Sunshine State TESOL
Journal
|
Sunshine State TESOL Journal
Volume 7, Number 1
Spring 2008
Back to the Future: The Beginning of the End of
Classrooms Without Walls?
Vickie
Hall
St. Petersburg
College
St.
Petersburg , Florida
Oh the convenience of
the
internet! Students love the option
of
turning in an assignment in the wee hours of the morning.
Instructors
appreciate the advantage of scheduling a class discussion around the
hectic
schedule of family life, and
administrators applaud the end of necessary course
and room scheduling on campus; notwithstanding in this day and age,
all agree
with the monetary savings for not having to drive to campus. All parties being satisfied with the
benefits, is online
teaching the nirvana we’ve been searching for in education?
There are many of those who think so; however, in the haste
to jump on the
bandwagon of the latest trend in education, are we overlooking our
objective?
Is learning taking place and
are students being served in the best way
possible? Indeed, is online learning meeting the needs of students,
especially
those in English as a Second Language? This article explores some possible answers to these questions.
The Online Teaching Trend
As a newbie full-time in the community college setting four years ago, I found myself in the midst of a revolution ineducation. The “No Child Left Behind” (NCLB, 2002) campaign was transforming into “No Tech-savvy Teacher Left
Behind”. The buzz was get involved with technology in the classroom or be left in the dust. At first, it was just an online
component added to supplement the curriculum, but in keeping up with the pace of the world wide web, nothing remains
the same for long; consequently, a blended course with thirty or thirty-five percent of the work online became “the norm”
for the sake of scheduling convenience and teachers’ job security. Students and teachers were ecstatic about the idea of
attending class on campus twice a week instead of three times. Then expectations set in; apparently one size does not fit
most. One of the sales pitches for teaching online was higher student involvement in class discussions because shy students
who typically won’t participate in class will feel less intimidated and express themselves openly in the online discussion
boards. This has yet to be my experience. If anything, I have encountered less participation from all students probably
because outspoken students in class readily contribute to discussions easily, whereas writing their opinions and
commentaries and posting them to the discussion board is more challenging and time consuming for them and consequently
seems to inhibit rather than boost their willingness to participate. Moreover, performance was lower, grades dropped,
GPAs fell, and students withdrew or failed. What was the problem with the wave of the future?
One mistaken assumption about successful learning online may be concerning language and technology competence.
In Advanced I English for Academic Purposes (EAP), the fourth level in a series of five, students are expected to write
five-paragraph essays; meaning they need to have acquired a substantial amount of their non-native language, a far more
significant amount of fluency in comparison to the expectations for someone taking Spanish or French as a foreign
language. Consequently, it seemed reasonable to make the assumption that language would not be a strong barrier in
students’ ability to follow directions and complete assignments; notwithstanding, today’s students are computer literate,
right? A high level of language and technology competence is a winning combination, isn’t it? Maybe, not. Just because
students are familiar with using computers for games, email, the internet, and in particular, MySpace, does not mean they
are familiar or confident with using a computer for academic purposes, just as, in our program, the courses are not English
as a Second Language, rather English for Academic Purposes (EAP); therefore, the expectations of the course are using
high level critical thinking skills not written social skills. Communicating leisurely online and taking a course online may
possibly be the online difference between Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS) (Cummins, 1981) and
Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP) (Cummins, 1984).
Students’ Input
Having never received such
disappointing student feedback after my firs two semesters of a thirty
percent
blended course, I felt deflated and even questioned myself as to whether or not I was in the correct profession any longer. Maybe
I’d become a dinosaur and needed a career change. The difference in my teaching style was the online component, not
necessarily me, so I redesigned my blended EAP course with only twenty percent of online work on the college server
ANGEL and eighty percent face-to-face, thinking students’ needs would be better met. That fall semester, I was fortunate
to have two sections of advanced reading and writing with some very highly motivated even somewhat overachievers who
did exceptionally well with only one failing and one withdrawal due to excessive absences and child care scheduling
conflicts. Student surveys of instruction were significantly higher, indicating the redesigned course was a step in the right
direction. Thinking I’d found my niche with the magic formula for the best delivery method, my confidence was restored
about my professional abilities; surprisingly, students did not respond as enthusiastically. Complaints were still made such
as:
“We need more class time.”
