At the end of class this past week, Charles Graham asked students to think about different structures that we've been given and to think of them in terms of facilitating learning. I have decided to focus on the family. In my family right now there is a mom, a dad and four children. So each of my children has two "teachers" and three "peers." This makes lots of opportunities for teacher-learner (parent-child) and learner-learner (sibling) interactions. Unlike a typical classroom, in which students shuffle from place to place, we are in a long-term learning relationship. This is important.
As I think about the students I teach here at BYU compared with students that I taught in Miami, I was probably able to teach individual Miami students better because (for most of the students) I had taught them for several years. So on average I knew my Miami students better than I knew my BYU students. And I believe knowing the person helps in teaching them. In this case, the family provides an opportunity for deep knowing of each other and for the potential for better teaching to take place as a result.
Shawn Cates also made a good point that families provide opportunities for collaborative learning. Another idea is that the family can provide a structure similar perhaps to an apprenticeship environment. Like the "Mayan Midwives" situated learning example, children have the opportunity to learn from their older siblings and parents.
Recently I read an article in which the author talked about how it was learning from an older sibling that made the difference for him. He wrote about some poor decisions he was making in his life, and when his older brother talked with him about it, he decided to make some changes. Although his parents had tried to get him to make these changes it was the influence of his sibling that made the difference.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Monday, March 30, 2009
(The late) Friday Review
So for the first time this semester I missed the Friday review. Hope you didn't notice. :)
What knocked me off my schedule (and this is not an excuse) is that I spent the day in Salt Lake at the CES Academic Technology meeting. I was invited at the last minute and it seemed like too good an opportunity to pass up, although now I'm paying the price for missing the last statistics class before our midterm.
The conference itself was very interesting. For me personally the most exciting parts were the updates from Seminaries and Institutes about ways they are working to use technology to increase impact and exposure. Good things are happnening and it was fun to meet Tyler and Christopher. A couple of side conversations I had that were very interesting concerned some of the logistics of building community amongst LDS youth (Stephanie) using the "Express Book Machine" at the BYU Bookstore to increase the "long tail" of books (Roger), and the possibility of getting help from the BYU Library to scan out of print LDS books (Randy).
With that introduction, here is the roundup of what I learned this past week:
Research:
Tentative approval has been given to the "open book" project that will develop into my dissertation. That is super exciting. Currently, I'm working with David on a paper that describes the current status of the Flat World Knowledge Beta test.
Distance Education:
Dr. Howell came and visited our class. We discussed the role of assessment in distance education; one thing that surprised me is that some schools are moving away from having frequent proctored exams because of the difficulty people have in scheduling time to take such an exam. We also discussed how the family is a perfect "instructional" setting (another post on that issue is forthcoming). I also got IRB approval and have sent out the survey regarding David Wiley's class. The analysis of blogs is now complete.
Open Education:
It was a heady week as a lot of good things came to fruition. BYU appears to be considering joining the OCW Consortium and if one counts up the "good" things that have occured in part because of our class it is surprising.
Assessment:
Digging into reliability and validity. Although I have covered these concepts in other classes we're digging a little deeper which promises to push my brain this next week.
Stats:
I have completed all the data collection for my research paper on the effects of BYU religion classes on scripture study and now simply need to analyze it. I re-read chapters 7-12 of the textbook in preparation for the test this week, but still feel like I'm lacking a bit. I can do all the SPSS calculations, but I don't think my conceptual understandings are yet where they need to be.
With 3 weeks left in the semester it looks like there is a 50-50 chance I will finish with success!
What knocked me off my schedule (and this is not an excuse) is that I spent the day in Salt Lake at the CES Academic Technology meeting. I was invited at the last minute and it seemed like too good an opportunity to pass up, although now I'm paying the price for missing the last statistics class before our midterm.
The conference itself was very interesting. For me personally the most exciting parts were the updates from Seminaries and Institutes about ways they are working to use technology to increase impact and exposure. Good things are happnening and it was fun to meet Tyler and Christopher. A couple of side conversations I had that were very interesting concerned some of the logistics of building community amongst LDS youth (Stephanie) using the "Express Book Machine" at the BYU Bookstore to increase the "long tail" of books (Roger), and the possibility of getting help from the BYU Library to scan out of print LDS books (Randy).
With that introduction, here is the roundup of what I learned this past week:
Research:
Tentative approval has been given to the "open book" project that will develop into my dissertation. That is super exciting. Currently, I'm working with David on a paper that describes the current status of the Flat World Knowledge Beta test.
Distance Education:
Dr. Howell came and visited our class. We discussed the role of assessment in distance education; one thing that surprised me is that some schools are moving away from having frequent proctored exams because of the difficulty people have in scheduling time to take such an exam. We also discussed how the family is a perfect "instructional" setting (another post on that issue is forthcoming). I also got IRB approval and have sent out the survey regarding David Wiley's class. The analysis of blogs is now complete.
Open Education:
It was a heady week as a lot of good things came to fruition. BYU appears to be considering joining the OCW Consortium and if one counts up the "good" things that have occured in part because of our class it is surprising.
Assessment:
Digging into reliability and validity. Although I have covered these concepts in other classes we're digging a little deeper which promises to push my brain this next week.
Stats:
I have completed all the data collection for my research paper on the effects of BYU religion classes on scripture study and now simply need to analyze it. I re-read chapters 7-12 of the textbook in preparation for the test this week, but still feel like I'm lacking a bit. I can do all the SPSS calculations, but I don't think my conceptual understandings are yet where they need to be.
