To Online Learn or Not? (circa 2005)

Online Learning and Learning Online can be valuable components to students’ education. With recent advances in technology, it is possible to adapt existing teaching practices and learning environments, as well as transform teaching and learning.

In BC, Online Education began in 1994 with the creation of Nechako EBus. The eBus program was the first electronic distance education model. Early ‘on-line’ initiatives were electronic textbooks with very little innovation compared with our current tool kit. In the last 11 years much of the available technology has changed.

“The Nechako Electronic Busing Program utilizes technology to support learners in alternative and innovative ways. This program facilitates individualized learning, fosters personal growth and recognizes the variety of ways learning occurs and can be demonstrated.” http://www.e-bus.com/

The above mission statement would seem to be a reasonable mission statement for any school. Can we draw from this that learning occurring with ebus is the same as learning within a school? I am sure that we can all agree that a lesson delivered electronically is not the same as one delivered in a classroom standing in front of your students.

In today’s society, we often use terms without clear definitions. Learning Online and Online Learning are two such terms. As teachers, we have a pretty strong understanding of what learning is; however we do not have a clear understanding how ‘Online’ interacts with learning. At the BCTF Technology Think Tank I suggested a description of Online Learning that we agreed to use it as a working definition. By the next day of discussions, the definition we agreed on already needed to be changed; however we could not come up with a clear definition that was acceptable.

Although we may agree there are differences, there is no clear boundary to use as a definition. In researching, I found the following terms used to describe learning with technology opportunities:

• Online Learning
• Learning Online
• Learning Objects
• Virtual Learning
• Self Directed learning course
• e-Learning
• Online Distance Education
• Flexible Learning Community
• Online Program
• eClass
• Web-based teaching
• Online training
• Online educational resources
• Distributed Learning
• Internet based training
• Web based training
• Electronic delivery

“There is no question in my mind that current e-Learning systems are indeed in this transition phase from traditional e-learning to what e-learning will be in the future.” (Stephen Downes, 2003, para 2)

In its infancy, e-Learning was about learning with technology for a distance model of delivery. The current trend is to use tools originally developed for distance delivery and non face-to-face environments as part of the instruction in traditional classroom environments. With advancements in technology, there continue to be more opportunities to integrate technology into the learning of our students.

One of the reasons the name becomes important is that one person may report positive or negative results with online learning and that report is generalized to all learning that uses online tools. We must learn from our mistakes in any delivery model and continue the transition to improved learning opportunities for students. Online Learning brings opportunities to improve student learning.

The Ministry of Education recognized online Learning as acceptable learning model by providing the same funding level independent of the program delivery model. (BC MOE Policy statement, 2004) This is a shift recognizing and accepting the validity of online teaching and learning environments. In the remainder of the article, I will look at the learning opportunities provided using technology independent of delivery model. Many tools involving technology have been created to improve the quality of teaching and learning. These tools can and should be used to enhance all delivery models ability to meet student’s learning needs.

Teaching and Learning is much more than delivery. Learning occurs by students actively engaging in a variety of ways with the content. Our biggest vehicle for of active engagement is communication around and with the content. The value of communication is highlighted by Antoine de Saint-Exupery(1900 – 1944) who said, “Transport of the mails, transport of the human voice, transport of the flickering pictures – in this century as in others, our highest accomplishments still have the single aim of bringing people together.”

The BC Ministry of Education (2000) believes that:

Three principles support the foundation of the Kindergarten to Grade 12 Education Program. They guide all aspects of educational practice including curriculum development, instructional planning and practice, learning resource selection, school and classroom organization, assessment, evaluation and reporting. These principles are:

1. learning requires the active participation of the student;
2. people learn in a variety of ways and at different rates;
3. learning is both an individual and a group process.

Education has changed

Many communication tools have been integrated into distance learning courses to go beyond content delivery. These tools bring the richness of face-to-face communication to a digital world. These same tools can also enrich traditional classroom communication possibilities. Why do we need to use new technology tools in today’s teaching and learning environments?

