Inspired by the readings and work to date in OLTD 511, this past week I suggested to my department chair that I'd be willing to take one of the first year English courses I teach f2f and create a blended model version of it to be offered in the 2017/18 academic year. I didn't go into the model details that we've been studying in OLTD 511, but I would use the enriched virtual model. My department chair wasn't unsupportive of the idea, but after she spoke with the dean, she suggested that we consider preparing the course to be offered the year after in 2018/2019. "We need a rationale for switching a f2f course to blended," she said. "The course should be purposive and ideally serve a demonstrated college need. For example, to build enrolment in a course that needs fortifying, maybe a distance or ITV course with weak numbers."
Horn and Staker state, "The most successful blended programs begin generally in response to a desire to (1) boost student achievement and quality of life through personalization (2) provide access to out-of-reach courses and opportunities (3) improve school systems financial health (4) a combination of all three" (2015). My dean and department chair seem to be suggesting that a blended course at my college would be a response to non consumption or weak consumption. That a blended course would replaced a course that has weak enrolment. My desire to create a blended course is to "boost ... quality of life (for students) through personalization." My administrator's desire is to maintain sections of courses by enhancing undersubscribed sections by trying a blended model. I suppose my dean's rationale could fall within Horn and Staker's desire #2 (provide access to out-of-reach courses and opportunities), but I sense a reluctance at my college to support blended learning. It could be because we have responses already to providing access to "out-of-reach courses and opportunities"; my college has been recognized as leader in using ITV to reach remote students, and we offer online sections, of course. However, I believe that we have relied on ITV too much and that it is often not effective as an access and learning medium. Some of my colleagues teach simultaneously to three or four locations in a f2f format with some of the class's students in the room with the instructor and two or three remote classrooms with students in them and communicating by interactive video. It is difficult to know how engaged remote students are when lecturing, and it is challenging to guide collaborative group work. Horn and Staker suggested in Ch. 4 of their text that teachers in the K-12 system can be a Functional Team of one in creating a blended learning response to a problem in their class. The teacher can choose to flip his/her class, or he/she can switch to a rotation model, and this switch to blended can be done without the involvement of administrators; however, he/she would need to ensure that all children have access to the technology, and he/she would likely inform the principal. It might be that a teaching group level at a school, such as primary or intermediate, would choose to blend their classrooms. This would also be a functional team response. In my case, at North Island College, it appears that I need a Lightweight team approach, as Horn an Staker describe it. I can't, as an individual instructor, switch one of my course deliveries from f2f to blended; however, I would be the one who would do the course revision. The dean requires a rationale to do the switch before he would approve it. The Scheduling department also needs to be part of the team since there would be fewer f2f sessions in an enriched virtual than there would be in traditional f2f. Today, I met with a colleague who will be teaching a second year English course in the winter semester "Special Topics in Literature - Crime Narratives". In the winter section of this course she will teach to five locations - one where she will be present and four more by ITV. She is concerned about the effectiveness of the teaching and learning four the remote students. It is essentially a f2f format, but for the students in remote locations, the f2f is by video. I suggested to her that she blenderize this offering by by reducing the f2f sessions from 12 to six (the class meets for three hours on Friday mornings) and build up the online content and requirements. The f2f sessions would be used to deepen the learning by providing guided collaborative group critical analysis of literary elements. The successful management of five locations of group work would be aided by the instructor providing some prescriptive structure and outcomes required for the group work. The group work would be evaluated according to the achievement of outcomes. I suggested 5% per session for a total of 30%. The rest of the student's evaluation would come from online assignments and the exam. So, she and I had our own little functional team meeting. She is going ahead with switching to a blended course, without telling the dean (begging forgiveness later, perhaps). Working with my colleague on this allows me to apply some of my OLTD 511 learning and prepares me more for when I blended one of my own courses. Since there seems to be little interest or understanding of the benefits blended can bring, I believe that blended learning will grow at my college, not by an institutional-wide shift, but by individual instructors, who are interested in the model, switching their courses and sharing their experiences with colleagues. Reference Horn, W. and Staker, H. (2015) Blended: Using Disruptive Innovation to Improve Schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
2 Comments
If I could go back and design my ideal learning environment for my elementary education, it would be outside, designed by nature. I am now considering sending my daughter to a nature pre-school. I had really great elementary teachers, for the most part. I know that because most of my happy childhood memories come from time at school. And they taught me well. I left elementary school with developmental skills that have served me well throughout my life.
It's a long time ago. I was in kindergarten exactly 50 years ago. I can't say that technology would have made any positive difference. I like having technology tool options now as an educator, but it was the relationship with teacher that made the most difference when I was a young child, I think, especially, because I had a troubled home life. I think it is still the relationship that makes more difference than the tools. In the suburbs of Toronto there was not a strong movement for outdoor education, but I chose to experience nature outside every chance that I was given, and I would have thrived in a learning environment that included nature education and outdoor leadership. For secondary school, I'd go back and design an on-line program or a blended program for myself. I did have a few memorable teachers, but athletics was my raison d'être at Clarkson Secondary. I would happily have studied on-line and participated in sports f2f. I would have in place strong and knowledgeable advising by active high school counsellors. On-line and/or blended learning allows for greater subject choices. Much of my undergraduate education was taught by professors who were not teachers, but were, rather, academics who researched and wrote and lectured. Often classes were not stimulating, which, I have to say, is a waste of time, since, for example, I could have read the textbook myself. I would have liked my post-secondary classes to have been more interactive, more cooperative. It is what I plan and strive for in my own post-secondary teaching now. Afterthought: Since I was writing this last night while listening to the discouraging US election results coming in (I know ... I should not be writing while listening to talk radio, but last night it could not be helped) the blog is more superficial in content than it should be). |
Archives
February 2017
Categories |