As I play more with the idea of asynchronous and "learning in our own time" I've been wondering whether reading schedules might be revised in light of this. Of course at the outset, we have to recognize some limitations:

Of course at the outset, we have to recognize some limitations:
A. Our courses are allotted a set “semester” of time. That’s the time that we have with the students. B. Student’s also have limitations on their own time because of other classes, other commitments, and work.

Re-thinking a reading schedule though, would definitely support the limitations of B. The idea of “having read” as preparation for a class is of course tied to synchronous class sessions. It is also associated with survey courses where the goal is to “cover” an area of a subject.

The set up of the class seems to suggest that learning is congruent with “finishing.” It also equates reading with looking at all the words on all the pages, & most of us know that this is only the beginning & that students are barely even doing that.

I think this reading schedule sets up a lot of artificial constraints that compel students to read for uncritical and uninteresting reasons. but maybe these constraints are useful given the limited amount of time we have with students.

I’ll also admit that it is hard to get so many people on the same page. A schedule is helpful for organizing conversations. What if you oriented the schedule around questions, problems, and skills (whether decided beforehand or with students) instead of the "readings"?

Honestly this is more of a mental flip than anything. Most classes (that I have taken) could probably keep the same content and schedule and just frame the course differently.

The readings then become necessary resources for the students to read as quickly, as slowly, as deeply, or as sporadically as they decide in order to answer these questions. Some answers will be better than others. Some reading strategies will need revising. And that is the point

I can’t imagine that my reading strategies were ever made all that visible to me as a student. The exams seemed to be evaluating something separate from that. And if even they were, they often came too late, when I was already checked out and ready to move on to the next course.

Which brings me to limitation A again. Sure, we only have a limited time with our students. So we can A1, try to force them to learn as much as they can about this subject in a short period of time and hope they retain it (maybe through trauma? it “works” with ancient languages).

Or B1, we can train them in such a way that they would want to keep pursuing this subject even after the semester, and if they do so they will have the resources and conceptual foundation to continue in a positive direction.

I haven’t had a problem raised to me about using PDFs in class, but I also know they are completely limited in the ways that other apps with alt accessibility features “read” them, unless they are flawlessly OCR’d. OCR has gotten better but not enough where I can easily trust it.

And I worry about students who have just quietly missed out on a reading because I was lazy and used a pdf.

I have a friend who would type up and prepare by hand his own docs for an Early Christianity class (often with his own translations!!!?!?) which would be much more adaptable depending on how it is distributed. But it would take him a whole summer to do that.

That method wouldn't allow for the flexibility and improv that I like to have as an option. When I am teaching New Testament or Early Christianity I can primarily look to online public domain versions of texts so students are free to access however they can.

I’m there to provide commentary for any wonky translation issues. Though, this can sometimes limit what materials we have access to. And we primarily stick to primary texts.

I’m definitely interested in other ways I could tackle this. My approach kinda just avoids the question, tbh.

Excerpting: This is related to the "same page" issue. I think giving the students less to read is powerful. In my last NT class I tried a method of assigning such small readings that you had no excuse not to read. This permitted us to go deep on what we read and connect to it.

That said, students still probably "read" at about the same rate. It also had a downside of being perceived as an "easier" class because the work load was less severe. And hey, I've got nothing to prove so that didn't personally bother me but it had two results:

Negatively, some students put less effort and care into the class because they thought it was a blow off class. Positively, some students relaxed and felt comfortable enough to be creative, ask really cool questions, and experiment with new ideas in their writing.

The other thing I wrestle with excerpting is that I don't want to limit the possibility of student wandering. I'd rather lower my expectations about "how much" they read but still keep open the range of text that they read.

I try to emphasize that I am more interested in what they retrieve from their reading (or what connections they make) than I am in them "finishing" the reading. But this kind of reading is still a brand new skill to them so it's hard to balance.

A lot of this is still abstract. I'm starting to write a new syllabus for the fall. Maybe I can be more literal & explicit about that here as I do it. Though, it's a NT class, and for some reason I get self-conscious about how I do those. NT Studies and I need therapy together

I mean I was in the same spot a year ago.... https://twitter.com/AGWilsonn/status/1154380055587545088?s=20