In the article The Digital Divide, Marc Prensky (2001) answers the question this way, “Our students have changed radically. Today’s students are no longer the people our educational system was designed to teach.” Marc goes on to explain that an average US college grad spends only 5000 hours reading, 10 000 hours playing video games and 20 000 watching TV. As a result of this technology shift, Students think and process information differently from their predecessors.”

Part of this change is apparent with 28 of 60 School districts running some form of Online programs (Kuehn, 2004). If almost 50% of BC School districts are offering Online programs, students must be enrolling in these courses. Students are enrolling for full or partial online programs. These programs would not continue to exist if students and their parents didn’t feel they met the changing educational needs.

The language of learning has changed and we need to make sure the language of teaching does as well. We no longer discuss if a slide rule is allowed in an exam and we no longer discuss if a calculator is allowed in a final exam. The discussion now is what functions, features and memory the calculator has. Schools now have to have policies on using wireless technology to avoid cheating. Both the language and the tools have changed.

If students speak a different language at home and school, it is harder for students to communicate. When we teach without embracing the students’ language of technology, “Digital Natives”, we risk students not learning the content because of a language barrier. Many of us teachers are “Digital Immigrants” speaking with a noticeable ‘non-technological’ accent. Imagine the frustration of my daughter, who has used a mouse since she was 2 years old, watching a teacher awkwardly using a mouse to demonstrate Internet research skills. It is hard to actively participate when you don’t understand. We need to minimize the affects of our Technology as a Second Language accent so that we can communicate clearly to our “Digital Native’ students. Fortunately, new teachers are graduating with technology as their first language or as Digital Natives.

Learning requires the active participation

As far back as 1989 educators recognized a need for change.

The notion that learning comes about by the accretion of little bits is outmoded learning theory. Current models of learning based on cognitive psychology contend that learners gain understanding when they construct their own knowledge and develop their own cognitive maps of the interconnections among facts and concepts . . . . Real learning cannot be spoon-fed one skill at a time (Shepard 1989, pp. 5-6).

If we look back a few years we could group delivery models into three categories. The distinctions between these categories today are greatly blurred.
A. Distance Education, Correspondence, or University lecture all with low interaction
B. Night School Courses having limited but regular interaction with time for assignments in between
C. Traditional classrooms having lessons with time for processing and interacting.

These three models are simplistic, but they all use the same content. “Content whether it’s online or in a book does not teach. The role of a teacher is as important as ever” (Joe Jamison) Joe has hit the key issue that teaching and learning are not achieved by content. BC is continuing to change the content to meet students needs; however, content is not capable of adjusting to student needs.

Teachers are the key to ensure student’s maximum learning. Teachers craft the environment for each lesson. We need to ensure that traditional classroom teachers, night school and distance educators all use the best tools available. Online Learning tools, are in students’ “Digital” language. Using these tools in teaching allows us to meet the Ministry goal of by actively engaging students in their learning.

In a given amount of time for a course, we need to balance the time for content and the time to process that content. Most elementary classrooms allow for more processing time in class and as we move to university or correspondence, there is much less processing time compared with content delivery during lessons.

In BCTF Teacher Magazine(October 2004, para 7), Leslie Dyson states, “[Education] is about the ability to think, elaborate, reason and debate.”

In a recent professional development workshop I attended, Bruce Wellman recommended a 10 minute teach time with a 2 minute processing activity built into lessons. Learning with a digital environment allows for greater processing time and less talk time. When a student is at information overload, we can teach them to self monitor and stop. In a study by Ruhl, Hughes and Schloss (1987), it shows that there is no loss of content learned when students are given opportunity to include short, active-learning activities into our lectures. There is some evidence that students learn more from the process.

