|
| 1. |
What were the curricular goals of
your project and what was the final outcome of these efforts. Be specific
in listing final outcomes. With respect to the curriculum or training
program, what was or was not accomplished and what was modified?
|
| |
A: “Cognitive objectives for students and
faculty: Knowledge of educational technology systems, policies and
applications, in the U.S. (and its subcultures) and in European
countries, particularly in teacher education; knowledge of theoretical
perspectives from anthropology, intercultural communication, comparative
education, and second language acquisition, especially as they apply to
the education of minority groups, promoting understanding and
appreciation of other cultures, educational exchange, and designing
culturally sensitive distance education programs; and understanding of
how pedagogical approaches such as student-centered learning, problem
based group project work, and action research might be applied in
different cultural settings using computer-mediated distance learning.”
Specific outcomes were:
Course materials, seminars and courses as
listed in section IV-3
Presentations for students, with and by
students in courses and conferences and published in journals and books,
as listed on the ILET web site and in student reports
Successful
experiences studying abroad including internships and repeated visits,
see section III and IV-3 and 4
Evidence of the impact of the above on
students as described in the external evaluator’s final report and
publications such as Davis & Cho (2005)
B: “Behavioral
objectives for students and faculty: The ability to work on complex
tasks in diverse international groups, face to face and when separated
in time and space; experience learning and communicating in a second
language, for both face to face and through technology; and experience
of social integration during study abroad with fellow students and
faculty, supplemented by ongoing web-based community interaction.”
Specific outcomes were:
Successful online reading groups,
courses, and mentoring experiences for students who did not study
abroad.
Successful experiences studying abroad including internships
and repeated visits (see section III).
Evidence of the impact of the
above on students as described in the external evaluator’s final report
and publications such as Davis & Cho (2005)
C: “Technological
objectives for faculty and students: Further development of technical
skills for the variety of international environments, e.g. an ability to
adapt to different computer platforms and software; and collaborative
development of innovative e-learning environments, including an
appreciation of issues related to software development across cultures.”
Specific outcomes were:
Online reading groups in over five
locations in U.S. (ISU WebCT, AACE/SITE Community Forums); U.K.
(MirandaNet discussion fora and Oracles’ Think.com), Denmark (Aalborg
University’s Virtual-U), Spain (Yahoo groups in Spanish)
Technology
to support cultural preparation, including use of the following tools to
enhance study abroad. Case studies are provided within student reports
and publications such as Davis, Cho, Hagenson & Nilakanta
(2005):
Managed learning environments, e.g. WebCT, Virtual
U
Email
Video and audio conference over the Internet, e.g.
Skype
Blog
Digital stories
Online journals, e.g. CITE special
issue
ILET web site
Pod casting is planned for 2006
D:
“Organizational objectives: Create and formally accredit a shared
certificate of Intercultural Educational Technology (IET) integrated
with the doctoral programs of 6 transatlantic universities; establish
quality assurance and intercultural internships; establish a robust
funding base with successful recruitment and expanding partnerships; and
create an international education doctoral community (a network of
people and organizations who share a common goal/interest/experiences)
on the web, linking with professional associations commercial
organizations in the EC and U.S.”
Specific outcomes were:
Shared
ILET certificate was established and many students have earned
it.
Quality assurance and intercultural internships are documented in
the ILET web site
Recruitment has gone beyond the target figures and
includes non EC and U.S. students and the consortium agreed to expand
the partnership at its final meeting in July 2005, see minutes provided
in the attachments.
Successful and ongoing partnerships with
professional and commercial organizations including MirandaNet and
AACE.
Accomplishments and modifications
All goals were
accomplished with modifications negotiated by the consortium to fit with
their circumstances and those of the students. For example, separate
courses originally described in the U.S. tradition of doctoral education
were modified into the four experiences described in IV-3 below to fit
with the varying cultures and organizational restrictions of the six
participating universities’ programs.
The handbook has been
integrated with the ILET web site, which serves many functions including
procedural, curricular and recruitment.
Some of the products were
adopted by a university, such as the Danish language and cultural
preparation and thus serve wider needs than the original intention of
this project. This provides added value and improves
sustainability. |
| |
| 2. |
What specific plan and set of
activities did you develop for language skills and cultural knowledge
acquisition? How did these activities integrate with the other curricular
activities? |
| |
The project developed the planned
transatlantic community, so it is important to note that a key finding
of the project evaluation echoed by all participants is the increase in
cultural networking and support over time. This involved many students
on multiple activities over time. Cultural and language orientation and
preparation is thus an ongoing process that is supported by curriculum,
just in time learning and human networking enhanced and supported by
computer networks. The development of language and cultural preparation
and assessment therefore was adapted to that reality and worked well.
These are now described, starting with cultural
preparation.
Cultural Preparation
The innovative practice
established by the project includes a variety of support mechanisms for
cultural preparation. The differing approaches to graduate education,
especially doctoral education, necessitate alternative approaches. U.S.
students take courses as part of their doctoral studies, this applies to
few European students (Brown et al, 2003). The following strategies and
opportunities have been established in the participating
programs:
Specific seminars and lectures on international educational
issues in educational technology. Such seminars are ongoing and
international perspectives are now an established part of the seminar
series in each doctoral program, occasionally provided by a partner
university through communication technologies. For example, Niki Davis
will use the internet to give a seminar for University of Florida
students in a foundation course on November 29, 2005. Whole courses have
also been established in all of the U.S. of the programs, often
including an experience studying abroad (see for example, Ferdig &
Dawson,2005).
The ILET fall online reading group is now an
established part of all doctoral programs for the ILET consortium and
the next Reading Group will be October 2006 (see ILET web site). The
U.S. home university provides credit where this suits student’s program
of study. European students also participate and are strongly motivated
to do so when the topic complements their scholarship focus. Therefore
reading groups take particular care to respond to students’ interests
and widen their perspectives of research and development outside their
normal cultural sphere in Europe, the U.S. and in other counties. The
2005 reading group also extended the work to contribute to a synthesis
of literature presented at the World Conference on Computers in
Education in South Africa where there was particular attention to
digital inequity worldwide (Davis & Kaparti, 2005). This successful
approach will be continued in future and serves to address some of the
concerns expressed by students and the external evaluator on the
limitation of international perspectives to the U.S. and
Europe.
The ILET web site provides ongoing support for cultural
preparation. In addition to the ILET web site, the ILET web site in
Denmark provides excellent support to students., see
http://www.hum.aau.dk/ILET/. For example the intercultural communication
(IC) section at http://www.hum.aau.dk/ILET/intercultural/intro.html is
valuable for students considering visiting any location with sections on
history of IC, theories, dimensions, culture shock, nonverbal
communication, stereotypes, other IC issues and links to future
resources.
ISU has developed a WebCT course for pre-departure
orientation for all students who study abroad, see
https://webct.ait.iastate.edu:443/public/Study_Abroad/ with support from
the project. This course and self assessment is designed for
undergraduate students. The ILET consortium has an added objective that
is to encourage our future leaders of educational technology to lead
study abroad when they become faculty, so this course is valuable in
orienting them to that audience as well as raising their awareness of
the risks and responsibilities of study abroad.
