The time has now come for a recapitulation of key learnings from the ONL course. In discussing my personal takeaways, I will partially revisit the ‘meta’ mode I started with about what learning blogs might be good for. It now appears to me much more clearly (I was a bit sceptical about learning blogs in the beginning) that where learning blogs are particularly useful is in sharing personal learnings applied to one’s own practice (not generic principles based on theoretical literature) in such a way that can stimulate further discussion with peers. It is in this spirit that I now set out to discuss my personal takeaways from the course.
The most important things that I have learnt through my engagement in the ONL course relate to three different types of learning, which could be summarized in terms of the Aristotelian typology of intellectual virtues techne, episteme and phronesis (e.g., Flyvbjerg, 2001). First, in terms of techne or technical know-how, I have learnt to use new tools (or to use certain tools better than before) by working jointly on them with my groupmates (tools like Mural, Padlet, Sutori, Zoom) or alone here with this learning blog (WordPress) – although granted, I have not tried very hard to incorporate some of the visual possibilities that I could use here. Second, in terms of episteme, I would say that among the many new theoretical terminologies I have encountered in the course, two stand out as most illuminating: (1) the connectivist approach to teaching and learning, which nicely expands on constructivism in a way that, I believe, makes sense in the contemporary blended and/or fully online environments I facilitate learning in; and (2) the three ‘presences’ that are presented as needed to foster the ‘Community of Inquiry’, namely, social presence, cognitive presence and teaching presence. As I have written in this blog, I have found the concept of social presence particularly useful to name a lack I have been experiencing while moving all my teaching online during the COVID-19 crisis. Third, in terms of phronesis, I must say the excellent discussions within our PBL 5 group, often put in practice (for example through various icebreakers) or then generating tips to practitioners in our joint work, have all been conducive to an applied learning which will take more time but which I can already see developing – as exemplified by an icebreaker experiment I designed, implemented, and… will need to re-design after it almost led to a serious incident (see Fougère and Hoveskog, 2020).
Some of this learning has already influenced my practice (such as said icebreaker) and through this blog I have vouched that I will implement several ideas that have emerged as a result of this learning, so at this point I am definitely planning to implement many of the new insights into my teaching and learning practice. And another thing I am planning to do is relentlessly reiterate that the tool we are using for teaching at my business school is suboptimal, not conducive to social presence and negatively affects not only the learning possibilities but also potentially the well-being of all participants. I want to thank the organizers of ONL202 for the many new insights I have gained and the many new possibilities that have been unlocked in this process.
References
Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making social science matter: Why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again. Cambridge university press.
Fougère, M., & Hoveskog, M. (2020). 4. Fostering an affective learning climate In ONL202 PBL5, ‘Four Challenges in Blended Learning & Tips to Overcome Them’. Available at: https://www.sutori.com/story/four-challenges-in-blended-learning-tips-to-overcome-them–MGJ7xrAoYGRMtQJP8zfa9Udn (accessed December 2 2020)
