Reflecting on my current practice and opportunities for development

Topic 4 has helped me look more closely at how I design online and blended learning. The Community of Inquiry framework was especially useful. Fiock (2020) explains how cognitive, social, and teaching presence work together to support meaningful learning. When I think about my own practice, I realize that I tend to focus on cognitive presence by organizing content and activities very clearly. I think course organization and clarity is extra important for online learning. I think I need to improve social presence by planning more interaction, collaboration, and informal communication among students.

The scenario we explored felt very familiar. Balancing synchronous and asynchronous work is something I often think about. Weller, van Ameijde, and Cross (2018) highlight that learning design should help students stay engaged and feel that they belong. This is a difficult task actually, it reminds me that asynchronous activities should not only share information but also encourage reflection and peer discussion.

I also see opportunities to make learning more flexible and to give students more choice and ownership. This fits well with ideas from networked and community-based learning. It might depend on level of educations, so might be more suitable for master and PhD students for instance.

Building trust, support, and scaffolding in online environments

Trust stood out as an important theme. I actually never thought about it this way before in my teaching. Trust is even difficult to build in our social private life with full physical interactions. Sutherland, Forsyth, and Felten (2024) describe how trust influences how students respond to feedback, how comfortable they feel asking questions, and how willing they are to take risks. In online settings, all of that is difficult for obvious reasons and trust needs to be created intentionally. This is not easy at all.

I now see trust as part of learning design. Clear instructions, consistent communication, and timely support help students feel that they are not alone. This connects with Fiock’s (2020) ideas about teaching presence.

Assessment design also influences trust. Being open about expectations and explaining the purpose of assessments can help students feel more confident, especially when new technologies are part of the learning process.

Using new technologies and generative AI in teaching and assessment

Learning about generative AI has helped me understand both its possibilities and its challenges. Alexander’s (n.d.) resources explain how these tools work and how they may affect students’ learning behaviors. This encouraged me to think of AI as something that can support learning when used with clear pedagogical intentions.

Ouyang and Jiao (2021) describe three AI paradigms: intelligent, augmentation, and autonomy. The augmentation paradigm feels most relevant to my work because it focuses on using AI to support and extend student learning rather than replace it. I now see AI as a tool that can help with inspirations, reflection, idea development, or formative feedback.

The scenario raised an important concern: how to use AI positively while keeping assessments meaningful. This reinforces the need for assessments that focus on thinking processes, authentic tasks, and reflection.

Insights from my experience as a learner in the ONL Course

Being part of ONL has shown me what online learning feels like from the inside. The PBL work, the group collaboration, and the combination of synchronous and asynchronous activities helped me see how community can be built online. This experience made me more aware of the social and emotional sides of learning.

From this, I have identified areas for my own development:

  • Creating stronger social presence through planned interaction
  • Designing more flexible tasks
  • Including more opportunities for reflection
  • Developing assessments that include AI in a responsible way

Overall, ONL has shown me that learning design is ongoing and that it relies on trust, openness, and active engagement. One frustrating thing about it is that few group members did not take seriously. Frankly talking, my experience with PBL group learning was better in a previous course than on the ONL course.

Concluding reflections

Topic 4 has helped me understand how intentional design supports engagement, trust, and community in online and blended learning. It also reminded me that new technologies, including generative AI, should be used to enhance learning rather than drive it. I hope to continue developing designs that support collaboration, inclusion, agency, and critical thinking.

References

Alexander, B. (n.d.). What should my students read about emerging AI? Blogpost.

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.

Ouyang, F., & Jiao, P. (2021). Artificial intelligence in education: The three paradigms. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 2, 1–6.

Sutherland, K. A., Forsyth, R., & Felten, P. (2024). Expressions of Trust: How University STEM Teachers Describe the Role of Trust in their Teaching. Teaching and Learning Inquiry, 12, 1–15.

Weller, M., van Ameijde, J., & Cross, S. (2018). Learning Design for Student Retention. Journal of Perspectives in Applied Academic Practice, 6(2).