Week 4 - reading reactions - Blended Content and Assignments

Questions to Ponder

• In what experiences (direct or vicarious) will you have students participate during your blended learning course? In what ways do you see these experiences as part of the assessment process? Which experiences will result in student work that you score?
• First of all ... what do we mean by direct or vicarious experiences? Direct seems to suggest that the student listen, digest and respond to a question with a direct (predictable or desirable response)... while vicarious suggests that the student do much the same but with a less predictable, more creative outcome (no less desired). The focus here in on experience. I would ideally seek to have students demonstrate an understanding of something through "direct" response and eventually encourage them to become more discriminatory in the use of a "concept" or "idea" with a more "vicarious" experience (one more authentic). The "direct" response would lend itself more to Formative assessment .. while the later would lend itself to being more Summative. 
• How will you present content to students in the blended learning course you are designing? Will students encounter content only in one modality (e.g., face-to-face only), or will you devise an approach in which content is introduced in one modality and elaborated upon in the other? What will this look like?
• I've cheated a bit this time. Based on my interpretation of the readings, I should be presenting the course in modules and standardizing the way that I present each module (e.g. headings and subheadings) so that the student comes to know what is expected in each. I should like to design these so that online activities complement face to face activities and vice versa so students also become familiar with these processes and can then focus just on the tasks at hand (and not be burdened with having to learn a new approach or sequence). Would expect to invite students to view online an introduction to a concept .. perhaps reflect on it, then have them come to class where these ideas are presented in more detailed, then invite students to practice these concepts both in class and online (graduated in difficulty) and then as an instructor observe student online efforts to pinpoint general problems that can be discussed in class but then also work with problems individual students may be having.  
• Will there be a consistent pattern to the presentation of content, introduction of learning activities, student submission of assignments, and instructor feedback (formal and informal) in your blended learning course? How can you ensure that students experience your course as one consistent whole rather than as two loosely connected learning environments?
• I think I've already answered this question in my response directly above. Yes by trying to standardize the presentation, types of engagement and methods of review, I breed familiarity and comfort in students thus focusing their attention less on technology and more on the concepts to be learned. 
• How can specific technologies help you present content, provide meaningful experiences, and pitch integration to students in your blended course? With your planned technology use, are you stretching yourself, biting off more than you can chew, or just maintaining the status quo?
• I can choose technologies that help provide students with the appropriate type of interaction that I'm seeking from them and at a time, manner and place that is most appropriate for them too. Case in point, how to invite students to write more frequently and get feedback more frequently so that they can begin to master writing? I do so by inviting them to use tech tools in class that invite them to write anonymously yet still get feedback at the early stages of their writing.... and then gradually move towards making their work more public as they are expected to move to making their writing "more public". 

My notes

Seems to be stating the obvious but online work needs to be relevant to in class work and/or experiences .. and it needs to be perceived as such by the learners. In other words, "integrate online with face to face, so there aren't two separate courses". To do otherwise, invites the question from learners "Why are we doing this?"   The pay back? Student should be able to be more engaged in the learning practice .. learning activities are not add ons but actually reinforce earlier presented concepts.

But how? Article seems to stress the importance of using a basic framework and repeating the use of it so students become more familiar with it and actually come to expect it. Recommendation? Present materials or topics in a module form and even structure each module in a consistent organizational manner .. so the focus is on the content of the module rather than on the need to relearn the organizational structure of a module each time  (e.g. how it all fits together)

I've seen all sorts of methods for this.. I've even used a few of my own. This one was (and still is) used for introducing a "learning tool" for promoting targeted integration into a teacher's practice.

• Introduction 
• What is it? (description) 
• Why bother? (rationale) 
• What's in it for me? (benefits, theory)
• How can I realize those? (methods) 
• Obstacles (managing problems) 
• What others have said? (testimonials)  
• Your thoughts? (invite sharing of experiences - successes / failures; reinforcing or re-defining best practices)
• References 

Another more simple but so elegant framework is this one (currently being used to help in the design of a badge earning ecosystem). 

• Learn (acquire knowledge / understanding of a topic)
• Do (practice applying / mastering the topic within a safe circle of learners / supporters) 
• Share (sharing the mastery with others outside a circle of learners; sharing the experience with peers)  

There is a mention of Dee Fink who seems to echo the above with

• plan for student encounter with content (learning) 
• participate in active experiences (do) 
• share personal reflections / experience (share)  

Then there was the topic of learning activities for active learning (chart below). I reflected on the work that I've doing in COL 140 and which of these activities may already be in place.