“I can sit in front of a computer at home. I come to school because I want to learn English with a teacher.”
“I prefer being in the classroom because I learn from other students.”
“I like being able to ask a question and get an immediate answer.”
I continued teaching two courses in the spring semester making a few adjustments to the course. After the second
semester of teaching a blended course with only twenty percent of work online using the college’s platform ANGEL, I
received student evaluations that were not only higher than the mean of the campus, but also the overall college mean.
What reassurance to my professional ability! Nevertheless, even with the adulation for my teaching skills, students were
encouraged to make comments about the course design and indeed, did so. Such comments included:
“I think that it would be better if we had spend more time in class instead of online.”
“I don’t like to
use the computer for English. I need heard the teacher, speak with the
teacher,
and ask the teacher
when I don’t know some subject. Please, no more
Angel for
English.”
“I prefer to take the test in the class not in the Angel.”
“I prefer taking classes in room because I can learn pronunciation of words.”
“I hate the online
class because I feel it will be better to take our quiz in class
instead of
doing it on Angel as they
do it in intermediate.”
“I hate Angel. I will not get good grades if we keep it. No more Angel, please!”
“The development
of English as a second language is very important in class. Internet is
a very
good tool, but for
English learners is important the interaction in
class and
with a teacher to correct you right away on the moment.”
A Possible
Connection
This
last comment so articulate and insightful was thought
provoking.
What was wrong with this picture? I thought all students wanted the convenience of working online and taking advantage of the opportunity to use their computer skills.
During much professional self-reflection, it was then that I made a connection, but not another internet connection. Almost
two years earlier I had been assigned two summer sections of Communication, more commonly referred to as Speech. I
remembered several chapters of the textbook, Communication: Embracing Difference addressing the characteristics of
effective interpersonal communication skills. Indeed, even when native speakers are communicating with each other, over
half of interpersonal communication is nonverbal. “Nonverbal messages are an integral part of our communication. In fact,
Anderson (1999) notes that 65 to 79% of the meaning of our messages is delivered nonverbally.”
nonverbal communication is paralanguage which is the expressiveness of the voice as in the volume, tone, pitch, as well as,
body language, gestures and facial expressions. Another facet of effective communication is the listener maintains eye
contact seventy percent of the time (Dunn & Goodnight, 2003). Most second language learners will agree that talking on
the phone in the target language is much more challenging than conversing with someone in person.
With instruction innovatively delivered online, students were missing a huge piece in the puzzle of language acquisition.
The comprehensible input or understandable message was no longer equivalent to how it would be in a traditional delivery
model due to a decrease in the low Affective Filter (Krashen,1985). This is contrary to one of the principles of language
acquisition which states the classroom is to be a place that fosters lowering students’ affective filters (Krashen & Terrell,
1983) “Furthermore, if we notice someone smiling at us or nodding his or her head in agreement, we might be encouraged
to continue speaking (Knapp & Hall, 1992). According to Stewart Tubbs, a management professor at
University
nonverbal.” (Fogg, 2007) Consequently, the students are not the only ones at a disadvantage, but also teachers miss out
on nonverbal cues that students communicate in the classroom. In a traditional classroom setting, that quizzical expression
on a student’s face can be clarified with immediate feedback. “It is undeniable that students and teachers learn from each
other through personal interaction. A class is more than the dissemination of material followed by testing and grading. I am
sure that I communicate as much by my tone of voice, facial expressions, and body language as I do by the words I use. I
adapt my classes to the nonverbal cues of my students all the time.” (Benton, 2005). These concerns were expressed
about teaching online in students’ first language. These concerns undoubtedly are compounded when teaching students in a
second language.
Students’
Pedagogical Preferences
In order to better meet my students’ needs and wants, I recently
administered a
short poll over a two semesterperiod (51 students in the fall semester and 46 students in the following spring) as to their preference for: 1) a traditional
classroom environment, 2) blended instruction (a combination of a traditional classroom delivery with some online
instruction) or 3) a class consisting entirely of online instruction. The first two options were offered on an equal number of
days to come to campus, so commuting would not be a factor in their choice. The students were asked the following:
Which do you prefer? Choose 1 of
the following:
1. A complete face-to-face 9
credit
class, attending 3 times/week for 2 and ½ hours each day with no
work online;
however, there will be homework.