With 3 weeks left in the semester it looks like there is a 50-50 chance I will finish with success!
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Thinking about interactions and OCW
Based on some feedback from Peter and Charles I have been thinking about different ways to situate my paper. Today I went back to some readings we had at the beginning of class to focus on how these frameworks could relate to OCW.
In 1989 Moore described three important kinds of interactions that take place in education. These interactions are the following: teacher-student, student-student and student-content. Anderson (2004) elaborates on these interactions, explaining that even if teachers and students are separated by distance they can still have rich interactions. Anderson also notes that the interactions amongst students are important because “the communication of an idea to other students…raises the interest and motivation of the interactors” (134). In a traditional sense, student-content interactions would consist of a student reading a textbook and responding to questions from the text. Although the value added by technology to the student-content interaction has been debated (Anderson, 2004), there are clearly more content options available to the typical student today than there were thirty years ago.
Open course ware has the potential to greatly expand these three types of interactions. Most OCW resources focus on the “student-content” interaction. Students can read syllabi and course assignments, and in some cases take online mastery quizzes. In isolated cases OCW providers have made efforts to facilitate ways for students to learn with other students. For example, at one point MIT created a discussion board that allowed students taking an open course to interact with other students taking the same course. However this attempt was not successful. Wiley (xxxx) has argued that had more effort been put into encouraging student interaction that the student-student interaction would have become a more vibrant part of the MIT OCW program.
While MIT, Yale, Carnegie Mellon and others OCW providers all allow students to interact with content; they do not provide any sort of interaction between students and teachers. A logical reason for this is the difficulty in scale. Two thousand people can all access the same online reading assignment at the same time; however, for a teacher to interact with 2,000 students would be much more difficult. Perhaps for this reason little OCW focuses on teacher-learner interaction.
Although institutions do not typically provide teacher-learner interactions, a few teachers have been experimenting with this type of open teaching. This would be where I could bridge into the paper.
What follows is probably beyond the scope of the paper I am working on at the present, but I think has interesting implications for another article I'd like to think about in the future. Anderson also points out two additional types of interaction: teacher-content and teacher-teacher. Open educational resources can also help facilitate these kinds of interactions. When multiple teachers open their content, and take the time to look at content that is openly available it increases the exposure teachers have to different kinds of content. For example, reading ten syllabi written by one’s peers could potentially improve one’s own syllabus. Similarly, as teachers are more open with their content teachers may be more able to easily identify teachers with whom they would be interested in communicating.
In 1989 Moore described three important kinds of interactions that take place in education. These interactions are the following: teacher-student, student-student and student-content. Anderson (2004) elaborates on these interactions, explaining that even if teachers and students are separated by distance they can still have rich interactions. Anderson also notes that the interactions amongst students are important because “the communication of an idea to other students…raises the interest and motivation of the interactors” (134). In a traditional sense, student-content interactions would consist of a student reading a textbook and responding to questions from the text. Although the value added by technology to the student-content interaction has been debated (Anderson, 2004), there are clearly more content options available to the typical student today than there were thirty years ago.
Open course ware has the potential to greatly expand these three types of interactions. Most OCW resources focus on the “student-content” interaction. Students can read syllabi and course assignments, and in some cases take online mastery quizzes. In isolated cases OCW providers have made efforts to facilitate ways for students to learn with other students. For example, at one point MIT created a discussion board that allowed students taking an open course to interact with other students taking the same course. However this attempt was not successful. Wiley (xxxx) has argued that had more effort been put into encouraging student interaction that the student-student interaction would have become a more vibrant part of the MIT OCW program.
While MIT, Yale, Carnegie Mellon and others OCW providers all allow students to interact with content; they do not provide any sort of interaction between students and teachers. A logical reason for this is the difficulty in scale. Two thousand people can all access the same online reading assignment at the same time; however, for a teacher to interact with 2,000 students would be much more difficult. Perhaps for this reason little OCW focuses on teacher-learner interaction.
Although institutions do not typically provide teacher-learner interactions, a few teachers have been experimenting with this type of open teaching. This would be where I could bridge into the paper.
What follows is probably beyond the scope of the paper I am working on at the present, but I think has interesting implications for another article I'd like to think about in the future. Anderson also points out two additional types of interaction: teacher-content and teacher-teacher. Open educational resources can also help facilitate these kinds of interactions. When multiple teachers open their content, and take the time to look at content that is openly available it increases the exposure teachers have to different kinds of content. For example, reading ten syllabi written by one’s peers could potentially improve one’s own syllabus. Similarly, as teachers are more open with their content teachers may be more able to easily identify teachers with whom they would be interested in communicating.
Follow up to assesment comment made by Dr. Howell
I was very interested in a particular comment made in passing by Dr. Howell when he visited our Distance Education class. The comment had to do assessment errors being made when teachers calculate final grades. The error come s as the various weighted components are put together. Dr. Howell said this was very common and given that I am prone to common mistakes, I thought that I might benefit from learning more about this. Dr. Howell was gracious enough to send me this article and recommended that I read it to find out if I was making errors. The article talks about four common errors that are made. These errors are the following:
(a) the Average Speed Error – this is named for the classic problem pertaining to how many hours a person drives if they drive for 60 mph for 120 miles and 30 mph for the second 120 miles. People logically make errors by not making sure the problem has the correct numerator and denominator. This error could introduced if tests are worth different amounts and this is not taken into account. I don’t think I have this problem.
