Learning activities
The core of blended-learning is the integration
of face-to-face and online learning activities [1]. Very often we want to have
something fancy and very innovative in our online teaching, and don't think
about consequences. We should realize that just an addition of activities which
don't provoke deep learning can completely destroy the course outcome. In other
words, the constructive alignment will be not established. In my opinion, the
course content becomes more colorful and exciting if we think very carefully
about each online activity which we offer to our students. I looked
through the Topic 4 literature and was quite surprised that it is mostly about
how to establish an online course, but not how to integrate the learning activities
smoothly into the course program. The organic integration of thoughtfully
selected activities is one of the major constituents of our success with the
blended learning. I imagine the laboratory balances where both sites of
face-to-face and online learning must be in a balance. Also we should
think that the instructors must be trained not only to use the technology, but
also bring it in the ways in which they organize and deliver the material. I
have noticed during the seminar with Martha Cleveland-Innes that the activity
with the testing was too much for this 1.5 hour interaction. Even the test was
only 10 min, it was too overloading to be concentrated on the major course
context. Instead of giving such a test during 1.5 hours lecture, maybe a
shorter, more exciting, and automated test will be a better match for this
seminar. I cannot also say that it provoked any new concept of the blending
learning. The choice of activity, the right time point, right duration of that
online activity, logical chain and our inspiring feelings from that activity
play a major role in the blended course design. I thought about a memo which we
need to keep in mind when we work on the blended course design. The tasks 1, 2, 3, and 4 are the well-known constituents of the Bigg's
constructive alignment model [3].
Figure 1: Memo what we have to remember for the design of a blended learning course. |
What I decided to add into the blended course
design are integrated interactive activities and dialog-based communication
with the consistent feedback. We have to select learning activities very
carefully and always ask for the feedback at the end of the class if anybody
experienced large problems with the section or just has any complementary
comments. The online activities must be done under guidance of the instructors
using dialog-based communication. The activities between students can be also
implemented in the course program, but students should be not left for a long
time without any guidance. Otherwise, it will remind more the homework and assignment
work which students try to solve during the class time. Also, it could become
more difficult to track what students really learn from the class. I understand
that not at all Universities will have enough resources for the
dialog-based communication, but there are always options to split a large class
in smaller groups to establish more close relationship with students and
provide a better quality of guidance. Overall, we should think that we learn
from our experiences, and our goal is deep and interactive learning. You
remember significantly better teaching material which you learned in a good
working environment by having fun and feeling motivation of others to learn
something new!
Figure 2: Possibilities for blended learning [4]. |
According to Bath & Bourke
(2010), “Student activity beyond the classroom should ideally involve a
combination of both individual and collaborative activities, as well as both
formal and supplementary activity and resources, to support students in their
learning and achievement of the course objectives”.
As we consider which learning activities to embed in a
blended learning context it is useful to look at this revised version of
Bloom’s taxonomy for alignment to the blended learning environment (adapted from
Churches, 2008 in Bath & Bourke, 2010). This revision as found in Bath
& Bourke (2010) may be useful for us as educators in that it provides
suggestions for learning tasks that can be used to map to
particular objectives.
References
1. Vaughan, N. D.,
Cleveland-Innes, M., & Garrison, D. R. (2013). Teaching in blended
learning environments: Creating and sustaining communities of inquiry.
Edmonton: AU Press.
2. Grover, S., Pea, R., &
Cooper, S. (2015). Designing for deeper learning in a blended computer science
course for middle school students, Computer Science Education, 25(2),
199-237.
3. Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing
teaching through constructive alignment, Higher Education, 32, 347-364.
4. Bath, D. and
Bourke J. (2010), Blended Learning. Griffith University, Online: https://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/267178/Getting_started_with_ble
nded_learning_guide.pdf
Comments
Post a Comment