Justification for the design of the course
Interaction
In my blended learning course, the online modules are intended to support learning in the lower levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy, specifically “[k]nowledge” and “[c]omprehension” (Bloom et al., 1956, p. 18), and the in-person workshops are intended to support learning in the higher levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy, specifically “[a]pplication”, “[a]nalysis”, and “[s]ynthesis” (Bloom et al., 1956, p. 18).
Throughout the course the facilitator will provide feedback to “suppor[t] the development and growth of critical thinking skills” (Anderson, 2008b, p. 344), encourage “[l]earner-learner” interaction (Anderson, 2008a, p. 58), and share “personal insights” (Anderson, 2008b, p. 347), and together these are intended to support “deep and meaningful learning results” by achieving the three presences identified by Garrison, Anderson, and Archer (Anderson, 2008b, p. 344).
In addition, the facilitator will design the classroom as a “flexible learning spac[e]” to support small/breakout group activities as well as large group discussions (Benade, 2017, p. 798), help evoke “cognitive curiosity” in their facilitation (Malone & Lepper, 1987, as cited in Ciampa, 2013, p. 84), and use formative assessment tools such as Kahoot to motivate through “competition” and enable learners to “receive prompt guidance and feedback” (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990, as cited in Ciampa, 2013, p. 85; Huang & Chang, 2011, as cited in Bai, 2019, p. 61).
I also considered the audience and the context in which the learning would be applied.
-
- Audience: The audience is people leaders within the (fictitious) organization, who are likely to be having to balance many priorities at the same time. For this reason I decided on a blended learning format to leverage the flexibility that online modules provide. I also wanted to make sure the design is simple and consistent to “[m]inimize [c]ognitive [l]oad” in using the platform (Whitenton, 2013), so they can focus on the learning.
- Context: The context in which the learning would be applied is in actual year-end reviews, which may be in-person. For this reason I decided on having in-person workshops so learners can practice in small group role-plays, which would be a context that’s relatively similar to the real-life context.
Assessment
Learners will be assessed on the skills they practice in the workshops. The intention of this course is to support them in conducting effective year-end reviews and not necessarily to ‘grade’ their skills, so they will have the opportunity to receive feedback and be reassessed throughout the duration of the course. A rubric is included as a course page.
To complete the course, learners will have to complete all modules and demonstrate skills as outlined in the rubric.
My experience designing the prototype
Using Canvas
For this assignment I chose Canvas as the LMS because I haven’t had the opportunity yet to design a course in Canvas. I found it easy to use, and that its rich text editor is similar to WordPress, which I use for this blog. I didn’t run into issues in setting up my course to look how I had planned – with the small exception of figuring out how to have “Recent Announcements” displayed on the Syllabus page, which is the one thing I had to Google. (It’s under Settings > more options.)
References
Anderson, T. (2008a). Towards a theory of online learning. In T. Anderson & F. Elloumi (Eds.), Theory and practice of online learning (pp. 45-74). Athabasca University. http://www.aupress.ca/books/120146/ebook/02_Anderson_2008-Theory_and_Practice_of_Online_Learning.pdf
Anderson, T. (2008b). Teaching in an online learning context. In T. Anderson & F. Elloumi (Eds.), Theory and practice of online learning (pp. 343-365). Athabasca University. http://www.aupress.ca/books/120146/ebook/02_Anderson_2008-Theory_and_Practice_of_Online_Learning.pdf
Bai, H. (2019). Pedagogical practices of mobile learning in K-12 and higher education settings. TechTrends, 63, 611–620. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-00419-w
Benade, L. (2017). Is the classroom obsolete in the twenty-first century? Educational Philosophy and Theory, 49(8), 796-807. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2016.1269631
Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Longmans, Green and Co Ltd.
Ciampa, K. (2013). Learning in a mobile age: An investigation of student motivation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(1), 82–96. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcal.12036/epdf
Whitenton, K. (2013, December 22). Minimize cognitive load to maximize usability. Nielsen Norman Group. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/minimize-cognitive-load/