The Importance of Online Teaching: My Personal Journey

#LTTO, Online Instruction, Online Teaching Practices, VLE, VLEs 0 comments

The Importance of Online Teaching: My Personal Journey

Why is Online Teaching Important to me? and What are the benefits?

By Prof. Jonathan Acuña Solano

Friday, July 10, 2015

Twitter: @jonacuso

Post 182

When confronted with the question, “Why is online teaching important to me?,” I must admit that the answer is linked to the summative assessment used at the university where I currently work. Rigid evaluation is one of those things that my teaching experience tells me that it is wrong, especially when in the equation surface and deep learning are involved. The hybrid courses that I currently have at Universidad Latina in Costa Rica have helped me better visualize the importance online or blended learning has for me to assist pupils in the construction of their knowledge and for them to evidence the fact that learning can be deep and long-lasting.

Back in the first quarter of 2010 and after being a student for the Webskills course through the Distant Learning program held by the University of Oregon, I started toying with the idea of virtualizing some of the courses I was teaching at Universidad Latina at that time, something I managed to do empirically. My empiricism gave me some first-hand knowledge and foundation to begin with some sort of blended learning with my language performers. Not only did I start using blogs to take my whole teaching online, something that took me a couple of years, but also I ended up creating an LMS for my reading skills students, where we were able to share and publish their projects and reading accomplishments.

Later on, in 2013 I got the chance to participate in the Laureate Faculty Development where I was given the opportunity to get enrolled in an associate degree in Hybrid, Online and Blended Learning. It was until that time that my online teaching empiricism became the ground foundations for my studies with online practices through Laureate International Universities, the international consortium that owns the university where I teach ELT and owners of the Laureate Faculty Development. The training I was provided, my former empirical knowledge, and the projects that were needed and carried out in real virtual classrooms allowed me to transition from the F2F classroom to the online classroom in platforms such as Moodle and Blackboard.

During the 7 modules I went through along 2013 and 2014, I was able to put the pieces together to start some real blended learning experiences for my students at that time at Universidad Latina and, consequently, move away from the rigid assessment used in my F2F courses. I was then trained how to more effectively use the LMS, which should be called a CMS instead, that the university uses, Moodle. But I was also provided with training in Blackboard to round up my understanding of LMSs. Learner engagement and feedback were part of another module that allowed me to keep up with the work my language trainees had to do in Moodle. Instructional design was also a must in the program to be able to convert F2F activities into blended or fully online ones that students could do at their own pace. The online practicum was a nice way to try out everything one has been trained on and see how one’s learners reacted to our guidance, social presence, and their cognitive interaction with the subject-matter to be studied. It was a blast!

Though I had started my online teaching journey with a sole intention to use that knowledge with my university courses, I found myself accepting a different position in the curricular development unit for the binational center where I also work and launching an EFL blended program. This was my chance to get to practice my ideas regarding online learning and the knowledge I had constructed along my 7-module training in hybrid, online and blended learning. The EFL program has proven to be successful so far, and in my home country, we have the only true blended language program across Costa Rica.

Though the binational center’s blended EFL program is on its way, my online teaching nowadays does not end there. Laureate Faculty Development hired me as an online instructor for their platform associate degree programs. I know deal a lot with hybrid online learning and higher education practices that can also be transferred to the VLE scene. Having students across the globe is now giving me a real sense of what is to “increase flexibility of time” to study at one’s pace, “increase flexibility of location” since my students and colleagues can be in any continent, “the sharing of information” to unify faculty teaching practices across the Laureate Universities network, and “the fostering of digital information literacy” to integrate faculty members teaching various subjects in different fields.

Understanding our 21^st century students, we teaching professional have numerous digital learners sitting in class. It is our duty as faculty members to cope with their learning needs and their need to get and have access to information in no time. For these 21^st century students, communication and collaboration are key elements in their way of building skills that will eventually become competencies for their current or future jobs. “Reasons for moving into online education differ amongst teachers. Some regard it as a natural progression to their current teaching practice, some are reluctant to change and feel pressured into it by their institution, while others are interested in online education but don’t know how to get started” (UNSW, n.d.). Anyway, reasons must help us identify our guiding star to find our niche in the 21^st Century education global scene and to provide learners with true deep-learning experiences to help them develop competencies for their current or future jobs.

