Below is the template COIL Institute Fellow's were asked to complete to provide information on their pilot COIL courses.
Some of the questions are links to all of the answers collected for that specific question. When the answers are particularly long, the question links to a page where you can see a .pdf with all the answers. Some of the questions are not linked either because that information was not provided by anyone or because we held it not to be relevant. We have, however, left those questions there to leave the template of questions complete.
COIL Institute for Globally Networked
Learning in the Humanities
Course Development and Implementation Case Study
Section 1: General Course Information
1. Please indicate the name of the co-taught course your team developed and offered in conjunction with the COIL Institute. If your course collaboration blended new or pre-existing courses, and each maintained a separate name, please indicate the name of each course.
2. Please indicate all faculty and other team members who were directly involved with creating, teaching, and supporting this course. If there were changes in faculty or staff along the way, please indicate this. Please ensure that individual roles are made clear. You can copy and paste to create additional areas to input team member info.
3. Please indicate the Institute track that this course was part of.
4. Please indicate the semester/term(s) in which your course(s) was offered.
5. Please indicate the number of students enrolled from each institution.
6. Is this typical for classes of this type at institution #1? Or was the class size exceptionally small or large? If so, was this exception due to the globally networked nature of the course?
7. Is this typical for classes of this type at institution #2? Or was the class size exceptionally small or large? If so, was this exception due to the globally networked nature of the course?
12. From comments made by each student cohort, and from each Fellow’s own observations, how significant was the potential difference in English language skills to the collaborative work undertaken between students in the class?
19. How often during the collaboration did the classes engage each other on a classroom level using these asynchronous tools? How often were students expected to login and use these asynchronous tools outside of class?
22. What synchronous (real-time) tools (e.g. video, audio or chat) did you use to link your classrooms and/or your students? If you used multiple tools, what was the approximate percentage students spent using each of these tools?
25. How often during the collaboration did the classes engage each other on a classroom to classroom level using these synchronous tools? How often were students expected to contact each other synchronously outside of class? Did they?
32. Did you develop a charter or guidelines for student interaction? If so, please paste it into the field below. How well did this document work as a means to guide student interactions? How might you change it in the future?
34. Is this typical for similar classes at your institutions? Do you think that any substantial differences, either positive or negative, could have been related to the globally networked nature of the course?
35. Please post anonymous comments from your students’ course evaluations if these are available. Group them by institution and include both positive and negative evaluations.
36. Please identify and discuss the institutional support that each campus received throughout the entire Institute process in each of the categories below. Please discuss what you saw as the benefits of receiving such support, or the hindrance of not, to your team’s course development process. Start with when your team was writing the grant application, through to the Institute workshops, the course development phase, during course implementation, course assessment, and travel to the Capstone.
38. Does the international programs office consider this initiative as relevant to the work that they are doing? If they do, is globally networked learning becoming an identified vector of internationalization at each institution? If not, how can the office become better engaged to consider globally networked learning?
39. When you applied to the COIL Institute did your partnered institutions or your departments/programs make a substantial commitment to continue developing a globally networked initiative? Or was it primarily a singular commitment on the part of the participating faculty Fellows? Please discuss.
42. Please describe the response of chairs, deans, provosts or other administrators to the possibility of expanding this pilot course(s) into a broader program of globally networked courses at each institution.
51. To better reflect on how your team’s course development process looked eighteen months ago, please take a few minutes to review the Information Gathering Tables you completed when you joined the Institute. Then please discuss two items from the table that appeared simple to resolve at the time, but which ended up being much more complex to develop than expected.
52. If your team included an instructional designer, please discuss their reflections on supporting a globally networked course. How different was their role compared to other courses they have facilitated in the past?
53. If your team included an international programs person, please discuss their reflections on supporting a globally networked course. How different was their role compared to other international partnerships or courses they have facilitated in the past?
54. Please discuss the amount of time all those involved spent developing and implementing this course? Include a comparison to the time it would likely take to develop, implement, and support a similar course which is not globally networked.
55. Was it worth it? Do you feel it would be significantly easier to implement and support another iteration of the same course again? How about developing a new course with a different partner faculty member and/or institution?
● Discuss each significant course activity and reflect on how each unfolded in practice.
● What icebreakers and intercultural interactions were planned and implemented?
● What worked and what did not?
● What prompts or activities took the class in unexpected but interesting directions?
● How well did the technologies selected support the pedagogical goals of the course?
● What seemed to cause problems either for the students or for the faculty?
● Did working through these problems lead to recognizable learning experiences or to defensiveness by some students or teachers?