In addition to active learning activities, we can encourage active or deeper thinking tasks. Bernie Dodge is well know for his work with WebQuests. “A WebQuest is an inquiry-oriented activity in which most or all of the information used by learners is drawn from the Web. WebQuests are designed to use learners’ time well, to focus on using information rather than looking for it, and to support learners’ thinking at the levels of analysis, synthesis and evaluation.” (The WebQuest Page, 2005) WebQuests have provided a technology tool to reach for engaging students with higher-level thinking.

Jamie McKenzie has done recent work with Slam Dunk Digital Lessons. These are lessons with a chunk of information and a critical question. They use digital resources and are intended to be completed in 45 minutes. When I was recently a participant in a Slam Dunk lesson, I was engaged and the entire room was also engaged with some very critical thinking and analysis. (McKenzie, 2004)

With what we know about education from both Cognitive Information processing theories and Constructivist learning theory, students that spend more time processing, thinking, and engaging, learn more. Speaking students “Digital” language and using online learning tools engages students.

People learn in a variety of ways and at different rates

To meet the second ministry goal, Online Learning gives us a rich diversity of tools and more methods to meet different learning styles.

“The linguistic learner, for example, can produce a word processed report, a logical-mathematical type may produce a database, chart or spreadsheet, a spatial learner might create electronic posters and models while the interpersonal learner may create sound files of a speech or interact through direct video connection.” Graeme Wilson (2001, Fools Gold, para 17)

Communication is central to students learning styles. Each student will have preferred learning and communication styles. Previously, I have believed that communication is more accurate or complete with face-to-face interaction where you can use all the communication cues available including: facial expression, tone of voice, and body language. While this may be true for students that process quickly, an email composed over several hours after that face-to-face interaction may provide better communication. Teaching in BC operates on a continuum from complete face-to-face such as a one on one tutoring scenario to a distance education model where you may never see your student other than through their writing.

The communication tools that technology bring into our tool kit include :
• Email – can provide regular contact
• Email signature – can express your personality through the addition of images, sayings, color use etc.
• Online Resume – can introduce oneself and your personality
• Conference / List Serve / Asynchronous chat – through this method of group reflection or journaling personalities rise over time. To grow community we need to ensure questions are designed to incite reflection and some dissonance.
• Chat / Instant Message – through a text conversation you can share ideas similar to a conversation in the classroom
• Voice / Video Chat – One step closer to physical contact is seeing or hearing the other people to provide the additional cues to communication.
• Presentation – Instead of standing in front of a group, you can post your work or discuss it during a chat session. You can represent your work using tools such as digital photos, sound clips, iMovie, or iPhoto, or Webpages
• Online Documents – Reflective journaling and peer editing
• Research – accessing internet resources including: dictionary, thesaurus, encyclopedias, articles, images, movies, archives and news
• file storage – archives, FAQ, portfolio
• organization – calendaring, reminders, folders
• publishing – web publishing – graphic tools – audio tools
• blogging – publicly accessible journal for individuals or groups
• Wiki web – reader editable websites
• Digital Photos, Digital Artwork – sharing art that may not be possible otherwise

Technology tools should be integrated into the daily lives of students; however, I agree with Graeme Wilson (2001, para 7) that “Computers are incredibly versatile and powerful learning tools, however they are just tools and should not be considered the primary vehicle for a child’s education.”

Lessons designed to meet specific learning outcomes can be designed to use online learning regardless of the delivery model. In some cases the tools used will be different in a face-to-face environment, but in other cases the exact same tool can be used face-to-face as in distance delivery. All delivery models can use a WebQuest to achieve content and process learning outcomes. A face-to-face classroom has the opportunity for presenting at the front of the class; whereas a distance education course may have a synchronous or asynchronous video presentation. When we add another tool to our teaching methods, we are able to meet the needs of more students.

