BlendKit 2014 Reading Reaction 5

In this week’s reading there were a couple of passages that really struck me with one in particular focusing on the limitations of course standards: “Nearly all sets of blended/online course standards bear the imprint of an overt instructional design emphasis (e.g., instructional objectives, constructivist influence, technology-dominated, etc.) . . . such emphasis typically leads to a focus on the designed (online) environment of the course to the exclusion of the experience of instructors and students in the teaching/learning process . . . it is the lived experiences of students and teachers, their actual interactions, in which teaching and learning are made manifest.”* While it is important to consider theory along with different elements in designing learning environments and methods, what actually transpires for the student is a complicated experience with many contributing factors: the instructor’s approach, the student’s motivation, matching the content with the right format and technology, etc. To me it sometimes seems that theory’s purpose is to try to explain a complex learning situation in a simple fashion, but it also has the power to oversimplify and distort. This concept is also tied to the notion that measuring the best combination of online and face-to-face elements is impossible because, among other reasons, no one-size-fits-all method for blended teaching/learning. The key seems to be that the instructor needs to be knowledgeable about theory and instructional design, but also needs to rely on teaching instincts developed over time to adapt the learning environments as needed for a particular class or particular student. Similarly, an instructor should teach a face-to-face class prepared with a lesson plan,but be agile enough to switch gears if the lesson plan and its execution are not working with a particular group of students on a particular day. For novice instructors, I am not sure how they can develop instincts with online teaching other than through much experience.

I was also struck by the sentence that “During fully online and blended learning courses, students often need more structure and support to succeed because their course activities usually require them to take greater responsibility for their own learning success”* because it drives home the importance of carefully constructing a course, so that the face-to-face and online elements are unified. It will help me to keep in mind as I continue to work on my blended course that students will need structure and support for the course to succeed, so that if I complete a lesson or module, I should step back and really think about the structure and journey through the content from the students’ viewpoint. Is the structure providing the right scaffolding for student learning? Are assignment directions as clear as they can be? Do students have opportunities for synchronous and asynchronous time with the instructor to be able to work independently or in groups online? It also reminded me of an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education, “Inside the Flipped Classroom,” which ended with a student’s realization that learning was a greater responsibility for the student (than in a non-flipped environment). I really find this realization to be inspiring for instructors. Wouldn’t that greater responsibility motivate the average student to take ownership of learning—and who wouldn’t want that?!

*Portions of the following chapter are adapted from “ What is Online Course Quality?” by Kelvin Thompson under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike3.0Unported license and “Design of Blended Learning in K-12” in Blended Learning in K-12 under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike3.0Unported license. Portions of the following chapter labeled as the property of the Commonwealth of Learning are used in compliance with the Commonwealth of Learning’s legal notice and may not be re-mixed apart from compliance with their repackaging guidelines.

BlendKit 2014 Reading Reaction 4

Emphasized in the reading for Blended Content and Assignments is the point that online and face-to-face activities have to be coordinated so that the course does not seem like two different courses. For the last 14 years, I have provided assistance to faculty incorporating technology in teaching and learning, so it is hard for me to comprehend not integrating the two modes (one generally relying on technology and the one face-to-face). We have always stressed the teaching and learning should drive which technology is used and how, not the other way around. If the technology gets in the way of learning, then an easier-to-use technology should be used or no technology at all (here I’m thinking of whiteboard or some other technology not needing electricity or batteries). Perhaps I’m naïve in thinking that integrating the two modes would come naturally. I’ll find out with future assignments for BlendKit.

I also wonder with a blended course if it is most useful to explain the integration between the two modes to students to help them realize the connection that has been created? I remember as an undergrad that I eventually was able to see the pattern of assignments and class activities, but perhaps it would help students to understand why certain activities were moved online and what the expectations are from the students. Perhaps towards the end of a course, students could be asked about other ways they found connections between online learning and face-to-face? Such a practice could signal to students their important role in their own learning—their actively constructing knowledge anytime anywhere.

