Where to go from here?

If you are one of my students you may have arrived here by clicking on my name in a comment on your blog.

If so you may want to go to one of the module blogs:

the blog for COMP3092 Spring 2007;

the blog for COMP4040 Spring 2007;

Notes about the e-learning Development Group issues

Here will go a commentary which will link to Andrew’s blog

I have made some comments about Marie’s ideas about blended learning:

blended learning might be categorised under four headings:

1. programmes of learning (courses and/or modules) where FDL (particularly e-learning) is used to enhance student’s learning opportunities, but where achievement of the learning outcomes does not require accessing or engaging with these elements of the course
2. programmes of learning (courses and/or modules) where access/engagement with e-learning is part of the learning experience of the module, and is required to engage with the learning experience, but face-to-face interaction is ongoing through the whole programme
3. programmes of learning (courses and/or modules) where face-to face teaching/learning is focused in an intense period of study followed/preceded or interspersed by FDL (particularly e-learning) teaching and/or learner support
4. programmes of learning (courses and/or modules) where the learner and teacher are physically separate during the teaching process, such that the taught element is delivered all or principally using printed and/or electronic materials and/or interaction

I generally agree with Marie’s “issues for discussion” and think they form a useful basis on which to forward the debate.

While I agree that we need quality standards I find the “Quality standards for FDL, including e-learning” to be somewhat disappointing in that they are all about procedures and unlike the “issues for discussion”, do not seem to do anything to take forward the learning enhancement debate.

It seems to me that with e-learning we have to get the pedagogy right up front as there is little time to modify systems “on the fly” as we can do in a face to face situation. It will be difficult to encourage students to engage in true blended learning if they see no benefit beyond that of “easier” access to course materials. It is possible to enthuse students about using on-line facilities but it needs careful preparation and the opportunity to get easy access in taught sessions. Blended learning, if it is to work, needs ubiquitous computer access at a variety of different times including the face to face session. It is just not good enough to use it as a bolt-on where students are asked to use e-learning outside sessions, often without any experience in the pedagogical aspects of the activity.

Referring to Marie’s four categories of blended learning. I would see:
(1) as a necessary step on the way but not an end in itself
(2) as a model we might adopt for campus based students with the proviso that face-to-face and e-learning are not separate activities but should be blended together so that students find it “natural” to use computers for learning wherever they are.
(3) is a valid model for students who can be on campus for blocks of time and the same comments apply as for (2) but true blending is more difficult to achieve
(4) is not really blended learning and there is a danger of providing a second rate course. It is no surprise that most of the relatively few eUniversity programmes to actually work were done in partnership with the OU. We have little experience of distance learning let alone on-line learning and I would think that we need to build up our expertise in (2) and (3) before we try this distance mode to any great extent.

A post to illustrate how a blog works

Here I can write about the session. Some more text

What is this blog all about?

This is my personal blog to keep a record of more general things I have been doing not just things related to e-learning which are on my e-learning blog.