# data[].attributes.body
The introduction to the CEG pedagogic design framework and Laurillard's learning types (2012) developed my understanding of effective online course design. The learning type categories can be ambiguous, but serve as a useful analytical tool for designing learning activities. In the Week 10 challenge activity, I naturally arrived at the 70:20:10 (Jennings 2013) split, which seemed to suit practical subjects based on experiential learning (Kolb?).

The challenge activity raised questions for me about the integration of the webinar with the rest of the course. Fully international online courses across different time zones pose synchronous difficulties, but I believe these challenges can be overcome through careful design. Public-speaking, presentation skills and verbal communication are important professional attributes and learning outcomes (Vormittag 2014; Poyner 2015) for BA Illustration students, but how can these skills be developed through asynchronous activities?

The Week 11 challenge activity made it clear that the majority of online behavioural issues arise as a result of poor course design. Further reading led me to establish the two most significant aspects of course design that pre-emptively avoid disruptive behaviours:
1.  establishing 'netiquette' behaviour in the introduction week (Bloxham and Boyd 2007; Meyer 2008; Cowden 2011; Li 2012)
2. structured discussions with open-ended prompts and directions to respond to each other's posts to stimulate meaningful discussion (Dennen 2001; Salmon 2013)

Matt Dixon's (2020) strategy for dealing with misbehaviours highlighted the importance of responding primarily through a lens of pastoral care, and research showed that direct private messages resolve most behavioural issues (Cowden 2011l Posner 2016). Further reading highlighted that assessing discussion board participation has been shown to cause anxiety and affect the content of posts (MacKinnon 2000), which would likely disproportionately impact students with learning disabilities such as dyslexia or non-native English-speaking students. Reflecting on the PGCHE course, I arrived at the conclusion that strategic assessment tasks (Snyder 1971; Ramsden 2003) and learning outcomes are preferable to ensure participation.

285 words w/out references

(Removed)
From a student perspective, I have found the CEG framework logically scaffolds my learning and encourages collaboration and community online. Morgan (2020),  through her CEG design, reminded me of the importance of including the week's learning outcomes in the introduction phase.

# data[].attributes.body
It took me a while to engage with the Week 12 activities because of balancing Assessment 2 with insane teaching commitments! It also took me a while to find an image that I felt reflected what I felt about teaching and learning now, without wanting to choose an image that was cheesy or generic. In fact, after posting, I realised something I had thought about before, which may really be how I truly feel about teaching and learning - I think that the single, most important quality of teaching is being able to question. To formulate interesting, thought-provoking questions to challenge students into higher levels of thinking. This was confirmed for me in a lot of the reading about online learning and discussion forums, and how much the positive or effective learning experiences relied on the quality of the prompts given by the teachers. So the ability to question (as I have also seen in Jo's teaching practice) is really fundamental for quality teaching.

It was of course very useful to look back at what I'd written in the first week and realise how lucky I had been with my first BA cohort and how naive some of my assumptions were about how straightforward teaching was going to be. I have learned a lot about how complex teaching really is, and how much commitment and dedication it requires to do well. I could see from the UKPSF self-evaluation and re-listening to Andy's podcast that there were various things he'd spoken about that I wouldn't have even understood what they were in the first week of the course. I could see that my understanding of various aspects of the framework has expanded and changed, although this hadn't always affected the ranking of these in my practice.

I think the principal areas for development in my teaching practice involve applying the knowledge I've gained throughout the course in my practice through continued experimental teaching. This is particularly true for the use of technology in the classroom and online teaching. As mentioned in my self-evaluation, I am quite anxious about my artistic practice that has suffered as a result of my teaching commitments, and I am eager to kickstart this as soon as possible and ensure I am keeping my practice alive and relevant, because this is equally important to me as it is to the students who I teach, who want to see that I am a successful practitioner in the area I teach. While various aspects of the UKPSF framework don't necessarily apply to my specific Brazilian teaching context, I will continue to try and develop my knowledge in these areas (eg. quality processes and frameworks, widening participation etc) so that if I do find myself in a UK teaching context I am informed and prepared.

I think the single most valuable learning experience I've had on the course was developing the assessment and feedback strategy. It was something I felt I needed to do to feel more confident in my own teaching practice in BA and I learned a great deal through reading Bloxham and Boyd's (2007) book on assessment. It was exciting and opened my eyes to the possibilities of how I could develop projects and curricula myself, and to understand the implications of authenticity and employability within course design.

# data[].attributes.body
Compare and contrast, discuss and critically appraise different perspectives on the practice of supporting student learning (face-to-face, blended and / or online), with fellow practitioners;

Reflect on your professional development journey, from the start of this course to where you are now, as an educator in HE;

Use the UK Professional Standards Framework to self-evaluate your current practice of supporting student learning, sharing and discussing your evaluations with fellow practitioners;

Use critical evaluation and peer discussion to identify strengths and areas and actions for future development.

Prompts:

What was the best learning experience you have had on this online PGCHE course (most valuable, positive, useful, life-affirming, generative, enjoyable, nurturing, stimulating, exciting, etc)?

Think about and explore this specific experience in detail. What was it about this experience that made it so valuable for you? How and why was it so valuable?

In what ways could you build those valuable qualities into your own future practice of designing and facilitating online and / or blended learning, to try and help your students have optimal learning experiences?

# data[].attributes.body
This week it was useful to read about characteristics of successful online learners (Illinois Online Network 2007) and different learner types and behaviours in the online environment. I agreed with most of the list of characteristics needed to be successful in online learning, although I did feel that 'access to the internet' would make more sense to be the first requirement (!) and I thought it was interesting that it included the ability to express oneself through the written word as a requirement and whether this is still relevant. With the growing popularity of voice recording, Voicethread, and video recordings, along with the improving quality of synchronous video calls, I wonder whether the written word is essential for online learning. -- especially for students in art and design - dyslexia -
Jo Reynolds (2020) noted that she felt she had interacted more in the online course than she would have in a face-to-face PGCHE, and I realised I felt the same. I still have under a year’s worth of HE teaching experience, and I would undoubtedly feel intimidated in the presence of those with extensive teaching experience, and this highlighted to me the increased feelings of equality in the online environment.

It was useful to research about techniques to deal with disruptive online behaviours. While I haven't encountered many of the examples in my online teaching experience to date, it was useful to be prepared for the scenarios presented to us, and other scenarios I read about in research literature. It was quite clear that the majority of disruptive behaviours are a result of poor course design, perhaps because explanations of expectations and appropriate use of discussions was not clear or structured (Anderson et al. 2001; Paloff and Pratt 2007). More extreme behavioural issues seem to be dealt with in two ways: direct messages to the students or by simply doing nothing (Cowden 2011;  Posner 2016). Direct messaging was shown in research to be used by 86% of teacher with a high success rate in resolving these situations (Posner 2016). Importantly, it was clear that the more extreme students should not be responded to publicly (Ko and Rosen 2010), because this can aggravate the situation. Confirming common strategies used by teachers in dealing with these behaviours is useful to gain confidence in the strategies I have used myself with a current student who fits the 'saboteur' profile. Important aspects of course design that can avoid these behavioural issues appearing in the first place include... establishing 'netiquette' behaviour in the introduction week (Bloxham and Boyd 2007; Meyer 2008; Cowden 2011; Li 2012) / course discussion post examples and a rubric? (MacKinnon 2000; Lai 2012) / open-ended prompts and directions to respond to each other's posts (Dennen 2001; Salmon 2013) / providing an online social space for off-topic discussion (Harasim et al. 1995) / the institution having an online communication policy that can be referred to in extreme cases (Galbraith and Jones 2010; Posner 2016). An important thing I learned from reading Matt Dixon's (2020) strategy for dealing with these students is that his first response was pastoral care, and I think it's important to highlight that this should always be the first response to any behavioural issue.

