Personalising Provision through Blended Learning: a bottom-up departmental strategy

1. Association for Learning Technology 16th International Conference 2009 Personalising Provision through Blended Learning: a bottom-up departmental strategy Dr Peter Williams

2. Overview 1 Blended Learning and Personalised Provision 2 Implementing a Departmental Strategy

3. 1 Blended Learning and Personalised Provision

4. Blended Learning face-to- face wholly online blended learning • spontaneous • synchronous • social • repeatable • reflective • reinforcing

5. Pedagogical Design • Select an appropriate pedagogy or blend of approaches: • collaborative • resource based • situated learning • problem based learning • didactic • stimulus-response • Be prepared to take on a different teacher role • Develop a facilitative presence • Utilize the strengths of the technology. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (Bloom & Krathwohl, 1956)

6. Rapid eLearning Software Tools Presenter Engage Quizmaker Templates Screen recording Voice recording PowerPoint recording Video production

7. Learning Design Sequences (LDSs)

8. Examples of Resources

9. Steps in Early Reading: Six-stage LDS Face-to-face stimulus session to introduce conceptual framework Online revision of conceptual framework, then consolidation quiz Face-to-face brainstorming to hypothesise the child’s problems and identify necessary research issues Online: listen to a child reading and identify problems in relation to conceptual framework Online discussion to identify the next teaching steps to address the child’s problem. Individual and small-group research related to conceptual framework

10. 2 Implementing a Departmental Strategy

11. Institutional Change and Blended Learning of change Models Policy Models Top-down Bottom-up (Collis, 1997) (Darling-Hammond, 1990) Blended Learning in practice (Sharpe, et al., 2006) UK Higher Education Academy report: evaluation of 300 case studies and 7 university visits A “school-based adoption strategy rather than a blanket central strategy” was identified as a critical success factor (p. 75).

12. The Concerns-Based Adoption Model • Change is a slow process: years rather than months • Staff must first develop a clear idea of the innovation and become personally comfortable with it (AWARENESS, INFORMATION, PERSONAL) • Staff need to work at their own level, coming to terms with the innovation in their own way (MANAGEMENT, CONSEQUENCE) • Only then are they ready to work with colleagues to take ownership of the change (COLLABORATION, REFOCUSING). (Graphic: Sweeny, 2003) (CBAM model: Hall & Loucks, 1979)

13. Departmental Strategy • Use Blended Learning strategies to gradually replace traditional large group lectures • Create a bank of online interactive learning materials to support all modules across all programmes • Develop flexible and personalised learning through small group tutorials • Develop problem-based, resource-based, situated and collaborative learning Supported and financed by Department and Faculty. Expectation that all Academic staff will create at least one learning resource per semester

14. Tenets of Faith • Years, not months, are needed for effective change to develop: from surface/accommodated to deep/assimilated. • Effective change is not led but fostered; change facilitators must balance being reactive and being proactive. • Theorising of practice - of reflection-in-action and reflection-on-action - and the development of an evidence base, is a key accompaniment to effective change. • Our ultimate goal is the development of a self-sustaining community of highly effective teacher-researchers.

15. Association for Learning Technology 16th International Conference 2009 Personalising Provision through Blended Learning: a bottom-up departmental strategy Dr Peter Williams

16. References Articulate Studio '09, http://www.articulate.com/products/studio.php Barnett, M. (2006) ‘Using a Web-Based Professional Development System to Support Preservice Teachers in Examing Authentic Practice’, Journal of Technology and Teacher Education Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 701 – 729. Camtasia Studio, http://www.techsmith.com/camtasia.asp Bloom, B. & Krathwohl, D. (1956) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals, by a committee of college and university examiners, Handbook I: Cognitive Domain, Longmans, New York. Collis, B. (1997) ‘Implementing ICT in the faculty: letting a 1000 flowers bloom or managing change?’, Keynote presentation for the national conference, Studying in Digital Learning Environments, University of Utrecht, December 1997 http://education2.edte.utwente.nl/teletophomepage.nsf/PapersNLViewForm?readform Darling-Hammond, L. (1990) 'Instructional Policy Into Practice: The Power of the Bottom Over the Top', Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 339-347. Hall, G. & Loucks, S. (1979) ‘Implementing innovations in schools: A concerns-based approach’, Research and Development Center for Teacher Education, University of Texas-Austin.

17. References Hmelo-Silver, C. (2004) ‘Problem-Based Learning: What and How Do Students Learn’? Educational Psychology Review, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 235-266. Meredith, S. & Newton, B. (2003) ‘Models of eLearning: technology promise vs learner needs – Literature Review’, International Journal of Management Education, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp.43-56. Rimer. S. (2009) 'At M.I.T., Large Lectures Are Going the Way of the Blackboard', The New York Times, 12 January, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/us/13physics.html?_r=1&emc=eta1 Sharpe, R., Benfield, G., Roberts, G. & Francis, R. (2006) The Undergraduate Experience of Blended e-Learning: a review of UK literature and practice, The Higher Education Academy, York. Sweeny, B. (2003) The CBAM: A Model of the People Development Process, International Mentoring Association, http://www.mentoring-association.org/membersonly/CBAM.html