UNSW. (n.d.). Why is online teaching important? Learning to Teach Online. Retrieved on 2015, Thursday 9 from https://d396qusza40orc.cloudfront.net/ltto/pdf/LTTO_M1_Importance.pdf

Why is Online Teaching Important? by Jonathan Acuña

Friday, July 10, 2015

A Website Evaluation Rubric

Assessment, Education Technologies, Rubrics, Teaching With Technology, Technological Assessment 0 comments

A Website Evaluation Rubric

A rather helpful exercise for teachers

By Prof. Jonathan Acuña Solano

Thursday, July 9, 2015

Twitter: @jonacuso

Post 181

How often do we recommend a website to a colleague or student to visit and practice class content on it? This could be usual or not that often depending on your teaching environment. But what has happened to me a couple times is that my partners report that the content of the webpage I thought was good was not that extraordinary and that it included lots of mistakes and that pictures were not exactly convenient. Though, -I must confess-, it never occurred to me to sit down and write a kind of website evaluation rubric, it was in a technology course dealing with virtual environments with Prof. Fressy Aguilar at Universidad Latina in Costa Rica that all participants were requested to create such rubric to help ourselves to differentiate good sites from those that are not exactly that accurate.

In order to produce a website evaluation rubric, Prof. Aguilar provided us with three guides to assess the content of material for educational purposes. On the one hand course participants had to review A Framework for Evaluating the Quality of Multimedia Learning Resources (Leacock & Nesbit, 2007), and on the other hand, we were also provided with Evaluation and Selection of Learning Resources: A Guide (Prince Edward Island Department of Education, 2008) and Evaluating, Selecting and Acquiring Learning Resources: A Guide (ERAC Educational Resource Acquisition Consortium, 2008). These three documents are fully connected to the evaluation of resources for education, but not exclusively linked to evaluating the content of webpages. These guides lead you through the evaluation of resources in all fields, from written ones to electronically produced ones.

What seems to be the problem with these guides? None! However, these guides are not necessarily attached to the evaluation of websites where educators can download material for their language learners, content students, and so on. These sites actually deal with all sorts of materials that may include flashcards to PDF documents that can be downloaded from the web as ready-made handouts for pupils. So when instructors encounter these kinds of guides produced by individuals or by companies that help teachers to get a better understanding of how to evaluate educational resources in general terms, it is unavoidable to start thinking that perhaps the production of one’s rubrics to assess webpage content is a necessity.

How can these website evaluation rubrics be produced? To start with, it is mandatory to have clearly in one’s mind what it is that one is looking for in a website: handouts?, flashcards?, online interactive practices?, lesson plans to deal with a given topic?, etc. Having these things precisely identified, one can start creating an evaluation rubric with the criteria one considers the most relevant for what is needed. It is up to the rubric creator to use an analytic or holistic one. Whatever suits one best is ideal.

There is no such thing as the perfect rubric, but the more it can be elaborated and precise, the better. Criteria need to be fully detailed and highly wrought; this thorough elaboration of descriptors can help the rubric user to really find fulfilling results when it comes to look for the perfect website to obtain material for one’s class or lesson. It is indeed fundamental that teachers review the quality of material that is downloaded from “educational” webpages. That is, it is no just to see the layout of the website, but also the content that is shared to verify that is accurate and suitable for one’s needs.

Sample Website Evaluation Rubric

Website Evaluation Rubric by Jonathan Acuña

Sample Website Evaluation Rubric Tryout with TES

References

ERAC Educational Resource Acquisition Consortium. (2008). Evaluating, Selecting and Acquiring Learning Resources: A Guide. ERAC.

Leacock, T., & Nesbit, J. (2007). A Framework for Evaluating the Quality of Multimedia Learning Resources. Educational Technology & Society, (2)(10), 44.59.

Prince Edward Island Department of Education. (2008). Evaluation and Selection of Learning Resources: A Guide. Charlottetown: Prince Edward Island.

Website Evaluation Rubric by Jonathan Acuña

Thursday, July 09, 2015

Is it So Difficult to Increase the TL in Classroom Interactions?

Teacher Development, Teaching, Teaching Practices, Teaching Styles 0 comments

Is it So Difficult to Increase the TL in Classroom Interactions?