The creation and
establishment of these innovative approaches has resulted from
significant ongoing efforts during the project. For example, the first
two interns who came to Iowa State University from Denmark developed
their skills in educational technology and applied them to develop some
of these resources. The interim report to the EC noted that:
“Two
Aalborg University graduate students, Kristine Ellis and Eva Blomstrøm
Jensen, spent fall semester 2002 at Iowa State University, where they
audited a distance education class taught by Prof. Davis.
Kristine
used this developing understanding and her knowledge of intercultural
communication from her studies in Aalborg to support ISU Study Abroad
Center in the creation of a WebCT course for pre-departure study abroad
orientation.”
Continued collaboration between the partners is
establishing new partnerships between faculty in research and teaching
that also provide opportunities for cultural orientation and
recruitment. For example, a new ISU member of faculty, Ana Correia, has
agreed to collaborate in an instructional design project that will be
taught by herself and Elsebeth Sorensen to their students in ISU and in
AAU, drawing on Dr. Sorensen’s extensive experience of such teaching
collaborations.
A large number of student answers to the
internal evaluator’s final survey in 2005 to the question “What did you
gain the most from the ILET project experience?” emphasized the value of
these strategies. For example, students’ comments included:
“Find
that we are all global citizens with common hopes and dreams.
The
opportunity to get feedback on my research from different country’s
students.
International contact and confidence with intercultural
communications.
Getting to know others from different cultures has
broadened my life experience
A broad base of international scholarly
resources.
International connections.”
Language
Preparation
The ILET consortium’s main language is English, and over
time there was increasing understanding of the cultural varieties of the
English language. Project activities also occurred in Spanish (e.g. an
on-line reading group in fall 2003 and for the second part of the Summer
Academy 2005). The project also provided students with the opportunity
to work in two minority languages in Europe: Danish and Catalan. At the
same time, foreign languages and cultures were not part of the degree
program so a careful balance had to be kept so as not to lengthen the
duration of studying for a degree. The participating programs all agreed
that a language requirement could not be added to the degree
programs.
All students are required to review the ILET web site
to seek resources to support language orientation. The approach
established to support language development, includes pre-departure
orientation in which all students prepare a personal introduction to
themselves on the focus of their scholarship for each venue and to
record and archive it before departure. Where possible the introduction
is in the local language. Alternatively, students prepared this
introduction in international English or Spanish such that the foreign
audience would understand it. While abroad, each student is requested to
record at least one such introduction and reflect on it.
In
addition, where groups were traveling from one university, a
pre-departure course at the home university is designed, usually as a
blended course with online components. The course includes requirements,
information about related resources and facilitation to achieve the
result, including travel and cultural orientation.
In addition,
where individuals are sojourning for longer periods as interns, they are
facilitated by the local international coordinator to take an intensive
language course or work with an individual tutor on language and
cultural comprehension. These students are also encouraged to take a
pre-departure course in their home university where available.
These innovative practices for graduate studies in educational
technology were established through the work of the project. While most
of the students found it difficult to find time to focus on language
preparation before they traveled; most of them developed an enthusiasm
for language learning soon after their arrival in a non-English speaking
country and many continued to develop their language competence on their
return home to the U.S. or Europe. The lack of commitment to
pre-departure language learning is a common finding in study abroad
(FIPSE briefing, 2004), but the increased enthusiasm for learning
foreign language is encouraging in this innovative project. In addition,
it should be noted that the willingness of students for language
preparation has increased over time with the most occurring for the
Summer Academy in Barcelona in 2005.
The use of multiple
languages in the project’s activities is described in one of the case
studies provided in the external evaluator’s report. Many of the
participating students supported one another to learn the foreign
language(s) as part of the mentoring and support process. In addition,
U.S. students fluent in Spanish and sojourners who had returned to Spain
and Denmark supported pre-departure language learning for their peers,
face to face and via distance learning. Hence the doctoral community was
a supportive human network in this aspect as well as
academically.
The next section describes activities developed to
support the specific languages students and faculty encountered in this
project:
English: Most students visiting U.S. from Spain and
Denmark made use of language courses in the host university.
Pre-departure language preparation was an extension of ongoing language
learning. Most doctoral students regularly read papers in English and
have some or all of their courses in English, especially in
Denmark.
All participants increased their knowledge of variations
in the English language between that used in the U.S., UK, and in
international contexts. The final survey carried out by the internal
evaluator noted that “ILET experiences helped all students and faculty
understand that the same language can have different meanings in a
different culture.” This applied to web based communication, interaction
with visiting scholars and sojourns abroad.
Danish: The
development of web-based materials to support learning of Danish was the
main focus early in the project and these were successfully created and
are accessible to all students. It consists of four modules: I. Travel
to Denmark, II. Practical Information About Living in Denmark, III.
Language Preparation, and IV. Intercultural Communication. These modules
on the web at http://www.hum.aau.dk/ILET/index.html are used for
web-based pre-departure information packages for students studying at
the other ILET partner universities, and for ongoing support on arrival.
Their use has expanded to all international students visiting Aalborg.
To the project’s delight the materials were adopted by the University of
Aalborg in 2004. This adoption for all international students validated
the quality of the materials and it ensures that they will be sustained
with resources from the university. Aalborg University will ensure
ongoing maintenance and support on the web. In addition, intensive
Danish courses available in Denmark were found to be of great value
(Davis, Cho, Hagenson & Nilakanta, 2005). The project also provided
a basis for a research grant proposal to develop ‘Virtual Danish’
language instruction through a collaborative relationship between
Aalborg University and the University of Virginia developed within this
project.
As noted in the interim report to the EC DEAG: “Two
Aalborg University graduate students, Kristine Ellis and Eva Blomstrøm
Jensen, spent fall semester 2002 at Iowa State University, where they
audited a distance education class taught by Prof. Niki Davis and where
they directed/coordinated the work of a group of ISU students who
prepared a web- based pre-departure information package on Denmark. Both
Aalborg University and the individual students have invested
substantially in this work, which is of great benefit to the ILET
project as a whole. Aalborg University contributed a travel scholarship
to these students (approximately 8000 DKK each), and the students used
their Danish government grants to pay for their room and board,
(approximately 20,000 DKK each per semester.”
Spanish and
Catalan: The University of Barcelona team led by Dr. Rodriguez also
explored multimedia Spanish and Catalan language materials for use by
incoming students from the United States. The wealth of materials and
courses for Spanish did not necessitate the production of additional
materials. In contrast, Catalan had few materials. However, the ease of
Spanish language preparation led to the decision not to spend energy on
creation of materials in Catalan. Instead, existing multimedia on CD
produced by the Center in the University of Barcelona with a previous EC
grant was shared with partners and some students opted to purchase a
book published to support learning of Catalan with some of their
language stipend.
