Blended Learning
After designing a course in Sanskrit Speech Sounds for EdTech 503 (Instructional Design), I considered taking EdTech 512 (Online Course Design). But when I thought more about it, I realized the instruction I designed could not be delivered fully online.
This project gave me the opportunity to discover whether it could be blended. I found that offering the opportunity to listen and practice the speech sounds online freed up valuable class time. In short, the result was "well-blended."
This project gave me the opportunity to discover whether it could be blended. I found that offering the opportunity to listen and practice the speech sounds online freed up valuable class time. In short, the result was "well-blended."
Using Technology to Teach an Ancient Alphabet Song
Module 5 was a welcome project, as I had wanted to make this instruction blended when I initially designed it for EdTech 503, but it did not fit into the implementing organization’s plan. At the time I designed what was then a semester-long course consisting of 12 weekly lessons, the possibility of a blended environment did not exist. My SME and her organization, which was planning to implement the instruction, held one-on-one interaction with the teacher in the utmost regard. In the Sanskrit tradition, the teacher, or Guru, is the expert in the subject, and it is important that learning be an in-person interaction between the student and the teacher.
I wasn’t sure a blended approach would work for this instruction, but once I started redesigning it, I discovered that “blending” actually maximized class time and the potential for learning both inside and outside of class. When part of the instruction shifts to online, individualized learning and practice, more class time opens up for troubleshooting, exploration, discussion, and targeted practice to hone skills in the presence of peers and the instructor.
As teaching is no longer confined to the limits of the class period, I found that it was possible to dedicate less class time to these lessons if necessary. The implementation, therefore, became more flexible, according to the block schedule of the implementing institution (i.e., 30-minute, 45-minute, 60-minute, or even 90-minute class periods). I designed optional extension activities that can be incorporated into lessons as time allows. My recommendation for this blended unit is three weeks, with one lesson daily Monday through Thursday.
The PDF titled “K.Strickland_UnitComparison” (see below) outlines in its “Rationale” the key changes in methodology for the blended vs. traditional instruction (differences between the two approaches are indicated in blue type). The learning objectives stay the same, apart from the additional condition of listening to/watching recorded demonstrations of proper Sanskrit speech-sound pronunciation independently. Changes in the methodology of assessment are highlighted in the PDF titled “K.Strickland_Objectives-AssessMatrix" (see below).
This blended unit essentially flips the “I do, we do, you do” model from starting with the teacher to starting with the student. In other words, the first step is for students to listen to the recordings and practice at home (I do), after which they review and practice further in class (we do) with teacher feedback (you do) targeting problem areas that have already been identified through the student recordings that the teacher has reviewed prior to class time.
As I planned how to redesign the lessons (see Sample Lesson and below) for blended implementation, the home study of listening to the CDs that came with the textbook shifted from after the lesson to before the lesson. Instead of practicing the pronunciation in class with the teacher’s guidance and then going home and listening to the CDs, students listened to the recordings (now housed in an LMS) first, recorded themselves repeating the sounds, and came to class with prior knowledge of the skills to be accomplished in the lesson.
In the blended model, students are also able to watch videos that are related to the content of the unit but not critical enough to spend valuable class time watching. These videos help students relate the lessons to the real world and build background knowledge, but do not necessarily advance students toward the learning goal of the unit.
Key technology changes for blended implementation:
*LANGUAGE! Live is a program offered by my employer, Voyager Sopris Learning. I do not have the capability to create online lessons such as this, but I am including this as an example of the technology I would use to develop this unit of study, were it ever adopted and funded by an institution not affiliated with Voyager Sopris Learning.
I wasn’t sure a blended approach would work for this instruction, but once I started redesigning it, I discovered that “blending” actually maximized class time and the potential for learning both inside and outside of class. When part of the instruction shifts to online, individualized learning and practice, more class time opens up for troubleshooting, exploration, discussion, and targeted practice to hone skills in the presence of peers and the instructor.
As teaching is no longer confined to the limits of the class period, I found that it was possible to dedicate less class time to these lessons if necessary. The implementation, therefore, became more flexible, according to the block schedule of the implementing institution (i.e., 30-minute, 45-minute, 60-minute, or even 90-minute class periods). I designed optional extension activities that can be incorporated into lessons as time allows. My recommendation for this blended unit is three weeks, with one lesson daily Monday through Thursday.
The PDF titled “K.Strickland_UnitComparison” (see below) outlines in its “Rationale” the key changes in methodology for the blended vs. traditional instruction (differences between the two approaches are indicated in blue type). The learning objectives stay the same, apart from the additional condition of listening to/watching recorded demonstrations of proper Sanskrit speech-sound pronunciation independently. Changes in the methodology of assessment are highlighted in the PDF titled “K.Strickland_Objectives-AssessMatrix" (see below).
This blended unit essentially flips the “I do, we do, you do” model from starting with the teacher to starting with the student. In other words, the first step is for students to listen to the recordings and practice at home (I do), after which they review and practice further in class (we do) with teacher feedback (you do) targeting problem areas that have already been identified through the student recordings that the teacher has reviewed prior to class time.
As I planned how to redesign the lessons (see Sample Lesson and below) for blended implementation, the home study of listening to the CDs that came with the textbook shifted from after the lesson to before the lesson. Instead of practicing the pronunciation in class with the teacher’s guidance and then going home and listening to the CDs, students listened to the recordings (now housed in an LMS) first, recorded themselves repeating the sounds, and came to class with prior knowledge of the skills to be accomplished in the lesson.
In the blended model, students are also able to watch videos that are related to the content of the unit but not critical enough to spend valuable class time watching. These videos help students relate the lessons to the real world and build background knowledge, but do not necessarily advance students toward the learning goal of the unit.
Key technology changes for blended implementation:
- Audio recordings from textbook CDs housed on Moodle or another LMS
- Diagrams and charts from textbook uploaded to LMS (but textbook will still be used in class)
- Lesson Slides from Teacher’s Resource Guide also housed in LMS
- Ability for students to record themselves pronouncing the speech sounds and to share those recordings with peers and teacher via LMS or cloud-based platform
- Video demonstrations of speech sounds, mouth diagrams, and sound alphabet offered through interactive video tutorials similar to LANGUAGE! Live*: http://www.voyagersopris.com/info/languagelive-demo/Dashboard.html
- Videos housed on class LMS that relate to learning and build background knowledge
- Interactive applications like Google Earth (to replace slides like Lesson 5 in Teacher's Resource Guide)
- Interactive discussion forums in LMS, secure social media, Skype capabilities, etc. (enhances learning context, peer and global community)
*LANGUAGE! Live is a program offered by my employer, Voyager Sopris Learning. I do not have the capability to create online lessons such as this, but I am including this as an example of the technology I would use to develop this unit of study, were it ever adopted and funded by an institution not affiliated with Voyager Sopris Learning.
Please find below: (1) a
matrix comparing the types of assessment in the traditional vs. blended unit, (2) the first lesson, redesigned for a blended learning environment and laying out the framework for all subsequent lessons, (3) the Teacher's Resource Guide, which includes charts and slides the teacher will use in class (in the blended environment, they will also be
posted on the class LMS, with interactive extension options--see Lesson 5 for one
example).
k.strickland_objectives-assessmatrix.pdf | |
File Size: | 86 kb |
File Type: |
k.strickland_samplelesson.docx | |
File Size: | 257 kb |
File Type: | docx |
k.strickland_teacher'sresourceguide.pdf | |
File Size: | 1327 kb |
File Type: |