I have read into the debate about assessing discussion forums extensively this week, which has been really useful and interesting even if just to clarify my own thoughts and feelings on the subject. This arose when I was considering my response to 'the black hole' learner profile, as I remembered reading that assessing discussion forums was a contested issue. I wanted to know if there were case studies that explained why it was beneficial or had a negative impact, and why. I understood that assessing discussion forums can lead to increased participation (Hew and Cheung 2012), although there is evidence that voluntary participation can lead to enhanced learning outcomes (Weisskirch and Milburn 2003). Assessing discussion boards can increase anxiousness about contributing and limit spontaneous discussion (MacKinnon 2000), and these feelings were confirmed by Jo Reynold's (2020) shared experiences in the forums this week. Combining these anxieties with learning disabilities such as dyslexia or even for non-native English-speaking students, it is easy to imagine how assessed discussion might negatively impact some students. This made me think carefully about the PGCHE course structure and strategy to ensure discussion participation through the assignment that requires continuous reflection for each week, combined with a specific learning outcome for collaborative peer-learning. I believe this to be a preferable strategy to ensure participation, and I think some of the analytical tools used in VLE systems to give data on user word counts, lexical variation and critical thinking skills may actually be more useful in the prevention of plagiarism than as a tool for assessment.

Subject-Specific and collaboration lacking! -- what about that text I saw that said academic writing shouldn't be a part of illustration education? Want to read about synchronous learning!

# data[].attributes.body
Build and consolidate your knowledge of some typical characteristics of online students;

Formulate and critically evaluate potential strategies for dealing with challenging online behaviours, situations and motivating online learners;

Critically reflect on what and how you have learned this week, identifying potential implications for you and your colleagues’ current and future practice of developing flexible learning environments, in your local teaching contexts.

Reflective Prompts:

Think back to what you learned earlier this week about Characteristics of the Successful Online Student (Illinois Online Network, 2007):

To what extent do you think you meet each of those criteria for being a successful online student?

Do you agree with all the points made in Characteristics of the Successful Online Student (Illinois Online Network, 2007)?

How has your understanding changed of what it means to be a successful online learner?

What things might be missing from that list of characteristics?

Reflect back and refer to the first discussion forum of this week, on your experience of being online learners. Imagine you were an online tutor working on this PGCHE module EDU720: Developing Flexible Learning Environments:

How would you deal with any challenging participant comments and situations from this discussion?

What has this suggested your current strengths are that could help you manage online participants?

What has this suggested regarding what you might do to further develop yourself in the future? How might you do that specifically?

# data[].attributes.body
Over the first week of easter break, I was determined to find research on technology-enhanced learning (TEL) and learning design for creative disciplines and specifically the discipline of illustration. I found a range of articles and research reports with promising titles, but upon reading them I found that every article was focused primarily on the aesthetics of the VLE as the 'key' to successful technology-enhanced learning in art and design. A number of studies (refs!) have been undertaken focusing on augmented-reality environments, some similar to video-games and others based on recreating a virtual campus and studio space with avatars for students and teachers. Another study from Huddersfield University (ref) focused specifically on the aesthetics of the VLE as the primary reason art and design courses did not make use of TEL. There was also one other study from a Chinese university focusing on the use of MOOCs to teach digital illustration, which claimed an 85% satisfaction rate in students. My interpretation of all this research is that existing studies on TEL in Art and Design seem to focus primarily on superficial design aesthetics or practical/technical skills. In my opinion, having an avatar in a 3D virtual environment that can walk under water or fly really has nothing to do with art and design pedagogy. Practical and technical skills taught through online courses are abundant and successful, but they do not teach problem-solving skills or 'design thinking'. They do not teach students to be independent thinkers, researchers or critical thinking skills, they teach prescriptive techniques that lead to a predictable and replicable result. I am yet to find a real piece of research that investigates the value of TEL in art and design subjects that deals with the key pedagogical issues at the centre of these disciplines.

Were any interesting points made in these studies worth noting?

# data[].attributes.body
CEG pedagogic design framework and Laurillard's learning types (2012). I found the blue/green verb list in the CEG framework very restrictive, considering Bloom's wider taxonomy (1956). However, it was overall a very useful framework from which to plan online learning activities. I wanted to note for myself that reflection would come under practice and production, as initially I found it difficult to identify where reflection would sit within the learning types. It was interesting to see, in the first forum of the week, how most of my peers had split the proportions of course content around 30:30:30, and without looking ahead at the other material for the week, I had naturally arrived at the 70:20:10 (Jennings 2013) split. This seemed like a desirable split for any course that is focused on student-centred and active learning, and particularly practical subjects in which students should be learning through doing, although I can see how it might be a problematic weighting for a theory-heavy course. From a student-experience perspective of the CEG framework, I have found it really straightforward and useful to follow in scaffolding my learning, encouraging collaborative learning and a sense of community online. It's important to remember that the pedagogic framework is based on the Course Design Sprint Framework (CoDesignS) by Toro-Troconis, 2015; Toro-Troconis et al. 2016; Morton et al. 2016.

Interesting to note is Toro-Troconis's suggestion that blue verbs, requiring higher-order cognitive thinking skills, would normally be taught through collaborative/constructive activities, and green verbs that focus on lower-order cognitive thinking skills can fit into interactive self-guided/instructional online activities. I also found the studies mentioned in this week's material supporting the benefits of the 70:20:10 split useful, for example Toetenel & Rienties (2016), Toro-Troconis & Aleksiev, 2018.

Morgan (2020),  through her CEG design, reminded me of the importance of including the week's learning outcomes in the introduction phase. One question that persists about online learning design is the purpose and value of the webinar.  Macdonald (2008) highlights the value of synchronous online activities as fulfilling a different role to asynchronous activities, yet my own experience with the webinar of the PGCHE course and the CEG design of various colleagues made me question how integrated the synchronous activities are, and whether they risk becoming something optional, additional and secondary? But when considering a fully online, international course that deals with students in different time zones, there are real limitations to fully integrating synchronous activities. One of the programme learning outcomes for the BA illustration focuses specifically on verbal communication, and verbal discourse is considered central to art and design learning (Vormittag 2014), so I wonder whether removing synchronous activities from art and design learning would detrimentally impact art and design pedagogical methods.

This week I re-read Salmon (2013) Chapter 3 in which she writes specifically about reflection in online learning, and she references Schon's (1983) 'reflection on action' and 'reflection in action'. I feel that 'reflection on action' is what we do with our CRJs and specifically writing for the purpose of reflection, but that 'reflection in action' is the type of reflection that is embedded in online discussion forum activities. The very nature of online learning and discussion forums causes reflection in learners because they are often re-visiting posts and through the act of discussion and comparison of their own answers with those of others reflection automatically takes place. Reflection is not a formalised process in the BA in which I teach, but it is expected of students, and reflection should be evident through recorded feedback and changes made to student work, and in this sense reflection may be more visual than written.

# data[].attributes.body
Explain the pedagogic composition of the CEG Pedagogic Framework and discuss how it relates to your current conceptualisation of curriculum design;

Produce a fully online learning episode (one week in length) applying the CEG Pedagogic Framework to your current teaching practice;

Critically appraise the use of the CEG Pedagogic Framework;

Demonstrate awareness of the different learning theories and frameworks used within the CEG Pedagogic Framework;

Critically reflect on what and how you have learned this week, identifying potential implications for you and your colleagues’ current and future practice of developing flexible learning environments, in your local teaching contexts.

Reflective Prompts:

What have you learned this week regarding designing online curriculum?

Where and how did you learn this, during your work for this course this week? What particular activities or prompts helped you?

What did you learn from applying the example CEG framework for curriculum design, for your own course(s) and teaching context?

How useful and/or appropriate did you find the framework for this? How and why? What could you do to make it more so?

How has your understanding of designing an online curriculum changed from what you have learned this week? How has it stayed the same, or has your existing understanding and perspectives about this been reinforced and confirmed?

What has this suggested regarding your current strengths in your practice, that could help you design an online curriculum?

What has this suggested regarding what you might do to further develop with this in the future? How might you do that (specifically)?

What has challenged or surprised you, during your learning this week?

