This paper is an account of my first experience of taking an on  line course. The lectures, given via e-mail in the summer of  1998 by Moya Brennan and moderated by Chip Harman of the City University of New York, were intended for instructors with a background in English Language Teaching who are planning a Business English course. However, the methodology, principles, and teaching styles observed can be adapted to planning other courses and enriching ELT techniques at high school and university levels.

As the previous SPELTA conference was focused on cross-cultural issues, I’d like to emphasize the points that seemed to be significant in terms of cultural patterns.

In the first place, we must admit that an online course has not yet become an accepted practice in our teaching environment and in our culture in general. When I spoke about it with my colleagues, many of them didn’t quite understand what I was talking about.

On the other hand, the course management insisted that participants spread word of the course so that more people in the teaching profession worldwide would be aware of this practice.

Secondly, this course was all the things that most courses are not – it was free, no prerequisite, no grade, no certificate. Active participation and assignments were optional. People could participate but be silent, remaining  “lurkers”). Latecomers were as welcome as those who were the first to sign up for the course. This approach is equally uncommon in our environment.

The aim of the course was to give the participants a chance to investigate the stages involved in planning a BE course.

The participants were expected “to wear two hats”: one of a learner willing to explore a new area and one of a teacher observing how the course is planned, managed and delivered. In fact, this approach seems likely to work for any teacher development program.

The course spanned four weeks, with the lectures posted to the participants three times a week.

The aims and the schedule were clearly outlined from the start. But this is what we normally do here as well.

On the other hand, it was explained to the participants what the roles of instructor and student implied. This issue is normally taken for granted in our culture: the instructor is assumed to be just an instructor and the learner, just a learner.

The teacher’s expectations as stated in the introductory lecture were very discretely outlined: Moya Brennan hoped the learners would respond, but made it clear that they didn’t have to. However, there was a useful suggestion for those reluctant to produce any input, particularly for first-timers like myself: they were asked to reflect on their learning experience and to keep a record for later reference.

The approach was learner-focused, but the instructor never urged or pressed the participants; rather, she did her best to instill in them that the techniques suggested would be beneficial not only to themselves, but to their colleagues and students. In other words, the emphasis was on sharing the knowledge to be accumulated. A couple of times she said, roughly, this: I want you do a task, but I realize that it may not work out for some of you.

Russian readers will probably agree that in our culture the approach is generally somewhat more mandatory. The teacher says very clearly what the learners should do. Moreover, this is what the students expect. They do not view it as an imposition or pressure.

Furthermore, I know from experience that if the instructor in a Russian language setting says “think about this” or “reflect on the following points”, it takes the students some time to get used to. Presumably, that is typical of other cultures as well, because on this course, there occurred some misunderstanding about this kind of assignment. Participants started showering their reflections on the list, and that needed some interference on the part of the course management.

At the beginning of the course, Moya Brennan used an ice-breaking technique: after having written, informally and at some length, about her own career and current interests, she invited the participants to do the same. Specifically, each student was asked to write briefly about her/his name: did they like it? was it a family tradition? did they have a nickname? how had they acquired it?

This simple device was tremendously effective, for even those who had intended to remain merely “lurkers” were willing to speak about their names, that is, about themselves. They were on safe ground here, each one eager to give the others a glimpse of his or her own personality and background. In psychological terms, this signified the mature learners’ openness to a new experience, although many (like myself) might have been self-conscious if not tense from the outset. As a result, the feeling of isolation was overcome; dozens of participants spaced thousands of miles apart came to feel that they belonged together. So, this technique worked across cultures and bridged many possible gaps, in both national and personal terms.

While I was reading the summary of the very first lecture, I realized that the ground rules stated by the course management were brilliantly exemplified by the text of the lecture itself. As I was to discover at later stages, this was the underlying principle observed throughout the whole course of study. The instructor practiced what she preached. Rather than make trivial assertions to the effect that any course should be carefully planned, she planned her own course extremely carefully – for the learners to benefit from. The continuity of the course was evident owing, firstly, to a review of the previous material, which opened every lecture, and secondly, to the outline for the following lecture. Whenever the accepted lecture pattern was broken, there was a system behind it – as the learners could see for themselves.

In speaking of making predictions about one’s prospective class Moya Brennan was careful to explain how she and her colleague Chip Harman (whose unobtrusive presence, infinite patience and a subtle sense of humor were nothing short of admirable) had been making predictions about ourselves, their online students. At the same time, there wasn’t a hint of superiority in their manner – they were open to criticism and suggestions from the audience.

The course also demonstrated a variety of teaching styles, or registers, from strictly formal and detached to conversational if not chatty. In our teaching context, again, this is not an accepted practice. The instructor does not normally switch from one style to another, and the teaching style is largely determined by the instructor’s personality.

Far be it from me to suppose that this kind of teaching style switching is typical of all instructors in the USA. Yet it signified, at least to me personally, a link to American culture in general, which is marked by a greater variety than ours.

Indeed, it was a diverse group in which both the learners and the instructors had to reach an accommodation about how to “please” everyone.

The participants were instructed to subscribe to a free mailing list, such as TESP-L, TESL-L and/or any other English Language Teaching Lists. I did so, and I found this immensely stimulating. I have been using the materials of online discussions with two classes of students throughout the whole school year, and next year I’m planning for the students to do a portfolio projects on issues of university level teaching methods and advanced grammar, which are my areas of interest.

At some stage in the middle of the course the learners were asked to contact other learners so as to discuss a few issues interpersonally and internationally. And that was a very good example of international professional culture at work, although, as the instructor had anticipated, it didn’t work out for some of the participants.

To sum up, I have attempted to pinpoint what to me, as a learner, seemed to be culturally determined approaches and methods observed in an online course.

On the whole, because the course was carefully planned and competently moderated, it was very close to ideal communication across cultures. It was marked by tolerance, diversity, and the freedom of choice. The Cooperative Principle and the Politeness Principle were observed throughout. The only maxim that was violated by the learners was the quantity maxim: they would become so carried away that they tended to forget that they were expected to limit their input to one screen and very often spoke at great length.

It remains only to thank the course administration for this immensely valuable experience.