blended and online teaching and learning and design frameworks
Hi!
In our PBL#6 group work I looked into the asynchronous activities in blended learning. My very brief and rather superficial review of the literature suggested by ONL211 yielded the text you may browse below, titled “Elaboration”.
The text is a review and light reflexion of the topic. What I am going to right briefly here is my personal experience and some thoughts. In 2021 I taught a course on my area of expertise independently. I had taught this course several times in the past but always in classrooms.This time it was fully online via zoom, moodle, and webmail. This was NOT a hybrid course, and in it I tested a few of the possibilities of online learning. Each teaching session was 3-hour long, and there was one such session each week. In total the course included 6 sessions. The sessions where synchronous and there was one student in the cohort joining from Pakistan while all the rest shared the same time zone. I organized the course content and structure as I would in contact teaching. I organized the learning activities in a blended mode and used zoom for synchronous and moodle for asynchronous learning. A moodle expert provided me with support. One major learning activity I was certain I wanted to incorporate was peer assessment for all assignments. This proved to be the most unfortunate decision I made in regard to moodle inner logic. Moodle does not support well peer assessment. What it allows is that students may assess their peers even anonymously but in a very rigid linear sequence. The rigidity is due to strict deadlines without which moodle cannot operate assessments of assignments in order to proceed. The moodle expert knew there would be problems but tried to help the best she could to satisfy my adamance on peer assessment. Students had two set of assignments, and this also was not supported well by moodle. One set constituted individual commentaries with reflexions on literature. The other set of assignments included group work. The group work was a flipped classroom activity wherein students in small groups of 3-4 had to read and reflect on literature (different than the main session reader) and prepare a “tutorial” for the weekly session. None of the groups presented a pre-recorded tutorial; they all delivered synchronous presentations varying from powerpoint slides, to flinga and mindmapping to discussions they led. My input as “teacher” was a 45-minute synchronous talk with powerpoint slides including text, photos and video clips. The students were peer assessed for their commentaries (each student assessed two commentaries each week), and for their group activity. Again moodle did not support assessment of group assignments so the assessment had to be replicated for each group member. This meant that very few students actually assessed group assignments. The evaluation of each student was based on pre-defined criteria as did peer-assessments. The learning objectives were the same as in my previous contact-teaching course. Half of the student gave their evaluation of the course and it was very positive. Lessons, I as a teacher, took from this experience are: ICT is a tool that sometimes does not help therefore more planning in advance and more persistent in finding the best possible online solutions are required; learning objectives must be reviewed each time the “same” course is given (a course is never the same even if the topic and content structure are the same); asynchronous learning CAN create a feeling of community and safety in learners; online learning can and maybe should include activities to take learners outdoors; blended courses require more time in all their aspects AND lesser content (due maybe to the intensity of such a set up, learners requires more time for deep learning); relying on one digital platform like moodle for all asynchronous course assignments including peer assessment was not smart; consulting with fellow teachers may be more useful than with ICT experts; I could have used the possibility to pre-record my input but I appreciated more the online contact teaching even via zoom. In this course I had set an upper limit of 20 students, 50+ registered, 20 were admitted and 20 completed the course. After some email exchange the students I admitted in the course were the most motivated of the 50+ originally registered (in the 50+ registered, 30+ were in queue). It seems that in blended courses there is a demand for the instructor to make sure that the students admitted are all more or less committed to participate in all learning activities especially because of the collaborative learning activities. I did not realise this until after I started contacting students who had registered AND had the right to be admitted in the course. I contacted them to inform them about the assignments required in order to get their 3 ECTS. I did this because I wanted to plan the collaborative learning activities that required group work as early as possible before the course started. And for the groups to work the group members needed to be committed not to let their peers down. I learned then that students register for courses not really caring for to even complete. This is apparently endemic in the school I am employed. I realise that this practise undermines more blended courses because in them there is not enough opportunity for students to develop the mutual understanding and trust that physical contact affords. It seems that online presence due to the lack of physical interaction requires more time; however, this may also be due to the abrupt transitions the pandemic imposed on us.
Elaboration
Contrary to popular belief, the major motivation for enrolment in distance education is not physical access, but rather, temporal freedom to move through a course of studies at a pace of the student’s choice. Participation in a community of learners almost inevitably places constraints on this independence, even when the pressure of synchronous connection is eliminated by use of asynchronous communications tools. The demands of a learning-centered context might at times force us to modify the prescriptive participation in communities of learning, even though we might have evidence that such participation will further advance knowledge creation and attention. (Anderson, 2004, para. 3, emphasis added) (Conrad & Openo, 2018)
Conrad & Openo (2018) suggest that effective online learning creates communities of learners who get engaged and involved in various activities: from instruction, to more importantly the co-design of learning processes, to social support.
Starting from the instructional support online learners obtain, Vaughan, Cleveland-Innes, and Garrison (2013) argue that when face-to-face synchronous communication and online asynchronous communication are integrated, they provide learners with unique opportunities to challenge themselves academically. The authors assert that “[t]here is a distinct multiplier effect when integrating verbal and written modes of communication.” We could add here that in fact the multiplier effect stems from the variety of communication modes online learning may include, including non-textual and non-verbal modes. In addition, the sear possibility of extending academic communication through asynchronous activities lends the learning process a distinct flexibility to contribute and communicate when it is most suitable for them. Then, when learners do contribute, they also have more time to reflect and respond in depth. Therefore, apart from the convenience of flexible timing, asynchronous activity provides opportunities for deeper learning.
The asynchronous communication involved in blended online learning alleviate learners from the pressure to contribute in collaborative work especially when these learners live in geographical locations in different time zones (Boelens, De Wever & Voet, 2017: 5). We have all experienced the advantage of asynchronous collaboration in the ONL course. However, these authors maintain that asynchronous communication can also be used to facilitate the creation of the online community of learners by sharing personal background information and/or using social media platforms. Many instructors will be skeptical about this aspect of asynchronous communication in blended online and hybrid learning. On the one hand, a-synchronicity relieves learners from the face-to-face communication that has been traditionally seen as a requirement for developing meaningful social interaction. On the other hand, Cleveland-Innes talks about the social presence learners develop online, and Conrad & Openo (2018) argue that “[…] learning [is] both a social and a cognitive process, not merely a matter of information transmission.” There is a paradox then that blended and hybrid learning give rise to: developing online presences implies a novel sense of sociability that asynchronous communication makes more agile. Kerres & De Witt (2003) and Köse (2010) present examples of asynchronous communication in online learning environments that supplement the social interaction of face-to-face synchronous communication. What we see then is that more and more downs upon instructors that our learners learn synchronously as well as asynchronously, and that “promoting social interaction in blended learning” is important (Boelens, De Wever, & Voet, 2017: 20).
In the heart of asynchronous activities in blended learning is an overall flexibility combined with a certain fixity: learners do get to choose when they conduct certain activities, but always using a specific online platform/ a shared space and adhering to the rhythmic repetition of a discussion board. Cleveland-Innes & Wilton (2018: 54) give us some insights about asynchronous learning activities. They demonstrate that learning management systems (for example moodle) provide common spaces for learners to conduct various asynchronous activities such as delivering assignments, posting commentaries and reflections, socializing and sharing information and knowledge with their peers. In addition, while each learner uses such a platform individually in the comfort of their own time and space, a sense of community and a dynamic presence is possible. Learners and instructors taking advantage of the digital tools and possibilities available may fully engage in ways that are not less effective that synchronous face-to-face learning environments.
To encourage learners to be present as whole persons and not just students, create a “social café” for them to stop in and share personal and social aspects of their lives. Individual students can decide how comfortable they are with sharing personal information, or rules can be discussed and laid out by the group. There can also be a ‘news’ forum, where interesting events or applications related to the subject of the course can be identified and discussed. The mainstay of asynchronous learning is a weekly discussion board, where weekly content is presented and discussion questions are raised. Discussion boards can be led by instructors, or students can be assigned topics to facilitate throughout the course. Audio and video clips, visuals, graphics and links to other collaborative spaces or information are provided in all these spaces. (Cleveland-Innes & Wilton, 2018: 54)
Therein lies maybe the key to success of blended learning: how open and collaborative are we as instructors in order to facilitate learning environments wherein asynchronisity and the flexibility it brings about best serve our learners?
