 |
| Now what have we missed? |
The problem with principles is that you can never get them right. What might be principles for good practice in one context may not lead to good practice in another. In fact, you can bet that they won't. And when it comes to blended and flexible learning (BFL), which is characterised by an almost infinite array of possibilities and choices for designers and teachers, the complexities are compounded. Which brings us to the question, 'What can we offer CSU course teams, as a set of foundational principles, to guide their course redesign in terms of BFL?'
Like most things complex and worthy of considerable thought, what we have offer has gone through a number of iterations. We started by talking to people - academics, teaching fellows, educational designers, managers - about what good practice in blended and flexible learning might look like. We had lively discussions about what might and might not be included, and ended up with a list of 14 design principles. So far so good...
Then along I came, and started looking at these principles from a designer perspective, as someone who would have to implement these with course teams. And I struggled. I needed to make sense of these for myself - to see where and how they related to other areas of the CSUDegree, the aspirational framework that FLI had developed, and what I already knew about blended and flexible learning from the literature and my own experiences.
And so I moulded and reworked them, while still trying to be true to the ideas of the original reference group. What we have now is a set of 10 principles, which still aren't 'right', but which we're satisfied with for now. And I think that's OK because of the way we are offering them. Firstly, they aren't offered as a 'prescription' or recipe that CSU course teams have to follow. We're offering them as a starting point, from which each course team might think about why they are moving more towards BFL, what foundational principles might inform that move, and how these relate to any other set of course principles they may have. In that way, we're hoping you will mould them to suit your context, just as I did.
Secondly, we aren't offering them as a definitive list. We'd like you to comment (on this post) on the usefulness of these principles for your BFL design, and how we might continue to redefine what good practice in blended and flexible learning means at CSU.
So here they are...
Let's start with two vital principles, which form part of the BFL Standards ratified by Academic Senate: that good practice in blended and flexible learning is student-centred and equivalent between cohorts. These principles also reflect CSU's core values.
Student centred - Effective BFL design provides engaging, motivating and intellectually stimulating learning experiences focussed on the individual and social needs of the learners, rather than those of teachers or administrators. Active participation in learning activities should be fostered through emphasising the interactive and social dimensions of learning both in physical and virtual environments. Students also need opportunities to become independent learners and to take responsibility for their own learning.
Equivalent - Effective BFL design encompasses the ethical obligation to support, respect and provide equitable learning and assessment experiences for all of our diverse range of students. Equivalence should exist between and across different cohorts, ensuring that resources and facilitation processes normally only provided to one cohort are available to all, and that there are equivalent support mechanisms to cater for accessibilty and convenience.
In addition to these core principles, CSU has identified 8 other supporting principles which are important to ensuring consistently high quality learning experiences and outcomes for all CSU undergraduates, and in enabling academic staff to achieve this goal.
Effective practice - Irrespective of the technology used, effective BFL design should be based on good curriculum design informed by core principles of learning, in particular alignment between course and subject aims, activities and assessments. These principles need to be thoughtfully applied, using ICTs where appropriate to enhance specific aspects of the learning process.
Authentic - Effective BFL design maximises the synergies between theory, professional practice and community activities, and engages students in developing solutions to real world problems and issues. It recognises, values and harnesses learning that takes place both within and outside of formal learning activities.
Collaborative - Effective BFL design enhances opportunities for learners to work together cooperatively to achieve learning outcomes. This may involve both face-to-face and online opportunities, and may bring together on-campus and off-campus students where possible and appropriate.
Lifelong - Effective BFL design enhances learners' ability to continue their learning independently after graduation. This may involve building a personal learning network and developing their skills in a range of literacies.
Appropriate - Effective BFL design is based on thoughtful choices in pedagogies, learning spaces, interactions, ICTs and literacies according to their affordances, blending them in a way that is contextually appropriate to meet the required learning outcomes.
Innovative - Effective BFL design fosters transformative change and innovative and creative approaches to student learning which are informed by current research.
Sustainable - Effective BFL design requires an approach that can be maintained over time and which accommodates the nuanced shifts fundamental to rapid technological change. Ideally, learning designs and objects should be reusable - used again by others in similar contexts with slight modifications.
Continuous improvement - Effective BFL design fosters a dynamic environment of continous improvement, simultaneously leading and responding to developments in university teaching and learning at all levels. Ongoing renewal is important to BFL to ensure that courses, subjects, activities and assessments remain future orientated. For CSU teaching staff, continuous improvement also involves regularly enhancing teaching practice through professional development and reflection.
So, do these work for your course team? How would you change them?
Posted by Carole