To what extent do you think you have achieved each and all of the learning outcomes for this Week 10? If you think there is room for you to achieve these more fully, what could you do to help yourself achieve that?

What specific sources of scholarship were helpful for your learning this week? How and why

# data[].attributes.body
Important aspects to consider in online course design were summarised by Oradini (2020) on the Week 8 forum, of which I would like to highlight:

Course aims and Learning Outcomes
Authentic assessment and Feedback
Constructive alignment
Learning Styles
Differentiation / Inclusivity
Peer-learning
Critical and reflective thinking
Employability
(Varied) delivery methods
Self and peer-assessment
Group work

Reading Salmon (2013) confirmed various assumptions I already had about designing e-tivities, namely that activities need to be ordered, numbered, and scheduled to give an indication of how long students should spend on each task, so that they have an idea of how deeply they are expected to engage with a task, and about the quantity of work expected. Salmon (2013) says time takes on ‘a new dimension’ online and suggests a half-hour face-to-face activity could take an entire week online, and a common mistake of e-tivities designers is underestimating the time needed for achieving an e-tivity. Art and design is dependent on high quantities of practical work in order to produce high quality outcomes, and I questioned whether e-learning may reduce student output and therefore lower performance. I found Salmon’s recommendations for ‘creating rhythm’ helpful, by establishing patterns of online working, and requiring students to respond to each other to provide reasons for them to return to forums.

A piece of research recommended by Bennett (2020) highlighted to me the impressive gain in collaborative idea generation when moved online. Deakin and Webb's (2016) study showed that face-to-face brainstorming resulted in 25 ideas and online brainstorms resulted in 100-125 ideas. Idea generation is a key skill in art and design education and this highlighted the potential of online delivery to improve creative thinking in illustrators.

280 words

# data[].attributes.body
LO1 - theory
LO6 - subject specific
LO7 - collaborative

- need to read chapters from this week -

Week 9 forum that asked colleagues to share top 5 online learning tools was extremely useful to discover a wide range of possible tools for supporting student learning in my own context. I would say the most valuable new tool introduced to me was Moodle and Microsoft Teams. Most of the other tools I already knew about, some weren't so applicable to my specific teaching context, and many online tools require paid subscriptions. For my teaching context and online course design, the most useful online tools from the forum selection would be a VLE such as Canvas, Moodle or Microsoft Teams (I will have to decide which and why!), perhaps Zoom for video conferencing and student presentations if the video conferencing features of the VLE are too slow or have bugs, and as I have mentioned previously it would be useful for inviting guest lecturers without having to worry about access to VLEs, although it would be an additional cost to the course, blog platforms such as Tumblr and Padlet for students to upload project development and research, Youtube and Lynda.com for software and practical skills tutorials, Pinterest for visual research, and Canva for collaborative working and presentation tools. Matt Dixon raised an interesting application for a tool like Kahoot!, in which he mentioned testing students to see whether they had read/understood the brief. It could be a useful application, although I wondered whether it's a little bit patronising from the student perspective.

# data[].attributes.body
Build and consolidate your knowledge of a range of possible tools that could be available to you to support student learning activities, for a fully online course;

Critically evaluate the potential value of different tools for supporting students to do different online learning activities, to achieve a range of different learning outcomes;

Make critically informed choices about what and how technology should be used in online curriculum, especially in relation to your own teaching contexts;

Critically reflect on what and how you have learned this week, identifying potential implications for you and your colleagues’ current and future practice of developing flexible learning environments, in your local teaching contexts

What have you learned this week about choosing technology for online learning?

Where and how did you learn this, during your work for the course this week? What particular activities or prompts helped you?

From what you have learned this week, how has your understanding of choosing technology for online learning changed? How has it stayed the same, or your existing understanding and perspectives about this been reinforced and confirmed?

What has this suggested regarding your current strengths in your practice, that could help you design an online curriculum?

What has this suggested regarding what you might do to further develop with this in the future? How might you do that (specifically)?

What has challenged or surprised you, during your learning this week?

To what extent do you think you have achieved each of the learning outcomes for this Week 9? If you think there is room for you to achieve these more fully, what could you do to help yourself achieve that?

# data[].attributes.body
The past two weeks have been incredibly difficult to maintain concentration and motivation with my PGCHE studies. The coronavirus outbreak resulted in millions of schools closing across the world, and teachers in a frantic rush to adapt all activities to online, while trying to calm and motivate our own students through these incredibly psychologically traumatic events causing stress and uncertainty about the future.

This week the first forum was useful for sharing ideas about the important elements to consider in online learning. Swaraj's post (2020) reminded me of the importance of accommodating for differentiation and feedback in online courses. Her post made me think how challenging it is to monitor student progress from a distance and to be able to make quick adjustments for differentiation that we might make easily in a face-to-face situation. Thinking further about feedback, I realised that feedback in online courses inevitably becomes more formalised through permanent discussion posts or recorded conversations, and some of the spontaneity and informality of in-class verbal feedback is lost. Important aspects to consider in the design were succinctly summarised by Oradini (2020) on the forum, of which I would like to highlight:

Course purpose / LOs
Feedback
Constructive alignment
Learning Styles
Differentiation / Inclusivity
Peer-learning
Critical and reflective thinking
Employability
Authentic assessment
(Varied!) delivery methods
Self and peer-assessment
Group work

I found the 2 chapters by Salmon (2013) very useful and they confirmed various assumptions I already had about designing e-tivities, namely that multiple small activities are better than fewer, more complicated activities (although in retrospect I'm not so sure about this!). I also naturally felt that activities need to be ordered, numbered, and they should be aligned to a kind of ‘schedule’ that gives an indication of how long students should spend on each task, so that they have an idea of how deeply they are expected to engage with a specific task, and about the quantity of work expected too. It’s important to note that Salmon (2013) says ‘demonstrating how to succeed is harder than it sounds’, and that tasks need to be both achievable but neither too hard or too easy (McClelland 1985).  The five-stage model is a good framework for understanding how students develop understanding of online learning.

Salmon (2013) recommends that e-tivities request students respond to each other’s posts. In art and design this may not always be practical in the discussion forums, and may create an unnecessary workload on top of practical work. In art and design, I believe it is ok to follow a structure that requires students to produce as individuals and to share their work collectively in online individual or group tutorials once a week (either through screen share presentations or via image uploads to the VLE). Salmon makes a distinction between co-operative working (group members help each other towards’ individual’s goals) and collaborative working (often linked with practice or knowledge construction, working together towards a group goal). A distinction worth remembering when planning activities.

I thought it was very interesting what Salmon (2013) said about time taking on ‘a new dimension’ online, as I had launched a series of e-tivities yesterday to my cohort that reflected what the students would have comfortably completed in-class, and I received complaints about the ‘volume’ of work being too high. She notes that a half-hour activity could take an entire week in ‘elapsed time’, and that one of the most common mistakes made by e-tivities designers is underestimating the time needed for achieving an e-tivity. This is quite shocking to me, as art and design is dependent on high quantities of work in order to produce high quality outcomes, and I wonder whether e-learning may reduce student output and therefore lower performance.

I found Salmon’s recommendations for ‘creating rhythm’ particularly helpful, to establish patterns of online working, constantly requiring students to build on the work of each other and give/receive feedback and to constantly provide reasons for students to be returning online.

A piece of research recommended by Bennett (2020) highlighted to me the impressive gain in collaborative idea generation when moved online. Deakin and Webb's (2016) study showed that face-to-face brainstorming resulted in 25 ideas and online brainstorms resulted in 100-125 ideas.

When designing my online course, Selwood's (2020) course draft mentioned the use of remote textile printing, and for some reason it reminded me of something I had read in EDU710 about chemistry courses using online laboratory simulations (where?) for students to learn through experimentation, and this made me realise that simulations could be used in Illustration for students to learn Printmaking processes. Printmaking involves many different processes that can be quite complicated, and simulations of these processes would allow students to learn and practice from a distance, before going into any real-life print rooms accessible to them in their area.