U.S. students visiting Barcelona mainly focused
on improving their Spanish through courses available at home and more
frequently abroad. One-to-one tuition was found to be a successful
alternative by one intern visiting Barcelona from UVA providing support
for mixed language support of both Spanish and Catalan. In addition, two
of the three U.S. universities purchased computer software to support
the learning of Spanish in the home area of the project (CTLT in ISU and
CTTE in UVA).
Assessment of cultural and language
development
Students’ development of language and cultural
preparation was part of their work towards the ILET certificate.
Periodic surveys of faculty and students also assessed their perceptions
of language and cultural competence, both personally and professionally
in academia.
The most sophisticated assessment occurred in the
final year of the project, during which students introduced themselves
to an international audience at least once and occasionally many times.
Most students also made a presentation upon their return home, during
which increased intercultural competence was plainly visible. Many
students also submitted multimedia artifacts or reports of their
experience that included reflections on its value. Many of these digital
stories, PowerPoint presentations and other reports may be viewed on the
ILET web site, where they also assist recruitment, pre-departure
preparation and orientation.
Particularly notable reports
include:
Rex Heer, ISU 2003, sojourn in London: digital story “Mind
the Gap”
Tom Nyvang, AAU 2002, sojourn in Iowa State University
Laura Centno Diaz, ISU 2005, sojourn in Summer Academy in London and
Barcelona
Audrey Bowser Brown, ISU 2005, multicultural perspectives
on ILET
Publications and reports also provide assessments of the
individuals and community development of language and cultural
competence, most notably:
Rema Nilakanta, 2003 sojourn in Aalborg
University described in Davis, Cho, Hagenson & Nilakanta
(2005)
External evaluator’s report of intercultural communication in
Barcelona 2005 |
| |
| 3. |
What curricular products or
educational materials were developed and implemented as a result of the
project activities? |
| |
Four major opportunities were developed for
students. As discussed in other sections, these work together to support
recruitment and ongoing participation with the transatlantic doctoral
community.
1. ILET fall online reading groups with materials
accessed thought the ILET web site and discussion groups on a variety of
web accessible locations:
2002: 2 reading groups (one in English and
the other in Spanish)
2003: 1 reading group
2004: 1 reading
group
2005: no reading group
2006: 1 reading group
planned
2. ILET Summer Academies
2003 in Institute of
Education, University of London
2004 in University of Florida
2005
in Institute of Education, University of London, & University of
Barcelona
2007 in Institute of Education, University of London
planned
In addition to on-site activities, students also participated
in online environments including an ISU WebCT course. These remain as a
foundation for the next Summer Academy.
3. ILET internships
negotiated on an individual basis. See IV-4 for details.
4.
Occasional seminars and lectures within courses for doctoral students,
plus additional occasional seminars that often resulted in invited
seminars for partner universities. One example for each year of the
project is:
2002 Elsebeth Sorensen, AAU, visiting ISU seminar on
electronic portfolios collaborating across EC and U.S. and
disciplines
2003 Seminar presentations by returning students within
weekly seminar series of their home universities (ongoing
expectation)
2004 Andrew Brown, IOE, keynote speech for AAU Masters
Program
2005 Niki Davis, ISU, seminar “International perspectives on
educational technology” for a foundations course in UF (provided since
2002). On November 29, 2005 this will also be an additional seminar open
to ISU students.
2006 Elsebeth Sorensen, AAU, and Ana Correia, ISU,
will team teach a joint project for their classes over the
internet. |
| |
| 4. |
If the project involved internships
or work placements, how successful were these? How were these experiences
integrated into the program of study? What lessons were learned from this
experience? |
| |
Internships were extremely successful and
continue to be arranged on an individual basis as described on the ILET
web site under Academic Programs:
“ILET Internship
The ILET
project established the immense value of internship opportunities; see
stories of ILET interns such as Rema Nilakanta, Olatz Lopez, Tom Nyvang
( Davis et. al., 2005; Davis & Cho, 2005). While semester-long
internships as visiting scholars will be encouraged, a series of shorter
visits linked by ongoing communications is also encouraged because that
approach may be adapted to an individual graduate student’s personal
responsibilities. Please read Student Experiences, including Meredith
diPetro, and Hugh Crumley.
Students interested in applying for an
ILET Internship should browse expertise in ILET Organizations and
descriptions of Student Experiences. Students considering an ILET
Internship are strongly encouraged to participate in an ILET Online
Reading Group and/or Summer Academy where possible.
ILET internships
are limited to students from ILET universities. To express an interest
in an internship please send an email listing your home university,
supervising faculty or major professor, the partner university you with
to visit (if known) and the focus of your scholarship to the ILET
coordinator in your home university with a copy to ilet@iastate.edu with
the subject line: ILET Internship.”
Notable examples are:
2002
Kristine Ellis (AAU) intern as curriculum developer with intercultural
expertise in ISU Study Abroad course development in WebCT
2003 John
Fraser (IOE) intern as adjunct faculty in ISU
2004 Hugh Crumley (UVA)
intern in Aalborg University with e-learning expertise interned with
Danish language preparation team led by Dr. Goetzsche
2005 Heather
Tillberg interned as visiting faculty in University of Barcelona center
led by Jose Luis Rodriguez
Reports are provided under student
experience on the ILET web site and in Davis & Cho (2005) and that
web site also contains a wealth of information to promote students’
negotiation of an internship in the future.
The lessons
learned were:
A: A student/intern/faculty visiting ISU (also a
member of faculty member in IOE) noted a lesson learned by many project
participants as follows: “I found visiting and meeting staff and
students and being for a short time part of these communities of
practice to be very interesting, worthwhile and empowering. It made me
think much more clearly about my own [doctoral] research ideas as well
as being able to compare and contrast what happened at the IOE /UK with
what is happening at ISU/USA.”
B: Technology is also important
in internships and the interns found many innovative ways to use a wide
range of technologies to continue to collaborate with their networks
when abroad and on their return home.
C: A semester- long
internship was rarely possible for graduate students with their
responsibilities, so a pair or series of visits abroad was a more
successful model for the majority of participants.
D: The life
changing nature of this experience for interns, who strongly recommend
it to peers. This also applied to accompanying family. For example, Rema
Nilakanta (in Davis et. al., 2005) describes benefits for her and her
daughter personally and academically.
Teaming visiting students and
faculty with potential travelers was a successful recruitment technique
reducing anxiety and enabling potential travelers to understand the
additional opportunities available abroad for study and cultural
awareness. This support also included language and cultural orientation
before departure and after arrival.
E: Rick Ferdig pioneered a
successful acceleration technique with Meredith DiPietro when she
accompanied him on a short faculty visit to London and then Meredith
returned in May on her own.
F: Research projects and teams
provided excellent ‘communities of practice’ (this term is explained in
E. Wenger’s publications and note that he was visiting in AAU in fall
2004) for interns to join and they often went out of their way to
support the intern’s own research. For example, Meredith DiPietro
interning in IOE London Knowledge Lab negotiated membership of the group
developing and researching computer games. When this research group led
by Professor Buckingham found that their granting agency would not
permit Meredith to work on the current grant, they enabled her to use
techniques to gather her own data and she remains a ‘legitimate
peripheral participant’ in this research network, which provides her
with enormous support for her own research.
