempt to answer the question “how one posts.”

Moreover, thinking about this pointed me to the structural simplicity of MeFi, which has resisted countless attempts to impose Slashdottish “karma” or other numeric rating systems upon conversation, in favor of self-policing through discussion itself,(supplemented by the oddly Expos-like concept of MetaTalk. but that double-layered model might be a poor one for a course-oriented blog).

Anyway, my point is that there is something elegant in MeFi’s model, in which each thread must ideally justify itself in that it is about something (text or image) that lives elsewhere and can be directly pointed to; it invites discussion but doesn’t necessarily stage a bipolar argument (well, not *necessarily*); and it’s equally possible to enjoy the FPPs without getting lost in the thickets of thread-controversy, or to wander within those threads happily off the subject into interesting digression.

And Matt’s strategy of calling out really interesting moments from recent discussions in the right-hand navigation strikes me as quite a good model for the presence of the instructor as (in the memorable rhyme of my 12-grade English teacher, Mrs. Gifford) the “Guide on the Side” as opposed to the “Sage on the Stage.”

But you probably already thought of that.

Chuck—thanks for your thoughts, too.  I’ve used Web Crossings in previous semesters, to rousing complaints by my students, who despised the technology (which was, in the install we were working from, painfully slow and impossibly ugly) and felt it was an artificial overlay on the class structure.  Fortunately, my IT folks have abandoned Web Crossings and are supporting MovableType use on campus, so the tech end of things should be much improved.  I think the key is going to be making sure that the blog is well-integrated pedagogically, not simply into the class’s structure (my students will do what I require, but they’ll grouse about it nonstop) but also into its issues.  Anyhow, I’ll hope to chat some with Jill about her experiences soon…

I’m still thinking about how to incorporate the blog into a composition course.  I think I want to leave evaluation somewhat open to allow students alternative ways of constructing their online identities via blogging.

I know that Jill Walker (on/in my blogroll) has had some success with using blogs in her classes, so that’s another useful source.

I have not used blogs in my courses, but have used discussion boards through Blackboard.  I’d provide a prompt and students would respond to it, but not usually at all to one another - it was frightening how much it could look like a classroom, with all the conversation filtered through the professor.  So while I imagined it as a furthering of class discussion outside of the bounds of the classroom, it didn’t become discussion or conversation so much as it just got stuck in individual responses to a professor’s prompts.  Interesting in theory, lousy in practice.  I had abandoned it and wasn’t sure how to get back to it until reading this.

Perhaps the reason it went poorly may have been to the lack of directed rhetorical “rules” for responses, or “moves” if we posit it as a game as George does in the link you’ve provided.  These, I thought, were helpful and are especially good for a writing class when we’re teaching students rhetorical strategies.  I also think they might provide useful directed strategies for responses for other classes, too, with some adaptations.

I’m not sure about the “scoring” aspect of it, though.  My hesitation might go to goals.  What outcomes are we looking for from discussion - Are we looking for the students to generate a particular “type” of discussion?  Are we looking for them to participate in and of itself?  Are we interested in the content of their responses and evaluating their worth or are we interested in the rhetorical means through which they respond and evaluating them on those terms?  Both?

One issue for me is that I’m always somewhat reticent to grade class participation too heavily.  Some people don’t speak too much, some way too much.  Some add a lot to the discussion, some very little.  Having class discussion be an end in and of itself, it seems to me, leads to students feeling that they have to talk but not necessarily bringing much of value to the conversation.  They know their grade depends in part on how much they talk, not necessarily on what they add to the conversation.  I’m less interested, usually, in participation than I’m interested in engagement - though they need not be mutually exclusive.

Indeed, what does academic engagement look like?  Does engagement mean that the student speaks in class - or online?  Or can students be engaged and learning even if not talking?  Again, it takes me back to our outcomes.  It would depend on what it is we’re striving for as teachers.  Ones that point to oral or written communication, for instance, might suggest that yes, we do want our students to be able to present themselves powerfully in how they speak in class - or through a blog.

By the way, Kathleen, I’d say that your own blog has really kicked in recently.  I like the way you’ve been using it as a tool to think your way into and about issues - I believe you said in one post that this was a goal of yours, to see if and how you could do so.  From my perspective, it’s going well and thought I should tell you so.  For me, this was like one of those few and far between valuable mentor group meetings back at that private institution to the East!

I believe that Noah (of hyperfiction.org) may have used Web logs in an electronic writing class he taught, in a similar way to what you’re thinking.  Perhaps you might contact him?