Teaching ePortfolios as Evidence for One’s Practicum

Teaching ePortfolio, Teaching Portfolio, Teaching Practices, Teaching Practicum 0 comments

(Infographic by The University of Edinburgh, 2008)

Teaching ePortfolios as Evidence for One’s Practicum

How practical and useful are these portfolios?

By Prof. Jonathan Acuña Solano

Thursday, August 26, 2015

Twitter: @jonacuso

Post 189

“Reflective self-assessment is a key competency and the most challenging aspect of learning to be a teacher” (Jaaniten, 2013). At Universidad Latina, as part of my Teaching Practicum training for ELT student teachers, reflection is key to have learners reflect upon their teaching practice and their experiences in a classroom with real learners. Our student teachers, as well as any graduate instructor elsewhere, “can learn a lot about teaching by discussing it and talking about materials and techniques but, like most skills, including using a language effectively, [they] can’t really learn it without doing it” (Gower, Phillips, & Walters, 2005). However, where should reflections be stored to attest one’s teaching reflections, materials, or even lesson plans? Is a teaching ePortfolio the answer to the former question?

As Jaaniten (2013) puts it, “it is a constant challenge in teacher education to integrate theoretical knowledge with teaching practice.” Student teachers or teachers in in-service training tend to produce lots of materials and reflect upon their particular teaching circumstances and challenges derived from their comprehension of theory and teaching strategies, but where is all that data going? It needs to be placed somewhere so others can see it. For instance, at Universidad Latina it is not mandatory to keep an ePortfolio to store and organize thoughts and materials, student teachers are encouraged to keep one that can later on be used as evidence for one’s teaching practicum experiences, especially when one lacks work experience as a language teacher with a tenure. By means of teaching ePortfolios that instructors can keep, “the builder constructs meaning, makes the learning process transparent and learning visible, crystallises insights, and anticipates future direction” (Jaaniten, 2013) in their current or future teaching.

If you are still wondering what a teaching portfolio or ePortfolio is, let us point out some of its most salient characteristics. As it can be viewed at the Center for Teaching of the Vanderbilt University (n.d.), these are the most relevant characteristics of a portfolio:

“Student teachers learn to reflect, set personal goals, develop their teacher identity, work more autonomously and collaborate” (Jaaniten, 2013). And the evidence of all these cognitive processes can be of great help for a future employer to see the potential new recruits can have in their school setting.

The benefits for ePortfolios for language professionals or student teachers are many, and it is a great idea to have one of yours to be used as evidence that can attest one’s life as a language teacher or any other kind of instructor, because “through narrative texts, student teachers are able to express their personal voices and be heard by others” (Jaaniten, 2013) such as their college professors, their mentors in school, their supervisors or coaches, and their peers. If all language teachers were into having an ePortfolio to validate their teaching experiences, it will be simply awesome to count with all this reflective journaling that can help readers understand who these teachers are, what these individuals aspire in their professional life, and the level of mindfulness that can be actually seen in their writings, planning, and so on.

References

Gower, R., Phillips, D., & Walters, S. (2005). Teaching Practice A Handbook for Teachers in Training. Oxford, GB: Macmillan.

Jaaniten, R. (2013). Integrating Theory and Practice in FL Teacher Education. In IATEFL, & T. Pattison (Ed.), IATEFL 2012 Glasgow Conference Selections (pp. 23-25). Canterbury, GB: IATEFL.

The University of Edinburgh. (2008). What is Portfolio? [Infographic]. Edinburgh, GB, Scotland. http://www.scieng.ed.ac.uk/LTStrategy/eportfolio.html

Vanderbilt University. (n.d.). Center for Teaching. Retrieved August 27, 2015, from Vanderbilt University: http://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/teaching-portfolios/

Teaching ePortfolios as Evidence for One’s Practicum by Jonathan Acuña

Thursday, August 27, 2015

A New Language Curriculum Development in Costa Rica

Curriculum Development, Methodology, Reflective Teaching, Teaching, Teaching Practices 0 comments

A New Language Curriculum Development in Costa Rica

Will this new proposal be successful?

