Reaction to readdings Blendkit 2017 Week One.

For Blendkit 2017

Is it most helpful to think of blended learning as an online enhancement to a face-to-face learning environment, a face-to-face enhancement to an online learning environment, or as something else entirely?

In response to the question of how to conceptualize a blended course, I must say that based upon my experience, blended learning can’t easily be defined in terms of face-to-face vs online. Sloan defines blended as 30-70%, but I wonder if perhaps a better measure is how much the online portion impacts the rest of the course. 10% of a truly meaningful online experience could be more than adequate to influence the remaining 90% in the classroom, so is this web-enhanced, or truly blended?

To me, blended is more of a spectrum of implementation from a single assignment online to the other extreme of a single meeting in the classroom . My first experience with what I suppose could be considered blended learning was in 1995 when I created a series of images based upon period for a face-to-face art history course. The idea was to augment the classroom experience by presenting students with themed artwork from a period or style to support classroom learning. Each section had a quiz online attached. While that differs greatly from many modern implementations, it illustrates to me that any technology-enhanced online experience that supports or replaces portions of a classroom experience can be defined as part of a blended course. That said, the definition of blended makes no claim as to the quality of the final product.  That is a separate issue. 

 In what ways can blended learning courses be considered the “best of both worlds” (i.e., face-to-face and online)? What could make blended learning the “worst of both worlds?”

This has more to do with the quality of the content and the approach than anything else. Poor pedagogy that is not informed by best practices and a lack of awareness of the differences between blended and either online or classroom is going to lead to poor outcomes. Course design that is aware of best practice and that leverages ideas that can best be conveyed in a blended modality will result in a better outcome. It is more driven by the dewsign and commitment of the instructor than  anything else.

Thoughts from the readings in BlendKit 2016, week 5.

Thoughts from the readings in BlendKit 2016, week 5.

The first statement that struck home this week was that accrediting bodies articulate requirements for academic programs where “Such statements typically define levels of minimum acceptability for particular dimensions.. ”

Having been involved in this field for several years, it is the truth that when faced with areas of expertise that are not familiar, people have a tendency to shoot for minimum acceptability. One problem comes in when there is no agreed upon measure of what acceptability is, or when acceptability is based upon a single teaching paradigm or example. Much like everything else in education, there is no one-size-fits-all. When it comes to program or course or approach, evaluation is best framed in the context of the educational institutional goals, philosophy, and the teaching style of the individual instructor. That is not to say that best practices should not be present, but that there should be recognition within the organization that there are many different means of expression when designing and teaching a course, regardless of medium.

So perhaps part of the standardization of measurement should be based upon the structural requirements and minimums there rather than in the curriculum itself, in much the same way that one can dictate a minimum participation within a course, a set of requirements for a syllabus, or even a set of behaviors in the classroom.

Measurement of a course, be it online, hybrid, or classroom will be subject to the variables of the organization and the individual instructor.

Another area in the reading that works with this idea is the Evaluation Checklist for Onlineand Blended Courses from UW Milwaukee. This contains a list of specific items and general philosophies to include in courses, rather than talking in terms of specific course structure and delivery. To me this seems a much more realistic approach as it leaves the creator of the course free creatively, while providing elements for the best practices that can be incorporated or not depending upon approach. There are numerous other takes in terms of standards from Blackboard to iNACOL, allof which have merit. The question that I believe will never be answered is how to apply any single assessment instrument or for that matter assessment philosophy to all cases.

Since this is the last week of the course, I'd like to provide the URL to the readings for the course, You can find these, and a plethora of thought provoking information here.

Thoughts on the BlendKit 2016 readings Week Four

Thoughts on the BlendKit 2016 readings

Content + Assignments = Modules as a “boxed lunch” of learning experience.

When we are talking about organizing content in a course that is designed to be partially taught online, and partially taught in the classroom, the question becomes how to build the experience so that the best parts of both mediums work in conjunction to create a complete, coherent, and naturally flowing experience.