G: The value of a
range of activities to recruit and accelerate intercultural development
and promote understanding of the value of study abroad is emphasized.
For example, in case study 2 in the external assessor’s report describes
and early intern’s experience( p 46):
““Being in this program brought
me much more than I ever imagined and it still keeps giving!! I went to
the U.S. for an internship, then to London for summer school–a great
experience-meeting more people–then to Florida! When you go to other
places and meet people there, you get an exchange going, and later it
may go dormant, but when others arrive the network jumps to life again!”
This student hadn’t expected to experience such a “massive network that
continues to grow!” She claimed that she “wasn’t aware that these things
happen–and now I am aware–I was at a naïve starting point.” She was
convinced that there was the potential for job opportunities as a result
of her involvement in this program, especially in another
country.” |
| |
| 5. |
If the project involved the use of
technology, Web-based learning, or other electronic resources, describe
the development and implementation of this approach and the lessons
learned. |
| |
The project provided leadership in the use
of educational technology as described under objective in IV-1C
For groups considerable use was made of
Web sites,
particularly the ILET web site, Aalborg university study abroad web
site
Managed learning environments, especially ISU’s WebCT
Internet video conferencing
PowerPoint presentations and digital
stories
Online academic journals, one on either side of the
Atlantic
Professional societies web sites and related discussion
fora
A list of technologies used in cultural preparation is
provided earlier within answer to question IV-1.
Answer IV-8
noted that technology is also important in internships and the interns
found many innovative ways to use a wide range of technologies to
continue to collaborate with their networks when abroad and on their
return home. For example the student interviewed by the external
assessor for case study one commented (p. 45):
“She suggested that
the ILET website was a “wonderful resource” and emphasized the need to
“maybe work more on it and show more of the things we are doing.” She
suggested “perhaps using blogs.”
This has now been done. A UF
student created and used a blog successfully while interning in
Barcelona, sharing it with her personal and professional communities on
both sides of the Atlantic. She illustrated this in the joint keynote
with Niki Davis for the Barcelona conference that was the culminating
activity for the 2005 Summer Academy.
Interviews with ILET
faculty in 2004 provided a range of answers in relation to technology
use. Since then the use of additional technologies, including Blogs,
have been applied and plans for 2007 include Podcasting from the ILET
web site. The list brainstormed in 2004 was:
“- Designed online
reading group on the web
- Sojourn students (e.g. Rema) held video
conference to share her ILET experience in Denmark with students at
ISU.
- Technology helped students access information on other
cultures
- Students experienced collaborative learning experience
with other scholars without mobility
- Helped students gain
confidence to other culture and prepared them to meet the challenge of
inter-culture.
- Online reading groups helped students broaden
perspectives on the academic work
- Email exchange, internet, and
telephone conference, etc. were used as effective tools to students
broaden the perspective on the challenges of global, knowledge-based
economy.” (ILET internal evaluation team) |
| |
|
| 6. |
Please discuss the impact that this
project had on students at your campus and at other campuses. How did this
project impact mobility students? How did this project change student
learning in your program or department? How did this project lead to
better student language learning? How did it give students exposure to
other cultures? How did this project impact non-mobile students?
|
| |
A: How did this project impact mobility
students?
As described earlier in the abstract and in IV-2, the ILET
project has established a transatlantic community of practice for
doctoral students, faculty and other graduate student and staff who
share a passion for educational technology. Over time this community has
become increasingly mobile and interlinked through the use of
information and communication technologies and the role of ambassadors
who have studied abroad, particularly the longer sojourners who have
become members of research teams or established new partnerships of
their own.
The mobility within these programs increased
dramatically in all three U.S. universities that had a base of zero or
almost zero for graduate students in education. European universities
had established practice stimulated by the E.C. Socrates initiative, so
this program increased participation and travel to the U.S. The
exception is AAU, where study abroad has been part of the program and is
supported within doctoral scholarships by the Danish government. In AAU
the largest change has been on development of alternative approaches
supported with communication technologies described later.
Mobile
students have become increasingly mobile as will be described in IV-7.
Examples have been given in the external assessor’s report and in
project publications (Davis et al, 2005 a, b). More than half those
studying abroad have visited more than one university and this will
continue to be encouraged. Sojourner’s stories and the networking will
encourage this. Participation of masters’ students in E.C. and U.S. has
consistently encouraged them to aspire to a doctoral program in one of
the partner universities in the future. Students are also drawing other
students into study abroad with visits planned in spring 2006. Almost
all U.S. students plan to return to Europe as well as continue
collaboration through communication technologies with the international
network established through ILET, and at least one has started to write
a Fulbright proposal. Also, several students plan to lead study abroad
when he or she becomes faculty.
The faculty who have traveled
with ILET have also proved to themselves and others that such visits
bring new perspectives and increased knowledge to support both teaching
and research. In some way they have also studied abroad and learned from
the process.
B: How did this project change student learning in
your program or department?
ILET introduced and/or enhanced an
international dimension in the curriculum at all six universities, and
also in the scholarship of the supporting professional organizations
(SITE and MirandaNet). The courses, online reading groups and summer
academies, introduced earlier are the most overt evidence of changes,
plus the use of the word international and intercultural in descriptions
of courses and programs. It is interesting to note that international
students (originating outside the Europe and the U.S.) who participated
in ILET also become acculturated into the local context so much that
they need encouragement and role models to support them to retain and
develop their international perspectives, including that of their home
culture’s scholarship. This was noted by an ISU interning in London
(Lily Compton), who was reminded to revisit Malaysian and European
literature on teaching English as a foreign language and computer
assisted language learning.
It is also notable that the
expertise available to student and faculty has grown as a result of ILET
in relation to the point about the literature and also in additional
areas of expertise, such as computer games mentioned in IV-4. Computer
games in education are researched and developed within the U.S. but not
within the consortium; similarly virtual language learning is studied in
Europe but partnership with UVA and ISU has added depth and breadth to
knowledge in AAU.
Finally, it should be noted that many faculty
were nervous about ‘losing’ their graduate students when they studied
abroad. Similarly, there was initial resistance to visiting scholars
because they would take up faculty time. ILET has shown that graduate
students studying abroad can be a useful resource to faculty bringing
knowledge and insights and that, rather than losing their graduate
students, students studying abroad have brought valuable knowledge and
networks back to their faculty at home and most remained networked
within the home research team while studying abroad. A student who
pioneering this approach well was Olatz Lopez, UB, studying abroad in
ISU. Olatz gathered expertise and literature on electronic portfolios to
inform the national research project in the University of Barcelona,
facilitated by monthly virtual meetings with her major
professor/supervisor, Jose Luis Rodriguez, while in ISU. She returned to
UB with a suitcase full of books purchased to support that research.
C: How did this project lead to better student language
learning?