Moving to online teaching this last week has highlighted to my teaching team just how many students neither have computers nor the software needed, or they have computers that are very old and cannot run the software. However, I have also learned about 'remote access' this week, which can be provided to students on a VPN and allows students to access an on-campus computer and use both the software and the memory of the computer, meaning it does not matter if their computer is old, as they will essentially be 'streaming' through another computer. Student problems with technology led me to create pre-requisites in my online course design that require students to have the necessary equipment to study, although the remote-access possibility opens this up to simply needing 'a computer'.

As Oradini (2020) mentioned in one of the forums about the use of augmented reality in medicine, technological developments are moving at such speed that ambitious solutions can be suggested without being unrealistic. The timing of the coronavirus and the increased workload and stress led me to design my initial online course on the existing module I'm teaching, to streamline my workload at a very challenging moment in my life. However, in the coming weeks I may find I adjust and start to tweak this module into a more ambitious design that incorporates some of the things I wanted to introduce in my assessment design from EDU710.

Up until now, I had been creating online video lectures for my students to watch on Youtube. As mentioned previously, I am working with an exceptionally unresponsive cohort of students, and moving to online has brought with it a whole new headache of challenges to try and overcome, now from a distance. After giving an online lesson for the Foundation programme at EBAC, I realised I can change tactic, and I will be interested to see if this has any impact on my students. I will now only be offering activities and lectures in real-time through presentations on zoom (as students appear to have stopped watching the videos). I will be moving to a one-to-one sign up tutorial system, instead of inviting them to general 'group tutorials' and asking them to create blogs for their work and research. They simply do not upload their work to Canvas when asked to, and if asked to bring it to a video tutorial, they are not showing up. Dependent on the result of this new strategy, it may influence what I have written in my initial course design, although I should consider that these strategies are targeting students that are specifically unmotivated, experiencing extreme psychological circumstances and that did not choose to study an online course.

# data[].attributes.body
Apply your previous learning about curriculum design to identify and discuss key things to consider when designing fully online courses;

Apply information about online course design to produce, evaluate and discuss your initial design ideas for an online distance-learning course;

Critically reflect on what and how you have learned this week, identifying potential implications for you and your colleagues’ current and future practice of developing flexible learning environments, in your local teaching contexts.

What have you learned this week regarding the design of online learning activities to support student learning?

Where and how did you learn this, during your work for this course this week? What particular activities or prompts helped you?

From what you have learned this week, how has your understanding of designing online learning activities changed? How has it stayed the same, or your existing understanding and perspectives about this been reinforced and confirmed?

What has this suggested regarding your current strengths in your practice, that could help you design online curriculum?

What has this suggested regarding what you might do to further develop this in the future? How might you do that (specifically)?

What has challenged or surprised you, during your learning this week?

To what extent do you think you have achieved each of the learning outcomes for this Week 8? If you think there is room for you to achieve these more fully, what could you do to help yourself achieve that?

# data[].attributes.body
In my peer observation of a colleague this week, I was able to observe through the 'lens' of blended learning and identify some useful feedback for a colleague. I was confident in identifying where he used constructivist learning methods through asking students to identify their pre-existing knowledge on a subject, and link his use of humour and positive reinforcement to a Theory Y Climate (Biggs and Tang 2011). In-class the students were presenting research they had done throughout the Carnaval holiday week, which each student had printed out or had on their mobile phones. This meant the presentations were very difficult to share with the whole group, as not all students were able to see each others' work at all times. This led to students looking at their phones or not paying attention. I realised my colleague could use Pinterest boards, individual or collaborative, so that students could share their work on the screen, enabling everyone to see. I also raised the fact that the balance and organisation of the references in my colleagues launch presentation had an unbalanced gender ratio, as he showed 45 male illustrators to 12 female illustrators and ordered them so that almost all the male illustrators were shown together first. This caused one student to shout 'finally! a woman!' when the first female illustrator was shown, at which point it was clear students were paying less attention to the illustration work and more to the gender of the artists. Considering the cohort is 90% female, part of my feedback included a recommendation to be more aware of the gender balance in the number and order of references shown.

# data[].attributes.body
These weeks focused on the format of the webcast delivery, and the results from VARK tests at EBAC showed that over 70% of EBAC’s learners identify as visual or kinaesthetic, which led me to research about kinesthetic learner preferences for learning through video. Research (Ates and Altun 2008; Noor et al. 2014) indicated short, concise, animated videos are preferred. Tay-Yee-Ren (2020) suggested that short videos were succumbing to the ‘snapchat generation’, however I found this a little dismissive of individual learners’ needs and preferences, especially considering that ‘affective engagement’ (Fredericks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004) and ‘reduced motivation’ (Osguthorpe and Graham 2003) are recognised as one of the principal challenges of e-learning (Stein and Graham 2014; Boelens 2017). Transactional distance (Moore 1993) was an important new concept, referring to the psychological and communication distance between instructor and learner, which increases in online learning and can increase the likelihood of misunderstandings (Moore 1993).

Conflicting research about the benefit of the flipped classroom to low-achievers (Owston et al, 2013; Bossaer et al. 2016), combined with my own unsuccessful flipped classroom pilot, left me doubting the value of the flipped classroom in engaging these students. Selwood (2020) and Oradini (2020) helped me recognise that continued contact with the flipped classroom may ultimately benefit low-achievers most, and that low-motivation is complex and dependent on various factors, including the balance between workload complexity and quantity (Kyndt 2010), authenticity (Bloxham and Boyd 2007) of the task, the successful integration of online and face-to-face tasks (Jin-Young 2018), learners' online communication self-efficacy (Hung et al. 2010) and misunderstandings of learners’ assumed prior knowledge (Taber 2001).

Dixon (2020) raised concerns about the relevance of online learning to art and design pedagogy, and research by Peterson et al. (2015) supports the idea that blended learning must be used to enhance the ‘studio model’, not distract or dilute it. The ‘online lecture’ and ‘transmission’ of knowledge model associated with the flipped classroom  is problematic for creativity (Uskokovic 2018) and a discipline in which “reverse-transmission” (Orr et al. 2014: 6), from student to lecturer, can, and even should, take place.

279 words w/out references

Further points that that could be considered in summary reflection week 4-6

Humour (style)

The evaluation criteria exercises made me realise that the questions I only used ‘closed’ questions in my student feedback questionnaire, which do not promote divergent thinking or give qualitative feedback. I also felt I had missed an opportunity to ask them specifically about the flipped-classroom approach.

# data[].attributes.body
LO1 (theory)
McNally et al. (2017)  feedback about student preferences may not always align to student performance, but must still be something we are aware of as students could leave a course if they don't like the teaching methods. Research has shown students can have negative perceptions of flipped classroom learning even when it has improved student performance.

LO6 (subject-specific)
The flipped classroom needs to be used in a way that it can enhance art and design pedagogy, not distract or dilute it. Concerns about the relevance of online learning were also raised by Matt Dixon (2020), who felt he was creating unnecessary content to justify the existence of the online material. This makes sense to me, as art and design is often about the individual's inquiry, development and creation of their own knowledge, rather than the transmission of knowledge, indeed, to the extent that  Creating online lecture material in art and design therefore feels a little unnatural. Indeed, Orr et al. (2014:6) has even recognised that "reverse-tranmission" can take place in art and design, where students' independent inquiries may lead them into areas beyond the lecturer's knowledge.

LO7 (comments)
Matt "content for contents sake"? or "we perhaps perceive the digital experience as incongruous to certain modes of art and design learning, which thrives on 1-1 interaction".

