Interesting and essential question… (check the web link)
I will keep you posted!
Concepts of Blended Learning
In my last post, I commented on a book concerning blended learning and the role of social media. During the past few days I have focussed on the different concepts of the instructional design of blended learning. One of the (many!) blended learning models I found really interesting is based on a German article:
Wiepcke Claudia (2006). Computergestützte Lernkonzepte und deren Evaluation in der Weiterbildung: Blended Learning zur Förderung von Gender Mainstreaming. Verlag. Hamburg
The following image represents the blended learning model according to Wiepcke (2006):
Based on the concepts included in the above model, I have made an overview of the different blended learning elements and their clarifications. I will use this for my final assignment; analysis and re-design of an international optional program from my own professional context at the University of Applied Sciences.
I will keep you posted!
Blended Learning and The Role of Social Media
I have read various interesting articles on ‘Blended Learning in Higher Education’ , since that educational model appears to be very relevant for my professional context at the University of Applied Sciences in Utrecht.
According to Heinze (2008), blended e-learning refers to the learning which takes place through a combination of face-to-face facilitated learning, e-learning and self-study. One of the features of ‘ a blended learning model’ is thus the use of (a combination of) web-based techniques.
During our last module ‘Motivational Aspects of Learning’ I described various examples of co-creation in educational settings. Yesterday I discovered a new e-book called ‘Omdat het werkt‘ which has been developed through social media as a form of co-creation. It describes 11 cases from the ‘field’, concerning the use of social media in training and education. You can download the book freely, if you place a ‘tweet’ in exchange.
Hopefully you will be inspired.
I will keep you posted!
Education and Training Design paradigms unraveled
In my search for essential paradigms in the field of Education and Training Design, I encountered an interesting article from Visscher-Voerman & Gustafson (2004). Through elaborate research they were able to mark four dominant paradigms. I decided to ‘unravel’ three of these paradigms, since they are also described in other related articles from Visscher-Voerman (e.g; 2000).
1. Instrumental paradigm (- Planning by objectives-)
Central idea: Design is often depicted as an instrumental process that starts with the formulation of specific goals and outcomes for the products to be designed.
Examples: Dick & Carey (1996), Gagne, Briggs & Wager (1992) and Kemp (2001)
Overview of strengths and limitations (mindmap)
2. Communicative paradigm (- Communication to reach consensus-)
Central idea: A design is good if it meets the standard as discussed and agreed upon by the design team and other stakeholders involved.
Examples: Kessels & Plomp (1997), Schwab (1970) and Walker (1990)
Overview of strengths and limitations (mindmap)
3. Pragmatic paradigm (- Interactive and repeated try-out and revision-)
Central idea: Products are created through a process of quickly building, testing, and revising several prototypes or early products versions.
Examples: Connell & Shafer (1989), Hix & Hartson (1993), Wedmann & Tessmer (1993)
Overview of strengths and limitations (mindmap)
For my final assignment, I would like to analyse and describe which of these above mentioned paradigms are most applicable and relevant in my specific design situation.
I will keep you posted!
Learning Romiszowski’s taxonomy
During last week’s class we focussed on the various taxonomies from the field of instructional design. In addition to that I found some interesting data on the internet concerning Romiszowski’s taxonomy and his vision on knowledge and skills differentiation:
Figure 1: Romiszowski’s knowledge scheme
Figure 2: Romiszowski’s skills scheme
I have analysed the training module ‘Professional collaboration within a social work organization’ , taken from my own professional context at the Institute for social work- University of Applied Sciences in Utrecht. In the attachment you can find my analysis of the module’s objectives with the help of Romiszowski’s taxonomy. What I found striking is the fact that the majority of objectives are focussed on cognitive skills while, from my point of view, ‘professional collaboration’ is all about interactive skills. Interesting!
I will keep you posted!
Social work education in Morocco
Last week, I attended a study visit to Morocco for students and colleagues of our Institute for Social Work. Besides our visits to social work organizations, I arranged to visit the social work department of the University of Oujda, in the Nort-East of Morocco. A short photo impression of this visit has been posted on the website of University Oujda.
The objective of this visit was ‘to exchange ideas and experiences concerning social work education and the field of social work in Morocco and The Netherlands’. Based on conversations with social work lecturers and students I have developed a sense of the similarities and differences concerning the way that social work education is being designed in Morocco (University Oujda) and The Netherlands (Hogeschool Utrecht).
| Characteristics social work education in Oujda | Characteristics social work education in Utrecht |
| - Average 90% theory and 10% practice | - average 40% theory and 60% practice |
| - Emphasis on knowledge of social work theories | - all subjects designed are based on social work competencies (knowledge, skills and attitude) |
| - Subjects are generally ‘isolated’ in the curriculum (cursoric) | - subjects are interlinked (concentric) |
| - Emphasis on individual performance and development | - emphasis on group work |
| - Lecturing is the most commonly used didactical method | - variety of didactical methods (training sessions/ lectures/supervision) |
| - Assessments generally focus on knowledge testing | - variety of forms of assessment (knowledge tests MC/ oral presentations/ reports/ reflection paper) |
| - Research skills are seen as an essential component | - reflection skills are seen as an essential component |
| - 3 years study program | - 4 years study program |
I found it really interesting to view these differences and similarities in the light of our module ‘Educational Design’!
I will keep you posted!
Reviewing instructional design models
I have drawn up a few basic directives/criteria concerning instructional design models, based on:
- My work experience with designing didactic methods (University of Applied Sciences Utrecht)
- My work experience with designing course manuals (CAP Foundation, India)
- My assignment (report) for the module on ‘motivational aspects of learning’ (LA1 Zin in Leren) of the Master Learning and Innovation
| Directives concerning the instructional model itself | 1. The model should be synoptic. The model should be visualized3. The model should be applicable in different situations/target groups
4. The model should pay attention to evaluation and adjustment |
| Directives concerning the educational vision ‘behind’ the model | 5. The model should promote flexibility and creativity concerning the learning process of the learner6. The model should promote space for variation and differentiation7. The model should promote a needs-based approach
8. The model should focus on engagement and participation |
I have made a mind map in order to review the four instructional design models I mentioned in my earlier blog post. It has definitely given me a clearer picture of the models and my view on instructional design.
In my next post I will analyse (part of ) a curriculum from my professional context on the basis of one of the instructional models.
I will keep you posted!