I noticed how I was already involving students in direct experience of writing and responding to a prompt in a Basic Composition course that I teach, through the use of Today's Meet (sentence, short response), Padlet (paragraph response), and EdPuzzle (listen, learn, reflect, respond on short answer). Also noted was how the mobile learning project in the same course offered much more freedom to experience and apply what the student had learned to realize a something much more engaging and potentially authentic.

I have noticed how consistent use of these tools makes it easier for students to respond .. especially as they become more comfortable not only with using the tool but in how I use it to benefit them.

Closing point 

I found much of this week's content was already somewhat familiar to me but that was also somewhat reassuring. Some of the key concepts - consistently using a design framework, keeping f2f and online activities relevant and supportive of one another - were already evident to me. What was perhaps helpful was the need to clearly identify the interaction between student and teacher if one hoped to  stimulate a desired outcome. For example, the need for the teacher to be clear about the type of  feedback to give.... if we are expecting a certain response to a question from a student. It seems so obvious and yet it needs to be stated.

Video

References

A Working, Self-Study Guide on: - GuidetoCourseDesignAug05.pdf. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.deefinkandassociates.com/GuidetoCourseDesignAug05.pdf

Fink, D. (n.d.). A self-directed guide to designing courses for significant learning. Retrieved from https://www.deefinkandassociates.com/GuidetoCourseDesignAug05.pdf

Hirtz, S., & Harper, D. G. (2008). Education for a Digital World: Advice, Guidelines and Effective Practice from Around Globe. Commonwealth of Learning, Vancouver and BC Campus, Canada. Retrieved from http://dspace.col.org/handle/11599/52

Kaminski, J., & Currie, S. (2008). Planning your online course. In Education for a Digital World: Advice, Guidelines, and Effective Practice from Around the Globe. Retrieved from http://www.colfinder.org/materials/Education_for_a_Digital_World/Education_for_a_Digital_World_part2.pdf

Liyoshi, T., & Vijay Kumar, M. S. (n.d.). Opening Up Education. Retrieved March 25, 2016, from https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/opening-education

NCAM. (n.d.). Invent + Build / Web + Multimedia / Accessible Digital Media Guidelines. Retrieved March 25, 2016, from http://ncam.wgbh.org/invent_build/web_multimedia/accessible-digital-media-guide

Online @UCF. (2016, March 1). Open Source Digital Content - List | Diigo. Retrieved March 25, 2016, from https://www.diigo.com/list/onlineucf/repository

Survey of Technology Tools for Student Engagement. (n.d.). Retrieved March 25, 2016, from https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ttqi7NuVhEAdhcki_G-y-k13ef-0sw9Y74Mg1m9uoHc/edit?usp=sharing&usp=embed_facebook

Week 3 - reading reactions (before / after reading)

This week was a bit of a disappointment but perhaps it should be viewed as reassuring too. Much of what was said and written was largely already known to me prior to taking the Course. A few new approaches and perhaps a refresher on ideas that I hadn't come into contact in quite some time. 

Table of contents

• Focus Question 
• Objectives 
• Questions to Ponder 
• Notes from reading 
  • Not a whole lot new learned here 
  • There were a few bright spots however
    • non graded multiple choice quizzes
    • presenting video examples or explanations 
    • presenting non credit, online practice exams 
    • key online assessment tool features 
      • T/F alternative
    • informal assessment design checklist 
    • one sentence summary 

Focus Question

How will I determine students are learning?

Direct creation of learning artifacts by students that demonstrate their understanding of concepts through their application of concepts to realize something. Ideally whatever is produced is authentic in the sense that it invites application to a situation / simulation similar to one where these same skills and concepts would need to be applied. 

 Authentic assessment—assessing student abilities to apply knowledge, skills, and attitudes to real world problems—is not only possible in an online environment; it is getting more popular. (Thompson, n.d.)

Objectives

After completing all of this week’s activities, you should be able to:

• Determine  assessments appropriate for the learning objectives you’ve established in your blended course
  • assessments are aligned with learning objectives; methods lead practicing skills and competencies that are to be tested in assessments (everything connects) 
• Revise existing course documents as appropriate based upon assessment decisions
• Configure online quizzes for your blended course
  • self directed, formative assessment quizzes 
• Create written student instructions for each graded assignment in your blended course 
  • checklist

Questions to Ponder (before reading)

