The end of the year is almost here (less than two days to go!), and I have been working on putting the Powerpoint together. It has been a good chance to reflect on the whole course, and to see what still lies ahead for me.
The good news is that I am happy with the aims I have developed for the new online component of the CEE programme, and I think the activities have the potential to produce outcomes that will meet those aims.
I can see that I still have a way to go on the technical side to fully implement the activities online so that they are easily accessible, clear, interactive and easy to monitor. I definitely need to go through moodle courses so that I can make the most of its potential, although I think I have enough basic knowledge to get it working now. I think elluminate is a potential support to the moodle base, although I find without the camera, it becomes rather too impersonal for my liking. I hope this can be rectified (both with better software, and higher speed internet access) in the near future.
This course has introduced me to producing wikis, and I can see their benefits, although at present I am leaning towards asking the students to create a collaborative web page rather than a wiki, as it allows for more interactive content and design features.
Reflective blogging is not new to me, and I still use a personal blog to communicate with a lot of my former students, who are now spread around the world. It has been a good way to monitor my completion of set tasks though, so that I can go back and see what I missed and what areas needed to be developed further.
I am pleased to have had a good response from KTC towards the online learning activities, and I am really looking forward to working with them and getting some feedback on how it goes.
Although I have been using e-mail and the internet for nearly 20 years, this is really the first time I have tried to use it to give students online access to learning materials, and to encourage independent learning. There is still a lot of resistance to using this kind of educational tool in Japan, but I hope by introducing it through a select number of activities first, that both staff and students will have the opportunity to become used to it, and to become aware of its advantages, so that its use can be expanded into other areas of the C.E.E programme in future.
I look forward to continuing with this course design in the New Year.
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Monday, December 27, 2010
Nathan’s Evaluation Plan
This evaluation plan is to designed to look at aspects of the new online component that will be added to the C.E.E programme prior to students’ arrival in Dunedin. It involves both formative assessment, and feedback once the students arrive in Dunedin for the onsite part of the programme.
1. Testing the Activities
• Testing activities with current C.E.E students
Currently, students on the C.E.E programme have been involved in similar activities during their stay in Dunedin. I have given them these exercises while I was in Japan, so that they were largely working unsupervised, and only received brief feedback on my return. The results have been encouraging, with many students giving good powerpoint presentations (videos have been recorded to use for feedback and evaluation purposes) and peer and teacher feedback provided. Students were given an opportunity to watch these videos and discuss their problems and what they need to work on. In early January 2011, these students will do a further presentation based on a similar theme, and they will then be asked to provide some feedback on their experiences (through interviews).
• Testing with 2011 intake students - online
Based on this experience, the 2011 intake will complete similar (or modified) activities in Feb – Mar 2011, before they arrive in Dunedin, and the feedback and evaluation methods above will be used before proceeding with a more formal introduction of the online component to the C.E.E programme.
2. Ongoing Evaluation Methods
• Peer Feedback
I believe that peer feedback is an important part of learning, and that it is an appropriate method of evaluation in a collaborative activity such as the one I am proposing. I have tried this kind of peer feedback with current C.E.E students, and found it to be quite successful, provided students are given a detailed framework within which to work. A sample can be found here… Although comments tend to be (overly?) encouraging, some students still pointed out some quite relevant advice on how to improve – here is a summary of some of the feedback provided on the powerpoint presentation from December 2010…
• Ongoing teacher feedback
Students will be provided with language pointers and assistance during the project so that they can develop throughout the project, not simply at the end. We will monitor not only their time on the site, but also their response to the feedback and whether this is reflected in their posts. At present this is done with the paper journals, but I believe this will be more effective with a blog, as feedback can be provided without the need for students to hand in journals, and review will be easier too.
• Kanazawa teacher feedback
As special part of this programme is that staff at Kanazawa Technical College will be interacting with the students during this online learning period, so they will be able to provide direct and honest feedback both to the students and to us.
3. Data Gathering
• Portfolio assessment
Students’ collaborative production will be assessed, and its continued use and updating monitored.