This is one of the topics that are explored in the readings this week, and one that I personally am very interested in. The trick is to integrate the learning in such a fashion that each experience, be it online or in the classroom supports each desired outcome clearly. Content, understanding, and measurement of understanding must make sense to the student and also be clearly documented. Some of that is accomplished by attaching clearly articulated expectations, objectives, and narrative to the learning experience, but in in a hybrid format the mode and construction for each portion of the experience is equally important.

Some questions to ask would be how (in what mode) the content best is presented? How much of the content is technology dependent? Based on the objectives, what methods and technologies will best achieve learning from exposure to basic understanding, to mastery? What is the composition of the course in terms of online component vs. classroom? Also, what mode does the instructor work best in, flipped, partially direct instruction, or some combination of constructivist, constructionist, or other presentation mode?

Another aspect of this is how the students learn best. Does the course lend itself to the use of technologies and software design learning experiences, or is the approach more social, and if so how social? Is there a place for social media, or does the social aspect best reside in the course shell as chat and discussion board? That, in my experience, is dependent upon the comfort level of the instructor, the topic being covered, and the environment that students find themselves most comfortable in. In the many MOOCs that I have participated in for instance, there are clear preferences within the population for different communication methods. A group within a course may prefer Facebook or Twitter, while another group within the course may prefer asynchronous discussion boards. Do we differentiate for both groups, or does the instructor pick a single method?

The reading also covers learning activity types and technologies associated with them. These are broken down into Assimilative, Adaptive, Communicative, Productive, and Experiential. These would seem to be fairly inflexible categories, but they are not. One could have a productive assignment (such as journaling), with an assimilative  aspect if the journaling were was to be done by an appointed student exemplar who was tasked with reacting to next week’s readings prior to them being released to the rest of the class. Further, that journal could become the basis for individual reactions could be discussed in the classroom or as comments to the journal online. What I am trying to point out here is that there is any number of possibilities when constructing assignments and these can address multiple types and also integrated across online and classroom.

Ultimately, the tools that we use to construct meaningful lessons and assignments across online and classroom experiences that bridge the gap between the two modes is limited only by our imagination.

Thoughts from the BlendKit 2016 readings for week 3.

Ideas from Week three readings in BlendKit 2016.

I’ve been involved in assessment for quite a while. One of the areas covered in this week’s reading is the need to provide assignments that clearly are ready for assessment. I find that a rather odd thing to present to an audience that does instruction for a living. Perhaps it is my background in assessment and experience with accreditation, but the idea that an assignment (or even course) would be presented for academic credit without such things as objective and outcomes, expectations, and some sort of process is foreign to me.

In order to have an assignment that clearly lays out to students what they are expected to do, how they are to do it, and how they will be graded as a result, the assignment needs universally present component.

Blendkit 2016 lists these as name of assignment, objectives, recommended resources, expectations in terms of time, effort, and format, level of group participation, process, and grading criteria.

In my experience, a well-organized assignment is a narrative or roadmap. It can be organized chronologically, in terms of organization, or a combination of the two. From a student perspective, I think the order is critical as well.

I would probably combine these a bit more. Students will want to know up front

1. What the assignment is (title and description)
2.  What it is worth (in terms of points and also in terms of overall value in the total course grade), which wraps grading criteria and method such as rubric or objective quiz/test in as well.
3.  When it is due
4. Overall process to complete it. That wraps expectations, level of work expected, and participation.

Using these as headings in the assignment universally within a course, especially in a standardized format helps students better understand the assignment and expectations without having to search for information. Of course this is assuming that there isn’t a large amount of variation in explaining the intricacies of the assignment.  You mileage will vary.

Student generated test questions

The idea from the reading is that students be asked to come up with their own questions for inclusion into an upcoming exam based on the content.