Other PGCHE students in their evaluations were asking for student feedback on how the flipped classroom compared with normal learning for them, and this seemed a really obvious thing to ask, in retrospect. Jana's points raised about "Students will be asked if they are  more satisfied with the course after the introduction of the flipped classroom than before, if the opportunity to watch podcast at home makes it easier for weak students to grasp at least the most fundamental and important parts of the course." Particularly Michael's articulate and carefully formulated questions made me realise my questions were perhaps a little simple, although I also don't think extremely sophisticated questions would have been useful in my context of teaching non-native English learners, who require more accessible English, but I appreciated the divergent quality of Michael's questions, and they made me feel I had missed an opportunity to collect more considered feedback from the students. I realised I had written a lot of closed questions because I had to pilot my flipped classroom early, and the Brazilian Carnaval holiday was the week after my flipped classroom, so if I didn't get feedback from students then (end of Week 4), I wouldn't see them for another 10 days, by which time the experience would no longer be fresh in their minds (look for scholarship supporting good student feedback practice?).
Jo made an interesting point in a private message, where she said she also wanted to collect immediate feedback from students, but thought that if she had given them a couple of days to think about the experience they might have had more developed opinions and thoughts to contribute.?

I found the evaluation checklist task very useful for developing criteria for evaluation, however, I also found it a little contradictory when it was then suggested to choose 2 or 3 criteria to work with in the evaluation. Personally I sometimes find working under 'themes' or 'headings' quite restrictive in an evaluation, as sometimes it's easier to address chronologically and holistically.

# data[].attributes.body
Identify criteria for making judgements about the impact and effectiveness of flipped classroom approaches, drawing on pedagogical scholarship and learning from PGCHE weekly activities;

Use criteria to evaluate the impact and effectiveness of your flipped classroom designs, drawing on experience, observations and feedback;

Identify strengths and generate ideas and actions for future development of your flipped classroom approaches;

Critically reflect on what and how you have learned this week, identifying potential implications for current and future practice of developing flexible learning environments, for your and your colleagues in your local teaching contexts.

Prompts:

To what extent do you think you have achieved each of the learning outcomes for Week 6? If you think there is room for you to achieve these more fully, how could you do that?

What have you learned this week regarding the evaluation of flipped classrooms to support student learning? For example, your own and those of your colleagues?

What does all this suggest about the ways you and your colleagues are currently supporting your students learning, in your own practice and teaching context? What does it suggest that is currently good about this, and about how it could be further developed in the future?

How has your understanding of how to use a flipped classroom approach changed from doing this week’s topic and activities?

How did you learn this?

What supported your learning?

What has challenged you?

What has surprised you?

How does this relate to what has been proposed in different sources of scholarship you have read recently? Which specific sources and what specific claims in those does this relate to?

# data[].attributes.body
At the start of week 5, I was reading about research by Bagozzi et al (1992) and Davis et al. (1989), which found that the 'perceived usefulness' of an online tool/activity directly impacts on the actual use of it. As I had to pilot my flipped classroom last week, I already knew that what I had designed and hoped for had failed, and while I believe this was caused by many factors, I also felt that the Instagram task was not as integrated as it needed to be to be successful.

I read a lot this week about student motivation in relation to online learning, reminding myself of the importance of authenticity (Bloxham and Boyd 2007) in planning activities, and I realised the Instagram task could be improved if it aligned more directly to the brief requirements and asked students to post rough sketches of 5 likes and 5 dislikes in response to each others' drawing, and to also bring these images into the group tutorial to be discussed. Hugh Frost (2020) also suggested integrating the Instagram task through an in-class drawing task in which students enhance the feelings of their peers’ sketches through comic signifiers, which could also increase motivation. I also read an interesting article by Kyndt (2010) that was talking about the relationship between student motivation and workload in terms of quantity and complexity. High quantity and low-complexity or high-complexity and low-quantity are the two combinations that can be employed to encourage learner motivation. In the context of art and design, the first combination is central to initial idea generation and is another reason I chose to increase the workload for the instagram task.

While I am aware I am currently working with an exceptionally unmotivated group of learners, I also cannot accept this as an excuse for the flipped classroom not working, as research by Jin-Young (2018) reminded me that high-achievers will learn well whatever the medium of delivery, and it is precisely the low-achievers that risk losing the most and must be motivated to learn through the design of teaching activities.

I read about online communication self-efficacy as a concept (Hung et al. 2010), and I am aware that one of my students has previously informed me of an anxiety about sending emails, with which I have had to help her. One student wrote on their feedback that they preferred face-to-face learning because they 'can ask questions', which suggests low online communication self-efficacy. This is confirmed by the confusion around the Instagram task coupled with the absence of any communication from students about this misunderstanding. 'Clarification' was one of the key factors needed to facilitate learning cited by Boelens (2017).

Lastly, I learned from student feedback that the failure of my flipped classroom design was also a result of a misunderstanding of 'assumed prior knowledge' (Taber 2001), as the previous educational experience of the students had led me to believe they understood how to research and use it to inform their projects, but the student performance at the end of this project was very low, with no students finishing their outcomes, and students also forgot about an entire task outlined in the brief. One student said this was because it was not mentioned in the videos and therefore she thought she didn't have to do it anymore. The flipped classroom has highlighted to me the areas that this cohort need support with, and the care I will have to take in communicating everything to them clearly.

The student feedback from the anonymous survey I gave them to complete in class was very positive and completely contradicted what I had seen in their performance and through online analytics of engagement. They expressed a preference for pre-launch videos and as the engagement with the second video was lower than the first, I think flipping two sessions concurrently was too much independent learning for a cohort that already suffers from low confidence and low motivation. Blended learning does not necessarily need to be 'flipped', and in the future, I will show the second video in-class at the end of the day to ensure students watch it, and to talk through any questions. It will then serve as a resource they can revisit throughout the week.

While this flipped classroom pilot hasn't been successful, I can see the potential in it if the highlighted changes are implemented, and I will certainly try this again next year.

https://falmouthflexible.instructure.com/courses/466/discussion_topics/14355?module_item_id=35804

# data[].attributes.body
Evaluate and develop flipped classroom designs so that online and face-to-face activities are integrated well with each other, and the flipped classroom is well-integrated with other key aspects of the course in which it is implemented;

Implement and pilot your flipped classroom approach, gathering feedback on its potential effectiveness and impact;

Produce critical reflection on what and how you have learned this week, identifying potential implications for you and your colleagues’ current and future practice of developing flexible learning environments, in your local teaching contexts.

Prompts:

To what extent do you think you have achieved each of the learning outcomes for Week 5? If you think there is room for you to achieve these more fully, how could you do that?

What have you learned this week regarding the design of flipped classrooms to support student learning?

What does all this suggest about the ways you and your colleagues are currently supporting your students learning, in your own practice and teaching context? What does it suggest that is currently good about this, and about how it could be further developed in the future?

How has your understanding of how to use a flipped classroom approach changed from doing this week’s topic and activities?

How did you learn this?

What supported your learning?

What has challenged you?

What has surprised you?

How does this relate to what has been proposed in different sources of scholarship that you have read recently? Which specific sources and what specific claims does this relate to?

# data[].attributes.body
This reflection is written based on the IMPALA model, identifying the aspects I perceived to be strengths and areas for improvement, with reflection sparked through conversation with peers and research read integrated into the categories:

Key strengths and areas for improvement in my podcast design:

Purpose:

The video content, online activities and in-class activities are constructively aligned and explicitly linked to the LOs in relation to the specific project.

Medium as a video:

‘Video works better than audio for practical-based learning’ (IMPALA model commentary). The points raised in my self-evaluation for Medium are strengths:

For an art and design course, I cannot imagine audio-based learning having much success. Students undertake a VARK test in Foundation before progressing to BA, and in the past 2 years not more than 10% of students have self-identified as ‘auditory’ learners. For this reason I believe it needs to be video-based to engage learners visually in my discipline of Illustration. A huge majority of learners identify as kinaesthetic, over 50%, and the collaborative instagram task attempts to address this. Peterson et al. (2015) describes the studio as ‘where learning emerges through action’, and suggests that the ‘studio model of learning’ is important in the use of technology to ‘foster a learning community’.

