dl organization

Discussion list organization | Jania Tubby | Early 2000

On a totally different subject I've noticed that the different email discussion groups may be isolating people who could have some opinions to share. A lot of us seem to be working on more than one module and everything that people say seems to be relevant to the MSc or teaching generally. For these reasons I'd like to suggest that we include other email groups like "fnd" or "msc" in carbon copy recipients.

John Bartrick mentioned that we all tend to share many opinions across MSc subjects and therefore we should crosspost to other discussion groups. I agree that many areas cut across the boundaries of discussion groups but I think it's a little inconvenient to cross post (I may be on different discussion groups than you for example, so miss your comments on the same discussion). Plus it means that people who have joined many, get many versions of the same email. OK, you can delete them, but it's still a little inconvenient.

So, I'd like to suggest we ask Aston to set up say one, two or three (maximum) discussion lists. Here are some ideas:

One discussion list - for everyone on the MSc course that covers all subjects. We could make a 'rule' that if your contribution is subject specific you write 'MET - peer correction' or 'FND - lexical density' or whatever, so people could not bother opening if they weren't interested in that module.

Two discussion lists - a 'practical' one for classroom issues related to subjects like MET, MAP etc and a 'linguistic' one for subjects 'TDA' or 'IIC'. Clearly, there's still some overlap but...

Three discussion lists - same as two plus a FND one. I don't know if new people feel they'd like a separate one so they can feel comfortable dipping their feet in the water slowly.

Stay the same.

Personally, I'm in favor of one.

So, if you think this issue is important, please give your opinion. What does everyone think? Any other ideas?

Janina Tubby
Kobe, Japan

Re: discussion list organization | Early 2000

First of all, a big thankyou for Janina for raising this issue again. I believe strongly that we as a group are under-using this resource. For a number of reasons the exchange between Kathy, Janina and James has made me feel that I need to establish the best possible grounds for discussion sooner rather than later.

In addition to Kathy, James and Janina, could the rest of you use these questions to collect your thoughts.

Lets give this thing the kiss of life!

A few sentences will do fine...

1 Could you say a few words about your experience of using these lists?

2 Do you think it would be a good idea to move to one list?- What advantages or disadvantages do you see in such a move?

3 Do you have any suggestions for either promoting use of the discussion lists or ideas for contributions participants might make?

Re: discussion list organization | William Matheny | Early 2000

Hello Janina and all,

Hi. When it comes to e-mail as a mode for discussion, I'm probably one of the under-utilisers. But, if the current arrangement were changed, I'd say the "two lists" or "three lists" options seem best. The idea of there being a separate list for FND people makes good sense. Then, everyone else can raise a ruckus on another "channel", as it were. Three lists, however, with one for pedagogic concerns and one for linguistic matters seems to have a certain je ne sais quoi ...elegance.

Cheers,

William Matheny
Nagoya, Japan

Re: discussion list organization | Keven Wallen | Early 2000

Hi everyone,

Just wanted to add my two cents worth on lists. One list is definitely the way to go at present. Until everyone gets comfortable with replying through that big and sometimes scary place known as cyberspace, one list would help all participants. I don't really see any disadvantages. I'm on about 12 different ESL lists, not including Aston's. All of them are great sources of information. Some are genre specific (ESP, EAP, etc), others just endless general teaching-related strings. But there's one thing I've noticed: that most comments are usually relevant to several other (if not all) of the different lists (but often at different times). There's just not enough homogeneity to keep everyone on one list - but with Aston there is.

One string (a continuous ongoing discussion) is often cross-posted to another list and it often then takes off in another direction. Some of these strings go on for daily/weekly for months. If someone spots an interesting tangent, other interested participants can start a new string. That way several strings can happen simultaneously. One list is the only way to go (IMHO).

This list (of past discussions) should be data-based indefinitely so that when new participants ask about a previously talked about issue, they can be easily directed to that former discussion. [Editor's note: You got it! :-) ]

And cross-posting is a pain. Not difficult, but a pain nevertheless.

Kevin Wallen
ESP School of Thought

Re: discussion list organization | Colin Graham | Early 2000

As someone who has subscribed to lists in the past, with variable results, I would like to offer some suggestions and raise some potential difficulties.

Suggestions:

1 Steve's idea about identifying the module is a good one, especially as we don't have separated lists any longer.

2 There should be a code also for general comments such as this e-mail that is not specific to a module. I used GEN, but this is negotiable.

3 If you reply to a comment or question, the subject line will often add a "Re:". The code system will be less useful if too many "Re:"s appear. Also, issues raised will often provoke comments or further questions. I would suggest adding a "!" if you are making a comment and a "?" if you are asking a question. For an example see the subject line on this e-mail.

Difficulties:

a) The more general a list is, the harder it is to wade through information and participate in discussions that are of interest. I have found that the most useful lists were those where a separate e-mail is sent for each item, and that each item is short.

b) Sometimes the individual is seeking a private response. Too many responses can clutter the list as a whole and be demotivating. If users are happy with a personal, rather than a list, response, this could be shown in the subject line with a 1-1. For example,

GEN ?- 1-1 Where can I get info about...

The responder can then reply to the individual instead of the whole list. If others are interested in the same thing, they could do:

GEN ?- me2 Where can I get info about...