Although technology can provide excellent learning opportunities, we need to be conscious that technology is not always the best option. There still exist many cases where teacher’s notes or textbooks are essentially put into an electronic page turner and called online learning. In some cases, engagement activities go only as far as to ask multiple choice questions and possibly maintain a journal. I don’t see the technology as being at fault. It is not the technology that teaches and plans the lessons. The teacher has the ability to use the technology to enhance, adapt and tranform good teaching. Teachers and good teaching are still at the heart of Learning.

Learning is both an individual and a group process

Learning as an individual and as part of a group involves communication. Technology is often referred to as Information and Communication Technology. Student’s success in school depends on their ability to communicate individually and in groups. I had a student, Sajinder, two years ago that was an ESL student with very low motivation. He rarely spoke in class unless he was off task. His contribution to class discussions was often not being a distraction. In one situation, a top academic student, Jason, placed his analysis of what was happening in the Novel Hatchet by Gary Paulsen. Sajinder, challenged what Jason had said. Sajinder’s challenge was very articulate and well thought out. This challenge was also done in a First Class conference in a very respectful manner. I learned a lot about Sajinder through this electronic communication and I learned more about the inside of him in one conference contribution than in the 6 months previous in class.

BC has established the Social Responsibility Performance Standards. Strands of Social Responsibility include: contributing to the classroom and school community, solving problems in peaceful ways, valuing diversity, defending human rights and exercising democratic rights and responsibilities. (Ministry of Education) The learning outcomes of these standards focus on students internalizing and personalizing expectations for members of a socially just community or society. The beauty of working with technology is that we can enhance and extend our community with relative ease to include those in other schools, cities, provinces, and nations.

Prior to the Internet, we did not have opportunity for online or ‘cyber’ communities to develop. Preparing students now must also include preparing them to be good ‘cyber’ citizens as well as ensuring a firm grounding in our physical community.

Learning – even online learning – still occurs for the most part in communities. Students take part in online classes and seminars, they exchange thoughts and ideas in mailing lists and on discussion boards, they work in project teams and work groups. The concepts of learning and community are almost inseparable, even for the self-study student. (Downes, 2004, para 2 – 10)

Why the emphasis on community?
Stephen Downes suggests 4 reasons why we need to focus on Community.

1. Community supports improved learning.
2. Community generates a sense of commitment not created merely by an individual working on their own with the content.
3. Learning in communities promotes what may be called learning beyond the content. In July 2000, the Early Soundings discussion paper was released. A key stressed in the article was the level of informal learning that occurs. The simplest example is having your kids set up your VCR without a manual.
4. Learning communities help reduce the workload of those providing instruction by allowing students to help each other and by allowing an instructor to help many students at once.

At a conference in Vancouver on October 4, 2004 – “Promises and Pitfalls of Learning Communities” hosted by the Association of BC Deans of Education some interesting discussion on Learning Communities arose. It was an interesting discussion as there wasn’t a desire to define what learning communities were even though we were looking at the promises and pitfalls. Leaving the definition undefined left open a broader range of promises and pitfalls. Here is a list compiled from the discussion group I participated in.

Promises Pitfalls
Allows for Diversity Diversity allows for undesirables to enter in
Diverse learning promotes deeper learning Joy of teaching is at risk – when we can’t meet the needs of students
Opportunity to build a civil, caring community with equitable access Lack of a shared vision
Create a common language Success may threaten the group
Builds connectedness Does the community remain open for new members
Everyone is valued – Everyone has opportunity to speak We may still lose the quiet ones
Safe environment where people can take risks
Radically reshape education to make it equitable and diverse Need to mitigate power institutions in the community
should extend beyond the school – include the community Need Resources
Scarcity of knowledge

Learning communities do have their perils and promises as suggested above. It is a reality that we have communities both physically and virtually and we can grow them towards learning communities.