By Prof. Jonathan Acuña Solano

Wednesday, August 26, 2015

Twitter: @jonacuso

Post 188

In July 2015 I attended a presentation where several curricular developers from the Ministry of Education (MEP) in Costa Rica presented the new language curriculum proposal for 2016. In spite of the fact that the new ELT program is rather ambitious if compared to the one that is currently in use, the puzzling question that remains floating in the air and pirouetting in the attendees’ minds (well at least in mine) is, how can this great and earnest program yield the CEF B2 mark they aspire?

Based on what we participants were explained regarding the new program, no doubt, as suggested by Richards (2001), the curricular developers from MEP followed a framework for their work. MEP developers must have considered the content for the new program, the students’ needs, contextual factors inherent to our teaching scenario, “the nature of aims and objectives” in the program, the planning of syllabi for each level, material design techniques, and the program efficacy (Richards, 2001). Additionally, as mentioned above, CEF standards and descriptors were also part of the planning of the new ELT program for high school. But was all this enough?

“How can good teaching be provided in a program?” (Richards, 2001). How can MEP authorites guarantee that the new program can yield the expected CEF level they pursue? As explained by Richard-Amato (2003) and pointed out by Richards (2001), there are several language teaching methodologies that have been in the learning scene for over a hundred years. But somehow newbies, veteran instructors, as well as teachers with just a few years of working for MEP continue to favor those ones that were popular during the 70s and 80s though the Communicative Approach was born in the decade of the 70s. A communication-oriented curriculum as the one proposed by MEP developers cannot be functional as long as no agreement in CLT-oriented methodologies is agreed by all teaching participants working for public high schools.

“In a communicative methodology, content ceases to become some external control over learning-teaching procedures” (Breen & Candlin, 1979). The agreement over content taught in class becomes crucial negotiations between “learners and learners, leaners and teachers, and learners and text” (Breen & Candlin, 1979). If learning and acquisition are meant to happen in our public high school classrooms, learning outcomes in course syllabi cannot be simply written on stone or overlooked by negligent instructors who are not that compromised with the philosophy behind the creation of this new program that really looks remarkable if compared to former ELT programs at MEP and impressive by the CEF language mastery standard that is intended to accomplish. If no CLT approches to language teaching are used, this program is going to be as useless as the one we have due to the lack of commitment from many MEP professionals.

To conclude, long held assumptions to language teaching must change to go communicative. 1) Vocabulary and grammar are not the basic units of language. For Richards (2001), “the priority in planning was vocabulary and grammar and these were seen as the main building blocks of language development.” The new MEP proposal goes beyond this way of seeing language instruction much more connected to a cognitive-code approach as explained by Richard-Amato (2003), and if teachers do not understand this, no real change will take place in the new program. 2) If new analyses were carried out, learners in our MEP programs do not have the same exact needs. No doubt the fresh programs intend to cope with different high school populations individually, and that needs to stay like that; otherwise, the program will prove no good for CEF standards. 3) Student needs cannot be simply identified as mere language needs. As Richards (2001) suggests, instructors must teach learners how to solve their problems through English; thus, the program will prove useful in the teaching of 21^st Century skills needed today in any kind of job students may hold in their future.

References

Breen, M., & Candlin, C. (1979). Essentials of a Communicative Curriculum. Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 90-112.

Richard-Amato, P. (2003). From Grammatical to Communicative Approaches. In P. Richard-Amato, Making it Happen (pp. 15-28). White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.

Richards, J. (2001). Curriculum Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge, GB: Cambridge University Press.

A New Language Curriculum Development in Costa Rica by Jonathan Acuña

Wednesday, August 26, 2015

From Grammatical to Communicative Approaches?

Methodology, Reflective Teaching, Teaching, Teaching Practices 0 comments

From Grammatical to Communicative Approaches?

How Far are Costa Rican Teachers from these?

By Prof. Jonathan Acuña Solano

Tuesday, August 25, 2015

Twitter: @jonacuso

Post 187

Though I am unsure whether my reader has gotten in contact with Richard-Amato’s (2003) book, Making it Happen, it is a great text to have us language teachers reflect upon what is happening around us in terms of language learning. As a college instructor interested in what is happening in my home country in terms of foreign language learning and acquisition, I come to ask myself how far are we from communicative approaches to teach foreign languages in our local context and teaching environment.