Instructor’s presence in videos has been found to affect the students’ sense of community and emotional connectedness (Jäminki 2008; Shea et al. 2005; Swan et al. 2009) and perhaps this is something I could revise somehow in the video through animating over the top of a video of myself talking. I am not comfortable in front of the camera and other research suggests that instructor presence ‘increases enjoyment but has no effect on recall or comprehension (Griffin, Mitchell and Thompson 2009; Dey, Burn and Gerdes 2009), which makes me question the necessity of it. If enjoyment is linked to increased engagement and watch time, then I believe it is worth it (although I have no found any research addressing this yet).

Length also relates to the points raised about students in art and design contexts identifying as kinaesthetic learners. These students do not learn well through passive activities such as reading and listening. They learn through doing. I was surprised that various PGCHE peers responded positively to Ian’s suggestion on my evaluation that short videos are ‘giving into the snapchat generation’, as I honestly found this to be quite dismissive of different learners’ needs, taking into consideration VARK models and learning disabilities (of which there is often a higher incidence in art and design students). My exchange with Ian reminded me of what I had read by Stein and Graham (2014) about the absence of emotional engagement in online learning that can reduce motivation to participate. This led me to further reading this week on the issue of affective engagement in online learning in Boelens et al. (2017).

I need to find further research that backs up my claims about increased incidence of students with learning disabilities in art and design education.

This week I also read about ‘transactional distance’ (Moore 1993) which refers to the increased psychological and communication space as a result of online learning, which can make social interaction more difficult. This transactional distance can increase the likelihood of student misunderstanding of instructor input (Moore 1993; Chen et al. 2014). This can also result in a reduced motivation to learn (Osguthorpe and Graham 2003).

Structure: releasing the videos in installments so as not to overload students with information at the beginning of a project, as project-based learning is sequential and students need to develop past certain initial stages of the creative process before they can consider deeper theoretical challenges.

Style: Simple aesthetic and inclusion of humorous illustrations / playful sound design to try and make the videos more entertaining. Boelens et al. (2017) cite humour, encouragement and empathy as ways to encourage an affective learning environment, based on research (Mazer et al., 2007; Plax, Kearney, McCroskey, & Richmond, 1986; Tomlinson & Imbeau, 2013).

Areas to improve:

Convergence:

The activities surrounding the flipped classroom - my design did not accommodate well for pre-flipped classroom activities that could have prepared students better and improved their understanding of the video (eg. by talking them through the brief before releasing the video). This relates to what I have read about Garrison and Vaughan’s ‘design considerations’ for four cyclical phases of blended learning: before, during, and after face-to-face class sessions (and preparation for the next session).

I could have gathered feedback from the previous cohort and what to include in the webcasts.

Capacity:

Cohort size is an issue for the instagram activity based on Mason’s (1994) estimate that only 1/3 of students actively engage with online activities and in a cohort of 6, that means only 2 will actively engage. This made me think about possible ways of increasing student accountability in the task, such as being in designated pairs for the instagram activity (it could be that the activity would need to be adapted a little to account for this, such as students making it clear what/who they were responding to in their posts).

In future webcast could be further integrated by engagement being part of the assessment evidence of the brief?

Further thoughts:
Inclusivity:

I am really unsure about whether online learning is beneficial to lower achievers or not, as the literature on this subject includes a wealth of research that has had many contradicting outcomes. Numerous studies have cast doubt on whether flipped classroom/blended learning makes a positive difference (Jensen et al. 2015; Eichler and Peeples 2016; Davies et al. 2016; Hotle and Garrow 2016; Boassaer et al. 2016; Song and Kapur 2017; Goates et al. 2017), and questions have been raised about whether low achievers possess the necessary skills for independent learning (Owston et al, 2013; Bossaer et al. 2016).  Inclusivity is also a serious issue to be raised in blended learning, which Jump (2010) declaring that technology may simply ‘enhance the barriers’ faced by students with financial, time and cognitive constraints.

A comment from Anna Roberts on one of my posts from the third week acts a reminder that a blended course should not result in an increased workload for students, but should be replacing onsite activities (Stein and Graham 2014). This made me question whether I had in fact increased the workload of my students, but in reality I had only added the instagram activity as something new, but I consider this activity to be very useful to the project if done as intended.

A post by Joy Maccarthy in which she spoke about recording some of her reflections as audios, prompted me to consider recording some of the in-class discussions with my students and uploading them to Canvas so that students can revisit feedback they were given, that often gets lost in face-to-face conversation if it hasn’t been written down. However, my new cohort is proving to be very challenging in terms of motivation, and where I have previously encouraged independent peer-led group discussions, I am aware that this approach is not currently working for my current students. I intend to record discussions this semester (perhaps starting with the next project), but at the moment I will need to bring students in to discuss their work in detail in tutor-led group discussions, as I cannot currently rely on students to be doing this independently.

# data[].attributes.body
Identify, share and discuss key strengths and areas for further development in your designs for your flipped classroom approach;

Apply learning about podcasting to evaluate and further develop online elements of your flipped classroom approach;

Critically reflect on what and how you have learned online this week, identifying potential implications for you and your colleagues’ current and future practice of developing flexible learning environments, in your local teaching contexts.

Reflective Prompts:

To what extent do you think you have achieved each of the learning outcomes for Week 4? If you think there is room for you to achieve these more fully, how could you do that?

What have you learned this week regarding the use of podcasting and online elements of a flipped classroom approach to support student learning?

What does all this suggest about the ways you and your colleagues are currently supporting your students learning, in your own practice and teaching context? What does it suggest that is currently good about this, and about how it could be further developed in the future?

How has your understanding of the use of podcasting, ‘flipped classroom’ and / or blended learning approaches changed from doing this week’s topic and activities?

How did you learn this?

What supported your learning?

What has challenged you?

What has surprised you?

How does this relate to what has been proposed in different sources of scholarship that you have read? Which specific sources and what claims in those does this relate to?

# data[].attributes.body
The Summary Reflection is incredibly difficult to condense into 250 words across three weeks. The Summary Reflection here has 394 words (without references) and I haven't even managed to touch on things like why online resources need to be visual for visual learners.

Weeks 1-3 Summary Reflection
My previous experience of teaching with e-learning had been essentially a "digital facelift" (Campbell and Groom 2009). Neil Selwyn (2011: 33) highlights false assumptions that technology will automatically improve teaching, and that the use of technology in education needs to be intentional and considered in order to be effective.

Art and design education is grounded in the physical world through the production of artefacts and studio-based practice that is central to peer-learning. I wondered how this could be maintained in the e-learning experience. Michael Myciunka (2020) spoke of in-person courses that didn't provide 'opportunities for socialisation', which led me to conclude that the sense of community in a cohort is heavily dependent on the learning and teaching activities chosen, not necessarily whether the course is online or on-campus.

Art and Design pedagogy is constructed around a general 'flipped classroom' approach, as it is project-based and problem-based learning, so the 'transmission' of knowledge is less common as it is focused on the individual's discovery of knowledge.

Sams' (2015) video addressed the application of the flipped classroom in problem-based learning, suggesting this may change the timing of online material owing to its sequential and iterative nature (Litteljohn and Pegler 2007). Usokovic (2018) also highlighted problems with the transmission of knowledge in online lectures that 'foster the reproduction of ideas' as contrary to creative thinking, instead advocating the 'co-creation' of knowledge between lecturer and student.

Perrow (2017) argues for online activities that engage students socially and emotionally to naturally 'nudge' students into the higher levels of Bloom's taxonomy of cognitive skills, based on Vygotsky's social-constructivist theory of learning. This is relevant to my teaching practice which is grounded in creating communities of practice through collaborative learning/construction of knowledge and why I opted for a collaborative Instagram activity in my flipped classroom design. The integration of online and in-class activities is recognised as central to securing student engagement in 'meaningful' activities (Littlejohn and Pegler 2007), and Matt Dixon’s flipped classroom idea in Week 2 made me reflect on that fact that I also hadn't accounted for how my visual-collaborative-idea-generation activity on Instagram would be incorporated into the in-class time, so I adjusted my session plan to account for this.

