Richard Walker E-Learning Development Team University of York Preparing, supporting & evaluating student learning Delivering your blended course.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Planning for Learning and Teaching, Assessment and Moderation
Advertisements

The use of role play and VLEs in teaching Environmental Management Juliette Pavey Danny Donoghue University of Durham 18 th November 2003.
Planning to Support Mixed Ability Teaching
Designing Learning Programs. Ambition in Action Topics /Definition /Components of a learning program /Defining the purpose and focus.
Performance management guidance
Stages of assessment Initial assessment Diagnostic assessment (for SfL courses) Formative assessment Summative assessment.
An evaluation of scaffolding for virtual interactive tutorials 指導教授 : 陳 明 溥 研 究 生 : 許 良 村 Pahl, C.(2002).An evaluation of scaffolding for virtual interactive.
In Europe, When you ask the VET stakeholders : What does Quality Assurance mean for VET system? You can get the following answer: Quality is not an absolute.
TESL Ontario Conference October 28 & 29, Project Team Project Lead - Carolyn Cohen Research Lead - Antonella Valeo Research Consultants - Sheila.
Reflective Practice Leadership Development Tool. Context recognised that a key differentiator between places where people wanted to work and places where.
“Learning to be lawyerly”
Formative and Summative Evaluations
1 14. Project closure n An information system project must be administratively closed once its product is successfully delivered to the customer. n A failed.
Presentation slide 1.1 Aims of the session To provide a brief outline of the key features of the science strand of the secondary national strategy for.
Minnesota Manual of Accommodations for Students with Disabilities Training Guide
Designing your Blended Course
Facilitator: Gerard Kell Using training packages to deliver workforce development services.
The LCVP is funded by the Department of Education and Science under the National Development Plan Preparing students for Work Experience.
Introduction to Blended Learning Richard Walker E-Learning Development Team University of York Definitions & Design Principles.
ACCESS TO SKILLS ASC TRAINING & DEVELOPMENT 1. WELCOME TO A UNIQUE LEARNING OPPORTUNITY... You have been invited by the Pharmacy Guild SA to participate.
Matt Moxham EDUC 290. The Idaho Core Teacher Standards are ten standards set by the State of Idaho that teachers are expected to uphold. This is because.
Conducting the IT Audit
School’s Cool in Childcare Settings
Case Study Methodology & e-Learning: Reflections on Evaluation Activities for Blended Modules Richard Walker & Wendy Fountain University of York.
Assessment COURSE ED 1203: INTRODUCTION TO TEACHING COURSE INSTRUCTOR
Help or Hindrance: A Blended Approach to Learner Engagement A presentation to The Ako Aotearoa ‘Research in Progress’ Colloquium.
Delivering your blended course Richard Walker E-Learning Development Team University of York Preparing, supporting & evaluating student learning.
School’s Cool in Kindergarten for the Kindergarten Teacher School’s Cool Makes a Difference!
Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC)
Asynchronous Discussions and Assessment in Online Learning Vonderwell, S., Liang, X., & Alderman, K. (2007). Asynchronous Discussions and Assessment in.
EQARF Applying EQARF Framework and Guidelines to the Development and Testing of Eduplan.
LECTURE 2 - DTLLS Assessment. Research into the impact of assessment tells us that students learn best when assessment is:  Evenly timed  Represents.
E-PTLLS Consortium Annual Conference in association with HEA Seminar Series Marta Menor Rodriguez & Karen Veneziale Accrington & Rossendale College.
The Art of the Designer: creating an effective learning experience HEA Conference University of Manchester 4 July 2012 Rebecca Galley and Vilinda Ross.
Learners’ Attitudes and Perceptions of Online Instruction Presented by: Dr. Karen S. Ivers Dr. JoAnn Carter-Wells Dr. Joyce Lee California State University.
EDU 385 Education Assessment in the Classroom
Certificate IV in Project Management Course Structure Course Number Qualification Code BSB41507.
Personal Tutoring. Purposes of this session To confirm our understanding of the purposes and procedures of the Personal Tutoring Scheme To identify key.
Jenni Parker, Dani Boase-Jelinek Jan Herrington School of Education Murdoch University Western Australia.
INTERACTION, ENGAGEMENT AND MOTIVATION. WELCOME o Facilitator name Position at university Contact info.
CPLA Video Case Studies Making Media Nursing. Making Media - Background First year, semester long 20 credit core module Involved 200 students with 4 staff.
Designing your blended course Richard Walker E-Learning Development Team University of York Design Pathway & Planning Tools.
Peer Review: Promoting a quality culture Associate Professor Gordon Suddaby & Associate Professor Mark Brown Massey University New Zealand Contact details:
Certificate IV in Project Management Certificate IV in Project Management Course Structure Course Number Qualification Code BSB41507.
© Crown copyright 2008 Subject Leaders’ Development Meeting Spring 2009.
Minnesota Manual of Accommodations for Students with Disabilities Training January 2010.
1 CECV Intervention Framework Module 5A Learning & Teaching EFFECTIVE INTERVENTION.
This resource has been released by the University of Bath as an Open Educational Resource. The materials are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-ShareAlike.
Feedback: Keeping Learners Engaged Adult Student Recruitment & Retention Conference Sponsored by UW-Oshkosh; March 21-22; Madison, WI Bridget Powell,
Blended Learning Workshop STRATEGIES FOR ASSURING THE QUALITY OF A BLENDED COURSE Richard Walker E-Learning Development Team University of York.
Blended Learning Workshop Richard Walker E-Learning Development Team University of York Design Principles & Planning Tools.
Strategies for blended learning in an undergraduate curriculum Benjamin Kehrwald, Massey University College of Education.
Addressing quality assurance and professional development for online teachers Kirsteen Donaghy.
Applying Laurillard’s Conversational Framework to Blended Learning Blogging and Collaborative Activity Design R Papworth, R Walker & W Britcliffe E-Learning.
Winning with wikis and blogs: Models for effective delivery of student online activities E-Learning Development Team University of York Simon Davis and.
- Collaborative report writing - Bridging the divide between formal and informal learning Richard Walker & Wayne Britcliffe E-Learning Development Team,
Making the programme work for your students.  A strong work focused route which is designed to motivate yr old young people.  Vocationally related.
AGRO PARKS “The Policy Cycle” Alex Page Baku November 2014.
Online Discussions for Student Interaction Swapna Kumar School of Teaching and Learning April 15, 2011.
Blended Problem- Based Learning University of York, UK Dr Richard Walker Designing collaboration opportunities for unguided group research through the.
Pedagogical aspects in assuring quality in virtual education environments University of Gothenburg, Sweden.
Effecting institutional change through the evaluation of e-learning Richard Walker & Rose Papworth E-Learning Development Team, University of York eLearning.
Richard Walker E-Learning Development Team University of York Definitions & Design Principles Introduction to Blended Learning.
Making wikis work How do we create the conditions for effective collaborative learning? Richard Walker & Wayne Britcliffe E-Learning Development Team,
Subject specialist mentoring on the DET
ELDT lunchtime webinar series
Being brave with module design
Understanding Standards: Nominee Training Event
Presentation transcript:

