Staff response

Had an email a couple of weeks back in response to the plan our School of Languages is submitting to the Programme Development Fund.

We were asked to respond in two areas, and we considered as a staff how we should do so.

I put up a first draft online and asked the others to make suggestions in the form of comments, anonymous or otherwide, which I would then incorporate into successive drafts. We eventually came up with the following:

1. How exactly do we envision a more flexible delivery of the Certificate in Spoken and Written English (CSWE)? (more details and objectives)
2. Why are we requesting laptops with home broadband? (when we already have computers)

It is impossible to predict exactly what form a revised delivery of the CSWE might
take, without having gone through the staff development process. Our plan is a process that cannot be short-circuited or second-guessed; management need to support us, staff need to retrain and investigate options, and programmes changes will need to satisfy Otago Polytechnic system requirements.

We cannot build Rome in a day. Students’ expectations need to be met, and they need to be convinced of the value of different delivery modes. We cannot introduce too many unfamiliar methods and ideas too quickly lest we risk losing their trust. As teachers we need to be clear as to the agreed underlying philosophy of language teaching. We need to be satisfied that our students’ learning is being enhanced by an online component.


However, we do have a number of specific outcomes in mind.

We recognize that, ideally, students that enrol in one of several levels should be able to work in their areas of preference or need, and at their own pace. Many of the modules we now offer lend themselves to being made available online, including:

CSWE 3 A1 Can demonstrate understanding of a spoken information text
CSWE 3 B2 Can write an informal letter or e-mail
CSWE 3 C1 Can demonstrate understanding of a casual conversation with topic changes
CSWE 3 G1 Can demonstrate understanding of an oral presentation

Students ought individually to be able to decide on the order in which they complete
modules. They may be able to choose the timing of assessment, and its frequency. Once they accumulate the requisite number of modules (and hours) they would then be eligible for the Certificate in Spoken and Written English.




Some advantages:

1. Students take more ownership of their path of study
2. Teachers freed up to teach more generally
3. Students work at own pace
4. Students work on areas of need (not wait until their module ‘comes up’ perhaps 2 years hence)
5. Students have ample options available (we have many more modules than we presently offer), and thus can remain enrolled for longer
6. Students can enrol at any time, and for a flexible period
7. Assessment tasks are largely put online, so that there is much less administration involved in running them and recording the results
8. Easier to expand in other directions e.g. level four
9. Easier to set up other courses such as (OOLL) ongoing online language learning (my own term) where students may study distance modules from outside.

In terms of levels:

Certificate in Spoken and Written English 1 – Largely delivered as previously because of the face-to-face instruction and pastoral care that beginners
need. Classes will, however, establish practices that train students to work individually for periods, gain keyboard skills, confidence and competence in an e-learning environment.

Certificate in Spoken and Written English 2 – a good deal of the time would now be spent in SALC (self-access learning centre) and CALL (computer-assisted
language learning). This means that a teacher at level 2 could conceivably manage more students face-to-face, but also have online facilitation. In 2007 classes might start the year with an hour of online tuition per week increasing to 2 hours a week by the end of the year.

Certificate in Spoken and Written English 3 – approximately half of the time would now be spent in SALC and CALL environments. Communication skills still require real face-to-face interaction. A teacher at level 3 could eventually many up to twice as many students but, again, spend extra time in online facilitation. In 2006 AM4 has two hours of computer suite tuition per week. This might gradually be increased to 1 hour per day during 2007.



As far as laptops are concerned, our CEO happened by while Leigh and I were discussing this topic in the staffroom last week. He stated that he expects to phase in laptops for all staff over the next three years. He feels that anyone involved in e-learning at this stage automatically moves to the head of the queue.

We are being guided here by Leigh whose vision we are obliged to trust to some
degree. Leigh has explained to me his objective, which is to bring all staff to the point of having a professional and collegial online presence. We plan to establish professional links with other AMES (Australian Migrants English Scheme) and/or CSWE providers internationally. This would not be easy to establish in between classes, squeezed in during working hours. We are speaking of professional development here, and it is important that can rely on 24/7 access to the Internet.

Personally I have, in 2002, been disappointed when the Polytechnic decided not to proceed with an online initiative that may well have led to our becoming a pioneer in the field of online language learning. I was prepared to train ‘comptutors’ (my own
term again) when the plug was pulled. There are only so many times realistically that staff can respond to the call for flexibility and then not be supported when they do their best to deliver those goods.