By Prof. Jonathan Acuña Solano

Tuesday, July 7, 2015

Twitter: @jonacuso

Post 180

“With the rise of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) and a growing emphasis on oral communication skills, the role of student talk in the language classroom has become more important than ever” (Hilliard, 2014). This can be seen across the globe in ELT settings where language instructors are reluctant to use the target language (TL) as the means of instruction in the classroom, and Costa Rica is not the exception from this futile teacher practice. Knop (n.d.), in an article published by Emory University, stresses the importance the TL has in the cognitive development of students who are learning a foreign language. “Excessive TTT [Teacher Talking Time] limits the amount of STT (student talking time). If the teacher talks for half the time in a 60 minute lesson with 15 students, each student gets only 2 minutes to speak” (Darn, 2007). Then, the rhetorical question stays in the air; is it so difficult to increase the TL in classroom interactions?

Knop (n.d.) proposes a series of steps to increase the use of TL use in the classroom; what are her language practice proposals? Knop’s proposal –though not necessarily connected to the English Teaching per se- focuses its attention on the promotion of student interaction in class along with having learners use the TL; Knop’s ideas are: a) language ladders, b) day’s lesson plan on board, c) informal pair & S2S interactions, d) Gouin series, e) amount of “teacher talk,” f) authentic and appropriate input, and g) class participation in the TL. For Knop (n.d.), these classroom practices can encrease the amount of student talk, but this will not “happen overnight;” these “strategies need to be tried out and implemented in a progressive manner over a period of time” (Knop, n.d.) to really witness some language use change in classroom settings.

Hilliard (2014), similarly to Knop (n.d.), puts it simply, language teachers have to “start each class with a speaking activity,” something that is quite close to what Knop labels as language ladders. A language ladder is a “set of commonly used classroom expressions focused on classroom function.” And as Hilliard’s (2014) proposal regarding a speaking activity, Knop (n.d.) suggests using a great array of speaking activities that can set the mood for the class to start speaking, on the one hand by St2T interactions (i.e. seeking information, expressing confusion, making excuses, asking persmission, making small talk, exchanging greetings and leave-takings, giving directions, praising and encouraging, and disciplining), and on the other hand, St2St interactions (expressing likes & dislikes, expressing agreement and disagreement, giving compliments, inviting someone, and accepting and refusing and invitation). All of these suggested language ladders can be labeled as possible ways to test learner’s descriptors in the ACTFL guidelines (American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, 2012) or even traced within the can-do table proposed by ETS for the TOEIC test (Educational Testing Services, 2000).

Not only Knop (n.d.) but also Hilliard (2014) have similar suggestions regarding TL use in the classroom. Hilliard (2014) proposes to “let students do the work for you.” In this line of thought, it is possible to group Knop’s nomenclatures for the steps to follow for teacher’s lesson plans and her taxonomy for “informal pair” interactions (Knop, n.d.). Instead of fostering excessive teacher talk, Knops wants to have language students make use of the language during class interactions. “Another way of helping students understand and use the target language is to put an outline of the lesson plan” on the board, says Knop (n.d.). For this very reason, Knop adduces that it is necessary to use the lesson plan on the board at the start of class, during class, and at the end of class (n.d.). The use of the outline of the instructor’s plan can help language students to review material before major tests and quizzes; it can give language trainees a sense of transition from topic to topic and of closure towards the end of the lesson; and it can provide students with a sense of accomplishment.

“TTT often means that the teacher is giving the students information that they could be finding out for themselves, such as grammar rules, the meanings of vocabulary items and corrections” (Darn, 2007). Bearing in mind Hilliard’s (2014) idea of having learners do the instructor’s work is to follow Knop’s (n.d.) suggestions for “informal pairs” interactions. Knop (n.d.) pigeonholes ten different types of language activities in her taxonomy aiming at having students do the talking themselves: a) warm-ups, b) study of new verbs, c) learning of a dialogue, d) vocabulary study, e) grammar work, f) dictations, g) naming, h) expressing references, i) describing and j) sharing information. All these kinds of activities are great paths to guide learners towards the use of the TL language in the classroom rather than just listening to the teacher talk. As suggested by Darn (2007), “a large amount of TTT results in long stretches of time in teacher-to-class (T/class) mode and a monotonous pace. Student under-involvement inevitably leads to loss of concentration and reduced learning.” Knop’s (n.d.) thesis combined with Hilliard’s (2014) proposal can indeed produce another kind of class interaction in which student talk prevails.