• Otago Polytechnic Colleague feedback
I will get other teachers involved in providing feedback – in particular Jean Gordon, who is involved with the C.E.E programme. Later feedback may be obtained from other C.E.E teachers and Japanese support staff as appropriate. I would also welcome feedback and exchange with Marc Doesberg and staff at Foundation studies who may be working on similar pre-departure or online courses for Korean and Chinese students.
• Host family feedback
Ultimately, one of the main goals of this pre-departure course is to improve communication between students and host families by getting students to think about who they are and where they come from, and how they can explain this in English. A large part of the feedback, therefore will come from host families, in the form of a survey to be carried out several months into the Otago Polytechnic part of the C.E.E programme, perhaps to coincide with a face-to-face feedback session with the host families to iron out any cultural or social issues that have arisen during the first few months of the homestay programme.
• Student interviews
Students will be asked to reflect on their experiences and the outcomes several months after arriving in Dunedin. I like the idea of doing this through an informal interview, either with myself or another staff member. In my experience, surveys tend to get very superficial results, and this is especially so with international students. Asian students in general, and Japanese in particular, are reluctant to criticize their teachers, so comments and assessments tend to be very positive, but informal discussions with people they feel comfortable with often bring out more honest opinions – obviously there is still the possibility of being led to give certain answers that would need to be watched for. Interviews could be recorded provided students felt comfortable with the technology, and these video recordings assessed by independent staff if necessary.
• KTC staff feedback
There is also the scope to work together with staff from KTC who teach the students after they return from Otago Polytechnic, to get further feedback and to better integrate the activities with what is being done at KTC prior to, and after the C.E.E programme at Otago Polytechnic.
4. Criteria for Judging Success:
• completion of the activity; time spent and responses to online work
• achievements of outcomes based on tests and activities built into moodle / online learning environment
In terms of English ability and cultural awareness, short tests and activities to check the understanding of the material covered will be introduced and questions asked during the coursework. Overall English progress throughout the C.E.E programme has tended to be measured using the TOEIC (Test of English for International Communication) test. Benchmark tests and progress scores during the year at OP have been recorded for the past few years, and these will provide a guide as to overall English progress, but they will be of only limited use in evaluating the short online component of the course prior to arrival in Dunedin.
• Feedback from students and staff both at KTC (English teachers) and at Otago Polytechnic
• Effectiveness in improving communication between students and host families.
This will be very difficult to measure objectively, and will vary with a student’s natural willingness to communicate, confidence, and previous language ability. Some idea of the effectiveness should be possible, however, based on surveys and discussions with host families, especially those host families who have hosted KTC students previously, and who are therefore familiar with communication problems of these students on arrival at Otago Polytechnic
• The ability of the students to interact with other New Zealanders, both students and members of the public.
Again, this will be difficult to quantify, and may require several years close observation and recordings to achieve reliable data as to their effectiveness.
5. Reviewing Evaluation Data
• A full review
A review will be undertaken after the trial period (2011) is complete, to see how effective the online learning activities have been. A report will be prepared to be presented to stakeholders, both in ABE, KTC and host families who are interested to show how effective this new component has been, and what can be done to improve outcomes, and the activities / delivery methods will then be adjusted or replaced in consultation with Kanazawa teachers and former students, before the programme becomes a formal part of the C.E.E programme in 2012.
This evaluation plan is to designed to look at aspects of the new online component that will be added to the C.E.E programme prior to students’ arrival in Dunedin. It involves both formative assessment, and feedback once the students arrive in Dunedin for the onsite part of the programme.
1. Testing the Activities
• Testing activities with current C.E.E students
Currently, students on the C.E.E programme have been involved in similar activities during their stay in Dunedin. I have given them these exercises while I was in Japan, so that they were largely working unsupervised, and only received brief feedback on my return. The results have been encouraging, with many students giving good powerpoint presentations (videos have been recorded to use for feedback and evaluation purposes) and peer and teacher feedback provided. Students were given an opportunity to watch these videos and discuss their problems and what they need to work on. In early January 2011, these students will do a further presentation based on a similar theme, and they will then be asked to provide some feedback on their experiences (through interviews).
