Applied Project Presentation

338 views

Published on

Power point presentation without audio

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
338
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Applied Project Presentation

  1. 1. Applied
Project
 eTeaching
Certificate
Program
 February
2010

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

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

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

  6. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.


×