BlendKit 2014 Reading Reaction: Chapter 3

What struck me the most in this week’s reading are the questions “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?”* As someone new to blended learning, I had not even considered that I could have biases against assessing the online participation in a blended learning course, but it makes sense. We gravitate towards the familiar or what makes us feel comfortable most of the time, so we may be more inclined to give f2f assessment more weight. If more weight were given to activities in the face-to-face environment, it would also lessen the impact of online cheating.

Because our university is concentrating efforts on the flipped classroom, I may be leaning toward that model, but it seems as though having informal assessments online as part of mastering basic information could be balanced with later, formal assessments both online and in class that really measure “students’ transfer of learning to new contexts. If learning is not transferred from the place of learning to practical application, there can be no positive return on investment of the time needed to create, implement, and evaluation instruction.” If students have ample practice applying the information in different contexts with feedback on their performance through informal means, it would seem that formal assessments for the same type of work could be done online and face-to-face and could be complex problems sets that would make cheating difficult. Although the reading states that multiple choice questions can be implemented to test higher-level thinking, I wonder if creating something that is simple to grade confines the possibilities of what we could see a given student produce. Isn’t that part of the disappointment from MOOCs—it doesn’t really encourage deep learning if assessment is only multiple choice questions and numbers of blog entries?

I wonder if anyone with more experience in blended learning and creating assessment tools could provide some guidance on what approaches and strategies have worked for fair assessment of student work in their experiences (although I will check the suggested resources from the reading). Sometimes it helps to have someone talk through the decision-making process and their own experiences. In comparison with the first two readings, I feel as though this one left me with many more questions and loose threads.

*Portions of the following section are adapted from “Design of Blended Learning in K-12” in Blended Learning in K-12 under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike3.0 Unported license. Portions of the following section labeled as the property of the Commonwealth of Learning are used in compliance with the Commonwealth of Learning’s legal notice and may not be re-mixed apart from compliance with their repackaging guidelines.

BlendKit 2014 Reading Reaction: Chapter 2

With the topic of blended interactions, I would like to focus on the role of the educator or instructor. Interaction online requires making sure to create a sense of community just as community is important in a completely face-to-face class. Included in that sense of community is students’ taking an active role in shaping their own learning and cultivating their self-expression. One important point in this era is that technology offers so many different ways for students or learners to express themselves through various types of media. The instructor role is to create environments that facilitate learning and self-expression (which includes wresting with new information, analyzing critically, refuting arguments, etc.). I find this aspect of teaching with technology most creative and intellectually satisfying as so many possibilities exist now that did not 20 or 10 or 5 years ago.

One quote from the text really struck a chord with me in defining what blended learning has to offer the residential liberal arts experience. Dziuban, Hartman, and Mehaffy (2014) note that:

Blended learning, in all its various representations, has as its fundamental premise a simple idea: link the best technological solutions for teaching and learning with the best human resources…. encourag[ing] the development of highly interactive and collaborative activities that can be accomplished only by a faculty member in a mediated setting. (p. 332)*

It strikes me that blended learning does really draw on the best technological solutions and the best human resources—in the right form at the right time. Technology can be leveraged to simplify and facilitate the learning of foundational knowledge while providing the time and space for highly collaborative instructor-student(s)/student-student interaction when students might need assistance diving deeper into knowledge. The ability to leverage instructor expertise in a highly interactive environment empowering students to dive deeper into the content can also draw up students’ intrinsic motivation to learn more about what interests them.

In the discussion of blended interaction, the reading listed four models for roles of instructor and learning in this technological era:

1. John Seely Brown’s notion of studio or atelier learning (To me, the instructor plays a role similar to a studio art teacher in a critique session where the whole class analyzes one student’s work at a time and the instructor can highlight creative, innovative work.)
2.  Clarence Fischer’s notion of educator as network administrator (The instructor helps students make connections and form learning networks as well as learn to evaluate information critically.)
3. Curtis Bonk’s notion of educator as concierge (The instructor serves as a tour guide pointing students to opportunities or resources for additional learning.)
4. George Siemens’ notion of educator as curator** (the instructor is an expert learner who make spaces where students can create, discover, and connect knowledge in combination with thoughtful interpretation.)