• Testing with 2011 intake students - online
Based on this experience, the 2011 intake will complete similar (or modified) activities in Feb – Mar 2011, before they arrive in Dunedin, and the feedback and evaluation methods above will be used before proceeding with a more formal introduction of the online component to the C.E.E programme.
2. Ongoing Evaluation Methods
• Peer Feedback
I believe that peer feedback is an important part of learning, and that it is an appropriate method of evaluation in a collaborative activity such as the one I am proposing. I have tried this kind of peer feedback with current C.E.E students, and found it to be quite successful, provided students are given a detailed framework within which to work. A sample can be found here… Although comments tend to be (overly?) encouraging, some students still pointed out some quite relevant advice on how to improve – here is a summary of some of the feedback provided on the powerpoint presentation from December 2010…
• Ongoing teacher feedback
Students will be provided with language pointers and assistance during the project so that they can develop throughout the project, not simply at the end. We will monitor not only their time on the site, but also their response to the feedback and whether this is reflected in their posts. At present this is done with the paper journals, but I believe this will be more effective with a blog, as feedback can be provided without the need for students to hand in journals, and review will be easier too.
• Kanazawa teacher feedback
As special part of this programme is that staff at Kanazawa Technical College will be interacting with the students during this online learning period, so they will be able to provide direct and honest feedback both to the students and to us.
3. Data Gathering
• Portfolio assessment
Students’ collaborative production will be assessed, and its continued use and updating monitored.
• Otago Polytechnic Colleague feedback
I will get other teachers involved in providing feedback – in particular Jean Gordon, who is involved with the C.E.E programme. Later feedback may be obtained from other C.E.E teachers and Japanese support staff as appropriate. I would also welcome feedback and exchange with Marc Doesberg and staff at Foundation studies who may be working on similar pre-departure or online courses for Korean and Chinese students.
• Host family feedback
Ultimately, one of the main goals of this pre-departure course is to improve communication between students and host families by getting students to think about who they are and where they come from, and how they can explain this in English. A large part of the feedback, therefore will come from host families, in the form of a survey to be carried out several months into the Otago Polytechnic part of the C.E.E programme, perhaps to coincide with a face-to-face feedback session with the host families to iron out any cultural or social issues that have arisen during the first few months of the homestay programme.
• Student interviews
Students will be asked to reflect on their experiences and the outcomes several months after arriving in Dunedin. I like the idea of doing this through an informal interview, either with myself or another staff member. In my experience, surveys tend to get very superficial results, and this is especially so with international students. Asian students in general, and Japanese in particular, are reluctant to criticize their teachers, so comments and assessments tend to be very positive, but informal discussions with people they feel comfortable with often bring out more honest opinions – obviously there is still the possibility of being led to give certain answers that would need to be watched for. Interviews could be recorded provided students felt comfortable with the technology, and these video recordings assessed by independent staff if necessary.
• KTC staff feedback
There is also the scope to work together with staff from KTC who teach the students after they return from Otago Polytechnic, to get further feedback and to better integrate the activities with what is being done at KTC prior to, and after the C.E.E programme at Otago Polytechnic.
4. Criteria for Judging Success:
• completion of the activity; time spent and responses to online work
• achievements of outcomes based on tests and activities built into moodle / online learning environment
In terms of English ability and cultural awareness, short tests and activities to check the understanding of the material covered will be introduced and questions asked during the coursework. Overall English progress throughout the C.E.E programme has tended to be measured using the TOEIC (Test of English for International Communication) test. Benchmark tests and progress scores during the year at OP have been recorded for the past few years, and these will provide a guide as to overall English progress, but they will be of only limited use in evaluating the short online component of the course prior to arrival in Dunedin.
• Feedback from students and staff both at KTC (English teachers) and at Otago Polytechnic
• Effectiveness in improving communication between students and host families.