Traditionally, September brings together a new community by defining divisions/classes and schools. As teachers, we focus early on building our classroom community. I have taken students on the Grouse Grind hike. This hike is uphill, all the way. Some finish in just under an hour and others it may take 3 hours or more. This shared experience and achievement starts to build our community by growing a shared history with everyone overcoming this challenge. I have also worked with schools that take students to camp for a five-day field experience at Evans Lake Forest Education Centre in Squamish. The trip can be done early in the year to build the community, or as a goal for the community to achieve. It takes some effort, but the history and the story-telling for each community can be maintained and encouraged.

Traditional classrooms have an oral history; whereas a distributed classroom may have a text and digital artifact history. A blend that we use with Surrey Connect Home Learner program has online conferences and events where students go together on field experiences to help grow the community

The reason that camping trips or physical hurdles build community is that they provide a shared experience and they let you get to know a person better. Alan November uses the term ‘Meeting the Inside’ This is where the power of online communities can grow and enhance the physical community. You can provide opportunities for shared experiences in any medium; online discussions for example, allow you to meet the person and reveal thoughts they might not share in class or have time to process in class.

Online Learning also gives us opportunities not possible in a traditional classroom. We can build classroom and school communities by direct contact. We can reach other schools in our neighbourhood, but it is not possible to have a direct contact community of learners in another province, or country. Given current tools, you can efficiently communicate with other parts of the world and grow a global community. A 2003 project by the Troubadour Foundation paired up students in Canada, Iraq and Afghanistan. They compared each other’s artwork and their views on peace. A similar project is feasible using faxes or mail – it cannot provide the quality, instant feedback and the degree of communication available with digital tools. All of the students involved in the project became part of a global community with authentic views from other cultures and parts of the world.

Another example of global communities provided by Alan November is within FanFiction.net. One student has written extensively to a world wide audience, has received feedback and edited previous work based on that feedback – years after the original writing.

Another communication advantage of working in an online environment is that you can offer students private assistance, post assignments, and correct homework with greater ease by not having to carry papers back and forth from home or stay late at work. You can reach students who are physically or geographically unable to attend school. Physical absence will no longer prevent students from participating in the educational experience. Distance learners will be able to interact both with teachers and their peers on a daily basis. (I recognize as a teacher we need to balance our time commitments; however, we already do this with reporting, marking, sports, committees and other daily teaching tasks.)

It boils down to the education system and teachers building a communication community. We can enhance the student’s ability to communicate and participate in their learning experience.

A problem with our school communities is that we currently build communities of learners and then destroy the community each year. (With some exceptions such as Multi-Age Classrooms) In some cases we do it intentionally as a ‘management’ issue and others it just works out that way. A downside of a course based online community is that we intend for it to have a point of death. It is built for the course and then eliminated.

In Surrey, for the past 2 years we were piloting the student use of our First Class communication software. Each year all accounts for students were deleted. The students that had accounts likely did not have accounts the following year and the community was effectively killed. As a solution, we have now decided to not have accounts expire so that we can keep the communities growing even with students at different schools. We have not had to age out our grade 12’s yet, but that is a concern as to how long we want to provide them access to the community they have been a part of.

Do Online Learning tools improve students’ acquiring knowledge, skills, and attitudes?

Peace River School District announced 22% increase in its English scores using a computer based writing initiative. Effective integration improves students’ writing ability, their performance and attitudes, classroom learning environments, and parent satisfaction with schools (report by Sharon Jeroski, 2003)

“Since full implementation of the Wireless Writing Program, the gap between male and female students has narrowed from 21% in 2003 to 8% in 2004. The gap between Aboriginal students and the total population narrowed from 17% in 2003 to 5% in 2004.”

[Aside from student improvement or corollary to] “Teachers described the program as transforming and reported high levels of change in their teaching practices. The program provides students with more choice and responsibility, and enables teachers to give increased feedback on student writing and engage students in self-evaluation. “(David K. Vandergugten, 2004)

There are several studies that show improvements in learning. We continue to need more clear evidence for the positive impact. Not all positive outcomes are measurable though.