(b) the Weight Problem—this is a problem that I did have, although I’m not sure what to do about it or how serious a problem it is. This problem has to do with not taking into account the standard deviation on one test versus another. For example, if one test has a standard deviation of 5 and a second has a standard deviation of 25 then the tests should be weighted differently.
(c) the Natural Variation Violation – this problem is introduced when a teacher calls any grade from 93-100 an “A” and then compiles grades together. Thus a person who got a “93” on each assignment would get the same grade as a person who got “100” on every assignment. This is also a problem I don’t have.
(d) the Mars Climate Orbiter Miscalculation. This is related to the “weight problem” and shows how to correct for it.
My grading metric is something like this:
Scripture Reading – 100 points
Weekly papers – 100 points
Attendance –100 points
Mid-Terms – 200 Points
Final – 200 Points
So there are a total of 700 points, and I add up all the points a student gets, divide it by 700 and that results in a percentage earned of total points.
94-100 A
90-93.9 A-
87-89.9 B+
83-86.9 B
And so forth.
I guess my main objection to the weight and mars climate problem is that they seem too close to grading on a curve. At least for the present I am not as concerned with how well one student does relative to another, but whether each individual can reach the target. In addition the necessary calculations to adjust for the weight problem are somewhat tricky and most students would perceive them to be unfair. Francis, the author of the article, addresses these concerns but his attempts to resolve them were unsatisfactory (at least for me). I still remember 10 years ago taking a religion class and being so angry that teacher insisted on grading on a curve where 20% of students got an A, 20% an A-, and so forth. Although I got an A in that class, I thought to myself, “God doesn’t grade on a curve. He sets criteria for each kingdom and if you meet the criteria, then you get in!”
I could see somebody responding to this statement by saying, “Sure, if you are an omniscient teacher, go ahead and do that, but if not, you should probably try another approach.” And that may have merit. I’m not saying that I completely reject the “weight” problem, but I did not see it as a problem. If I weight the final twice as heavily and a student does really well on the final, then in my view that should compensate for a poor score on the first exam, regardless of what the standard deviations were.
I look forward to learning more from Dr. Howell on this issue, because he doubtless has some insights that would help resolve my concerns on this matter.
(a) the Average Speed Error – this is named for the classic problem pertaining to how many hours a person drives if they drive for 60 mph for 120 miles and 30 mph for the second 120 miles. People logically make errors by not making sure the problem has the correct numerator and denominator. This error could introduced if tests are worth different amounts and this is not taken into account. I don’t think I have this problem.
(b) the Weight Problem—this is a problem that I did have, although I’m not sure what to do about it or how serious a problem it is. This problem has to do with not taking into account the standard deviation on one test versus another. For example, if one test has a standard deviation of 5 and a second has a standard deviation of 25 then the tests should be weighted differently.
(c) the Natural Variation Violation – this problem is introduced when a teacher calls any grade from 93-100 an “A” and then compiles grades together. Thus a person who got a “93” on each assignment would get the same grade as a person who got “100” on every assignment. This is also a problem I don’t have.
(d) the Mars Climate Orbiter Miscalculation. This is related to the “weight problem” and shows how to correct for it.
My grading metric is something like this:
Scripture Reading – 100 points
Weekly papers – 100 points
Attendance –100 points
Mid-Terms – 200 Points
Final – 200 Points
So there are a total of 700 points, and I add up all the points a student gets, divide it by 700 and that results in a percentage earned of total points.
94-100 A
90-93.9 A-
87-89.9 B+
83-86.9 B
And so forth.
I guess my main objection to the weight and mars climate problem is that they seem too close to grading on a curve. At least for the present I am not as concerned with how well one student does relative to another, but whether each individual can reach the target. In addition the necessary calculations to adjust for the weight problem are somewhat tricky and most students would perceive them to be unfair. Francis, the author of the article, addresses these concerns but his attempts to resolve them were unsatisfactory (at least for me). I still remember 10 years ago taking a religion class and being so angry that teacher insisted on grading on a curve where 20% of students got an A, 20% an A-, and so forth. Although I got an A in that class, I thought to myself, “God doesn’t grade on a curve. He sets criteria for each kingdom and if you meet the criteria, then you get in!”
I could see somebody responding to this statement by saying, “Sure, if you are an omniscient teacher, go ahead and do that, but if not, you should probably try another approach.” And that may have merit. I’m not saying that I completely reject the “weight” problem, but I did not see it as a problem. If I weight the final twice as heavily and a student does really well on the final, then in my view that should compensate for a poor score on the first exam, regardless of what the standard deviations were.
I look forward to learning more from Dr. Howell on this issue, because he doubtless has some insights that would help resolve my concerns on this matter.
Open Ed: More on Finance Course
This week David Wiley was able to contact Bryan Sudweeks regarding his course, and it appears that there may be some exciting possibilities with setting this part of the finance course free. I helped draft a letter regarding to Dr. Sudweeks regarding OCW and CC licenses. I also spent a lot of time on the personal finance site mapping various parts of it to the course objectives for the state of Utah's personal finance course (see google docs). It is inspiring to see somebody like Dr. Sudweeks who has created such a complete course, and is willing to freely share it without trying to charge people money for it. I love it.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Friday Review
Here it is another Friday Review...Things are really heating up now and I am very hopeful that the last four weeks of this semester will bring a sweet fruition. Here's the roundup of what I've been up to:
Research
Starting to work on an article about Flat World Knowledge. It's an exciting opportunity to look at a unique way of approaching the high costs of textbook. We got into some data this week and I'm continuing to build the paper.
