1. Confronting you can’t do that online! Tana McCoy, PhD Assistant Professor Criminal Justice Program Evelyn P. Stone College of Professional Studies

2.  Objective  Facilitate online interaction with students and guest speaker that: ▪ Provided a unique and valuable learning opportunity ▪ Utilize the experiences of the guest speaker ▪ Better understand the subject matter ▪ Explore often overlooked perspective  Offender ▪ Provide safe and respectful online learning environment ▪ Primary Challenge ▪ Guest speaker  Former Member of Hate Group  National Socialist Skinheads of Houston

3.  Uniquely well-suited for interaction between criminal justice students and offenders  Advantages ▪ Students ▪ Exposure to different perspective ▪ Interaction with offender without fear for safety ▪ Comfortable seeking different types of information ▪ Offender ▪ Anonymity  Use of pseudonym “John” ▪ Minimizes risks/harm ▪ Greater disclosure

4.  Gaining Access to Offender  Type of online interaction  Chat  Synchronous ▪ Student Frustration ▪ Expected course with no set schedule  Credit  Extra Points (5)  Day/Time  Thursday 10pm  Length  One hour

5.  Offender Characteristics/Background  Location  Professional Status  Personal Relationship  Risks ▪ Student trust  Benefits ▪ More comprehensive understanding ▪ Reciprocity ▪ Increase student confidence in value of participation ▪ Emotionally safe learning opportunity

6.  Educational Goals  Explore dynamics associated with John’s decision to join Skinhead ▪ Examine the recruiting process ▪ Criminal activities of the group ▪ Explore offender’s background ▪ The factors related to leaving the group ▪ Attempt to understand the meaning of group membership from John’s perspective ▪ What needs did the group fulfill?  Student Expectations ▪ Informed participant ▪ Familiarize themselves with Houston Social Skinheads

7.  Clearly communicate boundaries  Participation voluntary  Unique and valuable learning experience ▪ Doing the class a favor  Our purpose is not to judge but rather understand  Types of Questions  No rules  Right to refuse to answer  Avoid sensationalism  Communication that will not be tolerated  Verbal Aggression  Insults  Judgmental language

8.  Coordinating with Blackboard  Adding a collaboration session  Username/password for Guest Lecturer  Recording the session  Providing clear instructions for students  Locating the chat function ▪ Trial run  Downloading software ▪ Java Plug-in ▪ Screen Reader ▪ Java Access Bridge

9.  Chat Protocol  Risk ▪ CHAOS!!!! ▪ Timing challenges  Questions ▪ Types ▪ Prepared ▪ Spontaneous ▪ Length  Submission Order  Spelling Errors

10.  Student responses were very positive  Rewarding learning experience  Many expressed positive feelings toward “John”  Sense of Humor  Encouraged by the theme of change  Challenged Hate Group Myths  Role of Ideology  Group acceptance  Appreciated the more dynamic interaction with synchronous chat

11.  Better coordination of student question submission  Use of a roster or lineup  ! to comment  ? Indicate question ▪ Professor determines who has the floor  Control rogue students ▪ Private Messaging  Record the chat and make available to students unable to participate  Student reaction paper