In reflecting on the things that I have recently learned about the principles of design of blended learning (Vaughan et.al. 2013), I have to admit that they provide a lot of context in terms of an ability to frame the course in a manner that will stimulate learning both through the face-to-face and online mediums. This context is necessary to comprehend the importance of clarity of the structure both to the teacher/facilitator and to the students that will benefit from the learning environment.

As I have already used constructive alignment (John Biggs 2011) in the design of my own courses, I assume taking an example from my own practice for the reflection here, can stimulate a further process of understanding of the pedagogical benefits and added value that module 4 models can bring to online and blended learning in my own teaching. Let’s take an example of the course that I’ve designed using constructive alignment below:

This course, when taken in the context of blended learning, would greatly benefit from the scaffolding and taxonomy provided by the Five Stage Model (Salmon, 2013). Provided that the first stage was properly implemented on the administrative level of the course (with the support and collaboration with IT-staff), the second stage can be facilitated by the learning activities 1-3 transforming their content into the interactive lectures, that also require preparation in the form of study groups and can facilitate these first instances of communication between students. Further, the information exchange (Stage 3) can be facilitated in activities 4-5, which will include cooperative tasks and feedback from my side. The fourth stage can be achieved during activities 6-7 that will provide a way to autonomy for students, especially during the case-law seminar. The last activity 8 can be modified to include a reflective exercise, which together with later assessment can help students reach the final stage.

Moreover, the critical reflection and discourse included in activities 7-8, open communication and (hopefully) trust built into activities (1-3), the establishment of community and cohesion through activities 4-6 and follow-ups that lead to assessment, which is constructed based on the pre-determined learning outcomes, should at least partially address the principles proposed by Vaughan et. al. (2013).

And so… the picture of what can be done to improve the courses built on the principles of constructive alignment and that are in need of an update to benefit from blended learning becomes more clear. However, the step from principled planning to actual implementation is rarely a small or an easy one. It requires a lot of resources, development and reflection. However, this works seems to promise a clear path to better results.

OK… back to work…

If you want to know more:

Gilly Salmon (2013). E-tivities: The Key to Active Online Learning

John Biggs, Teaching for Quality Learning at University, Buckingham: Open University Press/McGraw Hill, 2011

Vaughan et.al. (2013). Teaching in blended learning environments, Chapter 1 “Conceptual framework”