• How much of the final course grade do you typically allot to testing? How many tests/exams do you usually require? How can you avoid creating a “high stakes” environment that may inadvertently set students up for failure/cheating?
  • How much of the final course grade do I typically allot to testing? For the most part, it has not been determined by me but by those responsible for the course syllabus. However, as a rule, I would want to opt to have assignments weighted equally throughout the course and also have assignments be sequenced in such a way that they build upon earlier assessments and build towards subsequent assessments. 
  • I've learned that putting more than 20% weight on any one assessment typically means making it "high stakes".  The draw back? Performance anxiety - a one off "disaster" can effect a student's final grade - thus explaining the "high stakes" nature of it. We want students to demonstrate their learning and unless managing "stress" is considered an important part of the assessment, a learning objective, then it should be minimized as much as possible. How to avoid it? Simple. Don't make one assignment so high stakes. Another option is to design an assessment so that it is ALSO a learning experience. Even invite students to make notes or drawn on notes that they think will help support them in the completion of an assignment - perhaps even make this a group / collaborative activity so they once again, engage with course contents, negotiate understanding and meaning prior to completing the assignment. Invite students to even use these notes to help them complete an assessment.

• What expectations do you have for online assessments? How do these expectations compare to those you have for face-to-face assessments? Are you harboring any biases?
  • I think that I should value online assessments as much as any other assignment that is given in a face to face context. However, I can imagine a healthy dose of skepticism from peers and supervisors (even students) who believe that when done sight unseen, students are inclined to "take advantage" of the situation to round up help and thus undermine the validity of the testing. Yet the few articles that I've read, surprisingly indicate that the incidence of cheating online is not even marginally significant when compared with that in a face to face context. 

• What trade-offs do you see between the affordances of auto-scored online quizzes and project-based assessments? How will you strike the right balance in your blended learning course?
  • Trade offs with auto scored online quizzes? Immediately what springs to mind is how objective testing is essentially inviting practice in lower order thinking skills (memorization, identification, classification) but far less likely to be taxing higher order thinking skills. However, any course of study does require a basic competency in the discourse of its subject and these sorts of online quizzes become useful for both ensuring students make them a focus of study and for monitoring student success in understanding them. Project based assessment would be far more welcomed for its ability to promote application, judgement and synthesis of concepts and thus promote higher order (critical thinking) skills. But the caveat with them is in how much more time they require to be reviewed and assessed. In a MOOC with participants that number in the 100s or even 1000s, this is just not feasible. What then needs to be entertained is the use of peer review with a clear and comprehensive rubric - perhaps supported by an instructor's own reflections and guidance (thus the peer assessment also becomes yet another "learning / application / judgement experience"). The balance? Between what is humanely possible for the instructor and what is most beneficial to the students - essentially choosing the "biggest bang for the buck".

• How will you implement formal and informal assessments of learning into your blended learning course? Will these all take place face-to-face, online, or in a combination?
  • My (yet to be identified) blended learning course would definitely see a combination of the two and ideally with one supporting the next. By this I mean that the concepts studied and learned for one assessment are continued / built upon / reapplied / reinforced in subsequent assessments so there is a cumulative reinforcement of them. 

Week 2 - reading reactions (before / after reading)

Questions to Ponder (before reading the text)

• Is there value in student-to-student and student-to-instructor interaction in all courses regardless of discipline?
•  Likely .. especially on the topic of how relevant or authentic or important a given topic is in a course of study to the student. 

• What role does interaction play in courses in which the emphasis is on declarative knowledge (e.g., introductory “survey” courses at the lower-division undergraduate level) or, similarly, in courses that cultivate procedural knowledge (e.g., technical courses requiring the working of problem sets)?
• If by interaction we mean interaction with other students then I can see the importance of a student testing their meaning and understanding of what it is they've read or recently learned by applying those concepts to real life experiences, sharing those with their classmates and inviting others to share theirs and/or comment on one another's (invites chances to test and negotiate meaning, they are also involved in the "new" discourse of the topic too)  

• As you consider designing a blended learning course, what kinds of interactions can you envision occurring face-to-face, and how might you use the online environment for interactions? What opportunities are there for you to explore different instructional strategies in the blended course than you have in the past?
• What kind of interactions typically occur in a face to face situation? 
• Q&A
• short question and answer 
• small group discussion and checking for understanding 
• New opportunities in a blended course? 
• Perhaps opportunities to "delay" the exchange, invite the student to have more time to reflect on their own point of view or understanding of something before they articulate it or share it with their peers. Face to face typically rewards those who can articulate themselves quickly while discouraging or drowning out those who are slower to answer .. yet are often no less capable of articulating a solid answer once they are given time to do so.
• What factors might limit the feasibility of robust interaction face-to-face or online?
• factors that might limit the robust interaction
• cultural, social or political sensitivity 
• student perception that if they open up .. it might be into an unsafe or unsupportive environment  
• lack of "netiquette", fear of being flamed or bullied 

Week 1 - benefits of blended learning

This is actually likely to be a post that's under constant development so it may not be appropriate to title it as such ... but it will do for now.

