Considerations in the design of blended learning

“Please mind the gap.”

Introduction

The dangers of assumed knowledge and miscommunication should be at the forefront of every elearning designer’s mind.

Part of the solution to these potential problems is to raise awareness of metacognitive processes by making processes more explicit in the outline of the task. This tends to be regarded by teachers and other learning facilitators as implicit in learners, and is often bypassed.

Assumed knowledge

For learners new to elearning, implicit knowledge may not be there. Teacher assumption of this can result in learners feeling overwhelmed, disengaged, directionless or isolated. The consequences of the latter may be increased drop out rate, or a failure to maximize on possible learning (Simms, Dobbs & Hand, 2002).

I suggest that at the outset of any elearning programme, learners and educators establish the importance of the questions that will be asked for ongoing tasks, and understand that cognitive and metacognitive questions are needed. It may be that as a matter of course, the dominant questions asked in the planning stage of a task be recorded, and a reflective postscript added, in which the learner notes which were the pivotal cognitive and metacognitive questions, and identifies what could have ensured more efficient or effective task completion. Software tools such as the Artemis web-based interface (hrrp;//artemis.goknow.com/artemis/index.adp) incorporates scaffolding for such questioning and note-taking. Lumpe and Butler (2002) found that the use of such organizational scaffolds correlated to improved classroom performance on project-based investigations. 

With the conscious identification of strategies to plan and regulate work, and that feedback being available to the teacher at all stages of the task or programme, teachers will be alerted to potential gaps in the learners’ knowledge or competence, and be able to correct any misconception of assumed knowledge.

It makes learning sense to exploit the benefit of hindsight, and in so doing allow there to be “higher-order learning” through “deep reflection” (Ellis, Goodyear, O’Hara & Prosser, 2007). As a point of note: this reflection may not be evident in online or direct discussion. Mckendree, Stenning, Mayes, Lee & Cox (1998), have observed that learners may reflect through reading or listening without any obvious output being evident. Indeed such learners may be advantaged in that “there is less of a cognitive load” and it allows concentration “on the content and process of what is being said”. If this is the case with particular learners in a group, then there needs to be an alternate way of establishing that appropriate reflection has taken place. Furthermore, reflection allows evaluation and summation to take place, elevating electronic “chatter" to learning.

Miscommunication

A second danger ever-present in an elearning environment is miscommunication. Lacking the input of gesture and tone to confirm understanding, electronic discussion may become convoluted, clumsy and time inefficient. In addition, it may not always be evident when and where there has been miscommunication.

Aware of the potential for there to be misunderstanding in electronic postings, learners may be tentative to engage. With reflective feedback, and a chance through this for the learners to evaluate their learning progress, it may be that they will develop more confidently an online “voice”.

Opportunities for miscommunication will be reduced with a stronger metacognitive scaffold in place, guiding task expectation. Additionally, the danger will be reduced by incorporating a carefully blended design in which a human dimension, involving voice-to-voice or face-to-face communication is included at identifiable strategic points in the learning design, such as the brainstorming phase of learning where there is rapid exchange of ideas. This will allow body language and voice tonality to support and encourage communication. 

Conclusion

The outcome of raising awareness of metacognitive demands of a task will be to put in place “quality control processes” (Simms, Dobbs & Hand, 2002) that hopefully go some way to minding the gap that can unwittingly develop between learners and teachers, learners and learners, and learners and the task.

Reference List

Ellis, R., Goodyear, P., O’Hara, A. & Prosser, M. (2007). The university student experience of face-to-face and online discussions: coherence, reflection and meaning. ALT-J, Research in Learning Technology. 15(1), 83-97.

Keller, J.M. (1987). Development and use of the ARCS model of instructional design. Journal of Instructional Development, 10(3), 2-10.

Lumpe, A. & Butler, K. (2002).  The Information Seeking Strategies of High School Science Students. Research in Science Education, 32(4), 549-566.

McKendree, J., Stenning, K. Mayes, T., Lee, J. & Cox, R. (1998). Why observing a dialogue may benefit learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 14, 110-119.

Sims, R., Dobbs, G. & Hand, T. (2002). Enhancing quality in online learning: scaffolding planning and design through proactive evaluation. Distance Education, 23(2), 135-148.