The authors maintain that the passkey to unlocking this question is “[…] keep the learner at the centre of your decisions, including the additional technological demands and support that may be required.” (Cleveland-Innes & Wilton, 2018: 59).
Conrad & Openo (2018) argue that one of the greatest options asynchronous learning activities provide to an instructor is the possibility of high-quality feedback to learners regarding their assignments and contributions. Understandably, we can hear the protestations of our PBL#6 peer Joseph Ooi who when teaching in some of his courses he faces class sizes of 2000 to 4000 thousand learners. In Joseph’s case the passkey Cleveland-Innes & Wilton (2018) rings useful and Conrad & Openo (2018) agree “[…] adult learners require more flexibility, so asynchronous is usually best, perhaps with optional synchronous sessions, whereas younger learners benefit from the structure of required synchronous sessions”. One size certainly does not fit all, and blended learning that puts learners in its center, it will adjust to best meet these learners’ needs.
One recurrent issue concerning asynchronous learning activities is learners’ participation and assessment of that participation. The discussion boards may get easily jammed up with low quality comments that then the instructor has to address. A learner who is unwilling to engage may post numerous comments that do not add up to deepening her knowledge or understanding of a topic, or contributes to those of her peers. In Conrad & Openo (2018) we read how a university instructor in education deals with such an issue:
I realized that the participation mark benefited those learners who were perhaps less thoughtful but more ready to get online and post their first thoughts, while disadvantaging those who preferred to take the time to reflect more deeply before going public with their perspectives. The result was often an overwhelming quantity of banal discussion posts offered as evidence of “participation.” However, when I tried removing the participation mark in an online course, there was an immediate outcry from my students. They wanted their participation assessed, in recognition of the fact that participation in online course is often challenging and time-consuming. A group activity that might take 20 minutes for five students sitting around a table can take an entire week for five students working together asynchronously. My current approach, a kind of negotiation between these two competing perspectives, involves asking learners to assess their own participation. At the beginning of the course, we agree on a set of indicators, which becomes a rubric they can use to think critically about their own involvement and contributions. Importantly, the indicators emphasize quality rather than quantity.
The text above addresses only some of the assumed disadvantages of asynchronous learning as listed by (Cleveland-Innes & Wilton, 2018: 56):
• Potential for feelings of isolation, lack of connection • Self-pacing requires increased levels of self-direction • Quality of engagement depends on facilitator skill • No immediate access to instructor
At the same time though we better also keep in mind the advantages of asynchronous learning and more importantly that in combination with synchronous learning activities we, as instructors, expand the opportunities of our learners.
The advantages according to Cleveland-Innes & Wilton (2018: 56):
• Anytime, anywhere learning • Convenient access to course process and materials • Time for research and reflection before responding • Instructor assessment of learning via reflection and thoughtful response • Written expression more thorough and detailed
For further and extensive reading please visit: Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks
Resources
Conrad, D. & Openo, J. (2018). Strategies for Online Learning. Engagement and Authenticity. Edmonton: AU Press. (book for download or read online)
Vaughan, N. D., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Garrison, D. R. (2013). Teaching in blended learning environments: Creating and sustaining communities of inquiry. Edmonton: AU Press. Chapter 1 “The Community of Inquiry Conceptual framework”. / Download the whole book.
Boelens, R., De Wever, B., & Voet, M. (2017). Four key challenges to the design of blended learning: A systematic literature review. Educational Research Review, 22, 1-18.
Cleveland-Innes, M. & Wilton, D. (2018). Guide to Blended Learning. Burnaby: Commonwealth of Learning.
PHOTO CREDITS: “Tap to Snooze. Wake Up, Transform Learning and Strengthen Community, #CanEdu14 keynote by @keciaray” by giulia.forsythe is marked with CC0 1.0
