Notes
Slide Show
Outline
1
Experiments in Distance Learning
  • Panel Discussion by
    The Educational Technology Committee and the Teaching Resource Committee
  • Saint Michael’s College
2
Rationale
for online (pure distance) delivery
  • ORIGINAL PURPOSE/TARGET AUDIENCE
  • To deliver a teacher training course in Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL) to SMC graduate students at partner institutions/satellite campuses during the academic year (Hellenic American Union in Athens, … in Krakow, Poland)
      • reduce travel and accommodations cost for students
      • allow participants to remain in their country and pursue a career
      • allow participants to earn credits toward a master’s degree at SMC
3
Rationale
for online (pure distance) delivery (cont’d)
  • NEW/ADDITIONAL TARGET AUDIENCE
  • Public school teachers/staff around the state of Vermont and in neighboring states (New York); distance too great to travel
  • MATESL students who live/work abroad (Switzerland, South Pacific, Canada, Greece, Poland)
  • Alumni of SMC (undergrad or grad)
    • Reason: continue professional obligations while at the same time improving credentials either for re-certification or for job advancement

4
Goals and expectations
for delivering the course online
  • to provide an online teacher training experience through online CALL that parallels the experience that the students have in the face-to-face course
    • My premise: Whatever I and the students do/did in the face-to-face course, should also happen in the online course.  I have to find ways to make this possible.

  • to find ways to create the same kind of effective, involved, enthusiastic learning community that existed in my face-to-face classes


  • To model the course goal—effectively incorporating technology into the classroom—by providing hands-on, task- and project-based experiences, that follow a constructivist, inquiry-based approach
    • Construction of learning and teaching principles by the group rather than receiving information through lectures
    • The teacher as facilitator, not the “sage of the stage”
    • Autonomous Learners taking responsibility for their own learning
5
The results of four years of online delivery
vis-a-vis my goals and expectations
  • How were the goals accomplished?
    • Design:
      • Simple course architecture in eCollege--easy to navigate
      • Consistent course/page design and layout
      • Clear instructions/policies/guidelines/deadlines; frequent repetition (reminders)
    • Tools: computer-mediated communication to establish an effective learning community
      • Assignment of moderators to lead the weekly threaded discussion forums about readings and hands-on tasks/projects
      • 5 required class chats + frequent group/individual chats (text/voice/web cam),
      • E-mail exchanges: class/group/private
      • A teacher-constructed web page with the picture and brief bio of each course participant
6
The results of four years of online delivery
vis-a-vis my goals and expectations (cont’d)
  • How were the goals accomplished?
    • Teaching method: Using constructivist, inquiry and project-based learning principles that encourage collaboration and interaction
      • Hands-on tasks and projects (weekly, short-term, and semester-long):
        • Experimentation with applications, Internet tools, and links
        • Constructing teaching tools that make use of what they learned (a class/school newsletter in Word, a PowerPoint slide show that is a lesson plan for a WebQuest, a FrontPage-based WebQuest lesson, web-based rubrics for assessment of student projects, )
        • Sharing with the class what they learned about each task (threaded discussion)
        • Group tasks that require the use of online collaboration tools for communication and file sharing, as well as peer reviewing
      • Weekly summaries/reactions to
        • Readings
        • Hands-on links
        • Class members’ questions and comments
        • Class members’ short- and long-term projects (peer reviews)
7
Outcomes
  • A more learner-centered and higher quality experience than the face-to-face course
  • Student comments: “Tremendous learning experience: exposure to a wealth of resources & media”
  • Carefully thought-out/substantive/stimulating  interaction
  • Everybody participates ALL THE TIME.
  • High quality of output—projects and discussions
  • Continual exploration to find ways to incorporate newly learned tools/methods/aspects
  • Accomplishment of course goals
8
What evidence/yardsticks do I have to validate this outcome?
    • Unsolicited student quotes (from current threaded discussions):
      • Can you believe we're already 6 weeks in? It's been great learning from everyone thus far.
      • I am as enthusiastic as you are. Our voice conference this weekend was something I really enjoyed. It's amazing how computers can bring together people and students from all around the world.
      • How exciting to speak to someone in Greece, and not have to pay long distance, AND to be collaborating on a project together. It was wonderful!
      • Once again, the learning in this course is just endless for me!
9
Challenges
  •  Scheduling real-time chats across 2-3 time zones
  •  Varying levels of comfort with technology: steep learning curve
  •  Round-the-clock access to e-mail & the Internet
  •  Balancing class work & full-time jobs: keeping up with the 
      weekly assignments & interaction
  • Technological problems: different e-mail applications/Word
      editions, e-mail/servers down, constantly changing URLs of important
      course links, changes on the electronic listserv /bulletin board
  •  Personal problems
  •  Effects of distance: delay in response time; no visual contact
10
The Paradigm Shift