Distance
We had a great class this week. As I mentioned to Charles today though probably even greater is the interactions and personal mentoring I am having with him and Peter. For example today we spent an hour discussing the paper I'm working on and how it could be improved. Charles had a great idea about using a framework in terms of openness that I'm excited to explore. I also had an hour long discussion about IRB proposal I have in this class. Doing the IRB and working to really publish it has been an important part of the learning process for me.
Open Education
Good news--the author of a great Personal Finance Website is willing to consider licensing the content with a CC license and making some sort of effort to join an OCW consortium. Working to set content free makes me feel like a freedom fighter or something.
Stats
Made some good intellectual progress this week as I reread portion of the textbook. Also sitting down and punching out numbers on SPSS solidified my understanding. I am one week away from finishing my data collection and I'm excited about moving that research line forward.
Assessment
Studied my brains out and took a test. I felt really good about this test. We'll see how it turns out.
Research
Starting to work on an article about Flat World Knowledge. It's an exciting opportunity to look at a unique way of approaching the high costs of textbook. We got into some data this week and I'm continuing to build the paper.
Distance
We had a great class this week. As I mentioned to Charles today though probably even greater is the interactions and personal mentoring I am having with him and Peter. For example today we spent an hour discussing the paper I'm working on and how it could be improved. Charles had a great idea about using a framework in terms of openness that I'm excited to explore. I also had an hour long discussion about IRB proposal I have in this class. Doing the IRB and working to really publish it has been an important part of the learning process for me.
Open Education
Good news--the author of a great Personal Finance Website is willing to consider licensing the content with a CC license and making some sort of effort to join an OCW consortium. Working to set content free makes me feel like a freedom fighter or something.
Stats
Made some good intellectual progress this week as I reread portion of the textbook. Also sitting down and punching out numbers on SPSS solidified my understanding. I am one week away from finishing my data collection and I'm excited about moving that research line forward.
Assessment
Studied my brains out and took a test. I felt really good about this test. We'll see how it turns out.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Open Ed: Quest 5
As you hopefully know, I am working in a guild with Justin Johansen and Sara Joy Pond to create an open “financial literacy” class for high school students. We have taken the Utah state standards and divided out the objectives. Mine focus on investment and retirement. I searched through oerrecommender.com, wikieducator and discovered.creativecommons.org to find resources. I also remembered hearing about a personal finance site created by a BYU professor. I was able to locate both the site and its creator. I sent him an email to see if he would visit with me about opening up the content. I had not heard back after a few days and so I called him and we had a great conversation. The upshot of the matter is that he is very open to it. He had not heard of creative commons nor MIT OCW, but it seems like he wants to share his work as widely as possible as long as it is used non-commercially. It is a very comprehensive course and includes assessments. I believe that for me personally, I enjoy and think it is better to find complete courses and be instrumental in setting them free than to piece together modules from a variety of sources. I’m hopeful that a productive conversation will ensue, setting some content free!
Distance: Item Analysis
Item Analysis
I really enjoyed the readings by Scott Howell. I discovered that in some respects he is my boss as I teach a night class and he is apparently the director of night classes. One of the readings that I particularly enjoyed was “Improving Student Assessment—One Item at a Time.” I guess I liked it because it is something that I’ve been working on right now. I teach a Book of Mormon class this semester and I taught the same class this last semester. So I took “exam #2” from last semester and just completed doing an item analysis and test revision on that exam prior to administering exam #2 this year. Some of the things I specifically found were the same as mentioned by Scott in this article. One of these items was “distracter analysis.” I noticed that several of my questions had distracters that were completely ineffective—nobody was distracted by them! In addition I had several questions that had an item difficulty of 1.0, meaning that nobody got them wrong. I made some adjustments to my test to strengthen some distracters and eliminated some of the questions that were apparently too easy.
I have a couple of questions that I would like to ask Scott in our class. First, it seems to me that this article is mostly focused on norm-referenced tests. I’m wondering if I am trying to create a criterion test if he believes that I should still strive for item difficulty levels between .4 and .7, as well as a minimum discriminating power of .3.
I also want to learn more about what he terms a “test blueprint.” I am sure that I could benefit from such a product. I’m looking forward to hearing from Scott in class this next week.
I really enjoyed the readings by Scott Howell. I discovered that in some respects he is my boss as I teach a night class and he is apparently the director of night classes. One of the readings that I particularly enjoyed was “Improving Student Assessment—One Item at a Time.” I guess I liked it because it is something that I’ve been working on right now. I teach a Book of Mormon class this semester and I taught the same class this last semester. So I took “exam #2” from last semester and just completed doing an item analysis and test revision on that exam prior to administering exam #2 this year. Some of the things I specifically found were the same as mentioned by Scott in this article. One of these items was “distracter analysis.” I noticed that several of my questions had distracters that were completely ineffective—nobody was distracted by them! In addition I had several questions that had an item difficulty of 1.0, meaning that nobody got them wrong. I made some adjustments to my test to strengthen some distracters and eliminated some of the questions that were apparently too easy.
I have a couple of questions that I would like to ask Scott in our class. First, it seems to me that this article is mostly focused on norm-referenced tests. I’m wondering if I am trying to create a criterion test if he believes that I should still strive for item difficulty levels between .4 and .7, as well as a minimum discriminating power of .3.