The ILET project established a reason for students
learning a foreign language and understanding that there are a number of
international dialects of English. Awareness of this dimension and the
need to develop competence will continue to be raised within the
community with activities as described in section IV-2. As explained
there, while language learning cannot become a requirement of these
programs because they focus on aspects of educational technology,
intercultural competence requires that educators understand the
challenges and personal deficiencies in communication. The increased
enthusiasm for learning a foreign language(s) was noted earlier, and
this is completely new to the four English-speaking universities’
programs.
The creation and adaptation of materials, including
online and self-study experiences for minority languages in Europe led
to better learning of Danish and Catalan, especially Danish.
D:
How did it give students exposure to other cultures?
Students were
and are exposure to other cultures in many ways. Exposure to other
cultures has been described in much of section IV. It should also be
noted that learning in the ILET courses and mentoring a visiting scholar
also provides significant exposure to other cultures.
The use of
online courses is notable including: ILET online reading group; ILET
online course blended with Summer Academies; and the ISU WebCT
orientation course for study abroad.
E: How did this project
impact non-mobile students?
Non mobile students have been and are
impacted by all four of the course experiences described in IV-3:
1.
Reading groups are fully open to all mobile students.
2. Summer
Academies impact non-mobile students in the location of the academy,
where they are encouraged to join in as much as possible. Returning
students make presentations on the experience within a seminar and
provide additional resources within a course, where relevant.
3.
Internships bring foreign students into partner universities where they
join in with relevant current activities and give at least one seminar
and/or discussion session. Non-mobile student mentor visiting students
and learn about their culture and challenges.
4. Occasional
lectures, seminars and joint projects by visiting faculty or for
consortium universities using communication technologies bring faculty
and their students into the view of non-mobile students.
Impacts
noted are similar to those for students studying abroad but of a less
intense nature: improved scholarship focus; knowledge of complementary
literature and resources; appreciation of culture and language
differences, including their home language and culture(s); and
motivation to learn or revive a foreign language. The most important
impact perhaps, is that the experience has motivated students to study
abroad and helped them realize it could be practical for this individual
with perseverance in negations at home and abroad, personally and
professionally. |
| |
| 7. |
Did you meet the stated goals for US
student mobility as outlined in your proposal? |
| |
| Exceeded the goal
(by how many students?) 28 | |
| |
|
| |
Please explain in your report any reasons
why you have not met your target for student mobility. Please explain what
you are doing to recruit students and how your consortium plans to
continue to support student mobility when federal funding runs
out. |
| |
The goal was exceeded by 28, and this
almost doubled the planned number of student studying abroad. In
addition, more than half of those studying abroad visited more than one
transatlantic university, so the number of students received is triple
the number planned.
1. Students are being recruited through the
ongoing activities of the ILET project described in the IV-3 and in
IV-6. Future events already planned are:
- Visits from interns, e.g.
Margaret Leachy (IOE) return to ISU in summer 2006.
- Online reading
group for fall 2006
- Summer Academy in London June 2007
2. The
ILET web site and its partner web sites support recruitment. The web
site will be logged with recruitment web sites, as planned originally.
3. The university program’s brochures promote their international
dimension, see the AAU brochure attached.
4. Students who did not
qualify for support from the E.C. or U.S. provide relevant stories for
future students now federal funding has run out.
5. Drs. Sorensen
(AAU) and Correia (ISU) have agreed to teach a common project in their
courses in January 2006.
6. The consortium and partners within the
consortium have written grants to support activities related to ILET, as
planned. For example:
- ISU Council of International Programs
provided a grant to support ILET startup as noted in the ILET proposal
to FIPSE
ISU has submitted a grant proposal to the National Science
Foundation to implement aspects of ILET within the ISU multidisciplinary
program of Human Computer Interaction (HCI). This is still pending.
- Grant proposals to NAFSA and Microsoft for research on the
strategies developed by this consortium were unsuccessful.
- An E.C.
networking proposal led by UB was not successful.
- Dr. Correia has
submitted a grant proposal to ISU Council of International Programs to
support her collaboration with Dr. Sorensen (see 5 above) and explore
extension with her Alma Mata, the University of Minho in
Portugal. |
| |
| 8. |
Please describe how you and your
partners arranged agreements on credit recognition, transfer for work done
by students abroad, and tuition and fees. |
| |
The consortium decided to treat students
studying abroad as if they were faculty who were visiting scholars, and
this was particularly important for longer sojourners. In common with EC
and U.S. faculty visiting in the EC and U.S., there was no charge for
services and also few expectations beyond a desk and collegial support.
The ILET coordinator provides local supervision, or delegates that to a
more appropriate colleague and monitors it.
Credit recognition
for Summer Academies was only useful for U.S. students – courses are not
part of most Ph.D. programs in Europe. U.S. partners provided that
credit recognition for their own students who studied abroad. Similarly
additional fees were managed through each student’s home university
where necessary. ILET coordinators paid the reduced or no conference
fees for their students and passed that expense to their students, where
necessary.
The ILET certificate is administered by participating
faculty. It is authenticated by faculty signatures on the certificate
and students are listed on the ILET web site. The award is not noted on
each student’s transcript to circumvent a range of charges and
procedures encountered within each university. |
| |
|
| 9. |
Describe in what ways the
development and implementation of your project has been supported by the
participating faculty members. How many consortium meetings have been held
in each year and in the final year, and what were the outcomes of those
meetings? Have all partners been active? If not, why not? |
| |
All universities have supported this
project throughout, including faculty, international officers and center
staff. All university and professional partners have been active and
remain active. The external assessor was present for the final meeting
and his report confirms the health of these partnerships.
The
project held a meeting at each EC-US program conference and an
additional meeting each year, usually in a partner university after the
Summer Academy. The final meeting was held in Barcelona in July 2005
following the very successful ILET Summer Academy 2005.
The
outcomes of consortium meetings supported coordination, curriculum and
organizational development and recruitment described elsewhere. The
minutes of the final meeting are provided included this section on
future plans are quoted below:
“Future Collaboration
The
consortium agreed to continue to promote and facilitate students
visiting partner universities, particularly using approaches that had
proved successful:
Visits accompanying faculty and by students alone.
It was emphasized that while funding issues would increase, students
could find ways with faculty support.
Summer Academy, particularly in
Europe associated with events that have already proved successful, e.g.
the IOE has agreed that ILET faculty and students enhanced the IOE
Doctoral Student conference. The consortium agreed to undertake the next
ILET Summer Academy in 2006 or 2007.
The online reading group will
continue in the fall, (the next course is set for fall 2006).
Research and promotional efforts would be supported by
all.
Meeting would take place where possible and the potential to
meet during the AERA conference was noted. The SITE conference does not
meet the interests of all participants.
Janeen Smith Jorgensen
[the ILET expert on student exchanges] noted that the Memorandum of
Understanding (MoU) should be revisited along with a report of the
successes of the project to the senior signatories. The consortium
agreed to work together to achieve all 6 signatures on a new MoU built
upon the old one, but without using express mailings (e.g. Fed
Ex).” |
| |
| 10. |
What faculty development activities
occurred and what faculty exchanges took place? What were the results of
these activities and exchanges? Be specific with regard to individual
faculty and institutions. |
| |
Sections A and B below provide a list of
faculty and staff exchanged during the project. Faculty marked with a *
traveled each year. The others traveled to ILET meetings only once or
twice. Each participating member of faculty is only listed once.