Benefits of Blended Learning (BL)

This list comes directly from the Week 1 - article. 

• for universities - cost cutting, leveraging time when physical expansion is out of the question 
• for faculty / educators - increasing frequency and variety of engagement; transition to fully online teaching
• for students - address access / convenience issues (online 24/7 access) while still offering social & instructional interaction opportunities (classroom) 

.. but I am interested in exploring this a bit further - likely with another blog post. I even welcome my fellow Blendkit2016 classmates to contribute on the following Google form 

Items collected can be found on the following live spreadsheet.

Again, I am amazed that despite working in a Blended Learning environment, there has been very little discussion on these benefits, or any blended learning benefits in general. It's evident that these benefits need to be articulated, made more concrete with example, and then supported.

Week 1 - reading reaction

Definition of Blended Learning (BL) 

The reading presented the following definition of Blended Learning.

.... where a portion of the traditional face-to-face instruction is replaced by web-based online learning.

.. and when it did, I found myself immediately wanting to rephrase this.

.... where a portion of the traditional face-to-face instruction is enhanced or complemented by web-based online learning or vice versa. 

In other words, I see blended learning as involving both a "face to face", instructional component and an "online" instructional component. Both can and should work with a synergy that helps support the other. I'm actually surprised the word is not used or at least I haven't come across it being used to be a key aspect of blended learning yet. Or perhaps I am missing something here? I find the use of 70 / 30 much less important than realizing this synergy. I also sense that it's this synergy .. the seamless nature of it .... that comes from "good design". I don't believe that Blended Learning needs to be focused solely on "face to face" as a starting point - though I can see the rationale for stating it as such because most educators will be approaching it from this perspective. 

I think fellow Blendkit student Bradley Griffith picked up on this as well when he said...

...  Chapter 1 allowed me to see the converse relationship between enhancing online and in-class instruction. It’s not just that the traditional face-to-face classes can be enhanced by providing an opportunity to maintain interaction online, but that online courses can have quite deliberative in-person interactions that serve a true purpose other than a bodily presence through experiential learning.

The definition of blended learning is a formal education program in which a student learns: 

1. at least in part through online learning, with some element of student control over time, place, path, and/or pace; 
2. at least in part in a supervised brick-and-mortar location away from home; 
3. and the modalities along each student’s learning path within a course or subject are connected to provide an integrated learning experience. 

Source: Clayton Christensen Institute.  (Arney, 2015, p1) 

Designing Blended Learning (BL)- building into it "assessment of design" 

Quite often “the process of design is emphasized as one of re-design, implying that those involved in the design process are willing and able to see beyond what has been done in the traditional classroom and re-conceptualize what can be done in multiple delivery modes” (p. 17).

Great and important point. In my own experience of "blended learning", a review process needs to be built into the design of it (when I think about it, the same should really be true with any course, "n'est ce pas?") - one that has the ability to collect data and then examine it to inform design changes. I have found that despite my best efforts to anticipate learner needs or interests and then design activities that engage them, there is almost always something that I had not expected. This usually leads to reflection to sort out how I might incorporate what I've just learned to improve upon the design of these activities. Yet I've also found myself holding back on making revisions too, on the belief that while it may not be perfect, the design problem that I've unearthed may only be a "one off". I'm looking for evidence that it's had a little bit more frequency before I'll resort to anything drastic. I'm curious to know if others take on a similar tact. 

By re-conceptualizing, I'm understanding re-conceptualizing as a process of finding that synergy that I spoke of earlier. To dwell a bit deeper, I also find that I think in greater depth about the learning process and how learning is being realized.

Benefits of Blended Learning (BL)

This list comes directly from the article. 

• for universities - cost cutting, leveraging time when physical expansion is out of the question 
• for faculty / educators - increasing frequency and variety of engagement; transition to fully online teaching
• for students - address access / convenience issues (online 24/7 access) while still offering social & instructional interaction opportunities (classroom) 

.. but I am interested in exploring this a bit further - likely with another blog post. Again, I am amazed that despite working in a Blended Learning environment, there has been very little discussion on these benefits, or any blended learning benefits in general. It's evident that these benefits need to be articulated, made more concrete with example, and then supported.

Am pursuing Liz Arney's "Go Blended" for answers to this. 

