1 / 24

KAJO – Flexible Blended Learning in Science of Education

KAJO – Flexible Blended Learning in Science of Education. E-xcellence seminar, Oulu 19.5.2009 Eetu Pikkarainen. Background. General decline of student amounts in educational open university studies in Finland. Development requirements.

jeslyn
Télécharger la présentation

KAJO – Flexible Blended Learning in Science of Education

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. KAJO – FlexibleBlended Learning in Science of Education E-xcellence seminar, Oulu 19.5.2009Eetu Pikkarainen

  2. Background • General decline of student amounts in educational open university studies in Finland

  3. Development requirements • Old model is of good quality but expensive, inflexible and heavy: • Maintaining and bettering of quality level • Increase of flexibility • Decrease of spending of resources

  4. An Old Aim • ”To search and invent such a procedure that the work of student would minimise, but students should still learn more…(Comenius)”

  5. Development goals • Develop a total model for teaching and studies in province –and utilise it then in other teaching and studies • Clarify the role of the collaborating provincial educational institutes (learning centres). • Maintain the correspondence of content and demand level of studies in relation to degree programmes.

  6. The nature of development • Tradition respecting, pragmatic, short steps project. • The whole area of action: administration, collaboration, marketing, etc. • Learning and teaching in the focus.

  7. Operations model of the project • Open university is buying the teaching and its development from the department. • Phased 3 year project: • general studies programme (25 ects) • subject studies programme (35 ects) • Project group: teachers developing their courses (part time), team work, stake holders

  8. Pedagogical base • Theoretical clarity and scope as starting points • Theory of pedagogical action (Benner, Kivelä, Siljander) • Pedagogical paradox: not teacher centred nor student centred model

  9. Pedagogical relationship and didactical triangle 2) teaching 3) studying 1) contents

  10. Learning methods • Contents -> Teaching -> Studying -> Learning • Learning requires student’s action, theoretical work: study: interrogation (inquiry) • Teaching promotes and directs this action towards the contents

  11. Curriculum Materials Teacher Responsibility Material Lectures Leaning tasks Assessment Tutor Leaning tasks Discussions Student Tasks, Discussion, Feedback VLE Tasks, discussions, links, archive, ”Building blocks”

  12. Contents Courses Programmes Science of educationPedagogical thinkingEducationCulture

  13. Curriculum • Starting from wholes (programmes) – content centred • Especially the general studies are the general knowledge basis in all our degree programs of education • Core content analyses

  14. Programme model 1. Orienting phase 2. Content phase 3. Applying phase Subject area courses Small research thesis seminars Introductory course (s)

  15. Teacher • Teacher (researcher) is responsible of the whole course, the special learning material and assessment of students learning. • Lecture as a traditional core of course. • Partly face to face, partly via ACP (good experiences!) • Partly to material

  16. Tutor • Students often have no experience in university studies. • Aim: • Local process / group tutors in the institutes • Course-specific content tutors (Important!) • Near collaboration with teachers • Active interaction with students • Mediating between students and teachers • Tutor training

  17. Learning material • Teachers write material around their lecture notes. • Recorded lecture snippets linked to material. • http://apumatti.oulu.fi/apumatti/lcms.php?am=353-353-1 • Course book: part of university studies.

  18. Learning tasks • Aim is to shorten the pedagogical cycle • Essays and exams • Mid exams • Revision tests • Peer referencing of essays / theses. • Forced attending to discussions. • Polls • Questions

  19. VLE • (Virtual learning environment) • 1: Channel of interaction • 2: Platform of tasks • Discussion and information archive • Hopes: integration to email, assessment of all kind of tasks, collecting assessments, peer referee functions, etc.

  20. Course structure example • Orientation and tuning task (VLE) • Learning material • Lecture (f2f) • Questions from students to teacher (VLE) • Lecture (ACP) • Mid tasks, discussions • Revision task • Essay / exam • Feedback

  21. QA and feedback system • Feedback as general education goal: • Beginning, mid and end questionnaires (webropol) • Course-specific feedback boxes (VLE) • Tutor feedback • Teacher feedback • Collected reports yearly -> planning • Quality assessment by E-xcellence tools • Process modelling • Connection to University QA

  22. Applying • Utilising in campus and degree programme. • Bigger groups • Common material. • Similar tasks. • Part of lectures to tutoring / discussion • Tutoring practice in degree programmes. • Unifying of QA and development.

  23. Problems • Technological-administrational restrictions (VLE) • Student groups (Group support, Social media) • Research should be made

  24. Thank you! Comments and questions!? eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi

More Related