A: Consortium faculty and staff traveled from Europe to US, from
the year of the first journey.
A total of 10 faculty from the EC
traveled to the U.S. starting before 2002, and several faculty traveled
more than once. All partners also attended all EC-US program conference
meetings in the U.S. Adam Unwin is both faculty and doctoral student in
IOE.
The ILET-related visits were:
Andrew Brown*, IOE, who
traveled to UF and the SITE conference
Paul Warns, tech staff in IOE,
who traveled to ISU
Norbert Pachler, IOE, who traveled to UVA
Adam
Unwin, IOE, who traveled to ISU
Janeen S Jorgensen*, AAU, who
traveled to all three US universities and ISU four times.
Elsebeth
Sorensen*, AAU, who traveled to ISU twice and UF once
Hans Goetsche,
AAU, who traveled to UVA
Jose Luis Rodriguez*, UB, who traveled to UF
and the SITE conference
Ana Escofet, UB, who traveled to the SITE
conference
María José Rubio, who traveled to UVA
B:
Consortium faculty and staff traveled from U.S. to Europe, from the year
of the first journey. A total of 12 faculty from the EC traveled to the
U.S. starting before 2002, and several faculty traveled more than once.
All partners also attended all EC-US program conference meetings in the
U.S. (except for Rick Ferdig who was delayed by weather from visiting
Portugal). The visits were:
Niki Davis*, ISU, who visited all three
universities and traveled each year of the project
Victor Udin, ISU
International Officer, who attended the first EC-US program meeting in
Germany
Walt Gmelch, ISU Dean, who visited IOE with first MoU for
signature
Ann Thompson, ISU department chair, who visited IOE
Rick
Ferdig*, UF, who visited all three universities
Kara Dawson*, UF who
visited all three universities
Tom Dana, UF Department chair, who
visited IOE and UB
Z Schoeny*, UVA, who visited IOE and UB (ill
health resulted in AAU visit cancellation)
Glen Bull, UVA Center
Director, who visited IOE
Gina Bull, Tech staff, who visited
IOE
Walt Heineke, UVA, who visited IOE and UB
Mable Kinzie, UVA,
who visited IOE and UB
Results of the exchanges
All
faculty took part in and enhanced Summer Academies, with the exception
of those marked with a – who had individual project objectives. For
example:
Dean Gmelch, ISU visited IOE and brought the first ILET
two-way MoU between the IOE and ISU for signature by himself and the
director, Professor Whitty.
Hans Goetsche, AAU, visited with his
doctoral student Susanna to build knowledge and experience with “virtual
Danish” and this resulted in improved resources for the project and his
university as well as a grant proposal.
Janeen Smith Jorgen,
AAU, visits all six universities to facilitate student exchanges both
for ILET and for wider university programs. She visited ISU each year
and plans to continue.
Elsebeth Sorensen, AAU, visited ISU on
many occasions for both collaborative research and teaching reported
elsewhere in the report.
Niki Davis, ISU, has a part time
contract with the IOE from the start of the project which will finish in
March 2006. As a result she spent June every year of the project in the
IOE and has doctoral students in both programs.
The external
evaluator’s report is particularly helpful in noting changes described
by faculty who participated in Summer Academies and given the objective
of forming a transatlantic community the fact that both faculty and
students benefited in similar ways is notable. This quote comes from the
concluding section on p 70:
“A constant feature of this project was
the emphasis on teaming, collaboration, partnering, and cooperation.
Students and faculty learned, practiced, and enhanced their ability to
work on complex tasks in diverse international groups on academic and
social levels that required often intense levels of mutual support,
interaction, and flexibility. The development of trust and respect were
paramount features of the success of these endeavors. Behavioral
patterns were changed by the force of opportunity and necessity as
learning and communicating in a second language became a necessity,
where web-based community interaction became commonplace and expected,
and where cross cultural social skills became a survival skill. These
skills were applied in face-to-face situations and across cultural and
distance boundaries through the medium of interactive
technologies.”
The faculty and staff visits have also improved
sustainability of the project’s strategies. Evidence of this comes from
the UVA faculty, who have been particularly helpful in assisting ILET
coordination during the ill health of their coordinator in 2005.
|
| |
| 11. |
Were there any programmatic,
departmental, or institutional changes that occurred as a consequence of
faculty involvement in the program (i.e.; new faculty hired, new courses
offered, new programs started, etc.)? |
| |
The following changes can be ascribed to
the project:
Summer Academy and related international course
introduced in all three U.S. universities.
IOE Doctoral School
ongoing welcome to ILET partners at its doctoral school
conferences.
Established internship and ILET certificate.
Brochures and items included on ILET/international dimensions. (e.g.
attached brochure from AAU)
Improvements in all universities’ use of
technology to support study abroad and incoming international
students.
The following are related to the ILET project in
addition to other developments:
- Niki Davis’ ISU Award for
International Service (2005)
- Ana Correia hired by ISU in 2005 to
join the CTLT and to teach in its graduate programs. Dr. Correia chose
ISU because of its international mission. She was born an EC citizen in
Portugal who completed her bachelor and Master’s degrees in the
University of Minho and wishes to continue an international dimension to
her scholarship in instructional design. She has been awarded an
international ISU grant to travel to Europe in 2006 to support
this.
- Andrew Brown became director of IOE Doctoral School in 2005
(a minor contributing factor)
- First European Doctoral candidate in
UB, Olatz Lopez, ILET certificate holder
The following welcome
message from AAU Dean on ILET web site there illustrates the
programmatic and institutional changes in all six
universities:
“WELCOME U.S. DOCTORAL STUDENTS IN INTERCULTURAL
EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY
We are pleased that you will enroll in Aalborg
University's Doctoral School for Human Centered Informatics, as part of
the International Leadership in Educational Technology (ILET) program.
This website is designed to help you prepare for your study abroad
experience. It includes both practical and theoretical information, as
well as exercises, cultural "tidbits," and contact with Ph.D. mentors.
Two sections of the website deserve special mention: An
intercultural communication self-study guide, and some web-based
instruction in the Danish language.
The website has been created by
teams of students helped by staff and faculty advisers at ILET partner
universities. Funding has been provided by a variety of sources, as
indicated in the credits section.
We hope that you will find the
information and exercises useful, and we welcome suggestions for
improving the content and design.
Ole Prehn, Dean, Faculty of
Humanities” |
| |
|
| 12. |
Did you conduct a formal evaluation
of the project? If so, briefly describe your evaluation efforts. Who
conducted the evaluation? |
| |
Two formal evaluations were carried
out:
1. Mi Ok Cho under the leadership of Mari Kemis of the ISU
Research Institute for Studies in Education carried out the internal
evaluation. She was also assisted by Niki Davis, where relevant.
