Week 5 Reading Reaction - Blend Kit 2015

This week’s reading addresses a question that I have had from the very beginning which is “How will I know if the course I design is “sound” prior to and during the time I am teaching it.  Fortunately the readings included several standards that help developers design courses.  Although there is no “one size fits all” model, the rubrics and forms were very helpful.  I personally liked the Blended Course Peer Review Form the best as it made me aware of some initial start up items I still need to work on.  I jumped right in to the first learning module for my DIY tasks forgetting all about the “orientation” module.  This is something I will be working on in the coming weeks.  For the checklist by the University of Wisconsin, I received an error message so if anyone reading this blog has a better link, I would appreciate it. 

Another item I did not consider in my own course design, although the online courses I teach utilized them at the end of each term, is an end of course evaluation.  This can be accomplished through a simple online survey so other than just putting it together; this should not be too much of a problem setting up.

Chapter 4 Reading Response

Not much new information learned this week from what I have already known about Blended learning design.  One thing educators need to keep in mind is that “online materials are central to a blended course’s success” and that the materials should be an extension of the assessment process.  They should also be student centered.  I am still planning to facilitate my course(s) into learning modules as indicated in the reading, and having the online portion cohesively integrated with the F2F portion.

I was introduced to some new technology techniques as presented in Table 2 (Preparing for blended e-learning – 5 learning activity techniques, Littlejohn and Pegler, 2007).  Hot Potatoes was a new site to explore.  The matrix also provide an opportunity to address the five types of learning activities:  Assimilative, Adaptive, Communication, Productive, and Experiential.  For my course, assimilative activities will include students viewing teacher created video clips and publisher created lessons information.  For the Adaptive and Experiential activities students will work with “Gizmos” and graphing calculator software.  The students will also complete module content discussion boards to address communicative learning activities.  I am still exploring ideas for Productive learning activities, but one possibility will be having students create videos of problem completion on virtual whiteboards.

Blended Assessments of Learning- Chapter 3.

This week’s reading discussed assessment in the blended learning environment.  One point that was made in the beginning of the reading was that in addition to addressing the learning standards, you also need to “find a real life application to better your students’ understanding of the materials covered. If this is not done, much of your time, and your students’ time, has been greatly wasted”  (para. 2).  My plan is to create quick video introduction for each module so I will have to keep the reading statement in mind when completing this task.  I feel that personally making this connection will help the engage and motivate the students more so.  In fact, I could even recruit volunteers to make their own “video” as a project based assessment for subsequent implementation.   This type of assessment would help avoid the same old methods utilized in the traditional setting such as multiple choice methods, and to provide a balance of online and face 2 face testing methods.  According to the readings, “Faculty who evaluate their students’ performances by using a mixture of tests – some online, some offline – have experienced more fruitful outcomes” (para. 4).

The reading also addressed how to create online versions of formal and informal assessments.  Although I will be implementing quizzes and tests from the online version of the course textbook, I found the information helpful if I run into a situation where I have to create assessments from scratch.  I was especially interested in the Performance task section which discussed authentic assessment.  Each unit in the course I am designing will have a type of real life project relating to the concepts the students are currently learning.  The information from this section will help create such assessments.

The final sections discussed preparing the assessments/activities for the online version.  Detailed instructions need to be tailored to the level of student the course is designed for in addition to providing grading rubrics for each.  One item I did not take into consideration was the practice test to use as an informal guide to see if students are prepared for the actual assessments.  This will be something to include in my final course plan.

Blendkit 2015 Week 2 Reaction - My Role as a Concierge and Curator Educator

This week’s reading detailed student engagement and interactions within the blended learning environment.  Of specific interest was the research findings of undergraduate students reported by the EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research (ECAR), “More students (36 percent) prefer a blended learning environment of seminars and other smaller classes with some online components to any other configuration of face-to-face and online options” (p. 27).  I would be curious to know if findings are similar with students in the K-12 setting, or if the preference is even greater.

The reading material incited a reflective discourse in which I found myself asking what type of environment I envisioned for my students in the blended learning course I am creating, and what types of interactions best suit my students needs.   According to the readings, “high impact activities increase learner engagement and result in greater success in learning” (Siemens & Tittenberger, 2009, para 1), and “minimal guidance is not as effective as guided instruction” (para 4).  The chapter introduced four models of learning to help in my quest to create the environment that blends both engagement and appropriate guidance – John Brown’s Atelier learning model, Clarence Fischer’s Network Administrator model, Curtis Bonk’s concierge model, and George Siemens’ Curator model.  As I create the middle school math course, I feel that following the concierge or curator model would fit best.  I want my course to be one where the instructor “shows” rather that “tells” students. 

Blendkit 2015 Week 1 Reading Reflection

This week’s readings included an overview of the definition, benefits, and implementation of Blended Learning (BL).  According to the chapter 1 readings, “institutions generally use “blended” (or related terms) to refer to some combination of on-campus class meeting and online activities.”  The term “hybrid” was a new concept I had not heard before, although I am very familiar with the term “Blended Learning”. 

The Sloan Consortium defines blended learning as “a course where 30%-70% of the instruction is delivered online.”  This seems to be a wide variance; however, it is only a guideline to use in planning the blended learning course.

Benefits of Blended learning

The following excerpt was not new knowledge:  “blended courses allow students and faculty to take advantage of much of the flexibility and convenience of an online course while retaining the benefits of the face-to-face classroom experience.”  However, I found it surprising that there was a lot of current research relating to BL.  Of particular interest was the fact “Research shows that when properly implemented, blended learning can result in improved student success, satisfaction, and retention.”  I was also surprised to read that Blended Learning has been implemented successfully for over the past 17 years at my Alma matter UCF.  I am interested in reviewing the data presented at http://blendedlearningtoolkit.org/about/benefits-of-blended-learning.  I was a bit disappointed that most of the research presented was from the secondary level with not much, if any, in the K-12 setting.  This is inspiring as it creates an avenue for new empirical research, and provides ways for teachers to differentiate learning meeting the needs of all students.

The reading introduced BL design as a controlled process beginning with learning objectives.  These objectives guide the course, delivery of content, and evaluation.  In order for students to meet the goals of the course ample practice needs to be introduced. 

One thing designers need to keep in mind is that the online component is not implemented just for the “sake of using technology”.  It needs to be appropriate and purposeful.  Designers also need to know that any course development is cyclical meaning that courses need constant evaluation and implementation reflection .  There are five key elements to designing the online and traditional components of BL:

• Live events. These are synchronous, instructor-led events. Traditional lectures, video conferences, and synchronous chat sessions such as Blackboard Collaborate or Adobe Connect are examples.
• Self-Paced Learning. Experiences the learner completes individually on her own time such as an internet or CD-ROM based tutorial.
• Collaboration. Learners communicate and create with others. E-mail, threaded discussions, and wikis are all examples.
• Assessment. Measurements of whether or to what extent learning has taken place. Assessment is not limited to conventional tests, quizzes, and grades. Narrative feedback, portfolio evaluations and, importantly, a designer’s reflection about a blended learning environment’s effectiveness or usefulness are all forms of assessment. Support Materials. These include reference material, both physical and virtual, FAQ forums, and summaries. Anything that aids learning retention and transfer (Carman, 2002).

The Week 1 reading concluded with two case studies detailing course design and implementation of BL at the secondary level.