The more graduate students start work as language professionals, the more that I question how our teachers are being trained to deal with our teaching scenario. If humans are born with a LAD or Language Acquisition Device (Cook, 1993) based on Noam Chomsky’s linguistic postulates, which helps us learn language, why is it that our teacher students continue to work so much with non-communicative approaches? And though this is something that is re-studied and re-taken in my Teaching Practicum class with them, grammar-oriented approaches are the ones preferred by them.

Even though Grammar-Translation is not exactly present in Costa Rican teaching contexts, Audiolingualism and Direct Method are still alive in the public high school system. As explained by Richard-Amato (2003), Audiolingualism was “a new ‘scientific’ oral method” that “was based on behaviorism” as proposed by Skinner (1957). It still counts with many adepts in our teaching context because they are “adhered to the theory that language is acquired through habit formation and stimulus/response association” (Richard-Amato, 2003). No wonder how many teachers get to use books like Interchange Full Contact 1 (Richards, 2013) with lots of furmulaic scripts intending to be repeated to try to develop correct habits of speaking. If this were used, I bet lots of language teachers would be quite satisfied with their class performance, but this is not even happening when instructors start only providing translations and make their students move back in time when the Grammar-Translation approach was in vogue.

Do you still remember Lado English Series (Lado, 1978)? I must confess that I survived that Direct Method methodology used in the writing and production of the books. You probably survived similar language series from the 70s. But as Richard-Amato (2003) puts it, “books based on the direct method often move students so quickly through new syntactic structures that their internatilization becomes difficult, if not impossible.” And still today, the instructors from the old school continue to use this kind of method. But once again, teachers may spoil the whole method when they start to translate everything to their students.

I’m not exactly criticizing the Direct Method or Audiolingualism; I’m more into trying to make teachers aware that many people learned English, and other languages, by using this kind of methodologies. The one and only problem is the pervasive use of a 19^th Century method called the Grammar-Translation. It is incredible to think, and hard to believe, that teachers in Costa Rica in the 21^st Century are still transitioning to more communicative approaches, and after five years of high school language training, students barely know a few words and expressions in English as if these learners had been taught within cognitive-code approaches with a big twist into grammar-translation. Will we get into real communicative approaches some day? Only time will tell …

References

Cook, V. (1993). Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. Houndmills,Basingstoke, GB: Palgrave Macmillan.

Lado, R. (1978). Lado English Series 1. White Plains, NY: Prentice Hall College Div.

Richard-Amato, P. (2003). Making it Happen. White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.

Richards, J. (2013). Interchange Full Contact 1. Cambridge, GB: Cambridge University Press.

Skinner, B. (1957). Verbal Behavior. New York: Appleton Century Crofts.

From Grammatical to Communicative Approaches by Jonathan Acuña

Tuesday, August 25, 2015

Sound Strategies for the Integration of both Open & Institutionally Supported Technologies in One’s Teaching

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

Sound Strategies for the Integration of both Open & Institutionally Supported Technologies in One’s Teaching

How to effectively use both types of technology together

By Prof. Jonathan Acuña Solano

Monday, August 24, 2015

Twitter: @jonacuso

Post 186

“How do you effectively use both types of technology together?” As an educator working with F2F and online teaching/learning environments, the use of both open and institutionally supported technologies is a challenge. And it has been a provocation for not using open educational resources due to the lack of a manual for integrating them within a learning platform such as Moodle, Blackboard, or others. Though the task to integrate both types of technology is not meant to be easy, here you have some simple but effective suggestions I have found useful for my language and university teaching within a hybrid learning environment.

First, it is a good idea to check whether your Web 2.0 tool allows you to produce an embedding code. Embedding codes will allow you to display material from an open technology available on the Web onto your virtual space in the LMS such as Moodle. Take the case of Prezi; it is a good example of an open educational technology that is commonly used by learners and instructors to create presentations for class content. By means of its auto generated embedding code, after being used in class, the teacher can have it displayed in their virtual classroom for students to see the presentation again. Viewing the presentation may help newly-acquired knowledge consolidate and become real deep learning.