I also want to learn more about what he terms a “test blueprint.” I am sure that I could benefit from such a product. I’m looking forward to hearing from Scott in class this next week.
Friday Review
Well, I definitely felt my brain expand this week…it was a good week.
Research
David Wiley and I finished an article regarding open publishing that we have been working on. The final product is one that I am extremely happy with and hope to share with the world. I think it will be the basis for a lot of what I do by way of future studies.
Distance Education
All things were able to pull together for turning in “part I” of my research paper. I was disappointed that the IRB committee meeting was postponed for a week, cutting into precious research time. Argh! Spent some time in class learning how to do qualtrics and found it to be immediately applicable.
Open Education
It was a good week—had fun searching for OERs in Finance and found several. I am working with Justin Johansen and Sara Joy Pond. I was able to talk with an individual who has created a huge finance class complete with assessment about the possibility of using a Creative Commons license. It could be a great opportunity to set some content free.
Assessment
It’s exam time again and I am cranking up my efforts to pack facts into my tiny brain. We’re allowed to bring in a page of notes, and so I’ve reread chapters 7-15 of the textbook and typed notes on them. Now I just need to shrink the font to size 6 and I’ll be ready to go.
Statistics
Good news—not only did my IRB go through, but the surveys have begun. I am happy because three of the sections I’m surveying have high response rates. The fourth section is being delayed in its participation, due to circumstances beyond my control; however, I think that is the way it goes with research sometimes…
Research
David Wiley and I finished an article regarding open publishing that we have been working on. The final product is one that I am extremely happy with and hope to share with the world. I think it will be the basis for a lot of what I do by way of future studies.
Distance Education
All things were able to pull together for turning in “part I” of my research paper. I was disappointed that the IRB committee meeting was postponed for a week, cutting into precious research time. Argh! Spent some time in class learning how to do qualtrics and found it to be immediately applicable.
Open Education
It was a good week—had fun searching for OERs in Finance and found several. I am working with Justin Johansen and Sara Joy Pond. I was able to talk with an individual who has created a huge finance class complete with assessment about the possibility of using a Creative Commons license. It could be a great opportunity to set some content free.
Assessment
It’s exam time again and I am cranking up my efforts to pack facts into my tiny brain. We’re allowed to bring in a page of notes, and so I’ve reread chapters 7-15 of the textbook and typed notes on them. Now I just need to shrink the font to size 6 and I’ll be ready to go.
Statistics
Good news—not only did my IRB go through, but the surveys have begun. I am happy because three of the sections I’m surveying have high response rates. The fourth section is being delayed in its participation, due to circumstances beyond my control; however, I think that is the way it goes with research sometimes…
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Wikipedia -- blended learning
Even though I really like the idea of editing the Wikipedia entry for blended learning, I'm not sure I'm ready to take the whole thing on...I do think though that I could make some minor contributions to the article. One thing I would like to do is change the opening definition and replace it the definition given at the end of the article.
I also would like to add in a paragraph discussing the idea that blended learning is not about adding technology to existing F2F experiences to but fundamentally rethink how we go about teaching. To get into the idea that true blended learning has to do with thinking about what things work best in a F2F environment and what things work best at a distance.
I also wondered whether it would be efficacious to use how SLOAN defines blended learning.
I'm off to an interview!
WIKIPEDIA ENTRY BELOW
{{Cleanup|date=January 2007}}
'''Blended Learning ''' is the process of incorporating many different learning styles that can be accomplished through the use of 'blended' virtual and physical resources {{Fact|date=January 2009}}. Learning styles refer to the many ways in which people learn, through blended learning this can be accomplished by creating a variety of learning assignments and activities with the use of technology and instructor and peer interaction.
The instructor can also combine two or more methods of delivery of instruction. A typical example of the delivery method of blended learning would be a combination of technology-based materials and face-to-face sessions used together to present content. An instructor can begin a course with a well-structured introductory lesson in the classroom, and then to proceed follow-up materials online. The term can also be applied to the integration of [[e-learning]] with a [[Learning Management System]] using computers in a physical classroom, along with face-to-face instruction[http://www.tomw.net.au/technology/it/blended_learning/ Blended Learning: Using a Learning Management System Live in the Classroom, Tom Worthington, The Australian National University, 24 October 2008]. Guidance is suggested early in the process, to be faded as learners gain expertise (Kirschner, Clark and Sweller, 2006).
The role of the instructor is critical as this requires a transformation process to that of learning facilitator. Quite often, with the onslaught of baby boomers going back to school and pursuing higher education the skills required for technology use are limited. The instructor then finds him/herself more in the role of assisting the student with computer skills and applications, accessing the internet, and encouraging them to be independent learners. Blended learning takes time for both the instructor and learner to adapt to this relatively new concept in delivering instruction.
==Current usage of the term==
With today's prevalence of [[high technology]] in many countries, blended learning often refers specifically to the provision or use of resources which combine [[e-learning]] (electronic) or [[m-learning]] (mobile) with other educational resources. Some would claim that key blended-learning arrangements can also involve [[e-mentoring]] or e-tutoring. These arrangements tend to combine an electronic learning component with some form of human intervention, although the involvement of an e-mentor or an e-tutor does not necessarily need to be in the context of e-learning. E-mentoring or e-tutoring can also be provided as part of a "stand alone" ("un-blended") e-tutoring or e-mentoring arrangement.
