成为混合学习设计师:第五周

第五章

This is 的 final week in this MOOC and I have enjoyed 的 readings 的 most of 所有 . I think going back over 的 materials I may find more when I am “ready,” but right now I am deeply appreciative of 的se readings such as 混合学习工具包的第五章:混合学习中的质量保证.

思考的问题:

How will you know whether your blended learning course is sound prior to teaching it? How will you know whether your teaching of 的 course was effective 上 ce it has concluded?

这些问题表达了我的期望‘next steps’ after this MOOC .

它也与….

如何“quality” and “success”在那些对您有意见的人的操作中定义的混合学习中?贵机构是否已采用标准来指导正式的非正式评估?

读:

The reading highlighted my subconscious recognition of a lack of a 质量 assurance plan for 混合式学习 assets/courses in our district 要么 in K12 overall. When I read 要么 ganizations in higher education 是 struggling I am not comforted that K12 will advance naturally as an institution without an expectation from higher education, 的 private sector, 要么 government.

“[c]onclusively, 的 data show that high 质量 faculty development is 的 cornerstone of effective blended programs”(Dziuban,Hartman和Mehaffy,2014年,第326页)。

Sometimes 的 completion of a virtual lesson, module, 要么 course is considered a 成功. I would grant that it is a significant accomplishment to complete any of those items; especially for an educator who has worked to perfect a face-to-face learning environment to translate that learning to an 上 line and/or blended format. Effort does not equal 成功 however. And unless 成功 is defined at 的 front of 的 process educators will spend much effort and 的 product may not be of a high enough 质量 to use.

的行为 开发在线内容需要两件事。这个需要 时间 first; either 时间 recovered from 的 present duties of 的 instructor or 的 teacher devoting 时间 from outside his/her regular duties –换一些 货币 抵消。它也需要某种‘standardizing’ training for that instructor. This process is often neglected because it requires a 好 deal of coordination, possible compromise, and funding to bring together 的 best thought leaders from 的 curriculum, technology, and instructional camps within a district.  我的奇迹是– is 的 latter not happening because 的 讲师 是 的 group which currently knows 的 most about blended learning and 的 associated methods?

In my opinion, while 讲师 是 already experts in face-to-face instruction, 的y do not always have 的 same amount of competence  要么  在两个不同类别中具有相同的学习曲线:创建内容并促进在线或混合课程。因此,如果我们只考虑创建在线内容,那么当前对创建面对面内容的期望又如何呢?在K12的环境中,与实际设计内容相比,更多的教师是促进面对面学习环境的专家。期望面对面的协助者在没有大量支持的情况下过渡到混合设计师几乎没有道理。这就像要求从教科书教过的老师现在写一本教科书。那位老师可能对您的要求有所了解,甚至认为他/她也许能够做到,但这将是 罕见的情况 that both 的 质量 and 的 teacher’s opinion of him/herself will be high if 的 task is completed.

Do we know how to instruct 所有 teachers to become content developers? I do not know a standard way; I 上 ly imagine you take an individual and look for 的 content which each is ready to develop you will not be 成功ful. And that is more 时间 consuming than it sounds I imagine.

如果我们开始 的 other side of 的 issue, with 的 evaluation 我们可能会找到更多信息来解决:

“用这样简单的描述符很难合理地标记混合课程…管理员和教师感到压力…to compare 上 e course to another 要么 上 e instructor to another in 的ir attempts to ensure that blended courses produce various desirable outcomes at rates comparable to face-to-face courses…”

我们地区只有一个地区赞助的完全在线课程。指导老师不仅修改了整个(购买的)课程,而且并入了其他教师以促进他们课程的学习,并与他在全区各高中的学生会面。因为他是唯一的人,但是他能做到的是“the” way we do 上 line classes in our district, but does that cut both ways? How will another teacher who tries to take his/her content 上 line find 的 precedent our first 上 line teacher has set?

After two years we do not yet have a significant population transitioning from his 上 line courses back into a traditional face-to-face to measure any differences between 的 two groups. So, we have not established what 成功 is and we do not yet have a way to measure if it is 成功fully as compared to comparable face-to-face courses.

其实这个 面对面的老师创建的课程和其他模块通常被保留为“good” examples.

I do not know that 的y 不是 好,

but I do not know that 的y  good either.

2011年,LMS飞行员向一所试点学校提供了十几个小合同,以供教师将其内容发展为一门课程。这些课程中许多只是数字化工作表。没有给教师任何指示,但是要求课程部门签署合同。合同签订后,课程部联系了我的主管,并要求我们审核课程。找出一个可能适用于K12的评估工具有点费事,如果不能及时修改以实际评估这些课程,那将是一件麻烦事。我和一个同事利用 科罗拉多州立大学’s在线指导原则. It required some modification, which either highlights 的 scarcity of resources available at that 时间 , 要么 our need to turn around an evaluation tool in 时间 to use it (sadly not in 时间 to let those creating 的 content to use it as a guide). Even today, I do not have 上 e go-to evaluation tool I would use in 所有  K12 situations. I wonder if 的 evaluation does not just have to be as flexible and unique as 的 creation process itself?

Articulating analogous 质量 standards at 的 course level is difficult for at least three reasons.

First, 的re is no 上 e authoritative body that can (or is willing to ) address minimum levels of acceptability for blended learning in 所有 its manifestations within 的 diversity of approaches found…

第二,如果有这样的标准 做了 由于存在这种情况,因此很难创建一种可以在所有课程,计划和机构中一致使用的评估工具。

第三,如果有这样的工具,评估单个课程实际上是相当耗时的。

读完这篇文章让我感到很安慰,因为我早在2011年就没有找到权威的混合学习评估工具,这让我很不高兴,因为K12需要比我感觉到的高等教育更多的指导。如果高等教育不追求标准,那么K12不会从他们那里继承。我认为K12可以立即从高等教育中学习的一件事是,对于哪些讲师和/或课程而言,将混合学习转换为更容易?我的直觉是,在线讲师/课程比面对面讲师/课程更容易过渡到混合课程。我可以说有足够的在线课程评估工具,使我比对面对面的学习转向混合学习更轻松地评估在线课程,然后帮助教师将自己和课程内容转换为混合教学。


DIY任务:

(正在建设中)