This will be very difficult to measure objectively, and will vary with a student’s natural willingness to communicate, confidence, and previous language ability. Some idea of the effectiveness should be possible, however, based on surveys and discussions with host families, especially those host families who have hosted KTC students previously, and who are therefore familiar with communication problems of these students on arrival at Otago Polytechnic
• The ability of the students to interact with other New Zealanders, both students and members of the public.
Again, this will be difficult to quantify, and may require several years close observation and recordings to achieve reliable data as to their effectiveness.
5. Reviewing Evaluation Data
• A full review
A review will be undertaken after the trial period (2011) is complete, to see how effective the online learning activities have been. A report will be prepared to be presented to stakeholders, both in ABE, KTC and host families who are interested to show how effective this new component has been, and what can be done to improve outcomes, and the activities / delivery methods will then be adjusted or replaced in consultation with Kanazawa teachers and former students, before the programme becomes a formal part of the C.E.E programme in 2012.
Here is an example of the feedback that was provided by the students to their peers after their Powerpoint presentations (I have corrected the grammar / spelling mistakes in the feedback):
Junya
You used your hands well, and smiled a lot. Good.
You interacted well with the audience, but you didn’t look around the class enough. Some people in the audience felt ignored. You need to look at all sides of the room so that everyone feels included.
You moved around a little too much. If you move around too much, people become distracted from what you are talking about. You need to find a balance between moving to maintain interest, and moving too much.
Your pronunciation was generally quite good, but you need to work on the /ae/ sound (as in Pack), and the /er/ sound (perfect).
Your intonation was good, and you spoke fluently and naturally.
You used humour very well to interact with your classmates, so that they felt interested and could understand your feeling well.
Your slides were both interesting and relevant. It was good that you put some humour into your slides, but still made sure that they showed the important points you wanted to make.
Junya
You used your hands well, and smiled a lot. Good.
You interacted well with the audience, but you didn’t look around the class enough. Some people in the audience felt ignored. You need to look at all sides of the room so that everyone feels included.
You moved around a little too much. If you move around too much, people become distracted from what you are talking about. You need to find a balance between moving to maintain interest, and moving too much.
Your pronunciation was generally quite good, but you need to work on the /ae/ sound (as in Pack), and the /er/ sound (perfect).
Your intonation was good, and you spoke fluently and naturally.
You used humour very well to interact with your classmates, so that they felt interested and could understand your feeling well.
Your slides were both interesting and relevant. It was good that you put some humour into your slides, but still made sure that they showed the important points you wanted to make.
Here is the basic form that students were given for peer assessment for their Powerpoint presentations. They were divided into three groups, and focused on one kind of feedback for each student, so that they were able to provide more details.
Assessment Form I: Body Language YOUR NAME:
PRESENTER’S NAME:
a. Is the student using good body language?
i. Hands
ii. Facial expressions
iii. Eye contact
iv. Posture
v. Body position facing audience
b. What suggestions do you have for improvement?
Assessment Form II: Spoken Language YOUR NAME:
PRESENTER’s NAME:
a. Is the student’s language clear and correct?
i. Pronunciation
ii. Intonation
iii. Fluency
iv. Grammar
v. Is the student reading notes or speaking naturally?
c. What suggestions can you make for improvement?
Assessment Form III: Content YOUR NAME:
PRESENTER’S NAME:
a. Is the content of the presentation relevant and interesting?
i. Good powerpoint slides
ii. Logical order of information
iii. Lots of good detail and examples
iv. Use of humor / interesting stories
v. Use of smartboard smooth and efficient
b. What suggestions can you make for improvement?
Assessment Form I: Body Language YOUR NAME:
PRESENTER’S NAME:
a. Is the student using good body language?
i. Hands
ii. Facial expressions
iii. Eye contact
iv. Posture
v. Body position facing audience
b. What suggestions do you have for improvement?