Though the term Gouin Series Method is not a new term in language learning, it derives its name from its inventor, François Gouin, a French Latin teacher. The approach advocated by Gouin is “to have ‘themes’ such as The Plant and to have students memorize sentences in sequence relating to the theme” (Martin, 2009). For Knop (n.d.), Gouin Series are “organized in a logical sequence and students are usually directed to say the sentences while acting them out.” As pointed out by the author herself, Gouin Series do use “several meaning reinforcers” (Knop, n.d.), allowing students to review language and use it fully attached to meaning and use. Gouin Series will “appeal to various senses” and will “help teach appropriate behavior in a cultural activity” (Knop, n.d.). At a cognitive level, language students are motivated to be using the “three-dimensional grammar framework” endorsed by Larsen-Freeman (n.d.), where students not only exercise how a stucture is constructed, but how it is used properly within a social context and what it means for the native speakers when such a structure is built and used to convey meaning. By means of the “three-dimensional grammar framework,” which must be borne in mind by language instructors at all times, students can discover cultural information about the language, which is only encased in exercises where a critical, mental chronology of events can be sequenced. And aside from the cultural component attributed to Gouin Series, language instructors can also “engage students in active practice of the sentences and actions” (Knop, n.d.), connected in form, meaning, and use.

Hilliard (2014) recommends implementing “more authentic, communicative classroom activities.” However, though Gouin Series are a good first attempt to provoke communication in the classroom, they do not necessarily yield the expected outcome at all times. “Anything from pair work and group work, to discussions and debates, to task-based activities and games can be utilized within a CLT framework” (Hilliard, 2014). But all these intances mentioned here must be nurtured by the provision of authentic “input” in classroom interaction (Knop, n.d.). “Considering to the concept of authentic language input, Gilmore (2007) defined authentic language input as the language carrying a real message which is created by a real speaker or writer for a real audience” (Bahrani & Soltani, 2012). So how can authentic input be provided to students so they can get to use the language in class?

“Bearing in mind the nature of the communicative classroom, teachers should perhaps be aware of the quality of their TTT and how it is used rather than trying to reduce it to a bare minimum” (Darn, 2007). But still, are we providing input that is varied, authentic, and appropriate? If we are not meeting the standards set by Bahrani & Soltani (2012), we are bound to be providing inauthentic input, bound to be directing classroom activities inappropriately, or bound to exert some more control over the input that we are giving (Knop, n.d.). Authentic input/material can be imported into the classroom from various sources, and it can help studends develop the target language if used properly; otherwise, we will be responsible for its failure.

Knop’s (n.d.) unique most significant addition to the use of the TL in the classroom is not linked to authenticity in the input, but the surpassing importance of keeping track of students’ participation. “A record participation is important since in-class performance is considered an integral part of a student’s grade” (Knop, n.d.). By doing so, the instructor can know –even as backwash- where his/her attention is focused when practicing the TL in the classroom. “An ‘oral participation grade’ might be given out to students, based on the summary of point or grades earned for the frequency of their contributions and their use of the TL” (Knop, n.d.). This can be indeed used as a way to make language trainees aware of their active role or chosen passivity in the classroom. In other words, learners have to be aware of the implications of activity or inactivity in class and how it may affect their performance grade and, why not, language development, learning, and acquisition.

As neatly stated by Knop (n.d.), the increase TL use in class will not happen overnight. “Strategies need to be tried out and implemented in a progressive manner over a period of time” (Knop, n.d.). Pesce (n.d.) subscribes “to the theory that in the case of beginners, the ratio of TTT vs. STT should be 50-50, and this percentage should progressively change till you achieve a 30% TTT vs. 70% STT.” But Pesce (n.d.) points out, as suggested by Knop (n.d.), that the teacher needs to identify what really works for his/her class, but class attention, talk, and participation must be fixed upon the learner. Once these three elements are fixed on the student, the strategies proposed here can help educators increase the use of the target language in all classroom interactions.

American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (2012). ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines 2012. Alexandria, VA, USA: ACTFL.ORG.

Bahrani, T., & Soltani, R. (2012, February 2). An Overview on How to Utilize Authentic Language Input for Language Teaching. (P. M. S. Thirumalai, Ed.) LANGUAGE IN INDIA, 12, 800-807. Retrieved June 20, 2015

Darn, S. (2007, August 15). Teaching English. Retrieved June 20, 2015, from BBC British Broadcasting Corporation: http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/teacher-talking-time

Educational Testing Services. (2000). TOEIC Can-Do Guide. New Jersey, New Jersey, USA: The Chauncey Group.