Second, something to always bear in mind is the control you must exercise over those open technologies. By control here, it must be understood the instructor’s ability to use the tool confidently. If such control is absent, desist from trying to use that open educational technology till you become an expert; you can experience lots of problems and/or embarrassing situations. But control also must mean the educator’s regulation of his/her own account for that open technology. Using somebody else’s account does not sound like a “sound” idea.

Third, exchange of ideas, practices, and insights with other colleagues is as important as knowing how to use an embedding code or having control over an open technology. Talking to partners, or even to students, can be a highly satisfying “ritual” for a community of practice. Keep in mind that you are not alone in trying to integrate open and institutionally supported technologies; other partners can have insightful notions of how open educational resources could be used within a synchronous or asynchronous teaching environment. Talk to peers and strengthen your community of practice to grow professionally.

Four, try to get a complete guide of the LMS your institution is using; that helps a lot and saves tons of time. Oftentimes, especially after an LMS training session usually led by an IT worker with no teaching background, we forget what we have been shown or demonstrated. A complete guide of all functionalities for teachers is really important to have. With it, you can start exploring what you are entitled to do within the LMS and on online forums you can see how that platform tool can be used and combined with open access technologies. Tutorials on video can also be tremendous assistance for us to comprehend what we can do and how we can do it.

I am sure that any reader can continue to add more and more points to this short list of strategies to combine the use of open and institutionally supported technologies. It is our professional expertise in their educational usage that makes us better users of them to benefit students and help us foster deep learning among our learners.

Sound Strategies for the Integration of Both Open & Institutionally Supported Technologies by Jonathan Acuña

Monday, August 24, 2015

Risks and Benefits of Using Open Technologies for Teaching

#LTTO, Online Instruction, Online Teaching Practices, VLE, VLEs 1comments

Risks and Benefits of Using Open Technologies for Teaching

Potential issues of using open technologies for teaching

By Prof. Jonathan Acuña Solano

Sunday, July 11, 2015

Twitter: @jonacuso

Post 185

What are open technologies for teaching? These sort of technologies are “often referred to as Web 2.0 or social media” (University of New South Wales, n.d.). They are of free use, but not necessarily linked to educational processes per se. “Open access technologies are usually designed around specific functions or tasks” (University of New South Wales, n.d.), which are somehow limiting for the users but also limited in what they can produce.

Are open access technologies that bad? Nope! In the absence of institutionally supported technologies, such as an LMS, they are excellent and provide the instructor with some key benefits. If an educator wants to use Web 2.0 tools in a course, it means that students may already be familiarized with it and have never considered their use of learning purposes. These technologies require very little training, and oftentimes tutorials are available to help new users get ready to use them. Additionally, they are free and constantly upgraded, provide collaboration features and some sort of privacy settings (University of New South Wales, n.d.). What any instructor needs is to really know the Web 2.0 tool to provide some sort of technical support to learners since questions may arise.

What are the drawbacks of open educational resources for instruction? No doubt that the very first problem to face is technological issues. “Some students may have trouble using some OERs [Open Educational Resources] if they have a slow or erratic Internet connection. Other OERs may require software that students don’t have and that they may not be able to afford” (University of Maryland University College, 2015). Additionally, when instructors start using Web 2.0 tools, they may find out that these tools are not compatible with or cannot be embedded onto their institution’s LMS; consequently, “no formal record” of grades can be kept, having the teachers to manually include marks on the school’s system (University of New South Wales, n.d.). Some of these open access technologies do not protect students’ privacy, and that can be a headache for both teachers and learners. The UMUC Library points out that intellectually property is another issue to consider when using OERs since “all content put online must be checked to ensure that it doesn’t violate copyright law” (University of Maryland University College, 2015). Having stated this, instructors must be guarding learners so they do not get into plagiarism trouble.

Educators wanting to use open access technologies to speed up pupils’ learning process need to consider both their advantages and disadvantages. In some cases, the fact that they are not compatible or embeddable onto an LMS does not mean they cannot be used, but they will require adjustments to be integrated into their summative assessment. Privacy is an issue, and it must be carefully thought over by teachers. Web 2.0 tools’ privacy settings must be explored plentifully to guarantee that learners will not be exposed to threats coming from other users of the Web, especially if students are underage. OERs are great tools, especially when a learning institution does not have any learning management system (LMS) nor any content management system (CMS); educators just need to be careful and sure of which open access technologies are going to be used, their pros and cons, and the reasons to use them.