Assessment Form II: Spoken Language YOUR NAME:
PRESENTER’s NAME:
a. Is the student’s language clear and correct?
i. Pronunciation
ii. Intonation
iii. Fluency
iv. Grammar
v. Is the student reading notes or speaking naturally?
c. What suggestions can you make for improvement?
Assessment Form III: Content YOUR NAME:
PRESENTER’S NAME:
a. Is the content of the presentation relevant and interesting?
i. Good powerpoint slides
ii. Logical order of information
iii. Lots of good detail and examples
iv. Use of humor / interesting stories
v. Use of smartboard smooth and efficient
b. What suggestions can you make for improvement?
Sunday, December 26, 2010
Here is a summary of the programme meeting at KTC with the relevant paragraphs in bold type
C.E.E. Programme Meeting with Mr. Yamagishi; Mr. Naoe; Mr. Taniai; Mr. Sugimori; Mr. Imazawa; Office of KTC, 13:00 – 14:30
• There have been some changes to the curriculum at KTC, and these changes are being implemented over the coming years. Would OP be able to adjust the C.E.E programme content to better reflect these changes?
• In Mechanical engineering, more emphasis is being placed on engineering design, with this component increasing from two to three hours per week in the third year.
• In Global Technology and IT they are considering a complete change from teaching a variety of programming languages to a focus on Java from next year. This change would be implemented simultaneously, so that third year students next year will study java for the first time, in future third year students will have studied java in their first and second years.
• In maths the content has been reduced slightly. Students will have completed differential equations in second year, but OP was requested to review differentiation before moving on to integration. They currently study some 3D geometry which does not appear to be part of the curriculum for the C.E.E maths course.
• There is little change in the electrical programme
• We (Nathan and John) discussed the possibility of using laptops in the classroom for C.E.E in the future to enhance the technological aspects of the course. We explained that we envisaged the laptops being locked in a safe at the Polytechnic each day so that students could not take them home and play games, thereby not interacting with their host families. We hoped to install the laptops with English OS, as this would help the students become familiar with English operating system and menus. We would look at installing the software for solidworks and maths as well as computer programming so that students would be able to work on these subjects in their own time (during the day).
• KTC expressed a willingness to consider allowing the students to bring their laptops from KTC. They were happy with the above suggestions, but felt they would need to test the laptops to make sure they would work if the software was wiped and an English OS installed instead. The laptop hardware would not be insured outside Japan, but perhaps they would consider sending a spare laptop in case of breakage. We expressed the idea that, because the laptops were only to be used in the classroom, there was less likely to be issues with breakage. Mr. Yamagishi agreed to look into the feasibility of allowing students to take KTC laptops with them to NZ.
• KTC expressed their thanks again for the arrangements that OP made for the three short term interns who spent two weeks working in a company in Dunedin in July. They were very happy with the way the internship went in Duendin, and hope that we can continue to accept the students in the future. John expressed the willingness of OP to accept interns again, but said that it would be easier to make arrangements for two students than three. KTC accepted this suggestion. John asked that the information about the students’ majors be sent to OP as soon as possible so that arrangements could be made for the interns to spend time at an appropriate company.
• KTC is still keen to host intern students from OP. They may be able to arrange for them to spend time at larger companies such as Daikin (air conditioners), but these may be located outside Kanazawa (Daikin is in Osaka) and students would be housed in company accommodation. Students would spend some time at KIT first. KTC said it would be easier to place mechanical or electrical engineering interns that computer engineering interns, due to reluctance on the part of companies to expose computer secrets.
• Nathan expressed the desire to get come online learning set up before the students come to OP, so that they can be familiarised with some of the people and styles of OP. A test was done using the Elluminate software, and seemed to run without any technical issues. KTC agreed to test this again after our return to OP, and to cooperate in setting this up.
• The new programme and course curriculum at KTC will be completed in January, and Nathan asked that copies be sent to him at OP as soon as possible so that course lecturers can adapt course materials to better reflect the changes. KTC agreed to send copies when they become available.