Researchers Heinze and Procter have developed the following definition for Blended Learning in [[higher education]]:
:Blended Learning is learning that is facilitated by the effective combination of different modes of delivery, models of teaching and styles of learning, and founded on transparent communication amongst all parties involved with a course. (Heinze, A. and C. Procter (2004). Reflections on the Use of Blended Learning. Education in a Changing Environment conference proceedings, University of Salford, Salford, Education Development Unit, Available on-line: [http://www.ece.salford.ac.uk/proceedings/papers/ah_04.rtf http://www.ece.salford.ac.uk/proceedings/papers/ah_04.rtf])
Some of the advantages of blended learning include; cost effectiveness for both the accrediting learning institution and the learner, accessibility to a post secondary education, and flexibility in scheduling and timetabling of course work. Some of the disadvantages may include; computer and internet access, limited knowledge in the use of technology, study skills, problems which are similar to those who would be entering a physical learning institution.
It should also be noted that some authors talk about "hybrid learning" (this seems to be more common in Northern American sources) or "mixed learning". However, all of these concepts broadly refer to the integration (the "blending") of e-learning tools and techniques.
== Blended Learning systems and Projects ==
The European Union's Socrates program is currently funding development of blended learning courses in nine less widely spoken European languages. The development projects, Tool for Online and Offline Language Learning [http://www.toolproject.eu/ TOOL] coordinated by the EuroEd Foundation, Iasi, Romania and Autonomous Language Learning [http://www.allproject.info/ ALL] coordinated by CNAI, Pamplona, Spain.
Each project is developing blended learning programs at A2 'Waystage' level in accordance with the competence descriptors defined in the CEFR (Common European Framework of Reference).
ALL: Romanian, Turkish, Lithuanian, Bulgarian.
TOOL: Slovene, Dutch, Hungarian, Estonian, Maltese.
The development is large in terms of size and scope and in that these may well be the first Blended Learning courses available in these languages and represents a development for the application of modern communicative language learning techniques in these languages.
The course developments are undertaken by a development team, consisting of several partner institutions, from each country. These institutions include publically and privately funded Universities, and private language learning providers, plus consulting specialists.
Outside the academic sector, blended learning is being used in private companies, possibly because of the cost-benefits over traditional training, though no studies are available that show clear-cost savings. One of the earliest commercial offerings in the sector came from [http://www.virtual-college.co.uk Virtual College], who produced a blended learning NVQ system in early 1995.
Willow is another platform for creating blended learning courses [http://orestes.ii.uam.es:8080/willtools Willow]
Nvolve: http://www.nvolve.net is an approach that blends Classroom, Online and Mobile technologies
== See also ==
* [[Flexible Learning]]
* [[E-Learning]]
* [[M-learning]]
* [[Networked learning]]
* [[Virtual education]]
* [[Virtual University]]
* Negotiated learning [http://www.chester.ac.uk/pdu/ www.chester.ac.uk/pdu]
==References==
{{Reflist}}
==External links==
*[http://www.allproject.info/ "Autonomous Language Learning"] A European Union, government funded, education project to build blended learning language courses in European less taught languages (Turkish, Romanian, Bulgarian and Lithuanian)].
*[http://www.toolproject.eu/ "Tool for Online and Offline Language Learning"] A European Union, government funded, education project to build blended learning language courses in European less taught languages (Dutch, Estonian, Hungarian, Maltese, Slovene).
An Instructional Media Selection Guide for Distance Learning, an official publication of the United States Distance Learning Association (http://www.usdla.org) that contains a section on blended learning. Free download available at: http://www.usdla.org/html/resources/2._USDLA_Instructional_Media_Selection_Guide.pdf
[[Category:Pedagogy]]
[[bg:Смесено обучение]]
[[ca:B-learning]]
[[cs:Blended learning]]
[[de:Integriertes Lernen]]
[[es:B-learning]]
[[ko:혼합형 학습]]
[[nl:Blended learning]]
[[no:Blended learning]]
[[pl:Blended learning]]
[[ro:Învăţare mixtă]]
[[sl:Kombinirano učenje]]
[[tr:Harmanlanmış öğrenme]]
I also would like to add in a paragraph discussing the idea that blended learning is not about adding technology to existing F2F experiences to but fundamentally rethink how we go about teaching. To get into the idea that true blended learning has to do with thinking about what things work best in a F2F environment and what things work best at a distance.
I also wondered whether it would be efficacious to use how SLOAN defines blended learning.
I'm off to an interview!
WIKIPEDIA ENTRY BELOW
{{Cleanup|date=January 2007}}
'''Blended Learning ''' is the process of incorporating many different learning styles that can be accomplished through the use of 'blended' virtual and physical resources {{Fact|date=January 2009}}. Learning styles refer to the many ways in which people learn, through blended learning this can be accomplished by creating a variety of learning assignments and activities with the use of technology and instructor and peer interaction.
The instructor can also combine two or more methods of delivery of instruction. A typical example of the delivery method of blended learning would be a combination of technology-based materials and face-to-face sessions used together to present content. An instructor can begin a course with a well-structured introductory lesson in the classroom, and then to proceed follow-up materials online. The term can also be applied to the integration of [[e-learning]] with a [[Learning Management System]] using computers in a physical classroom, along with face-to-face instruction[http://www.tomw.net.au/technology/it/blended_learning/ Blended Learning: Using a Learning Management System Live in the Classroom, Tom Worthington, The Australian National University, 24 October 2008]. Guidance is suggested early in the process, to be faded as learners gain expertise (Kirschner, Clark and Sweller, 2006).