Responses can then be forwarded or resent (to the list if necessary) to help reduce clutter.

c) Discussion lists work best if you access them regularly and can "weed out" items which are not currently relevant or interesting. The coding will help this but I would also advise setting up folders in your e-mail area so that you can keep track of current and past discussions. You may want to revisit the discussion later.

Anyway, I think I've already said too much, so I'll wait and see what happens now.

Bye for now,

Colin Graham

Re: discussion list organization | Keith Richards | Early 2000

Hi,

Thanks to Colin for his thoughtful and helpful suggestions. Like him, I've had mixed experience with lists and would encourage anything that improves focus and reduces clutter. A few additional thoughts, then:

1 I like the "GEN" idea and suggest we adopt it as standard.

2 I also think the !/?- proposal could work well, though I guess experience will tell. I'm certainly happy to give it a try.

3 Subject strings are very important, so I think we do need to agree that when we're responding on a particular topic the exact wording of that topic should appear as the subject, without "Re:".

4 There's no easy way round the 1-1/List relationship. My own feeling is that the "1-1" idea is a good one, though I don't think we need "me2". I think we should all agree that when an individual has requested INFORMATION (as opposed to ideas, arguments, etc) on a particular subject they should collate their findings (when the responses seem complete) and send the result to the whole list. That way we all benefit but don't have to filter a whole sequence of responses. It would also save the person originally making the request the trouble of dealing with lots of individual "me2" responses. If we all agree to do this, everyone benefits.

5 I also suggest that all contributions on this particular topic should be in by no later than the end of Monday 24 May. That way, Sue can include the results in her newsletter.

Hope that helps.

Best wishes

Keith

Re: discussion list organization | Julian Brasington | Early 2000

An idle idea - anyone thought of writing a paper on the politics of e-mail decision making / the development of agreed e-mail practice? Following on from Steve's suggestion of announcing list contributions by module name, Colin (thanks for snowballing this discussion) has suggested the adoption of 'GEN' to signal general contributions. Keith in his subject line 'GEN! Some thoughts on using lists' has adopted, and suggested further adoption of this latter suggestion. Where to now?

Whilst labeling would seem a sensible means of identifying module specific mail, it strikes me as being rather like the old system of separate lists - the only difference being that you can receive MAP mail, for example, without being signed up for that list. This would seem to subvert what was one of the motivating reasons for establishing a one list system ie that, by virtue of being on this course, though we each may have preferences for specific study areas, we are all generalists. This being so (if it is so) as all issues are in some way inter-related, the compartmentalization of ideas does not best serve a holistic approach to TESOL/TESP.

Equally, does coding assist in determining the relevance or not of mail, thereby ensuring that relevant mail gets opened and irrelevant mail is binned un-opened. My fear is that once we begin to construct tight little boxes, there will be more code in the subject line than message in the mail. I wonder if we wouldn't just be better sticking to clear titles in the subject line, for whilst "IIC 1-1 REQUEST?- (+subject label)" is a title, is it any more like to be read or not than "Request for discourse references"?- Is it even likely that we'll all remember how to write such a title?

To return to the idea of a paper- Are decisions regarding e-mail protocol made or do they just evolve? The language of e-mail is receiving considerable attention - is its manner of use equally being investigated? This debate is a case in point; is GEN now established practice (having been proposed and used)? How is a code agreed - by edict, by vote or by usage? My guess is usage wins hands down but I'll leave this political minefield now and hope that someone might pick up on this idea.

Julian Brasington

Re: discussion list organization | Keith Richards | Early 2000

Picking up on Julian's point, I agree that, apart from any basic rules sent to all those who join a list, usage is probably the most important determinant of what gets accepted, and I assume that everyone wants to keep things as simple as possible. For example, if the "!/?" proves unnecessary it will probably die out.

Here's an interesting issue of use vs. argument, though. I suggested sticking to the same subject title as originally used in order to preserve a clear argument string and make filing easy (which is standard practice on most lists), but Julian came up with a different title, therefore implicitly withholding support for my argument, so I'm now making an issue of this and restating my case because if I don't there's a danger that this idea will die the death. On the other hand, I reckon that having done that once I now have to bow out of the discussion before I get labeled the club bore, and by way of compromise I've started a new string using Julian's title.

I agree with Julian about the relevance of this as a topic for research. A couple of participants have already done dissertations on the use of emails, so there's a precedent on the programme for that, and the area he highlights would make a fascinating study. Could be difficult to get data, though - outside this particular discussion, that is.

Best wishes

Keith

Re: discussion list organization | Keith Richards | Early 2000

Hi,

I'm just back from a visit to our Swiss group and they suggested that it would be a good idea to use this list to set up close links between people working on the same module.

This would be a development of the current approach where someone mentions that they're on a module and invites responses. The group told me that this is very useful, but the exchanges tend to fizzle out. Their idea was that anyone interested in working through a module with someone else could post this on the list and anyone replying to them would do so on the assumption that they were thereby establishing a link for the duration of that module. This is a sort of DL equivalent of the "study buddy" system (I don't like the term, but it captures the relationship pretty well) and would involve keeping in contact by email, perhaps phone, mail, etc, swapping ideas, worries, complaints, references, perhaps even materials. It could be very productive.

This sounded like a good idea to me so I'm raising it here. I know it won't appeal to everyone, but if you think it would suit you, try posting a message on the list for a particular module and see if it works.

Best wishes

Keith

 

Archive Categories