Other Considerations

There is evidence that formal learning with technology or formal online learning demonstrates improved student learning. We must not forget about informal learning. There are many interactions that occur in a classroom that we are only cursory aware of. Students learn the systems, like playing soccer by doing soccer with peers, with friends, playing video games. Often with parental permission and sometimes without, students have online accounts for MSN, ICQ or other services. They have a learning network to seek out information on the newest game codes, best skateboard parks and much more. Students already know how to use the technology to create their own learning communities. We need to learn the language to best meet our students needs.

Aside from the measurable outcomes, we need to consider other possible benefits.
Online Learning can offer the following benefits:
• Flexible day, flexible load
• Students take extra courses, not locally offered, athlete can’t normally schedule
• Level playing field – First Class from any browser log in – small client – 0 cost to the student for the whole suite
• Can access material that was traditionally only in print
• Save student and teacher time with FAQ
• If you are absent or out of country for a time, you can still participate
• Teachers don’t carry assignments around waiting to be marked – stored centrally and accessed
• Not limited to the K – 12 school system – work and learn – continuing ed – adult learners – hospital homebound – home learners
• simulations – practice dissections / chemical combinations

In addition, as this is still a new language for us as Digital Immigrants, there are several questions that need to be addressed:
• do teachers have appropriate and useful technology?
• Is the technology appropriate to the needs of students?
• Who owns the content of teacher created materials?
• Where does the funding come from?
• How can we increase quality and decrease costs?
• Is there enough support and Professional Development time?
• What special skills does the teacher need to be successful?
• Where does the students informal learning fit in?

These concerns are not unique to online learning as they apply to any form of learning. As we don’t have a governing body for online learning, we need to be very careful as to what is good practice. There are several groups that have created their own criteria but then found it hard to live within their own expectations.

Surrey and Online

The Surrey School District recognized the benefits early and has been involved in developing different opportunities for students including Zebu, H2T2, Web based courses, Open-School courses, COOL School courses, locally developed WebCT courses, NetVista and First Class. In 2004 we made another leap forward with the purchase of First Class communication system accounts for all students grade 2 to 12. In the 2004 /2005 school year, we will be building a community of over 12 000 students and 4000 teachers. Students and teachers will have access to the following tools to integrate into their classes.
• folders for lessons and information
• work and discussion conferences
• email
• project-based learning
• calendars
• web publishing
• word processing
• online presentations feature
• newsgroups
• chat sessions and
electronic graduation portfolio for grades10 – 12.

Conclusions

The catalyst for doing the research and writing this article has been a dissonance I experienced with what is seen as learning online or online learning. The irony is there really isn’t any dissonance. There are different delivery models meeting students needs with different tools. Neither is better or worse as long as we focus on students learning to communicate and contribute in their communities. I believe the best is for us as teachers to have access to use all the tools possible to make our students’ learning the best it can be.

Online learning is here. The tools are here. In 2001, Craig Luigart predicted that in 20 years, 90% of what we read will be digital. I could not do the job I do without thesecommunication tools. In a typical day, I will use the phone, fax, face-to-face conversations, conferences and answer 50 to 60 emails. Students need to be able to function in our physical contact world and in our cyber space world.

Finally, I am advocating for online learning by integrating the tools to help students communicate better and contribute to their online community. I believe that online course instruction has started down this path by the nature of needing to use the technology that is built into the delivery system. As classroom teachers that meet face-to-face, we need to use the tools that speak the language of our “Digital Native” students. To meet the needs of today’s students, we need to integrate using communication tools as daily parts of our student’s lives.