Swaraj Kaur cited research from Dorussent et al. (2015) that recommended online lectures be 20-25 minutes long. This made me realise that art and design students tend to have a higher incidence of learning disabilities and that long-duration lectures could result in reduced engagement with this type of student. I felt it was important to produce short-duration videos for art and design students.

References:
Campbell and Groom

Myciunka, Michael. 2020. https://falmouthflexible.instructure.com/courses/466/discussion_topics/14363

Dixon, Matt. 2020. https://falmouthflexible.instructure.com/courses/466/discussion_topics/14360

Dorussent et al. (2015)?

Littlejohn and Pegler.

Perrow, M? (2017).

Sams, Aaron. 2015.

Selwyn, Neil.

Usokovic, . 2018.

# data[].attributes.body
Most people seemed to raise the same three points on the first discussion forum this week about what the key factors are in planning a flipped classroom. I would say the three most common factors mentioned were:
- the importance of integrating the online/in-class activities
- making sure they were relevant/authentic (constructive alignment)
- the possibilities for differentiation

One of the factors that Matt Dixon made me think of is the approach to production of the video. He spoke about the 'human quality' of being in front of the camera as opposed to making something highly produced. I have opted for a more 'produced' video as I don't like standing in front of the camera. His point made me wonder if students have a preference for the style of the delivery, and whether this is something I could include on the feedback survey for my students.

Another important aspect of the flipped classroom is being able to monitor how many students are engaging with the activity online. For this reason I chose to upload the video to Youtube to get an idea of how many students had watched it.

Integrating the online and in-class activities has been one of the things I found most difficult in designing my flipped classroom approach, specifically for the collaborative instagram task. Kuhn reminds us in her work on collaborative

thinking, “It is not enough simply to put individuals in a context that allows for collaboration and expect them to engage in it effectively” (Kuhn 2015, 51). In the end, I decided to tell students we would use the likes/dislikes from the instagram in the Monday morning activities (using the words as material for a drawing game). However, this is a new cohort for me, that started the semester last week, and they have been extremely unengaged and impossible to reach through email/canvas (I also informed the students that attended class about the video and tasks that needed to be done for Monday). I launched the video on Friday and by Sunday there were 2 views and no interaction with the instagram account.

I also picked up a great method to use in art and design for helping students define direction in their projects from Matt's session plan, although this isn't directly related to the flipped classroom:
The idea of reducing their self-initiated briefs down to 16/8/4/2 words to get students to really understand the main themes/focus of what it is they're trying to communicate.

An article by Perrow (2017) included a number of ideas that were relevant to my flipped classroom planning. She mentioned that 'simply posing higher-order questions for students to answers does not necessarily result in higher-order thinking (Kanuka, Rourke and Laflamme 2007). She also includes McDonald et al.'s (year?) argument to include interpersonal, social processes into online tasks, because she believes that engaging students socially and emotionally in tasks naturally 'nudges' students into higher levels of Bloom's taxonomy of cognitive skills (such as comparing, analysing, integrating, resolving, evaluating, applying and extending ideas). Indeed, she mentions how Vygotsky's social-constructivist theory of learning has been applied to online learning through discussion forums, in which we construct and clarify our understanding of new concepts to existing knowledge and experience through peer interaction.

These ideas are relevant to my teaching practice as I use a lot of teaching activities to try to build a community of practice and collaboration between my students, and the collaborative instagram was intended to continue this method online. The instagram activity fits within Vygotsky's learning theory as students were to learn from each other in a cycle of creation and reflection on pre-existing knowledge of likes and dislikes.

# data[].attributes.body
LOs:

Identify, share and discuss key aspects important for designing flipped classroom approaches.

Apply developing learning about flipped classrooms and knowledge of EDU720 Assessment 1 documents to produce and evaluate session plans and designs for flipped classroom approaches.

Produce critical reflection on what and how you have learned online this week, identifying potential implications for you and your colleagues’ current and future practice of supporting student learning, in your local teaching contexts.

Reflection Prompts:

What extent do you think you have achieved each of the learning outcomes for Week 3? If you think there is room for you to achieve these more fully, what could you do to achieve that?

What have you learned this week regarding the use of webcasting and flipped classroom approaches to support student learning?

What does all this suggest about the ways you and your colleagues are currently supporting your students’ learning, in your own practice and teaching context? What is good about these, and how could they be further developed in the future?

How has your understanding of the use of webcasting,flipped classroom and / or blended learning approaches changed from doing this week’s topic and activities?

How did you learn this?

What supported your learning?

What has challenged you?

What has surprised you?

How does this relate to what has been proposed in the different sources of scholarship you have read? Which specific sources and what claims in those does this relate to?

# data[].attributes.body
This week I identified my past experience of the flipped classroom and blended learning as a student and educator. I realised that art and design education is now constructed around a general 'flipped classroom' approach for quite a large part of the curriculum delivery, as it is project-based and problem-based learning. The flipped classroom doesn't necessarily involve online activities, especially in art and design, as I had previously been asked to read an article and draw a response to it ahead of a group tutorial when I was a student.

I raised concerns about the use of online learning in art and design, as it is a discipline very focused around the benefits of peer-learning through studio practice and the production of physical artefacts. Art and Design education is very much grounded in the physical world. My concerns were that online learning must not be 'forced' into a programme around the 'real' parts of the course. However, I am open to experimentation and I can see how some parts of art and design teaching and learning could be integrated into online learning, so I am looking forward to see how my students respond to the online, flipped classroom approach.

I was a little disappointed that the PGCHE was so prescriptive about having to make a 5-10 minute 'webcast', as there are many ways to engage students through technology, and I thought it was actually quite restrictive to require a kind of 'video' or online lecture.

I also faced significant resistance from my programme leader when I asked him if it was ok to do what I was planning. In the end, he allocated the 'appropriate' timing for this activity in the semester, which gave me significantly less time to develop ideas and prepare the material I wanted to use.

Flipped Classroom
This week I learned a lot about a concept I hadn't fully understood before. Through the infographic, videos posted and digital resources, I learned about the conception of the flipped classroom by Aaron Sams and Bergmann in 2007, that involves introducing the lecture content before class, so that class time can involve student-focused and active-learning activities. I read about the benefits of flipped classroom learning, such as increased pass-rates (Strayer 2011).

I found Sams' (2015) video about the next steps for the flipped classroom to be the most interesting of the materials, as he started to talk about using these approaches in project-based and inquiry-based learning, which is more relevant to art and design. He spoke about how this might impact the timing of flipped-classroom material, for example in the middle of the project rather than the beginning (this is something I have wanted to explore in my flipped classroom approach). He also spoke about thinking of the online content as simply an optional learning resource that can be used depending on the learner's preferences. I found this approach more sensible than flipping the classroom for the sake of flipping it, and forcing it onto learners' that may not prefer or enjoy it.

Additionally, in art and design education, there is not a lot of 'didactic material' or transmission of information to students, as it is project-based learning, and usually the problem is set, perhaps with some example references given to students (although we are talking about reducing the number of example references to encourage students to research independently more, and reduce reliance on or influence by the lecturers). And the 'technical' aspects of an art and design course are often taught by specialist technicians or visiting lecturers, and the lecturers themselves are often there to guide project and idea development through tutorials and critiques. This brings into question how much information lecturers should be providing through 'online lectures' in art and design, and whether other online approaches or e-tools could be more useful in this discipline.

Further Reading (co-creational flipped classroom):
Further reading led me to an article by Uskokovic (2018) which cited various studies with conflicting reports about flipped classroom success. He was proposing a co-creational flipped classroom model, that focused less on the transmission of knowledge through online lectures, which he believes is an aspect of the flipped classroom that "fosters the reproduction of ideas and information... which is incompatible with creative thought" (2018: 4)

He proposes using the flipped model based on the active involvement of students in searching, finding, selecting and assembling knowledge and using it in the learning material of the in-class session, which is creates a co-creational curriculum.  He avoids the transmission model of teaching where possible and seeks a balance between 'individual introspection and expression' and 'collective engagement' to stimulate creativity.

