In
a blended course, thirty to seventy nine percent of the content is delivered online
(Allen &
Seaman, 2010). Changing from a face to face course to a blended learning format
has implications for the course designer. For example, there is need to assess
financial, human and technical resources as well as technical support for both
learners and instructors (Garrison and Kanuka, 2004). Learners also need
special consideration because they are the main beneficiaries of the learning
process. There is need to conduct a thorough learner analysis so that their
requirements are addressed. Other considerations include “identifying
learning outcomes and topics, creating assignments and activities, determining
how interaction will occur, and selecting the technologies to best achieve
those learning outcomes” (Kelly, 2012, para. 1).
New roles and responsibilities
Aspects
of the original training program that could be enhanced in an online distance
learning format include improved student interactivity and reflective responses
during asynchronous discussions resulting in in-depth learning (Teacher Stream,
2009). Unlike the original training program where a trainer is expected to lead
the learning process through presentations, the role of the trainer in an
online learning environment would change to encompass facilitation, guidance
and motivation. There are a number of things the facilitator can do to
encourage the trainees to participate online. These include active
participation in online discussions by the facilitator, asking challenging
questions that help trainees to develop higher order thinking, and provision of
timely feedback (Durrington, Berryhill & Swafford, 2006).
Best practices
The University
of Waterloo (n. d.) Centre for Teaching Excellence website highlights the
following blended learning best practices:
- The need for instructors to discuss with students why their course
has changed to a blended learning format
- Preparing students for their new roles and responsibilities as
online learners
- Staff development aimed at ensuring effective facilitation in online discussions
Bostock
(2007) has also proposed the following simple blended learning planning tool:
|
Intended learning
outcomes
|
Potential options for
online teaching-learning activities
|
Potential options for
traditional face to-
face activities
|
|
|
|
|
References
Allen, E, & Seaman, J. (2010). Class differences: Online education
in the United States
Retrieved
from http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/survey/class_differences
Bostock,
S. (2007). How to design a blended learning course. Retrieved from
http://www.keele.org.uk/e-t/how%20to%20design.pdfDurrington, V., Berryhill, A., & Swafford, J. (2006). Strategies for enhancing student interactivity in an online environment. College Teaching, 54(1), 190–193. Retrieved from
http://www.redorbit.com/news/technology/433631/strategies_for_enhancing_student_interactivity_in_an_online_environment/
Garrison, R. &
Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in
higher education. Internet and Higher Education. 7 (2004). 95-105.
Kelly,
R. (2012, August 24). Blended learning course design mistakes to avoid.
Faculty Focus. Retrieved from http://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/instructional-design/blended-learning-course-design-mistakes-to-avoid/
TeacherStream (2009). Mastering Online Discussion Board Facilitation. Edutopia. Retrieved from http://www.edutopia.org/pdfs/stw/edutopia-onlinelearning-mastering-online-discussion-board-facilitation.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment