The forth topic in the ONL202 course, “Design for online and blended learning” has probably been the most comprehensive topic in the whole course and it kind of connects all other topics. It has been a challenge, mainly because I could not dedicate as much time as I had wished for reading and thinking during the 2 weeks of topic work within the course. I am hopeful though to catch up eventually and of course there will be new things to learn all the time!
I also would like to take this opportunity to thank all my course colleagues for their blogs. I have not so much enjoyed writing mine, but I have certainly enjoyed reading yours and learned a lot!
Photo by Scott Webb on Unsplash
Again, my PBL group has been a great support also in Topic 4: we have together analysed the ONL202 course and presented our findings. It became clear that nothing is left to chance in the ONL202 course and all from the never-ending introductions in the beginning to the choice of topics was consciously designed. The “Community of Inquiry” framework, originally proposed by Garrison et al . (2000)1, and based on John Dewey’s work and “view on practical inquiry”2 has clearly affected and benefitted us. This course has taught us a lot, also by putting us into the students’ place – but how can we now put all of this in practice in our respective areas?
Luckily, practical instructions in this context have clearly been sought after before and are explored in many contexts. I will definitely have a look again at Gilly Salmon’s Five Stage model3 and “Teaching in blended learning environments: Creating and sustaining communities of inquiry”4 by Vaughan, Cleveland-Innes, and Garrison. Also the above cited article by Fiock2 presents a practical approach that may be aiding in the work with course design.
However, I am worried about how I will be able to change “my” course according to all new insights. The course can be taken by several different programs (very heterogenous student group) and the structure for courses at our faculty is fixed: they run at 50 % for ca. 8 “study” weeks, meaning that there is always another course (and many different for my students) that also requires time and focus, involving other student groups. We have different parts to realize, among other two lab courses, and there is no “gold standard” course book that covers everything, instead we rely on several teachers who all contribute with their respective area of expertise.
Sticking with the earlier themes in my posts, the obvious solution is to take small steps again… We have two PBL occasions which should be suitable to start with, and I have already tried to block more connection/interactivity time when scheduling the course. But it is hard to plan in Corona times and right now, I am tired. But I am happy to have experienced the ONL202 course and am grateful for all participants, especially my PBL group including facilitators, and course organizers – I have really become inspired by this experience with you and I am optimistic I will find some energy eventually to tackle the challenges awaiting!
References
1 Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6
2 Fiock, H. (2020). Designing a Community of Inquiry in Online Courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 21(1), 135-153. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v20i5.3985
3 https://www.gillysalmon.com/five-stage-model.html
4 Teaching in Blended Learning Environments: Creating and Sustaining Communities of Inquiry (2013) Norman D. Vaughan, Martha Cleveland-Innes, D. Randy Garrison. Published by au Press, Athabasca University; ISBN 978-1-927356-48-7 (pdf)