Richard Walker E-Learning Development Team University of York Preparing, supporting & evaluating student learning Delivering your blended course

12/23/10 2 Session Outline Instructional responsibilities in delivering a blended course - 5 phase delivery model Evaluating your course - Principles, methods & challenges for course evaluation Reflection on action: defining next steps

12/23/10 3 Reflection point 1 Can you define the roles of instructor, tutors & students in your blended course? Have you identified the responsibilities for each role? key actions & delivery phases What bearing will this have on: approaches to supporting & sustaining learning: e.g. release of resources interventions: support, feedback & assessment

12/23/10 4 Delivery Phases Phase 1: Preparation of the module (design phase) Phase 2: Socialising learners (start of the module) Phase 3: Supporting student participation online (early stages) Phase 4: Sustaining student participation online (later stages) Phase 5: Summing up the learning outcomes for the module (end of module)

12/23/10 5 Phase 1 - Preparation of the course Phase 1: Preparation of the module (design phase)  Reflect on context in which learning will take place  Confirm your rationale:  ‘join’ between online & class-based components  model for student engagement online: task design & stages of learning activity  identify learning outcomes  Clarify expectations:  Role of online learning space  performance of online tasks: roles of students & tutors  Key milestones: assessment & feedback points  Pre-testing and quality assurance

12/23/10 6 Phase 2 - Socialising learners Phase 2: Socialising learners (start of the module)  Outline the study approach:  Rationale, goals & benefits of blended approach  Induct students to learning environment & tools:  Model learning activity through induction exercise  Familiarise learners with tool-set & ‘netiquette’  Establish virtual presence & ownership of learning space  Set expectations: study methods & participation levels

12/23/10 7 Phase 3 - Supporting student participation online Phase 3: Supporting student participation online (early stages)  Establish virtual presence for instructor / tutors: be visible!  Model targeted learning behaviour  Provide ongoing support & guidance  Establish interrelationship between online & class-based learning  Procedural feedback for online work  Update course site  Timely release of resources, feedback and further activities

12/23/10 8 Phase 4 - Sustaining student participation online Phase 4: Sustaining student participation online (later stages)  Monitor student participation: intervene if necessary  Maintain academic & technical support to students  Release of extension resources  Provide timely feedback on individual / group tasks  Recognise online contributions  Procedural feedback for online work  Reinforce connections between online & class-based activities

12/23/10 9 Phase 5 - Summing up the learning outcomes Phase 5: Summing up the learning outcomes (end of module)  Address outstanding online issues in final class sessions  Provide feedback on online activities  Prompt students to reflect on their performance  Discuss issues arising from online activities  Sum up learning outcomes from online & class-based activities  Re-emphasise links between virtual and class-based learning

12/23/10 10 Delivery phases Phase 1: Preparation of the module (design phase) Phase 2: Socialising learners (start of the module) Phase 3: Supporting student participation online (early stages) Phase 4: Sustaining student participation online (later stages) Phase 5: Summing up the learning outcomes for the module (end of module) Reflection Point 2: How can you be sure that your delivery approach has been effective?