This is another one of those AHA moments for me. I’d never considered doing some sort of assessment by having students create their own test questions. It is a great idea for an understanding check and also as a potential diagnostic tool.  You could tell a lot about what students are learning by what they put down as potential quiz questions, and probably even more by what is omitted. If you get nothing back on larger segments of the content, that may indicate that there is not as much emphasis, or that there is another problem. You may even find that they have generated questions in areas that you had not considered. 

Blendkit 2016 Week Two Reflection

One of the areas that are covered in this, the second week of Blendkit 2016 is the role of the educator. Coming from a predominately constructivist perspective which I have come to understand over the years is not all-inclusive in its effectiveness, this is of great interest to me.

The first question that resonated with me was that of whether learners require guided learning or can construct understanding by themselves. This is a tension between constructionist and constructivist ideas that have been present since I first started in this profession. The answer that I have come to myself is that there is really no right answer to this question. It is entirely situational. If you are teaching low level skills, the types of things that one would find, coincidentally or not, easily translated to a self-study tutorial, then yes, minimal guidance is appropriate. But there are other variables to take into account.

If the content being presented is higher level and requires a degree of prior knowledge that students are not guaranteed to have, then available guidance is a an important part of assuring that learners are able to understand the materials. Another aspect, which is not as obvious, is learner motivation in learning. If the person engaging with the content has a strong desire to master the materials then there is more internal incentive to go the extra steps to assure that they understand the materials. If there is not that level of engagement, then an outside voice serving in a guiding capacity may help the student over whatever hurdles may have been discouraging otherwise. This is strength of peer to peer communication in classes following a constructivist model, that voice can be another student providing clarity.

Another question in this is the overall makeup of the learner themselves. I have been involved in three programs over the years. One is a graduate program in education, the second and third are continuing education programs. In all cases the makeup of the students attending these courses causes the formation of different communities with different personalities and levels of engagement and collaboration overall. Because of this there are, across multiple offerings of the same course, times when more guidance is needed for the group as a whole, and times when students are more self-directed, and times when they are in need of guidance.

So to me there really isn’t any one-size fits all approach, at least in my experience, to the question of guidance. It is critical for the instructor to be involved and to be able to “read” the group of learners with whom they are dealing, and provide the appropriate level of support as needed.

-------------------------------------------------------

I also found very interesting the section constructing assignments that encourage expression. This is by its nature a question of engagement, as to my mind one cannot express some creative product without having a context to work from, which, if we are doing the instructional design right, means interacting with the materials presented at the highest level of Bloom.

The first question posed is who the learners will express them to. I have to confess that audience above and beyond the class itself had not occurred to me. I suppose that hearkens back to my insular traditional undergrad and being, at least then, a product of a direct instruction model where the only real two way interaction possible was with the instructor and the other members of my classes (usually accompanied by a PowerPoint). So the idea of “student” (and I use this is the traditional classroom sense) work being available to the public is not an idea that I automatically gravitate to because of my traditional college experience.

Based on what I am doing right now, posting this reflection to my blog, I was really missing the boat on this approach.

The second question is how students will express themselves? That is almost an infrastructure question really. It has more to do with what the instructor/facilitator is comfortable and capable of accepting than it is possibilities. Portfolio, Storify, podcasts, blogs, wikis, Infographics, and so on, can all be valid depending on the . Perhaps that is a question that is better addressed in a syllabus based upon the goals of the instructor and the their comfort level with embracing new forms of expression?

Next is the need to provide some sort of guidelines or framework for this expression. Again this depends on the comfort level of the instructor and whatever level of structure is required. The reading points out  that clear instructions and guidelines for plagiarism are two examples of guidelines. Other guidelines might be a list of potential platforms for creating the assignment for submission, as is mentioned above, and an example of an exemplary submission or two certainly wouldn’t hurt in setting expectations based on example.