2.
Ian Gibson, Wichita State University and now Macquarie University,
Sydney, was the external assessor for the project.
In addition,
participants conducted additional research of aspects of the project
both faculty and students.
Both formal evaluations were
descriptive and analytical using multiple sources of data from a range
of sources including survey, interview and artifacts.
Davis and
Cho (2005) discuss the measurement of intercultural competence,
including the recommendations from the literature to use portfolios.
They also describe the evaluation efforts in April 2004 as follows: “The
ILET project was unable to require additional requirements of portfolio
construction within all the programs. Therefore, individual artifacts,
self-reports, email interviews, face-to-face interviews, and survey
questionnaires have been used to collect data. Analyses produced
descriptive statistics related to participation and illustrations of the
two key factors identified earlier, namely openness and flexibility.”
(p. 11)
The summative internal evaluation of the ILET project
conducted quantitative surveys of student and faculty in 2005. For
sojourn students, an e-mail interview has been conducted and carried
out. The collected data from surveys and interview includes information
of student’s academic and living culture, the use of technology in the
ILET program, and the impact of the program on individual’s profession
as well as the institutional change. Along with these evaluation tools,
individual journals and self-report have been used to supplement the
quantitative data. Documents from the faculty’s e-mail, meeting notes,
and comments also contributed to evaluation data. Student’s presentation
and papers also used to evaluate the impact of the ILET project on
student’s academic achievement.
The external assessor’s report
contains a detailed account of his expertise and methodology. His
methodology was similar to that of the internal evaluation team, plus
independent observation. He gathered data during 2004 Summer Academy in
UF and more comprehensive data during 2005 while attending the Summer
Academy in London and Barcelona, plus visits to IOE, UB and to AAU. Thus
visits were made to one U.S. university and all three European
universities. In addition, the assessor attended ILET presentations
during SITE conferences. |
| |
| 13. |
Please describe what was learned
from the evaluation regarding the effectiveness of the following:
curriculum development; student learning; student language and cultural
learning (describe how this was measured); internships and other
activities. Please describe what evidence, if any, you have that students
made gains in language skills and cultural knowledge. |
| |
Student learning, language and culture:
Major findings from internal evaluators’ quantitative survey data along
with the qualitative interview data indicated that students gained broad
knowledge on doctoral research, educational technology, and new academic
perspectives. The data indicated that the project allowed students to
prepare for the future academic career and to gain the knowledge of the
global, knowledge-based economy. Students were highly motivated to learn
other languages and culture. Through the program, students were able to
communicate with others from different culture and that made them
open-minded and flexible to other culture. Students became more patient
with other academic settings and culture when they experienced conflict
in the collaborative learning. The collected data from student’s
journals and self-reports indicated that they became more confident to
challenge other academic culture as well as living culture. Students
also understood that even the same language can have different meaning
to different people. In that way, students realized the importance of
intercultural communication skills. Student’s self-reports and the
survey data also indicated that students built their international
contact and confidence with intercultural communications through the
ILET project.
Students provided the following curriculum
(academic) and cultural reflections in response to the question “What
did you gain the most from the ILET project experience?” split below
into two lists, academic and cultural:
Academic/curriculum
reflections:
-Gained interest in preparing future teachers for study
abroad experience
-The ILET project has impacted on my research on
e-learning.
-Gave me opportunity to expand my technological expertise
and scholar interactions with other university partners
-Access to a
broader set of academic resources and papers
-Share ideas with
scholars from different countries
-Knowledge and experience of
different school organizations
-The opportunity to get feedback of my
research from different countries’ students
-Gain presenting
experience and make contact with other scholars
-Insight into the
differences between US and UK doctoral program
-International
connections
-Broadened my perspectives on educational communications
technology
-A broad base of international scholarly
resources
-Networking with professionals and peers of similar
interest
-Found many common concerns and challenges exist
-Learned that higher education is structured quite differently
-
Amazed at the amount of research going on in other countries that we are
not aware of
Cultural reflections:
-Learned language is not
always the barrier, that common interests and general human nature can
overcome communication problem
-Facilitated me to experience life in
another university
-Digitally rich environment of ISU is wonderful to
experience
-Opportunity to visit historical sites in other
countries
-Opportunity to share with and house interns from other
countries
-The feeling of community that traveling with a diverse
group of people brings
-Bring a wide range of past life experiences
to the table
-Made a friend from other countries and we share common
academic interest
-Everybody I met in UK was helpful and
friendly
-International contact and confidence with intercultural
communications
-Independence, traveling smart and safe
-Expanded
my knowledge of different cultural perspectives and norms
-Find that
we are all global citizens with common hopes and dreams
-Many
Americans take for granted the abundance of opportunities that we
have
-Getting to know others from different cultures has broadened my
life experience
The external assessor’s report confirms and
validates the internal evaluators’ findings. The following summary is
taken form the final section of the report (p. 68-9):
“The ILET
project provided extraordinary opportunities to develop a deep
understanding and appreciation of other cultures, and in the process,
opportunities for the healthy appraisal of each student’s home culture
and its place in the global village. This focus was constant, pervasive,
and ubiquitous throughout the program.
Opportunities for second
language acquisition and the enhancement of language mastery for
speakers of more than one language abounded in this project.
Opportunities ranging from immersion in foreign cultures to web-based
resources were provided for those willing to take up the challenge.
There were clearly two levels of second language learning acquisition in
evidence in this project. One focused upon students from multi-lingual
cultural backgrounds, and the other focused upon students from
monolingual cultures. Within these boundaries, some students, usually
those originating from European locations, gained substantive and deep
experience with their second, and often their third language. Some of
these students were being challenged to write and present at complex and
deep levels of academic and intellectual processing. Others, usually
students from the United States, gained an awareness of the value of
second languages and usually explored a second language at an
introductory, superficial level of social interaction. Notwithstanding
this reality however, it is fair to suggest that most students who took
the opportunity to travel to a destination where a foreign language was
dominant, came away from the experience with an openness and greater
sensitivity to other language cultures than existed prior to the
experience.”
Finally, student reports and digital stories on the
ILET web site abound with many examples, starting with the exemplary
“Mind the gap” by Rex Heer in 2004. |
| |
|
| 14. |
Summarize the institutional and key
personnel changes that took place over the life of the grant. At the time
of the final report what was the membership of the project? |
| |
No changes in consortium membership by
universities or professional societies.
Collaboration with the
Universal Forum of Cultures was abandoned when the Forum changed their
central focus away from education in 2003. Although Oracle has continued
to offer sponsorship for reading groups in Think.com, the consortium
agreed that the K-12 nature of this environment was not suitable at
graduate level and the reading group was moved to alternative
environments in 2004.
Niki Davis has become Director of ISU CTLT
and joined London Knowledge Lab in IOE.