References

Nechako Electronic Bussing Program, Retreived November 1, 2005 from http://www.e-bus.com/Home%20Page2

Downes, Stephen. 2003, How Learning Communities use learning http://learnscope.flexiblelearning.net.au/learnscope/golearn.asp?Category=11&DocumentId=4983

BC Ministry of Education, July 1, 2004, Policy Document, Distance Education. Retreived November 1, 2004 from http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/policy/policies/distance_ed.htm

BC Ministry of Education, September 2000, K – 12 Educational Plan, Retrieved November 1, 2004 from www.bced.gov.bc.ca/resourcedocs/ k12educationplan/k12edplan_revised_sept2000.pdf

Prensky, Mark. (2001) Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon (NCB) University Press Vol. 9 No 5 Oct 2001

Kuehn, Larry. (2004). Online Education is not the Same as Home Schooling. Retrieved October 2004 from http://bctf.ca/research/list/archive/2003-04/2004-04-28.html

Shepard, L.A. (1989, April). Why we need better assessments. Educational Leadership, 46 (7), pp. 4-9.

Jamison, Joe. (2004) BCTF Technology Think Tank list serve, used with permission.

Dyson, Leslie, (2004, October) In Defense of Public Education: Just get on with it. Retrieved November 2004 from http://www.bctf.bc.ca/ezine/archive/2004-2005/2004-10/support/01PublicEducation.html

Ruhl, K. L., Hughes, C. A., & Schloss, P. J. (1987, Winter). Using the pause procedure to enhance lecture recall. Teacher Education and Special Education, 10, 14-18.

Dodge, Bernie. The Webquest Page Retrieved October 2004 from http://webquest.sdsu.edu/overview.htm

McKenzie, Jamie. (2004). Five Types of Slam Dunk Lessons. Retreived October 2004 from http://www.fno.org/sum04/covsum.html

Wilson, Graeme, (2001, September), The Promise of Online Education: El Dorado or Fool’s Gold? From Now On: The Educational Technology Journal. Vol 11. No 1. Retrieved October 2004 from http://optin.iserver.net/fromnow/sept01/online.html

Ministry of Education BC Performance Standards – Social Responsibility: A Framework Retreived October 2004 from http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/perf_stands/social_resp.htm

Presentation at Perils and Pitfalls of Learning Communities October 2004. Partial description of project at http://www.raffinews.com/newsletter/2003/

Downes, Stephen. (2004) Learning in Communities. Retrieved October 2004 from http://learnscope.flexiblelearning.net.au/LearnScope/golearn.asp?Category=11&DocumentId=5249

Educators as Adult Learners (2000) Education in a New Context for Student Learning Created by Information and Communication Technologies Retrieved 2002 from http://www.bctf.bc.ca/education/technology/EarlySoundings/

Jeroski, Sharon (2003) Wireless Writing project. Retrieved October 2004 from http://www.prn.bc.ca/FSJ_WWP_Report03.pdf

Vandergugten, David, (2004) The Wireless Writing Program. Retrieved October 2004 from http://www.prn.bc.ca/Wireless_Writing_Program.html

Luigart, Craig, (2001) Overcoming the Digital Divide. Retrieved October 2004 from http://www.ed.gov/offices/OCIO/downloads/divide.doc

About the Author,
Kevin has been involved with many aspects of Online Learning.

He has worked with technology leadership roles of:
CUEBC Executive for the past 5 years including President
Involved in Organizing 3 CUEBC conferences
SFU’s TLITE program mentor for 3 years
BCTF’s Chalk and Wire – Mentor for project
BCTF’s Technology Think Tank member in Spring 2004
Frank Hurt Secondary School Technology Facilitator for 5 years
BC Ministry of Education – Member of the ICT 11/12 2004 IRP
Surrey School District – Elementary Info Tech Helping Teacher

He has been involved with development of Online resources
Co-Developed InfoTech 11/12 WebCT course in 2002
Moderating / Developing First Class online community during 2002 /2004

Kevin has taught with Online tools
Taught InfoTech 11/12 using WebCT modules in Surrey
Taught my Grade 7 class using First Class communication tools
Moderated a joint project on bullying using First Class conferences
Taught InfoTech 12 as part of Surrey Connect.

Learning Online Article

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.