Finally, we have the need to acknowledge student views, or providing feedback on the assignment. There are so many potential means of accomplishing this. In a hybrid setting this might include voting or student peer review (in Canvas, our current LMS, “likes” are even an option), classroom review by students and facilitator, or perhaps even bringing in an outside expert to talk about the assignments where appropriate.

All in all, this reading was thought provoking and pointed out the myriad ways in which we can provide valuable experiences for learners in the classroom and online. Clearly, even if a single well designed exploratory assignment is offered through a face to face class using a web enhanced model, the possibilities for creative and engaged responses are limitless.

-Lloyd

Reflections from readings in Blenkit 2016

I have been following Blendkit for three years now, and have basically taken what I need and not completed. That has been primarily because I have been working solely in online course development. Now I am actively involved in reinventing a program from a purely classroom mode to one where the course takes place 50% online. This requires a different take on my current skill set. So Blendkit 2016 become much more directly relevant to my continued education. Over the next few weeks I will posting reflections here as part of the assignments for this MOOC, based upon the readings.

The reading for the first week is on the nature of blended learning and the differences between it and a standard face to face course. While I appreciate the theory and the approaches to hybridizing courses, I find that what works for me is a little different. I'm not  a systems guy as much as I am about individualizing the experience of creation for the instructor, differentiated design for the strengths and weaknesses of the faculty member.

Much like anything else related to education, there really isn’t a one-size-fits-all approach to developing a blended/hybrid learning course. Based on the reading and my experience with faculty, the amount of blend and what is contained within it has a lot to do with instructor teaching style, what they find valuable in terms of the interaction that they want directly with students, and also their comfort level with moving content online in the first place.

The type of course components that are best suited for a blended approach are also dependent on the instructor, which is why I think that a systems approach, while valuable if you can get buy in from your faculty on a standard delivery method and look and feel, many times will not work. Some faculty will see more value in a standard lecture approach, with the study materials and some student to student interaction in the online component, while others will wish to flip their course so that the majority of their time will be spent reinforcing the content.

In our case, since we do not wish to deal with accreditation issues in our courses, blended means less than 50% online. At the other end of the spectrum one graduate course that I attended was entirely online with the exception of being bookended with face to face courses that acted as an introduction to the course at the beginning, and a wrap-up and in-person presentation of class projects at the end. Again, it appears to me that the decisions is based upon what works best for the subject matter, the curriculum, the faculty, and student needs.

Design is an important aspect that ties back to everything I have mentioned above. Leveraging what faculty do best in the classroom is important, as is meeting student needs realistically. There are potentially a huge number of factors that play into design.  I suppose in the end I am more of a broad conceptualization type of designer.

 There are so many potentially valid approaches to mixing online and face to face content and delivery that using a single prescribed approach won't work in most cases. As I have redesigned courses that are fully online using my own experience and best practices, practices that I have arrived at over the last twenty years, I  am frequently reminded that my approach, and for that matter any given standard approach to ID, does not fit all cases. It pays to know what your tools (theories, technologies, and social interaction) do best, but it also pays to be flexible enough to help faculty leverage what they do best.

Thank you Linda for reviewing this!

Flipped video and the value of asynchronous playback.

I had not thought about it this way: I have been working on adapting a program from classroom to blended/hybrid (20 years in this business and still not sure of a definitive difference between these two), and ran across the document below in a MOOC. It struck me reading this that part of the value added by recording parts of a classroom lecture and using this in the LMS is the ability to emulate what is done in an asynchronous discussion, but with video. Students have the ability to replay portions of the video to catch content and nuance that they might miss in the classroom. I think we all go into meetings or classes and from time to time miss critical ideas or cues because the cell phone vibrates or some other distraction occurs.

If lecture videos are chunked, and edited for relevant content, they become potentially a more valuable learning opportunity than a simple video capture by itself.


http://www.educause.edu/library/resources/7-things-you-should-know-about-flipped-classrooms