• Like
Applied Project Presentation
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

Applied Project Presentation

  • 173 views
Published

Power point presentation without audio

Power point presentation without audio

Published in Education
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
173
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Applied
Project
 eTeaching
Certificate
Program
 February
2010

  • 2.   Background
   Course
Proposal
   Context
   content
   Goals

 ▪  Technical
 ▪  Social
 ▪  organizational
   What
Worked
   What
Didn’t
Work
   Comments

  • 3.   Target
Group
   English
as
a
Second
Language
‐
Internationally
 Trained
Professionals
   Advanced
English
Level
   Engineers
and
Technologists
   Variety
of

ethnicities
   Up
to
10
students


  • 4.   Context
   Offered
to
students
attending
Communication
for
 Engineers
and
Technologists
(CET)
at
Vancouver
 Community
College
   CET
on
hiatus
during
Olympic
period‐no
f2f
 contact
during
on‐line
course
   Course
ran
for
12
days
   Met
students
to
present
course
and
get
recruits
   8
students
enrolled

  • 5.   Content
 ▪  Communications
focus
in
a
professional
setting
–
 listening
and
speaking
 ▪  More
on
listening
than
speaking
 ▪  Listening
strategies
 ▪  Listening
practice

  • 6.   Technical
   to
post
in
a
discussion
forum,
reply,
or
edit
a
post
   to
add
an
image,
emoticons,
a
link
   to
upload
a
written
document

   to
upload
an
audio
file
(MP3)

   to
add
an
entry
in
a
class
glossary
(Vocabulary
 Sharing)
   to
use
Voice
Thread
(to
create
a
voice
message,
to
 “Tell
me
About
Yourself”)
   to
participate
in
‘Elluminate’
on‐line
sessions
   to
complete
a
variety
of
quizzes
(multiple
choice,
 matching,
True/False)

  • 7.   Organizational
   Content
presented
on
a
daily
basis
–
not
all
at
once
   Students
managed
their
time
to
complete
a
variety
of
tasks:
 ▪  complete
short
listening
items
and
quizzes
 ▪  create
written
and
spoken
instructions
to
teach
others
 ▪  create
a
voice
message
 ▪  share
listening
resources
 ▪  share
new
or
discovered
vocabulary
(minimum
of
9
entries
per
student)
 ▪  evaluate
a
voice
message
and
a
classmate’s
oral
response
 ▪  complete
a
vocabulary
quiz
based
on
Vocabulary
Sharing
 ▪  create
a
minimum
of
24
‘quality’
posts
or
interactions
(each
post
must
 respond
to
established
criteria)

  • 8.   Social
   Asynchronous
communication
with
the
instructor
 on
a
daily
basis
   Asynchronous
communication
with
other
 participants
on
a
daily
basis
   synchronously
in
Elluminate

   Communicate
for
a
variety
of
reasons
‐
to
teach
 others,
ask
questions,
comment,
respond
to
 feedback,
share
vocabulary,
state
opinions

  • 9.   Few
technical
problems
   Students
easily
navigated
the
course
   Instructions
were
clear
   Students
enjoyed
communicating
on‐line
   Communicated
with
instructor
and
with
each
other
   Communicated
to
ask
questions,
share,
give
feedback,
state
opinions
 and
to
problem
solve
   Student
generated
material
   Shared
resources
   Shared
images
   Created
an
activity
not
planned
by
the
instructor
(Song
Sharing)
   Vocabulary
sharing

  • 10.   Elluminate
Sessions
added
cohesiveness
to
course
   Posts
   Generally
thoughtful
‘quality’
posts
   Vocabulary
Sharing
   Fun
–
useful
phrases
shared
“pain
in
the
ass”
   Students
reflected
on
listening
strategies
through
   Random
listening
glossary
   Quizzes
   Videos
and
feedback
on
videos
   Feedback
from
instructor
   Feedback
   Instructor
able
to
give
effective
written
and
oral
feedback
to
students
about
 their
speaking/pronunciation

  • 11.   Participation
   a
student
dropped
out
at
start
(work
 commitments)
   Another
disappeared
half
way
through
   One
only
participated
in
the
Elluminate
sessions
   Posts
   Some
students
participated
more
than
others
   Some
students
directed
their
posts
more
to
the
 instructor
than
to
each
other
   Only
a
few
managed
to
post
2x/day

  • 12.   Voicethread
   Took
a
lot
of
time
for
instructor
to
learn
and
adapt
 to
course
   Few
students
did
this
activity
   Vocabulary
Sharing
   Not
all
students
consistently
contributed
to

 Vocabulary
sharing

  • 13.   Assessment
   Students
not
formally
assessed
by
instructor
   No
‘marks’
given
except
for
quiz
results
and
 anecdotal
feedback
   Lack
of
formal
assessment
may
have
affected
 participation
   Workload
   Most
students
reported
they
spent
2
hours
a
day
 in
the
course

  • 14.   Instructor
Response
   planning
the
course
more
stressful
than
running
 and
moderating
the
course
   Sense
of
wonder
when
students
started
 participating
in
planned
activities
(It’s
working!!)
   Felt
like
there
was
more
participation
from
 students
on‐line
than
in
the
classroom
   Wonder
how
it
would
be
to
manage
same
course
 with
20
students
as
we
do
with
f2f.