The role of the instructor is critical as this requires a transformation process to that of learning facilitator. Quite often, with the onslaught of baby boomers going back to school and pursuing higher education the skills required for technology use are limited. The instructor then finds him/herself more in the role of assisting the student with computer skills and applications, accessing the internet, and encouraging them to be independent learners. Blended learning takes time for both the instructor and learner to adapt to this relatively new concept in delivering instruction.
==Current usage of the term==
With today's prevalence of [[high technology]] in many countries, blended learning often refers specifically to the provision or use of resources which combine [[e-learning]] (electronic) or [[m-learning]] (mobile) with other educational resources. Some would claim that key blended-learning arrangements can also involve [[e-mentoring]] or e-tutoring. These arrangements tend to combine an electronic learning component with some form of human intervention, although the involvement of an e-mentor or an e-tutor does not necessarily need to be in the context of e-learning. E-mentoring or e-tutoring can also be provided as part of a "stand alone" ("un-blended") e-tutoring or e-mentoring arrangement.
Researchers Heinze and Procter have developed the following definition for Blended Learning in [[higher education]]:
:Blended Learning is learning that is facilitated by the effective combination of different modes of delivery, models of teaching and styles of learning, and founded on transparent communication amongst all parties involved with a course. (Heinze, A. and C. Procter (2004). Reflections on the Use of Blended Learning. Education in a Changing Environment conference proceedings, University of Salford, Salford, Education Development Unit, Available on-line: [http://www.ece.salford.ac.uk/proceedings/papers/ah_04.rtf http://www.ece.salford.ac.uk/proceedings/papers/ah_04.rtf])
Some of the advantages of blended learning include; cost effectiveness for both the accrediting learning institution and the learner, accessibility to a post secondary education, and flexibility in scheduling and timetabling of course work. Some of the disadvantages may include; computer and internet access, limited knowledge in the use of technology, study skills, problems which are similar to those who would be entering a physical learning institution.
It should also be noted that some authors talk about "hybrid learning" (this seems to be more common in Northern American sources) or "mixed learning". However, all of these concepts broadly refer to the integration (the "blending") of e-learning tools and techniques.
== Blended Learning systems and Projects ==
The European Union's Socrates program is currently funding development of blended learning courses in nine less widely spoken European languages. The development projects, Tool for Online and Offline Language Learning [http://www.toolproject.eu/ TOOL] coordinated by the EuroEd Foundation, Iasi, Romania and Autonomous Language Learning [http://www.allproject.info/ ALL] coordinated by CNAI, Pamplona, Spain.
Each project is developing blended learning programs at A2 'Waystage' level in accordance with the competence descriptors defined in the CEFR (Common European Framework of Reference).
ALL: Romanian, Turkish, Lithuanian, Bulgarian.
TOOL: Slovene, Dutch, Hungarian, Estonian, Maltese.
The development is large in terms of size and scope and in that these may well be the first Blended Learning courses available in these languages and represents a development for the application of modern communicative language learning techniques in these languages.
The course developments are undertaken by a development team, consisting of several partner institutions, from each country. These institutions include publically and privately funded Universities, and private language learning providers, plus consulting specialists.
Outside the academic sector, blended learning is being used in private companies, possibly because of the cost-benefits over traditional training, though no studies are available that show clear-cost savings. One of the earliest commercial offerings in the sector came from [http://www.virtual-college.co.uk Virtual College], who produced a blended learning NVQ system in early 1995.
Willow is another platform for creating blended learning courses [http://orestes.ii.uam.es:8080/willtools Willow]
Nvolve: http://www.nvolve.net is an approach that blends Classroom, Online and Mobile technologies
== See also ==
* [[Flexible Learning]]
* [[E-Learning]]
* [[M-learning]]
* [[Networked learning]]
* [[Virtual education]]
* [[Virtual University]]
* Negotiated learning [http://www.chester.ac.uk/pdu/ www.chester.ac.uk/pdu]
==References==
{{Reflist}}
==External links==
*[http://www.allproject.info/ "Autonomous Language Learning"] A European Union, government funded, education project to build blended learning language courses in European less taught languages (Turkish, Romanian, Bulgarian and Lithuanian)].
*[http://www.toolproject.eu/ "Tool for Online and Offline Language Learning"] A European Union, government funded, education project to build blended learning language courses in European less taught languages (Dutch, Estonian, Hungarian, Maltese, Slovene).
An Instructional Media Selection Guide for Distance Learning, an official publication of the United States Distance Learning Association (http://www.usdla.org) that contains a section on blended learning. Free download available at: http://www.usdla.org/html/resources/2._USDLA_Instructional_Media_Selection_Guide.pdf
[[Category:Pedagogy]]
[[bg:Смесено обучение]]
[[ca:B-learning]]
[[cs:Blended learning]]
[[de:Integriertes Lernen]]
[[es:B-learning]]
[[ko:혼합형 학습]]
[[nl:Blended learning]]
[[no:Blended learning]]
[[pl:Blended learning]]
[[ro:Învăţare mixtă]]
[[sl:Kombinirano učenje]]
[[tr:Harmanlanmış öğrenme]]
Published Review of Disrupting Class
I am happy to report that a review I wrote of Disrupting Class by Clayton Christensen, Michael Horn and Curtis Johnson has been published by Education Review. You can find it here. Special thanks to my distance education class--this would not have happened without the class.
