Since the start of the pandemic in 2020, I have been teaching remotely. First, at the University of Regensburg (UR) and after, at the National University of Singapore (NUS). From the very beginning it has been a combination of (virtually) face-to-face classes and online activities. Only the amount of these two methods varied between the two universities. Now I know that my educational approach can be called as “blended learning.” Through the ONL course, especially by reading the proposed literature, by discussing with my PBL group members, and by participating in the Twitter chat, I recognized that I already have applied a lot of the proposed strategies in my courses, but there is always room for improvement. In the following I would like to focus on both methods.
The authors Boelens/De Wever/Voet (2017) reviewed the relevant literature on blended learning published between 2000 and 2015 and revealed four key challenges in designing a blended learning course: incorporating flexibility, stimulating interaction, facilitating students’ learning processes, and fostering an effective learning climate.
A big advantage of blended learning formats is definitely the flexibility it offers. It gives the students the control over time, place, path, and pace of learning (Boelens/De Wever/Voet 2017, 5). The amount of flexibility in a blended learning course might be determined by the curriculum. At the UR, I offered in person classes only once a month. Most of the other activities were made online. At NUS I am less flexible. Last semester at NUS, I adopted a kind of “flipped learning” in my German classes, which was introducing a new topic and teaching new grammar, were both done by Online Lectures. However, the lessons were taught using the language in interactive scenarios (e.g. games).
It is also worth to take a look at the flexibility of the educator. For example, this past semester I questioned myself if I should join a telegram group of my students in order to be accessible for their questions at any place and any time. I decided not to do so because I wanted to put boundaries between my work life and my personal life. So instead, I offered weekly office hours – even if this concept is not as common in Singapore as in my homeland of Germany. I haven’t been able find the best way for me and my students, but it is still a work in progress.
The increased flexibility may lead to a lack of interaction between the students and also between the educator and the students. Especially in COVID times, this may be a psychological burden. In order to minimize the transactional distance, a term introduced by Moore in 1993 (Boelens/De Wever/Voet 2017, 5), I let the students work in teams. This worked out very well. By providing prompt and constructive individual or group feedback I was able to keep in touch with them and to accompany their learning process. Midterm evaluations also allowed me to do requested adjustments e.g. a more effective course management on our Management System LumiNUS. Here, I applied three of the four regulative strategies Vermunt and Verloop (1999) to facilitate student’s learning processes: Monitoring, Adjusting and Evaluation (Boelens/De Wever/Voet 2017, 6).
The fourth key challenge mentioned by Boelens/De Wever/Voet (2017) is fostering an effective learning climate. Boelens/De Wever/Voet (2017,7) point out that “[s]ome specific ways in which instructors can contribute to a positive affective learning climate are: showing empathy, having a sense of humor, providing encouragements, directing attention to task-relevant aspects, and attending to students’ individual differences”. I totally agree with those points. From my experience, teaching these points are crucial for a positive learning environment – online or offline.
Even though, I am already using blended learning elements in my classes, I am aware that there are still things to improve. I received some useful and interesting ideas from Fiock’s article “Designing a Community of Inquiry in Online Courses” (please see source below). Fiocks methods are based on the evaluation of the relevant literature, a collection of instructional activities to use in online courses divided in “seven principles of good practice for the online environment”: 1. student-teacher contact, 2. cooperation among students, 3. active learning, 4. prompt feedback, 5. time on task, 6. communicate high expectations and 7. respect diverse ways of learning (Fiock 2020, 141ff). It occurred to me that, above all, I have room for improvement in the field “time of task”. In the following semesters I would like to offer a clearer course organisation and more transparency in the course requirements. Moreover, I also want to introduce a netiquette for my course.
Fiock, Holly S. (2020). Designing a Community of Inquiry in Online Courses. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning , v21 n1 p134-152.
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, p1-18.