Hilliard, A. (2014, February). TESOL Connections. Retrieved June 20, 2015, from TESOL Connections: http://newsmanager.commpartners.com/tesolc/issues/2014-02-01/3.html

Knop, C. (n.d.). Language Center. Retrieved June 17, 2015, from Emory College of Arts and Science: http://languagecenter.emory.edu/home/documents/constanceknop.pdf

Larsen-Freeman, D. (n.d.). Institut für Anglistik. Retrieved June 20, 2015, from Universität Innsbruck: http://www.uibk.ac.at/anglistik/staff/freeman/course-documents/tesfl_-_teaching_grammar.pdf

Martin, J. (2009, February 18). The Language Nest. Retrieved June 20, 2015, from The Language Nest: http://languagenest.blogspot.com/2009/02/designing-gouin-series.html

Pesce, C. (n.d.). Busy Teacher. Retrieved June 20, 2015, from Busy Teacher: http://busyteacher.org/13959-how-to-increase-student-talking-time-7-techniques.html

Is It So Difficult to Increase the TL in Classroom Interactions? by Jonathan Acuña

Tuesday, July 07, 2015

Open Educational Resources (OER)

Moodle, OER, Teaching With Technology, VLE, VLEs 0 comments

Open Educational Resources (OER)

By Prof. Jonathan Acuña Solano

Monday, July 6, 2015

Twitter: @jonacuso

Post 179

During an ELT Master’s Degree Program course at Universidad Latina (Costa Rica) labeled as Learning & Teaching Resources around June-July 2015, Prof. Fressy Aguilar asked participants, as part of the course goals, to design, develop, and assemble a complete module for a virtual course on Moodle. The task does not seem to be hard to achieve, but it does imply several steps that must be pursued to ensure quality.

Though Prof. Aguilar’s course does not exactly account for instructional design, some notions in this area are worthwhile having to get a quality product. Among those notions, comprehending the scope in use of Open Educational Resources is decisive and can help teaching staff to create more interactive and attractive learning tasks for students in a virtual environment such a Moodle. As soon as the assembly of the course module was over, the instructor presented us with the following task to reflect on what we had just built for our Moodle modules of the courses we had decided to virtualize.

Prof. Aguilar’s Reflective Task

On Open Educational Resources

Open Educational Resources are any type of educational materials that are in the public domain or introduced with an open license. The nature of these open materials means that anyone can legally and freely copy, use, adapt and re-share them.

In this context, "… OER are teaching, learning, and research resources that reside in the public domain or have been released under an intellectual property license that permits their free use and re-purposing by others. Open educational resources include full courses, course materials, modules, textbooks, streaming videos, tests, software, and any other tools, materials, or techniques used to support access to knowledge ….”

As part of my assembly of a module for a hybrid course on reading skills on Moodle, I actually created 3 weeks or modules for that course. And this is what my instructional design plan is:

Click Pictures to enlarge them!

However, as soon as all these pieces were put together is when, our instructor had us reflect on the OERs that were used for the assembling of the three weeks I produced. Here you have the OERs I utilized, the plan will tell you how they will be used, and you also had here the reason why they were chosen.

Resource used in the platform		Why I did choose it
http://www.scribd.com		It is a free hosting for documents that can be embedded and, consequently, displayed within the Moodle or other platforms or wikis.
http://www.myquizcreator.com		It is a website that allows users to create quizzes that can also be embedded and displayed in Moodle or other sites.
http://www.blogger.com		It is an extension part of the Google family that allows users to publish content on the web for free.
http://www.youtube.com		It is an extension of the Google family that allows users to spot tutorial that can be easily embedded in Moodle or wikis.
http://www.glogster.com		It is a site where users can create interactive posters that can be shown in class or embedded in blogs, Moodle, etc.

In brief, Prof. Aguilar had a very clear point in having us course participants to reflect upon the choice of OERs. If a resource is going to be used, there must be a good reason for doing so since it will contribute to the course success and the fostering of deep learning among students. Web 2.0 tools can indeed help the delivery of a course if used properly; the wrong and unscrupulous usage of OERs can lead course participants to failure if not planned thoroughly bearing in mind the plan’s objective to be accomplished.