University of Maryland University College. (2015, March 15). Open Educational Resources. Retrieved from UMUC Library: http://libguides.umuc.edu/oer

University of New South Wales. (n.d.). Open and Institutionally Supported Technologies. Retrieved from Learning to Teach Online MOOC.: https://d396qusza40orc.cloudfront.net/ltto/pdf/LTTO_M2%
20Open%20or%20LMS.pdf

Risks and Benefits of Using Open Technologies for Teaching by Jonathan Acuña

Sunday, July 12, 2015

What is Digital Literacy?: Its Real Meaning and Implications

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

What is Digital Literacy?: Its Real Meaning and Implications

Developing an Effective Online Teaching Strategy

By Prof. Jonathan Acuña Solano

Saturday, July 10, 2015

Twitter: @jonacuso

Post 184

What is digital literacy? Unanimously, this kind of literacy is defined as “the ability to use digital technology, communication tools or networks to locate, evaluate, use and create information” (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2008). In the very same line of thought, the University of New South Wales (n.d.) delineates digital literacy as “the technical and critical analysis abilities required to find, evaluate, create and disseminate information using different digital technologies.” And Visser (2012) encircles digital literacy as “the ability to use information and communication technologies to find, evaluate, create, and communicate information, requiring both cognitive and technical skills.” In conclusion, digital literacy, -based on what the experts believe-, implies digital technology, communication tools, the finding, evaluation, creation, usage, and dissemination of information, along with cognitive and technical skills.

At first glance, this looks like a good definition of what digital literacy is, but what about this, “The ability to understand and use information in multiple formats from a wide range of sources when it is presented via computers?” (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2008). Isn’t this a very important angle to consider when talking about digital literacy? And what if we included the individual’s ability to work on a digital environment? Digital literacy also implies “a person’s ability to perform tasks effectively in a digital environment... Literacy includes the ability to read and interpret media, to reproduce data and images through digital manipulation, and to evaluate and apply new knowledge gained from digital environments” (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2008). Now this sound like a more round-up definition for digital literacy that is inclusive of the individual who is ready to learn from digital ambiences.

But what is being lost from perspective in any of the definitions cited above is what all this means for a digitally literate individual. Is this the same for an instructor as well for a learner? Visser (2012) goes beyond this now elaborated definition and outlines what a digitally literate person is by stating that this very individual:

1. Possesses the variety of skills – technical and cognitive – required to find, understand, evaluate, create, and communicate digital information in a wide variety of formats;

2. Is able to use diverse technologies appropriately and effectively to retrieve information, interpret results, and judge the quality of that information;

3. Understands the relationship between technology, life-long learning, personal privacy, and stewardship of information;

4. Uses these skills and the appropriate technology to communicate and collaborate with peers, colleagues, family, and on occasion, the general public; and

5. Uses these skills to actively participate in civic society and contribute to a vibrant, informed, and engaged community.

(Visser, 2012)

How does all this relate to teachers and students as digitally literate individuals? Well, digitally literate instructors and learners need to somehow embody what Visser (2012) states, but how? Here you have my proposal:

The Digitally Literate Instructor & Learner by Jonathan Acuña

To sum up, digital literacy is not just digital technology, communication tools, the finding, evaluation, creation, usage, and dissemination of information, along with cognitive and technical skills. It is much more when learners and instructors are involved. Each of one of them has very specific roles and abilities to develop to make good use of virtual learning environments to teach or to acquire skills and work-related competencies.

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. (2008, October 15). What is Digital Literacy? Retrieved from University Library: http://www.library.illinois.edu/diglit/definition.html

University of New South Wales. (n.d.). Learning to Teach Online MOOC. Retrieved from Coursera.Org: https://class.coursera.org/ltto-002

Visser, M. (2012, September 14). What is Digital Literacy? Retrieved from ALA Connect: http://connect.ala.org/files/94226/what%20is%20digilit%20%282%29.pdf