2. A blended course attending 3 times/week for 2 hours each day with 3 hours of work online + homework.
3. A complete online course where all nine credits for attending are online+ homework, and you never have to come
to campus; of course, unless you want to.
however, there will be homework.
2. A blended course attending 3 times/week for 2 hours each day with 3 hours of work online + homework.
3. A complete online course where all nine credits for attending are online+ homework, and you never have to come
to campus; of course, unless you want to.
According to the results of the fall poll, only one student indicated a preference for an online course, 18 chose
blended and an overwhelming 32 students indicated they would choose a traditional face-to-face course when given a
choice. In the spring poll, again only student chose an on-line course, 12 students chose blended and 33 students chose
traditional instruction.
The students’ responses supported my personal and professional beliefs about teaching second language learners. I
did a better job teaching, and my students did a better job learning when we spent more time together interacting in
person. “The human dynamic one of the primary attractions of the small college seems impossible to replicate online.”
(
interaction and increased student engagement are, the results are less attrition and more graduation. According to Cliff
Stoll, author of High Tech Heretic, “Technology is fun to play with. There are lots of cool gizmos. But does it belong in
the classroom? Are our students well served by it? Increasingly I feel that the answer is no.” (Stoll & Twigg, 2005).
It is undeniable that technology can make a class more exciting with all the bells and whistles that can be included
in a course, but the question remains as to whether the glitz and glamour are accessories or staples of successful learning.
Is the future of ESL instruction back to the traditional delivery methods? The answer to this question lies in the
commitment from faculty and administration that best practices in pedagogy is the goal rather than convenience or expense.
Nonetheless, the majority of my EAP students’ opinions would suggest that traditonal delivery methods are still desirable
for their own success in a second language environment.
References
Anderson, P.A. (1999). Nonverbal communication: forms and functions. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.that have
produced results. The Chronicle of Higher
Education. Retrieved April 12, 2007, from
http://chronicle.com/weekly/v53/i10/10b00101
http://chronicle.com/weekly/v53/i10/10b00101
Benton, T. (2005, July 1). Let the experiment begin. The Chronicle of Higher Education,
51. Retrieved April 12, 2007,
from http://chronicle.com/weekly/v51/143/43c00101
Cummins, J. (1994). Primary language instruction and the education of language
minority students. In Leyba, C.
(Ed.), Schooling and language minority students:
A theoretical
framework (3-46). Los Angeles, CA: California State University, Los Angeles.
framework (3-46). Los Angeles, CA: California State University, Los Angeles.
Dunn, D. & Goodnight, L. (2003). Communication embracing difference.
Pearson Education, Inc. Allyn and
Bacon.
Fogg, P. (2007, January 1). Cashing in on virtual courses. The Chronicle of Higher
Education 1/5/2007.
Retrieved April 12, 2007, http://chronicle.com/weekly/v53/i18/18a00801
Knapp, M. & Hall, J.A. (1992) Nonverbal communication in human interactions. New
York: Holt,
Rinehart & Winston.
Krashen, S.D. (1994). Bilingual education and second language acquisition theory.
In Leyba, C. (Ed.), Schooling
and Language Minority Students: A
theoretical Framework
(47-75).Los Angeles , CA : California State
University , Los
Angeles .
(47-75).
Krashen, S. D. (1985). Inquiries and insights. Hayward, California: Alemany Press.
Krashen, S. & Terrel, T. (1983). The Natural approach language acquisition in the
classroom.
Hayward , California
Stoll, C. & Twigg, C. (2005, December 9). Transforming teaching and learning face-
off:
Technology as teacher?. Chronicle of Higher
Education, Retrieved April 12, 2007,
http://chronicle.com/weekly/v52/i16/16b
http://chronicle.com/weekly/v52/i16/16b
U.S. Department of Education. (2002). No Child Left Behind. Retrieved April 12, 2007,
Author Bio
Vickie Hall is an ESL instructor at St. Petersburg College in St. Petersburg College, Florida.Sunshine State TESOL Journal
ISSN 1934-7030
Copyright rests with authors