Andrew Brown has become IOE
Head of Doctoral School |
| |
| 15. |
What general agreements for courses,
internships, and exchanges now exist among the partners? Have these
agreements been successful in sustaining your project? What were the
challenges in securing these agreements? What arrangements have been made
to continue the curriculum and mobility agreements? What are the plans for
the next five years? |
| |
ILET works under a six-way Memorandum of
Understanding (MoU) negotiated during the first year of the project. A
copy is on the ILET web site alongside the successful grant proposal
http://www.public.iastate.edu/~ilet/public_files/proposal.html. As noted
earlier the consortium has agreed to continue this MoU and will be doing
this in early 2006. This will extend over the coming five
years.
The project also resulted in complementary two-way MoUs,
including AAU to all partners and ISU – IOE.
These agreements
have been successful in sustaining our program.
The challenge in
achieving this agreement was to figure out similar level in each
university hierarchy resulted in us going for the top, e.g. President or
Provost in U.S. university terms. This required additional time to
achieve such support. Evidence from ILET evaluation has already been
useful in maintaining this MoU. |
| |
| 16. |
Indicators of sustainability of the
project (institutionalization, continuation) (Check all that apply) |
| |
| ( ) Ongoing costs
included in operating budget |
| (X) Institutional or
external funds sought and awarded |
| (X) Program(s)/courses
described in institutional catalog |
| (X) Changes in written
institutional policy or procedures |
| (X) Changes in curricular
documents |
| (X) Staff/faculty lines
added |
| (X) Changes in written
job description(s) or staffing patterns practice |
| ( ) Other
(explain below) |
| ( ) None
|
| ( ) Not
applicable | |
| |
Other: |
| |
A selection of research publications are
attached.
Networking of students and faculty in the doctoral
community that is amply described in the external assessor’s report, in
publications, and student accounts on the ILET web site.
|
| |
| 17. |
Has your project received special
recognition from your institution or other organizations (e.g., funding
agencies, local or national press, and awards)? If yes, please
explain. |
| |
Goldman Sachs Foundation Prizes for
Excellence in International Education short listed ISU: “We are
delighted to inform you that Iowa State University College of Education
has been selected as one of the semifinalists in the higher education
category. This means that having undergone evaluation by our panels of
expert reviewers, which included area and international studies experts,
language specialists, education policy leaders and practitioners, and
philanthropists in related fields, Iowa State University College of
Education is among the top twelve applicants from a pool of
approximately 100 colleges and universities from across the
country.”
ISU did provide supporting funding through an award
from the ISU Council of International Programs in 2002.
Press
coverage has been internal to the universities.
Niki Davis
received a university International Service Award for ISU in
2005
Rick Ferdig was nominated for a University of Florida
International Service Award
All universities have provided travel
and other funds to support individuals participating in the
project. |
| |
| 18. |
Approximately how much in additional
funds (direct or in-kind) has your project received for its operation?
Please explain in the report. |
| |
| Institutional funds
$ 213764 |
External funds
$ 250000 | |
| |
Cost share listed in the budget section is
used for the institutional funds.
ISU is not comfortable in
accounting for external cost share, so the only items to be listed here
are taken from the report submitted to the European Commission for
services that benefited all partners: ORACLE Europe for provision of web
environment and personnel 242400 Euros, and MirandaNet for provision of
web environment 40400 Euros, totals over $ 250000. |
| |
| 19. |
What products or resources have
resulted from your project thus far? (Check all that apply) |
| |
| (X) Evaluation
reports |
( ) None |
(X) Conference
proceedings |
| (X) Conference
presentations |
(X) Guides and
handbooks |
(X) New curricula
|
| (X) Course modules
|
( ) Printed course
materials |
(X) Web-based course
materials |
| (X) Project-specific Web
site |
(X) Journal
articles |
(X) Books |
| ( ) Textbooks
|
(X) CD-ROMs/DVDs
|
(X) Video
materials |
| ( ) Software
programs |
(X) Other (explain below) | |
| |
Other |
| |
|
| |
| |
Below, please note those products to
be sent by mail, e-mail, or delivery to supplement this online report.
State the name of the product, type of product, and number of copies to be
sent to FIPSE. To upload digital files of products, see below.
|
| |
Products (not included in online
report) |
| |
None, many have been attached.
|
| |
| |
Products formatted in MS Word for
Windows (DOC), Rich Text Format (RTF), MS Excel (XLS), or PDF may be
attached under the Attachments section of your Performance Report. If only
hard copies are available, mark each supplemental product with the grant
number and institution name and send to the following address. Also
indicate in your cover letter the grant number and institution
name. |
| |
| |
Beverly Baker, FIPSE, 1990 K Street,
NW - Room 6140, Washington, DC 20006-8544, tel: 202-502-7503, e-mail:
Beverly.Baker@ed.gov. |
| |
|
| 20. |
Adequacy of FIPSE customer service
(e.g. workshops, e-mails, advising on technical and financial issues,
evaluation) (Check one)
|
| |
| (X) Excellent
|
| ( ) Good
|
| ( ) Fair
|
| ( ) Poor
|
| ( ) Not
addressed | |
| |
| 21. |
What forms of assistance from FIPSE
were helpful to you? Were the annual meetings helpful to you? How can
FIPSE work more effectively with projects? |
| |
The pre-proposal consultation with Frank
Frankfort was very instructive, (and similar to a tutorial for a
doctoral student at dissertation stage). Thank you.
The annual
EC-US program meetings were generally useful especially meeting with the
project officers, administration specialists and relevant policy makers.
The project meeting and social event also supported development and
innovation very well. Relevant workshops were valuable, especially
relevant experience from more mature projects and those involved in
relevant educational research and development.
Funding could be
provided to give e-mentoring to new grantees and those writing grants
from those who have learned from experience through the initiative.
Similarly they might be invited to provide workshops, including
Webinars.
It took us some time to develop knowledge of the widely
spread literature on intercultural competence in education including
higher education. This could be shared with the whole program with some
additional effort. Similarly, our evaluation tools and methods are
likely to be valuable to others, but they are not likely to find them if
that are as naïve as this consortium was at the start of the ILET
project.
The recently developed central evaluations and survey
are important and valuable to the program as a whole and are to be
commended. However, feedback to individual projects is currently very
limited. |
| |
| 22. |
What changes would you recommend for
the Consortia Program? What areas of interest or emerging new directions
or types of projects should FIPSE staff consider for future funding in
this program? |
| |
Students and faulty recommend that it is
good to have a more flexible scheme for exchange of students. The ILET
project has shown that it is possible to develop a transatlantic
doctoral community for future leaders of educational technology in which
they study abroad more than one time and continue to network
internationally using communication technologies. The UF department
chair noted that this puts ILET graduates ahead of their peers by around
5 years when they take up their first appointment as an assistant
professor.
A project to develop the advice given above,
especially to develop evaluation and research capacity within the
projects themselves.
Longitudinal research into the effects of
this program and similar initiatives, which is supported by widespread
acknowledgement that international experience needs time to mature
before impact becomes visible. Our project worked to develop the use of
technology to accelerate maturation of this effect, with some success
(Davis & Cho, 2005). These fruitful areas for future research and
development would increase evidence of impact and many dimensions to the
added value of international experience and study abroad.
|
| |