The reading also notes that blended learning draws on instructor expertise and student construction of knowledge with all these models where instructors work “guiding, directing, and evaluating the activities of learners.” While I agree with this assessment, I could imagine all four surfacing at various times in a blended course. For example, Bonk’s notion reminds me of the charge of reference librarians to guide students to materials that could enhance their learning and scholarship. Moreover, a faculty member can draw on notions from Brown, Fischer, and Siemens when analyzing a writing example, making connections between ideas in class discussion, and creating an environment where students discover and connect information together to construct knowledge themselves. A good, experienced instructor is constantly switching gears as needed with regard to a lesson plan or the course plan as well as for individual students. The overriding factor for successful blended learning is a faculty member with flexibility to play these different roles at different times in the right combination with the right technology. That comes only through experience and experimenting to find what works best for the individual faculty member.

* Dziuban, C.D., Hartman, J.L., and Mehaffy, G.L. (2014). Blending it all together, In A. Picciano, C. Dziuban, and C. Graham (Eds.), Blended learning: Research perspectives, volume 2. NY: Routledge.

**The chapter is adapted from “New Learners? New Educators? New Skills? “ in the Handbook of Emerging Technologies for Learning by George Siemens and Peter Tittenberger under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 Canada license. Portions of the following chapter labeled as the property of the Commonwealth of Learning are used in compliance with the Commonwealth of Learning’s legal notice and may not be re-mixed apart from compliance with their repackaging guidelines.

BlendKit 2014 Reading Reaction: Chapter 1

Blending learning for the small residential liberal arts campus

A carefully constructed blended learning environment can be greater than the sum of its parts or the “best of both worlds.” That is, activities involving the students’ acquisition of foundational material can be outsourced from the classroom as homework with exercises or quizzes with immediate feedback to help the students test their understanding of the material. Careful construction entails making sure that the content is not only as clear as possible but also is presented using the appropriate (easy-to-use) technology. In other words, technology should be in the background and facilitate the learning objectives for the teaching of that particular content. Another important point is making sure the production quality is high for the online materials, so that students’ full attention is on the content and not elsewhere.

I work at a small residential liberal arts institution, where we are developing flipped classroom components. Part of my interest in taking the BlendKit—beyond enhancing my team’s ability to provide support for faculty consulting us for help with instructional technology—is to explore the range of possibilities with blended learning for institutions like ours, where students work closely with faculty to develop a broad intellectual experience. How much face-to-face contact is required to maintain our current level of close contact between instructor and students? How much deeper can in-class learning go with well-constructed preparatory materials that students navigate on their own? What kinds of activities could be done in an online environment to deepen learning that would rival face-to-face contact? How can we leverage student comfort in engaging online for greater collaboration and peer-to-peer instruction? How can institutions like ours share what they have to offer to a broader audience without engaging in practices that would cause us to stray from the core mission? I believe it is possible but will take much exploration by thinking outside the box. Although it is a challenging time for education, the situation encourages us to rethink what we value and want to preserve and what could take another form that may lead to even more personalized education for our students—the heart of our mission. In this sense, design really is “re-design” as McGee and Reis noted.

I have been pondering the possibilities not only with “space” (face-to-face vs. online) but also with “time” that instructional technology affords. How can learning become more self-paced? How will that affect the traditional academic calendar? How much flexibility will there be in the timeline of what constitutes a “semester” if some students grasp material more quickly than others or if others need more time to absorb content? Understanding where redesign provides flexibility is key to the success of blended learning. How can content be best presented in different formats with available resources to provide flexibility? How can we help teacher-centered instruction move toward student-centered for greater flexibility?

In addition to supporting faculty and students, our team trains students in an on-campus professional development program in technology, so we are planning to take our 6-week, 8-hours-a-week training sessions, “rotations,” to create examples of blended learning courses. We are in the process of revamping the program and shortening the time for rotations, so creating blended learning environments that can deliver foundational content in a shorter time frame (or with a more flexible timeline for the student) will help us transition.

We’re all living in an era of change and evolution in education, and I am really excited to explore the possibilities to help us adapt for the future!