What is Digital Literacy? by Jonathan Acuña

Saturday, July 11, 2015

What Had Prevented or Slowed My Engagement in Online Teaching

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

What Had Prevented or Slowed My Engagement in Online Teaching

Factors that got in the way of my adopting an online teaching practice

By Prof. Jonathan Acuña Solano

Saturday, July 10, 2015

Twitter: @jonacuso

Post 183

In hindsight, my former professional teaching life faced some impediments to become a bit more technology-oriented. As I reflect on my school days in the 70s, I still have some vivid remembrances of some of my teachers. As stated by Bentué-Alonso (2015, July 10), “when I was a schoolboy in my country the education was not facing the challenges of today. Even in that poor relevant learning model, I appreciated the best when a teacher took his role seriously and tried to teach so good as he could, playing with all the resources he got in front of him.” But if we 21^st Century instructors want to take our role seriously, we must try to teach as well as we can with the technological resources we have at our hands.

At the beginning of my teaching life, access to technology was a serious mishap in ELT. Not only did I face limitations “in [my] regular access to reliable or appropriate technology” (UNSW, n.d.), but also my students faced restraints in regards to computers. At this moment in history, at least in my EFL and higher education teaching scenarios in Costa Rica, these are no problems anymore. Our learners do have more access to technology that can help them construct their knowledge, skills, and competencies.

Access to the Internet was a big issue some ten years ago around Costa Rica. I still remember when I asked my students to download their homework projects from the university platform, and many of them claimed that they had no means to do so, needless to mention their complaints that they lacked a PC at home to develop the assignments. But now we do not fight this disadvantage anymore. Costa Ricans live in a country where 33.5% of the population have access to the Web and 67% out of this 33.5% do have access to the Internet via smartphones (Cuen, 2014, March 14). The vast majority of university students have access to the Internet and use it on a regular basis. This is not an impediment anymore to move one’s class to the worldwide web.

One of the obstacles I have personally faced with my language trainees is their inability to use technology. Just because 21st Century learners have a smartphone and regularly use social media, this does not mean that they are effective users of technology to help them learn. As a professor of mine, Dr. Deborah Healey (University of Oregon), once told us, we teachers are the ones who have to train pupils how to manage the pieces of technology we want them to use in their learning process to achieve learning goals. To do this, the instructors need to have training or self-trained themselves before the actual utilization of a technology piece in a course.

Isolation is one of those problems that can be easily fixed by an educator, so it should not be a real problem in online learning scenarios. Online instructors must have a control of the three basic presences in VLEs: instructor social presence, teaching presence, and student cognitive presence. If these three basic online presences are present, my role as instructor is to provide students with a channel to synchronously or asynchronously be in touch with me by means of virtual student attention hours or by means of email messages that will be answered in less than 24 hrs. The learners need to comprehend that they are not isolated, and instructors must not give room to isolation, either.

Information overload is another matter of contention to be aware of. At the beginning students’ usual complaint was, “Where do I get the information to work on my assignment?” And that was indeed a very good query coming from learners! After analyzing PBL strategies and seeing how WebQuests were created, we the instructional course designers of our own courses need to provide them with what is the minimum required information. From that point on, students can go on their own and search for more suitable information for their research or project purposes. Yes, the Internet is inhabited by tons and tons of information, but the first pieces need to be provided by the instructor. As soon as we understand this issue with information overload, it should not be a problem anymore.

To conclude, the “key restrictions, limitations or considerations” (UNSW, n.d.) proposed in the Learning to Teach Online MOOC at Coursera.Org are quite in force even today. Depending where our teaching is taking place, the key points are very valid for educators as well for learners. Many instructors have already started their journey towards online teaching, and though limitations will arise, go ahead and face the challenges that need to be overcome to become an online instructor.

Bentué-Alonso, X. (2015, July 10). Re: Why is online teaching important to you, and what are the benefits? [Online Forum Comment] Retrieved on 2015, July 10 from the Learning to Teach Online MOOC at Coursera.Org at https://class.coursera.org/ltto-002/forum/thread?thread_id=271

Cuen, D. (2014, March 14). ¿Es Costa Rica un paraíso en internet? Retrieved on 2015, July 10 from the BBC Mundo webpage at http://www.bbc.com/mundo/blogs/2014/03/140314blogunmundofeliz_cr_web

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

What Had Prevented or Slowed My Engagement in Online Teaching by Jonathan Acuña

Saturday, July 11, 2015