C.E.E. Programme Meeting with Mr. Yamagishi; Mr. Naoe; Mr. Taniai; Mr. Sugimori; Mr. Imazawa; Office of KTC, 13:00 – 14:30
• There have been some changes to the curriculum at KTC, and these changes are being implemented over the coming years. Would OP be able to adjust the C.E.E programme content to better reflect these changes?
• In Mechanical engineering, more emphasis is being placed on engineering design, with this component increasing from two to three hours per week in the third year.
• In Global Technology and IT they are considering a complete change from teaching a variety of programming languages to a focus on Java from next year. This change would be implemented simultaneously, so that third year students next year will study java for the first time, in future third year students will have studied java in their first and second years.
• In maths the content has been reduced slightly. Students will have completed differential equations in second year, but OP was requested to review differentiation before moving on to integration. They currently study some 3D geometry which does not appear to be part of the curriculum for the C.E.E maths course.
• There is little change in the electrical programme
• We (Nathan and John) discussed the possibility of using laptops in the classroom for C.E.E in the future to enhance the technological aspects of the course. We explained that we envisaged the laptops being locked in a safe at the Polytechnic each day so that students could not take them home and play games, thereby not interacting with their host families. We hoped to install the laptops with English OS, as this would help the students become familiar with English operating system and menus. We would look at installing the software for solidworks and maths as well as computer programming so that students would be able to work on these subjects in their own time (during the day).
• KTC expressed a willingness to consider allowing the students to bring their laptops from KTC. They were happy with the above suggestions, but felt they would need to test the laptops to make sure they would work if the software was wiped and an English OS installed instead. The laptop hardware would not be insured outside Japan, but perhaps they would consider sending a spare laptop in case of breakage. We expressed the idea that, because the laptops were only to be used in the classroom, there was less likely to be issues with breakage. Mr. Yamagishi agreed to look into the feasibility of allowing students to take KTC laptops with them to NZ.
• KTC expressed their thanks again for the arrangements that OP made for the three short term interns who spent two weeks working in a company in Dunedin in July. They were very happy with the way the internship went in Duendin, and hope that we can continue to accept the students in the future. John expressed the willingness of OP to accept interns again, but said that it would be easier to make arrangements for two students than three. KTC accepted this suggestion. John asked that the information about the students’ majors be sent to OP as soon as possible so that arrangements could be made for the interns to spend time at an appropriate company.
• KTC is still keen to host intern students from OP. They may be able to arrange for them to spend time at larger companies such as Daikin (air conditioners), but these may be located outside Kanazawa (Daikin is in Osaka) and students would be housed in company accommodation. Students would spend some time at KIT first. KTC said it would be easier to place mechanical or electrical engineering interns that computer engineering interns, due to reluctance on the part of companies to expose computer secrets.
• Nathan expressed the desire to get come online learning set up before the students come to OP, so that they can be familiarised with some of the people and styles of OP. A test was done using the Elluminate software, and seemed to run without any technical issues. KTC agreed to test this again after our return to OP, and to cooperate in setting this up.
• The new programme and course curriculum at KTC will be completed in January, and Nathan asked that copies be sent to him at OP as soon as possible so that course lecturers can adapt course materials to better reflect the changes. KTC agreed to send copies when they become available.
Well, there has been a more than two month gap since the last blog entry, but things haven't been standing still!
The major development was a trip to Kanazawa in late November, during which I was able to discuss the direction of the C.E.E programme, and check out some technical issues with the online learning part of the course. The stakeholders in KTC were keen to help get the students into some online learning prior to their arrival in Dunedin. Given that Japanese are often quick to buy new technology, but very conservative when it comes to applying that new technology to educational activities, I was pleased with their response.
I was able to confirm that elluminate was accessible and worked well from the KTC campus, and arranged to have further testing in January to familiarise KTC staff with the concept.
Thanks also to Marc Doesberg and Terry Marler for giving me some tips and a crash course in setting elluminate up. It is great to have such good support from colleagues.
