One way to reclaim some benefits of live, in-person discussion in your online philosophy class is to share weekly “collective feedback” posts. Rather than addressing each student individually (in replies that other students either can’t or won’t read), collective feedback comes in a single announcement to the entire class. Not only is this more efficient (freeing you to do a really good job with one post, rather than an OK job with many), it exposes students to perspectives and insights many would otherwise miss, and simulates the dialogue of instructor-led discussion.
For example, here’s an excerpt from a collective feedback post I provided my online Phil 2040: Philosophy as Conversation class this spring. The students had already read the assigned reading, watched my lecture video, reviewed my lecture notes, and recorded a 3-to-5-minute reflection response. The topic: Marxist alienation and exploitation.
Tony explained the Marxist’s perspective like this: “They believe that capitalism creates greedy people and exploits those who make products and make goods… whatever profit is being made from products being sold, they take all for themselves… those who create the products should have a right to all the profits because they’re the ones making it.”
Gunter sympathized with Marxism’s charge that modern production is alienating, blunting workers’ talents and creativity, all in pursuit of material things. From my experience, the repetitive nature of factory work is indeed mind-numbing. Unfortunately, sometimes people feel like they don’t have any other options, and get stuck in work like that – get in debt early in life, and never find a way out…
Sasha critiqued Marxism on grounds of possible hypocrisy. That is, if it’s uncool for capitalists to skim profits off the top of the production process (essentially taking money earned by laborers), then it would seem also uncool for the government to generally take from the rich to give to the poor. Indeed, given how different Marxists’ and Libertarians’ ultimate conclusions are (one arguing for shared public ownership and democratic control of the means of production with a super robust social safety net, the other arguing for unfettered capitalism with zero social safety net), ain’t it crazy how both incorporate self-ownership stuff?
And Harry didn’t fully buy Marxism’s “beyond justice” argument. Marxists of course argue that liberal societies’ emphasis on fair wealth distribution and bickering over rights is a symptom of the capitalist disease which full Marxism would cure. But Harry argued that the justice approach would be appropriate no matter the socio-economic system.
Here I was encouraging, but friendly critique is of course part of the business. Know that students will be sensitive to it, especially early in the semester, and especially when being addressed in an announcement to the entire class. The risk that they might be quoted will give them extra reason to do a good job. But resist the temptation to call out especially weak posts. Instead, select and engage those you think have the best chance of enlightening the already strong students, and modeling your expectations for the rest.
Tone is notoriously difficult to convey via text, so when I offer constructive criticism, I take pains to explain how mistakes are understandable, how I’m of course very fallible myself, and how I encourage them to ultimately decide for themselves which arguments and ideas make the most sense. It’s a delicate balance, allowing questionable points to stand, but at the same time highlighting reasoning flaws. It’s important to give the students you challenge room to save face, but enough incentive to reconsider.
One way to address mistakes without naming names is to present them as common confusions. For example, when my online Ethics classes cover Rawlsian Liberalism, someone always assumes that since it has “liberal” in the title, it must be the evil theory Rush Limbaugh warned them about. When we cover Sidney Callahan’s “A Case for Pro-Life Feminism,” someone always assumes that since it has “feminist” in the title, it must be a cloaked Pro-Choice argument. Rather than embarrassing anyone, I’ll simply say:
I didn’t see much of this, but one understandable mistake students new to this topic often make is…
Since these happen every semester, not only can you recycle your common confusions explanations, you can recycle your intro paragraphs, closing remarks, section headings, and much else. If a student makes an especially insightful point, you can share it not only with their current class, but with future classes. In 2017, a student explained an anti-moral subjectivism argument even more clearly and concisely than I had in my lecture video. Now every semester I trot out “Scott’s Box of Rocks,” conceding that he makes the case even better than I do. (Scott’s is the only student name in this post that I haven’t changed. And I liked his explanation somuch that I added it to a re-recording of that lecture video.)
Another benefit of the collective feedback approach is that it gives us more control over the class’s culture. Feel free to not publicly quote students who come across as hostile or dismissive – send them a private (encouraging, coach-like) message instead. Starving difficult students of negative attention will inspire many to become more diplomatic.
You can even provide writing or public speaking coaching in your collective feedback, which is more easily received when presented to the class on whole, as opposed to specific students, even privately. For example, from a Phil as Conversation collective feedback post early this spring:
- Scripts: The expectation is that you’ll be using at most a bulleted list with your main points, plus full quotes when you’d like to cite them from the text. This means your eyes should be on the camera lens (simulating eye contact with your audience), not your screen or printed notes. Be on the lookout for an announcement on how to go scriptless (you can do it, promise) soon.
- “Ums”: We’re all guilty of saying “um.” You’ll hear some in my own vids. The trick to minimizing ums is to simply allow those pauses to happen. And if you’re recording a vid and notice too many ums, hit stop, start over, this time comfortable with a little dead air (silence > ummm).
- Video Editing: Please record your reflection vids in one take, without video editing. Why? To prepare you for live, timed speaking, when segmentation and cuts aren’t an option.
Consider closing your collective feedback with a preview of the coming week’s material, as well as any pressing reminders (“Be sure to take Exam 2 by midnight Saturday…”). P.S.s are an easy way to add warmth – the sort of warmth you might naturally convey in an in-person class (“Hoping everyone is having a great week… Call me if I can help with anything… Here’s a cool clip from The Good Place on those trolley dilemmas we’ve been discussing…”).
Last, be patient. Being able to effectively “work” a philosophy classroom is a skill that takes time to develop. Being able to cultivate a similarly open, friendly, collaboratively inquisitive online class with high standards and strong engagement also takes time. You can get there faster, and easier, with good collective feedback posts. Hoping some of these tips prove helpful.
Matt Deaton
Matt Deaton is an adjunct professor who's taught exclusively online since 2013. An Air Force veteran and AYSO soccer coach, he's authored five books including Ethics in a Nutshell: The Philosopher’s Approach to Morality in 100 Pages and The Best Public Speaking Book. Editor of the APA Blog's Syllabus Showcase series, find him blogging elsewhere online at EthicsBowl.org.