Inclusivity in the flipped classroom
In an article by Altemueller and Lindquist (2017), I read that there has not been a lot of research into the flipped classroom model and students with learning disabilities. However, this article cited two pieces of research that had demonstrated improved performance (and perception of learning from videos) in lower achievers using flipped classroom approaches  (Bhagat et al. 2016; Nouri 2016).
This article spoke about the possibility of flipped classroom approaches allowing for 'tiered' in-class activities, and this is something I would like to bare in mind when planning my in-class session.

LO7 Week 2 - comments or posts from peers that challenged me

1. Swaraj Kaur cited research from Dorussent, et al.,( 2015) that recommended online lectures be 20-25 minutes long.

-This made me realise that art and design students tend to have a higher incidence of learning disabilities (particularly dyslexia, adhd) and i believe that long-duration online lectures could result in reduced engagement with this type of student especially. It made me realise the difference in the way we experience time online and offline. A 25-minute face-to-face lecture would be considered quite short, but a 25 minute online video lecture seems quite mammoth when thinking about art and design students!

1. Michael Myciunka’s reminder of the importance of assessment and constructive alignment helped me to think of developing online material that focused on the LOs in relation to the current project and guiding students with the development of their work in consideration of what the LOs ask.

https://falmouthflexible.instructure.com/courses/466/discussion_topics/14361?module_item_id=35776

1. Reflection caused by Matt Dixon’s flipped classroom idea

Reading Matt's flipped classroom idea for a collaborative Pinterest board made me realise that he hadn't written how he planned for the students to use this Pinterest board in the in-class session. This made me doubt whether students would engage with this activity, and made me reflect on that fact that I also hadn't accounted for how my visual-collaborative-idea-generation activity on Instagram would be incorporated into the in-class time.

It made me consider how to integrate more explicitly the on-line activity of the collaborative visual instagram into the classroom activities to ensure students participate - so far I have considered defining a minimum number of images each student needs to upload, and telling students the instagram will be used to inform the Monday's launch activities (I am actually not 100% sure yet how the instagram could be used, so I will have to work this out before that session.)

# data[].attributes.body
I need to make sure I am writing my reflections in a way that encompasses the LOs for this module, to make sure I'm on the right track. For this reason, I wanted to post them here with my reflection blog. I will be highlighting specific phrases that I believe meet the LOs in my reflections here.

LO1: Pedagogical Theory & Scholarship
Identify, apply, and critically engage with theories of learning and pedagogical scholarship in the articulation, justification, evaluation and development of practice in teaching/supporting learning in higher education.

LO6: Personal and Professional Development
Critically reflect on pedagogic and subject-specific practice for supporting student learning, to inform continuing professional development as a teaching and learning practitioner within higher education

LO7: Collaborative Professional Working

Discuss and critically appraise different perspectives on supporting student learning with fellow practitioners

# data[].attributes.body
I believe I have successfully achieved the learning outcomes for this week through the discussions of personal experiences of the benefits and constraints of online learning. The initial question enabled me to reflect on my own experience (which naturally will be different for each individual dependent on their needs). The forum discussion was dominated by comments about the flexibility of online learning as the primary benefit, and the primary constraint being the lack of face-to-face interaction. Even as a kind of 'survey' it was interesting to see the responses. Comments from other students (Michael) made me reflect further on my initial thoughts about how the sense of community and quality of social interactions compares between online learning and on-campus learning, and I realised from my own experience that I have interacted more with, and have a greater sense of community with, the students on the PGCHE than in other on-campus courses where no interaction was encouraged between students. This led me to conclude that the sense of community in a cohort is heavily dependent on the learning and teaching activities chosen, not necessarily whether the course is online or on-campus.

I found the exercise involving the reflective summary quite difficult. Although I had maintained a CRJ in EDU710, I found my reflections to be of quite a low quality and they seemed limited by the time I had to dedicate to them. As the reflection is an assessed part of this module, I hope to see an improvement in the dedication and consideration I give to my reflections. Comparing my summary reflection to that of Georgie's, I could see that I was perhaps not engaging as fully as I could be with LO7, as she had cited specific comments that peers had made that influenced or challenged her teaching practice. I believe I will need to be more specific in my reflections about my interactions with colleagues and what I learnt from them in order to meet this learning outcome more comprehensively. I would also like to revisit some of the material from EDU710 in Week 2 and 3 about reflection in teaching practice, to see if I can improve my reflections.

This introductory week didn't really introduce 'new' concepts to me that I found surprising, although it reinforced through theory and scholarship a number of assumptions I already have about online learning from my own experience. For example, through the digital resources this week I realised that forum discussions have been proven to be very effective in teaching and learning (Fabbri 2018), and this is an experience I have already had myself on the PGCHE. One quote I read that I also felt was very important, from Neil Selwyn (2011: 33) was to "steer clear of assuming that any digital technology has the ability to make things better". The use of technology needs to be intentional and considered in order to be effective.

In terms of my own teaching context and supporting student learning, our model would currently fit into what has been described as the "digital facelift" (Campbell and Groom 2009), as up until this moment we have only used VLEs to upload materials that are used in class. This semester coming we are (hopefully) using Canvas as part of a blended teaching approach for the first time, and I hope to experiment with some different approaches or flipped classroom methods to improve student research skills and their understanding of assessment criteria.

The forum discussions this week also led me to reflect further on how an art and design course might be completely delivered online, and I realised how this might negatively affect the studio-based practice that is so central in these disciplines, through which students engage with a great deal of peer-learning and peer-teaching. Even with technology, scanning and photography, I do not believe this extremely important element of creative education could be successfully replicated to the same extent in online learning.

References:

# data[].attributes.body
By the end of this week’s learning activities, you should aim to be able to:

Share and discuss with fellow practitioners your previous experiences of blended learning and/or ‘flipped classroom’ approaches, as student and/or educator.

Apply information about the ‘flipped classroom’ approach to generate, share, discuss and evaluate ideas and plans for flipping the classroom in your own teaching contexts.

Produce critical reflection on what and how you have learned online this week, identifying potential implications for you and your colleagues’ current and future practice of supporting student learning, in your local teaching contexts.

To what extent do you think you have achieved each of the learning outcomes for Week 2? If you think there is room for you to achieve these more fully, what could you do to achieve that?

What have you learned this week regarding the use of flipped classroom approaches to support student learning?

What does all this suggest about the ways you and your colleagues are currently supporting your students’ learning, in your own practice and teaching context? What is good about these, and how could they be further developed in the future?

How has your understanding of the use of flipped classroom approaches changed from doing this week’s topic and activities?

How did you learn this?

What supported your learning?

What has challenged you?

What has surprised you?

How does this relate to what has been proposed in the different sources of scholarship you have read? Which specific sources and what claims in those does this relate to?

# data[].attributes.body
By the end of the learning activities for Week 1, you should aim to be able to:

- Critically reflect on and discuss personal experiences of the benefits and constraints of online learning;

- Apply knowledge of the EDU710 Module and Assessment 2: Reflective Blog to produce, share, critically evaluate and discuss summary reflections on your learning that could help demonstrate achievement of Assessment 2’s Learning Outcomes and Assessment Criteria;

- Produce critical reflection on what and how you have learned online this week, identifying potential implications for you and your colleagues’ current and future practice of supporting student learning in your local teaching contexts.

To what extent do you think you have achieved each of the Learning Outcomes for this week? If you think there is room for you to achieve these more fully, what could you do to achieve that?

What have you learned this week regarding the use of online learning to support student learning?

What does all this suggest about the ways you and your colleagues are currently supporting your students learning, in your own practice and teaching context? What does it suggest that is currently good about this, and about how it could be further developed in the future?

How has your understanding of the use of online and / or blended learning changed from doing this week’s topic and activities?

How did you learn this?

What supported your learning?

What has challenged you?

What has surprised you?

How does this relate to what has been proposed in the different sources of scholarship you read? Which specific sources and what claims in those does this relate to?