While I was in Japan, I set the current KTC students studying C.E.E. in Otago the task of preparing a powerpoint presentation about two aspects of Dunedin - either a particular place or product that they had found in Dunedin that they liked, and one that they didn't. This is similar to what I hope to get the students to do on their own town before coming to Dunedin. I chose to set this as a task during my absence, as I thought this might help me see how these students work without direct supervision. On my return, I gave students another couple of hours during which I was available to help them with any aspect they were having trouble with. A summary of my assessment is as follows:
1. With the exception of one student, all of the students had gone at least some way towards completing their powerpoints before my return. Some of the students had basically finished and just needed a few linguistic pointers, some students needed more time to finish their powerpoints as well as work on their script. THis shows that, given some firm direction and deadlines, students are capable of a certain amount of independent research and study, provided they are sufficiently motivated.
2. The students had learnt basic skills for powerpoint, and although their ability varied somewhat, all of them were able to competently complete a powerpoint slide (although some of them needed some help during the actual presentation.)
3. The students were generally still quite unsure about public speaking. They were, however, able to give relevant feedback on the speakers when given a detailed form with points to look for. As a result of this, I subsequently showed the students a video on Public speaking, and gave them feedback based on my own observations and that of their classmates on what they need to work on and how they can best improve.
4. Over the Christmas holidays (three weeks) students have been asked to prepare a further presentation on one aspect of their holiday. They have been told to talk to people, do some research, and present their findings as a powerpoint after the classes resume. We will then look at their previous feedback and see how they have improved.
This exercise has been great in giving me some idea of what information I need to provide students with, and some idea of their technical abilities. I will use this information in setting up the online instructions and materials for the students before they depart Japan.
I hope this exercise will also help the students prepare to take some of their experiences back to present to students and staff in Kanazawa. Hopefully, we may be able to continue to have some online activity to link those students together.
I now have a good idea what needs to be done to prepare for the online aspects of the course, and how it may work. I will be trying this out in January, and hopefully have a test run in February and March with the new students who are due to arrive in April 2011. If all goes well, this will then be fine-tuned and incorporated as a full part of the course in early 2012.
The major development was a trip to Kanazawa in late November, during which I was able to discuss the direction of the C.E.E programme, and check out some technical issues with the online learning part of the course. The stakeholders in KTC were keen to help get the students into some online learning prior to their arrival in Dunedin. Given that Japanese are often quick to buy new technology, but very conservative when it comes to applying that new technology to educational activities, I was pleased with their response.
I was able to confirm that elluminate was accessible and worked well from the KTC campus, and arranged to have further testing in January to familiarise KTC staff with the concept.
Thanks also to Marc Doesberg and Terry Marler for giving me some tips and a crash course in setting elluminate up. It is great to have such good support from colleagues.
While I was in Japan, I set the current KTC students studying C.E.E. in Otago the task of preparing a powerpoint presentation about two aspects of Dunedin - either a particular place or product that they had found in Dunedin that they liked, and one that they didn't. This is similar to what I hope to get the students to do on their own town before coming to Dunedin. I chose to set this as a task during my absence, as I thought this might help me see how these students work without direct supervision. On my return, I gave students another couple of hours during which I was available to help them with any aspect they were having trouble with. A summary of my assessment is as follows:
1. With the exception of one student, all of the students had gone at least some way towards completing their powerpoints before my return. Some of the students had basically finished and just needed a few linguistic pointers, some students needed more time to finish their powerpoints as well as work on their script. THis shows that, given some firm direction and deadlines, students are capable of a certain amount of independent research and study, provided they are sufficiently motivated.
2. The students had learnt basic skills for powerpoint, and although their ability varied somewhat, all of them were able to competently complete a powerpoint slide (although some of them needed some help during the actual presentation.)
3. The students were generally still quite unsure about public speaking. They were, however, able to give relevant feedback on the speakers when given a detailed form with points to look for. As a result of this, I subsequently showed the students a video on Public speaking, and gave them feedback based on my own observations and that of their classmates on what they need to work on and how they can best improve.