• promotes individualized instruction (identifying specific strengths and/or weaknesses)
• promotes differentiated instruction (helping address needs of challenged AND gifted students)
• applies ISTE standards (students learn via the use of technology) 
• provides access to real time data to help make decisions / monitor student progress more closely
• leverages teacher time which improve efficacy and effectiveness 

Blended learning is NOT the same as technology enriched learning (Arney, 2015, p 5) 

 .....we’ve drawn a distinction between technology for learning and technology for teaching. ... SMART Boards, clickers, student apps, open educational resources,flipped classrooms, and so on .. address the latter. (Arney, 2015, p 9) 

Arney, L. (2015). Go Blended!: A Handbook for Blending Technology in Schools (1 edition). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Designing Blended Learning (BL)

The comment "fundamental to the design is a balance between control and emergence" really caught my attention. I sense that I've got a pretty good handle on what is meant by "control" but the term "convergence" may be another matter.

Blended Learning Design as a Controlled Process

I've understood this to mean that to be effective, blended learning requires a fair amount of planning. It can't be simply an add on to face to face instruction. It should work to make learning more interactive. The term "controlled process" suggesting control by the designer to promote interaction ... and/or .. control handed over to the student to promote self regulated. On the later, the student may have opportunities to complete online activities on their own ... at their own pace .. and with very limited assistance. By doing so ... "the student encounters a learning experience that is deeper and more rewarding".  I've interpreted that to mean, the student has more opportunities to engage with course content.. and build confidence / competency on the topic.

Blended Learning Design as a Emergent Process

I struggled with the term "emergent" in this context, especially in the absence of any direct mention of the term itself in this section of the reading. 

emergent (defn) as in coming into being, coming into prominence 

I interpreted this to mean that as the benefits of BL become better known, BL design has the capacity to emerge as "main street" educational design. But exactly how? Because many technologies used in BL invite learning to be more of a collaborative and/or social activity .. to be more meaningful and/or authentic for students.. they make it easier for students to plot out and create their own purposeful learning pathways. These are all very attractive "drivers", especially in the current context where "main street" education seems to be wanting for ways to promote life long learning, recognize informal learning and support self directed learning. It also makes sense to coral the same tools used by students to carry out their own informal but collaborative / social activity for use in an educational context.

I'm still a bit troubled by this though and the reading seems to suggest reasons why. It suggests a predictable tension between "traditional"education and more "flexible" education. One where traditional education is tempted to use technology to continue keeping learning linear / sequential in design ... yet more closely monitored to ensure consistency, promote accountability (of everyone) and maintain standards. In contrast, new opportunities exist that have only emerged recently where learning is less sequential and more determined by the learner, where the learner defines goals and their pathways to achieving them.  The article infers that a new set of skills, likely meta learning skills, need to be learned by a learner to make such an approach effective (Bates & Poole, 2003). That certainly sounds like it could turn education as we know it on its head.

Case studies

I'm asked to identify patterns between the two case studies. Key item? Both kept their focus on course objectives, plus the needs and interests of students. There's a sense that these were always used as a reference when designers moved to the selection of learning methods and strategies - specifically choosing the appropriate activities for both f2f and online purposes.



Key resource

Thompson, K. (2011, June 27). BlendKit Course: BlendKit Reader: Chapter 1. Retrieved from https://blended.online.ucf.edu/blendkit-course-blendkit-reader-chapter-1/

Arney, L. (2015). Go Blended!: A Handbook for Blending Technology in Schools (1 edition). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Supporting resources

Blended Learning | EDUCAUSE.edu. (n.d.). Retrieved February 23, 2016, from http://www.educause.edu/library/blended-learning

Blended Learning Design.indd - Blended Learning Design.pdf. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.agilantlearning.com/pdf/Blended%20Learning%20Design.pdf

Disruptive Innovation. (2012, July 10). Retrieved from http://www.claytonchristensen.com/key-concepts/

elearnspace. everything elearning. (n.d.). Retrieved February 23, 2016, from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/InstructionalDesign.htm

Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies -- October 2010 (PDF) - finalreport.pdf. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-based-practices/finalreport.pdf

Instructional Design Central. (n.d.). Instructional Design Models and Methods. Retrieved February 23, 2016, from http://www.instructionaldesigncentral.com/htm/IDC_instructionaldesignmodels.htm

Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks - vol 16 (4) McGee and Reis. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://onlinelearningconsortium.org/wp-content/plugins/olc-download/download.php?post_id=2592

R2R - Models: Replacement Model. (n.d.). Retrieved February 23, 2016, from http://www.thencat.org/PlanRes/R2R_Model_Rep.htm