Here - EnglishAgenda - British Council

in the later versions of the course we settled on Jing. This was not compatible withinternal IT systems, but relevant tutors were willing and able to download it onto theirpersonal laptops. It proved a more stable and versatile tool than screen-cast-o-matic.There was more functionality, and you did not have to be online to be recordingscreencasts.Practicalities of making individual recordingsScreencasting was popular with both clients and participants, who gave positivefeedback. It was effective (there was clear progress between pre- and post-draftwriting), and it was cost effective. Screencasts took around 10 –15 minutes toproduce and send, thus four to six screencasts an hour was possible from a trainer.The teaching centre arranged training for involved teachers, and used administrationhours for the production of these short (maximum five minutes) video clips. However,there was a question as to whether this was a sustainable enterprise, and whetherthe time teachers invested in this might not be spent more efficiently on other tasksthat promoted learning.The issue of teacher and learner interaction patternsIn v5, when we chose a forum this decision was strongly influenced by a sense that itwould create some opportunities for a more social interactive learning environment.We knew that participants were familiar with this medium, and we felt that there wouldbe more opportunities for conversation and reflection around the process of writing.This is in line with sociocultural perspectives on learning that ‘see knowledge andunderstanding not as things that can be handed down but as constructed throughinteractive processes’ (Hyland and Hyland, 2006: 88). In v5 we hoped that thelearners would instigate and lead conversations about the feedback given, and talkabout issues more than they had previously in direct email contact with their tutors.The expectation was that by sharing screencasts amongst a community of learners(rather than individually), and by communicating in threads, participants would readand respond to each other’s writing and experiences of learning. However, thecommunication between participants was not as voluminous as had been hoped,and the tendency for quite static, trainer–participant–trainer moves continued.There were broad issues with the technology and tools, and participant motivationwas an issue throughout. The scalability of the project was a concern: had weneeded to upscale it, it may have proven difficult. Also, there were concerns over thesustainability of such an endeavour, for example, the time tutors and managers spentadministering programmes. However, as an example of flexibility and responsivenessthis series of CBEC was a success in the eyes of most stakeholders.Lessons learned and adviceWe approached these courses with common sense, and an eye for improvements.We sought feedback readily. Yet, sometimes our responses to feedback were not aseffective as we might have hoped. In trying to be responsive we perhaps lost sight oflearning aims. For example the six genre approach in v5 was more than challengingand the relevance of tasks, like essay writing, is highly questionable to an audience160 | A longitudinal case study of the ‘blends’