4. Over the Christmas holidays (three weeks) students have been asked to prepare a further presentation on one aspect of their holiday. They have been told to talk to people, do some research, and present their findings as a powerpoint after the classes resume. We will then look at their previous feedback and see how they have improved.
This exercise has been great in giving me some idea of what information I need to provide students with, and some idea of their technical abilities. I will use this information in setting up the online instructions and materials for the students before they depart Japan.
I hope this exercise will also help the students prepare to take some of their experiences back to present to students and staff in Kanazawa. Hopefully, we may be able to continue to have some online activity to link those students together.
I now have a good idea what needs to be done to prepare for the online aspects of the course, and how it may work. I will be trying this out in January, and hopefully have a test run in February and March with the new students who are due to arrive in April 2011. If all goes well, this will then be fine-tuned and incorporated as a full part of the course in early 2012.
Monday, October 4, 2010
CLESOL Conference
I have just finished attending the CLESOL conference (Community Languages and English as a Second Language), and have many new ideas floating around in my head, that will need digesting over the next few days (and probably weeks).
I am interested, for example, in adapting the R2D2 (no, not the robot: reading, reflecting, displaying and doing) model to the idea of having students develop a wiki about their hometown as part of their pre-departure learning. This model seems to offer a way of structuring the activity that caters for all learning styles, but I need to find more about this.
I also attended an interesting presentation on an online PAC (Pre-arrival Course) that was aimed at students coming to New Zealand (or other English-speaking countries). It was a self-directed resource (not free unfortunately), and focused on preparing students for communicating in English with study abroad in mind - homestay introductions etc. Although I felt the content was still rather traditional, it did have some good features including the ability to record and playback one's own version of conversational phrases. Also, the final unit (specific to NZ) on the culture and geography looked particularly interesting. It didn't, however, appear to have much on preparing the student to talk about his / her own culture and identity, which is where I want to focus my attention.
I also became aware of an excellent resource that is being developed called FLAX, which is part of a larger 'greenstone' project. The FLAX resource is basically a way for ESL teachers to develop an online library of texts, and to then use those texts to generate exercises (cloze etc) at the touch of a button. I am not sure that it could be immediately incorporated into my plans, but I can see potential in getting the students to record their own stories, and then use them as a language-learning resource for others.
On a less exciting note, I have been considering the creation of a wiki, but found there are a bewildering range of host sites offering various different features, some free and some requiring a monthly / yearly fee, and it is hard to know which one offers the best development opportunities. Obviously this is an area I need to spend more time exploring.
I am interested, for example, in adapting the R2D2 (no, not the robot: reading, reflecting, displaying and doing) model to the idea of having students develop a wiki about their hometown as part of their pre-departure learning. This model seems to offer a way of structuring the activity that caters for all learning styles, but I need to find more about this.
I also attended an interesting presentation on an online PAC (Pre-arrival Course) that was aimed at students coming to New Zealand (or other English-speaking countries). It was a self-directed resource (not free unfortunately), and focused on preparing students for communicating in English with study abroad in mind - homestay introductions etc. Although I felt the content was still rather traditional, it did have some good features including the ability to record and playback one's own version of conversational phrases. Also, the final unit (specific to NZ) on the culture and geography looked particularly interesting. It didn't, however, appear to have much on preparing the student to talk about his / her own culture and identity, which is where I want to focus my attention.
I also became aware of an excellent resource that is being developed called FLAX, which is part of a larger 'greenstone' project. The FLAX resource is basically a way for ESL teachers to develop an online library of texts, and to then use those texts to generate exercises (cloze etc) at the touch of a button. I am not sure that it could be immediately incorporated into my plans, but I can see potential in getting the students to record their own stories, and then use them as a language-learning resource for others.
On a less exciting note, I have been considering the creation of a wiki, but found there are a bewildering range of host sites offering various different features, some free and some requiring a monthly / yearly fee, and it is hard to know which one offers the best development opportunities. Obviously this is an area I need to spend more time exploring.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)