As a very short summer course, I feel like I have been properly introduced to online and blended learning. So many topics were addressed in the course, but I think some of the most important were to do with best practices in any classroom, blended or not. Below are a few of the reflections I wrote while studying in this course...
Backwards design
I understand instructional design to be the intentional alignment of standards and objectives to assessments (instruction being an off shoot of these two). And, a quick search of the internet supports this analysis, as Instructional Design Central notes, "Instructional Design is the systematic development of instructional specifications using learning and instructional theory to ensure the quality of instruction. It is the entire process of analysis of learning needs and goals and the development of a delivery system to meet those needs. It includes development of instructional materials and activities; and tryout and evaluation of all instruction and learner activities.” This quote gets to the basics of instructional design in that it allows for more precise and targeted instruction to ensure student mastery of the objectives at hand. The more targeted the instruction, the more successful the student.
Personally, I try to practice backwards design. While I am not formally educated in this technique, I try to develop my assessments first (before I ever begin) and with the creation of a rubric (based on the standards being addressed) I plan objectives and instruction accordingly. In the event that an instructional objective is missed, the assessment can be changed or modified to adjust.
Personally, I try to practice backwards design. While I am not formally educated in this technique, I try to develop my assessments first (before I ever begin) and with the creation of a rubric (based on the standards being addressed) I plan objectives and instruction accordingly. In the event that an instructional objective is missed, the assessment can be changed or modified to adjust.
Job of a Virtual Teacher
The role of virtual school teacher is a bit different than I expected. I have taken a few course in university that worked on a blended learning model, and I have used Learning Management Systems, like Blackboard, since I was an undergraduate. However, these methods of instruction are quite different than those laid out by The Clayton Christenson Institute.
The most notable difference between the methods of the Clayton Christenson Institute and my original ideas of blended learning is that the instruction is decidedly not teacher centered. I don’t know why I expected that blended learning would be teacher centered… If I have learned one thing from the ITEC masters course of study at KSU, it is that teacher centered learning is not the most effective method of teaching. But the amount of non-teacher focus is quite huge. From the rotation method (where students rotate from unit or subject independently or in small groups), to the flex method, the teacher is a support, a sounding board, NOT the primary source of information and learning. I particularly appreciated the Summit Public Schools Case Study in which it notes that the use of Kahn Academy tools to reach students in a high school math course had helped teachers gain “strength in teaching basic skills as an opportunity to focus non-technology time on project-based learning, group work, and other strategies to stimulate higher-order thinking and explore deeper meaning” (p. 11)
When I think about this in terms of a technology coach, I think blended learning offers a great opportunity for teachers who are a bit apprehensive about releasing control in their classroom. It is a subtle way to have students gradually gain control of their learning. However, I am a bit concerned about the timely and absolutely necessary feedback that blended learning requires. The Summit Public Schools Case Study states, “teaching successfully in a blended classroom hinges on an ability to use data and a flexibility to adjust instruction on the fly. During classroom time, teachers must be able to respond to the real-time data flowing to their laptops from Khan Academy” (p. 13 Summit). Additionally they note that “…simultaneously planning and managing both online and offline learning experiences has proved taxing, and leads some teachers to comment that it feels like teaching in their first year all over again” (p. 27). I vividly remember the drowning feeling of my first year of teaching. And I am quite interested in learning how to both avoid feeling this again, and helping my colleagues ease into the process so they can also avoid the anxieties of first year teaching.
The most notable difference between the methods of the Clayton Christenson Institute and my original ideas of blended learning is that the instruction is decidedly not teacher centered. I don’t know why I expected that blended learning would be teacher centered… If I have learned one thing from the ITEC masters course of study at KSU, it is that teacher centered learning is not the most effective method of teaching. But the amount of non-teacher focus is quite huge. From the rotation method (where students rotate from unit or subject independently or in small groups), to the flex method, the teacher is a support, a sounding board, NOT the primary source of information and learning. I particularly appreciated the Summit Public Schools Case Study in which it notes that the use of Kahn Academy tools to reach students in a high school math course had helped teachers gain “strength in teaching basic skills as an opportunity to focus non-technology time on project-based learning, group work, and other strategies to stimulate higher-order thinking and explore deeper meaning” (p. 11)
When I think about this in terms of a technology coach, I think blended learning offers a great opportunity for teachers who are a bit apprehensive about releasing control in their classroom. It is a subtle way to have students gradually gain control of their learning. However, I am a bit concerned about the timely and absolutely necessary feedback that blended learning requires. The Summit Public Schools Case Study states, “teaching successfully in a blended classroom hinges on an ability to use data and a flexibility to adjust instruction on the fly. During classroom time, teachers must be able to respond to the real-time data flowing to their laptops from Khan Academy” (p. 13 Summit). Additionally they note that “…simultaneously planning and managing both online and offline learning experiences has proved taxing, and leads some teachers to comment that it feels like teaching in their first year all over again” (p. 27). I vividly remember the drowning feeling of my first year of teaching. And I am quite interested in learning how to both avoid feeling this again, and helping my colleagues ease into the process so they can also avoid the anxieties of first year teaching.
How do iNACOL Standards Help?
The iNACOL standards benefit all involved and affected by online education by allowing for a concise guide for instructors to follow. They provide a benchmark for the development of online courses in their 5 key categories: content, instructional design, student assessment, technology, course evaluation & support.
Specifically, students benefit from the student-centered nature of iNACOL. But, the standard that may be most beneficial to students is standard c, “The teacher plans, designs and incorporates strategies to encourage active learning, interaction, participation and collaboration in the online environment” (iNACOL). This standard encompasses student engagement, timely feedback, differentiation, safety & community development, encouragement, etc. This standard, above all others, is very student-centered.
It only makes sense that if the iNACOL standards are student-centered, parents will be happy. But, I think that the guide that iNACOL provides parents is very beneficial to them. And, this really highlights the amount of transparency that iNACOL provides families. Overall, if teachers, students and parents are all in the know, then expectations are clear.
Specifically, students benefit from the student-centered nature of iNACOL. But, the standard that may be most beneficial to students is standard c, “The teacher plans, designs and incorporates strategies to encourage active learning, interaction, participation and collaboration in the online environment” (iNACOL). This standard encompasses student engagement, timely feedback, differentiation, safety & community development, encouragement, etc. This standard, above all others, is very student-centered.
It only makes sense that if the iNACOL standards are student-centered, parents will be happy. But, I think that the guide that iNACOL provides parents is very beneficial to them. And, this really highlights the amount of transparency that iNACOL provides families. Overall, if teachers, students and parents are all in the know, then expectations are clear.