12/23/10 11 Virtuous development cycle  Pedagogic aims for online delivery  Design models: what’s possible?  E-tools: best fit for pedagogic objectives  Develop site: reflecting guidelines & standards  Test: peer review & student testing  Induction  Supporting / sustaining student activity  Evaluating student learning experience  Lessons learned, informing course design, task design & instructional responsibilities.

12/23/10 12 Principles for course evaluation Outcome-based: focusing on measurable & objective standards Were the course objectives met (e.g. levels of engagement & patterns of use of online resources)? Did learners reach the targeted learning outcomes (e.g. approaches to learning; levels of understanding)?  Outcome-based: focusing on measurable & objective standards –Were the course objectives met (e.g. levels of engagement & patterns of use of online resources)? –Did learners reach the targeted learning outcomes (e.g. approaches to learning; levels of understanding)?  Interpretive: focusing on context (perceptions of the learning experience) – What were the students’ affective and attitudinal responses to the blended course experience? – How were the e-learning tools used by students to support their learning in formal & informal study activities? – How did the lecturer/tutors perceive students’ learning relative to previous performance? (What actions should be taken for future course development?)

12/23/10 13 Data collection methods (Informal progress checks) Entry & exit surveys Contribution statistics Focus group interviews Tools for reflection Course statistics

12/23/10 14 Evaluation Pathway Class Sessions Class Sessions Class Sessions Class Sessions Feedback on performance Online Activity Feedback on performance Online Activity Feedback on performance Online Activity RoleStartCourse DeliveryEndPost Course InstructorEntry Survey Feedback on performanceExit Survey StudentsTask performance and self reflection SystemCourse statistics & contribution histories ResearcherContent analysisFocus Group ModuleOutput & participationComments Evolutionary Ecology 8 x 8 reports > 50% of modifications by 1 student in 3 groups Allocation of report writing to individuals Collaborative research Mix of communication methods (Facebook/f2f/blog) Framework based on Fox and MacKeogh’s 16 categories of cognitive thinking: Fox, S. and MacKeogh, K. (2003) 'Can eLearning Promote Higher-order Learning Without Tutor Overload?', Open Learning: The Journal of Open and Distance Learning, 18: 2, 121 — 134 Categories of cognitive skills and examples from the weekly blogs Characteristic of cognitive skill Example from blog posts Offering resourcesThis case relates to cases of master and servant, these principles apply equally to directors serving the company under express or implied contracts of service, and who are therefore also employees (Dranez Anstalt v. Zamir Hayek,) Making declarative statements I cannot understand the reason, you mentioned, that the UCTA may not apply to this case. LC is not of course a consumer, but M is a relevant consumer. Supporting positions on issues Once Ackerman heard from the inside information from his father in law, he would be as insider under s. 118B (e) of FSMA because he has information “which he has obtained by other means which he could be reasonable expected to know is inside information”. Therefore his action to sell his share of SAH would be dealt with as insider dealing. Adding examplesThe offence of insider dealing can be committed in 3 ways. If an insider: deals in price-affected securities, when in possession of inside information, s.52(1) CJA 1993 encourages another to deal in price-affected securities, when in possession of inside information, s.52(2)(a) CJA 1993, or discloses inside information other than in the proper performance of his employment or profession, s.52(2)(b) CJA 1993.

12/23/10 15 Challenges in interpreting your data Student engagement Survey fatigue Reliability: halo/horns effect Validity Visibility of student learning Context of student learning

12/23/10 16 Reflection on action: Defining next steps Was the course design fit for purpose? Usefulness / engagement patterns for online components of module Complementary nature of class-based & online activities Relevance of assessment plan Sequencing of tasks Were the course materials suited for the online tasks? Levels of learning / differentiation & accessibility Was instructional support adequate, enabling & timely? Instructions, feedback and support

12/23/10 17 Summary: course delivery as a development cycle Design: Pedagogic aims; design model; course testing & delivery plans Deliver: Socialise; support; sustain; sum up student learning Evaluate: Establish holistic view of student learning – employing outcome focused & interpretive research methods Review: Reflection on action – defining next steps

12/23/10 18 Resources for this presentation Blended Learning Module checklist: y _1-t_GImagO1e Five Phase Delivery Model: y _1-t_GImagO1e

12/23/10 19 References & recommended reading Gunawardena, C., Lowe, C. & Carabajal, K. (2000). Evaluating Online Learning: models and methods. In D. Willis et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2000 (pp ). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Littlejohn, A.H. & Pegler, C. (2007) Preparing for Blended E- Learning. Routledge, London. Walker, R, & Baets, W. (2009). Instructional Design for Class- Based and Computer-Mediated Learning: Creating the Right Blend for Student-Centred Learning. In R. Donnelly, R & F. McSweeney, F. (Eds.) Applied eLearning and eTeaching in Higher Education. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Richard Walker E-Learning Development Team University of York If you have any questions or comments about this presentation, please contact me. Any Questions?