Open Educational Resources (OER) by Jonathan Acuña

Sunday, July 05, 2015

Minding Student Learning in Virtual Learning Scenarios

Education and Learning, Mindfulness, Moodle, VLE, VLEs 0 comments

Minding Student Learning in Virtual Learning Scenarios

How Mindful Should Teachers be?

By Prof. Jonathan Acuña Solano

Sunday, July 5, 2015

Twitter: @jonacuso

Post 178

Since I confess myself as an inquisitive educator, some time ago, I started toying with the idea of getting rid of paper exams from my university courses at Universidad Latina (Costa Rica), but how? I had a lengthy conversation with my school director, Mr. Maynor Segura, about this assessment concern that was troubling my way of seeing student evaluation in higher education. In Mr. Segura’s office I simply asked him if the university summative evaluation on course outlines was written on stone or if I could modify the way that exams were administered in time as well as other course assignments to have the chance of grading learners on a weekly basis through small projects or segmented tests and learning tasks. I was told by the ELT Program Director that there was no problem at all in making those changes, and that was colossal news for me. From a mindfulness stance, grading students on single exams is just a way that does not provoke deep learning, and that is the one fault with this way of student grading in college; it is like if we are training them to fail in their deep learning and making them rely on surface learning as a survival mechanism.

Summatively assessing students is always something to be mindful of; but finding a suitable way to help them develop deep learning is a much more mindful act in education. Though Moodle is not exactly the perfect CMS (Content Management System) I wish I had to work with my learners, it is the one we have at the university that can help us work on summative assessment mindfully if combined with additional and vital ingredients to create the right learning virtual environment for higher education learners. If used creatively within its array of possible learning options, this multimedia learning resource can be of extensive use, thought-provoking, and helpful for learner assessment. On account of Moodle, many positive things can be stated to trigger student deep learning and, consequently, many different kinds of tasks can be employed to host hierarchical, critical thinking skills. Anyhow, no matter what multimedia learning resource a teacher gets to use, it must be kept in mind and well-explained to students what the instructor’s social and teaching presence roles are and what sort of cognitive presence is demanded from the pupil to successfully profit from their online experience in a Moodle virtual ambience.

Not knowing the possibilities I have by using Moodle, from a mere empirical point of view, I started using Google Sites as my unanimous choice to work with student deep learning (critical thinking). PBL, something I was introduced to while studying through the University of Oregon distant education program, came to help me design and develop learning tasks for students on a Google Sites environment. And though Google Sites is a good option to create a wiki where learners can visualize learning projects, Moodle can do that much easier especially because it allows the instructor to create many different kinds of learning exercises. With some basic instructional design training and the Moodle guide for novice users, educators can create robust learning exercises in various Moodle scenarios: from assignments, chats, databases, forums, lessons, and glossaries to quizzes, Scorm packages, wikis, and so on. And if you spice all these kinds of Moodle scenarios up with some PBL orientation, the product can be much more rewarding for the instructor and for the learners; assessment can be fun and highly fulfilling for the students and no need to have paper tests any more to see how much students are really achieving from a surface learning viewpoint.

How can Moodle be improved to account for real deep learning and fulfill students’ expectations in the creation of their own knowledge? Let’s be mindful for some time and think of how much we have learned in the field of education that can assist us in the design and development of learning tasks for our students. First thing that pops up in my mind is Bloom’s Taxonomy since I want to create activities that can accommodate different levels of difficulty in terms of critical and hierarchical thinking. Second thing that comes into my mind is the right encasements for a PBL (Project-Based Learning) task that can have students produce a deliverable that suits the learning objectives in the course outline and that can help them construct their own knowledge. Finally, pupil training on the usage of the platform is a must. If learners are not trained, they are bound to fail. Training is indeed important, so take advantage of the F2F contact with them during class time.

To sum up, any kind of multimedia learning resource that can come into our design and development of virtual lessons needs to be considered from all angles to envision what can happen and unscrupulously leave learners to their own fate. A mindful professional with a bit of instructional design over his/her shoulders will find the right way of working with students to help them build their knowledge, achieve course learning goals, assist them when having trouble with the CMS/Moodle, walk them through PBL tasks that summatively aids the teacher to evaluate the accomplishment of course objective, etc.