Friday, March 6, 2009
Friday Review
It's been a busy week--so busy that I am sorely tempted to not do the Friday Review...but since I'm halfway through the semester I thought I would at least give it a try.
Research
"Open Publishing" article is all but done, just doing the final preparations and plan to submit it for publication next week.
Distance
Finished an IRB and wrote another couple of pages on the paper due next week. Also had a great class on blended learning, which was eye-opening.
Open
Had a good week in spite of David being gone. We came together as a group and started getting our hands dirty in finding OERs. It was a lot harder than I thought. I can tell it's going to be a great project.
Assessment
I worked on three projects--finished the interpretative exercise, and now am focusing on writing a test and using item analysis to critique the test.
Stats and Research
We've moved into correlation and regression. This is an area that I don't know as well, so I'm having to put in extra effort. I downloaded some stats lectures from iTunes to beef up my brain while I travel to Ogden for a best of EFY tomorrow.
Research
"Open Publishing" article is all but done, just doing the final preparations and plan to submit it for publication next week.
Distance
Finished an IRB and wrote another couple of pages on the paper due next week. Also had a great class on blended learning, which was eye-opening.
Open
Had a good week in spite of David being gone. We came together as a group and started getting our hands dirty in finding OERs. It was a lot harder than I thought. I can tell it's going to be a great project.
Assessment
I worked on three projects--finished the interpretative exercise, and now am focusing on writing a test and using item analysis to critique the test.
Stats and Research
We've moved into correlation and regression. This is an area that I don't know as well, so I'm having to put in extra effort. I downloaded some stats lectures from iTunes to beef up my brain while I travel to Ogden for a best of EFY tomorrow.
Quest #4 personal finance resources
Justin, SaraJoy and I formed a guild focusing on creating an open "personal finance" course. It is harder than I thought. Justin is going to post a "guild post" for quest 4. We are using the UT Core Standards for personal finance, and I'm focusing on the fourth standard. Thus far, here is what I have found:
4.2.2 Identify strategies for investing (e.g., diversification, dollar cost averaging.) dollar cost averaging, diversification http://www.discusseconomics.com/personal-finances/financially-fine-issue-7-dollar-cost-averaging/ *** http://earlyretirementextreme.com/2008/03/diversification.html *** SEE ALSO WIKIPEDIA
4.3.3 Describe the concept of the time value of money. time value of money http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_value_of_money
4.2.2 Identify strategies for investing (e.g., diversification, dollar cost averaging.) dollar cost averaging, diversification http://www.discusseconomics.com/personal-finances/financially-fine-issue-7-dollar-cost-averaging/ *** http://earlyretirementextreme.com/2008/03/diversification.html *** SEE ALSO WIKIPEDIA
4.3.3 Describe the concept of the time value of money. time value of money http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_value_of_money
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Distance: Blended Learning #2
I wanted to take what was discussed in class tonight and think about how I could apply it to myself, in my teaching situation. Right now I teach Religion 122. How could I create an effective blended course--how could I maximize the use of technology and F2F to create the best possible classroom?
Obviously the answer to this question will very much depend on what kind of students I have. But lets suppose I have a homogeneous group of students who are interested in getting the most they can from the Book of Mormon and also have decent technical skills.
First, what could I do?
1. Create audio and/or video podcasts of the class so that students could re-listen to/watch the class if they wanted to.
2. Find ways for them to post their work (principles/one-liners/patterns they discovered) and comment on what their classmates are doing).
3. Make course readings/powerpoints/ available on Bboard for students to review if they desire.
4. Have Bboard quizzes available to take for each class period so that they could test their knowledge of whether they are picking up key points from the reading (these could be graded or non-graded).
5. Other supplemental reading/videos on Blackboard.
One of the disadvantages of asynchronous communication is that you can't see how long I have sat here trying to brainstorm possibilities. I know I should easily be able to come up with more, but I am just not thinking of them at the moment. Feel free to add some in.
Of the above five choices, I currently only do #3. I believe that 1-2, 4-5 would increase the effectiveness of the course, but would require more resources than I can currently dedicate to the course. If I felt confident that they would make a significant difference, I would be more willing to put in the effort.
As I re-read these ideas I think that I should probably try an experiment in a future semester, in which I implement these strategies and see if there is a difference in the class.
Other suggestions?
Obviously the answer to this question will very much depend on what kind of students I have. But lets suppose I have a homogeneous group of students who are interested in getting the most they can from the Book of Mormon and also have decent technical skills.
First, what could I do?
1. Create audio and/or video podcasts of the class so that students could re-listen to/watch the class if they wanted to.
2. Find ways for them to post their work (principles/one-liners/patterns they discovered) and comment on what their classmates are doing).
3. Make course readings/powerpoints/ available on Bboard for students to review if they desire.
4. Have Bboard quizzes available to take for each class period so that they could test their knowledge of whether they are picking up key points from the reading (these could be graded or non-graded).
5. Other supplemental reading/videos on Blackboard.
One of the disadvantages of asynchronous communication is that you can't see how long I have sat here trying to brainstorm possibilities. I know I should easily be able to come up with more, but I am just not thinking of them at the moment. Feel free to add some in.
Of the above five choices, I currently only do #3. I believe that 1-2, 4-5 would increase the effectiveness of the course, but would require more resources than I can currently dedicate to the course. If I felt confident that they would make a significant difference, I would be more willing to put in the effort.
As I re-read these ideas I think that I should probably try an experiment in a future semester, in which I implement these strategies and see if there is a difference in the class.
Other suggestions?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
