Edu 720 Week 10 Designing Online Learning Environments 2

Posted byahdoveyPosted inUncategorized

Summary & Learning Outcomes

For the last two weeks we have been focusing on supporting student learning in fully online learning environments.

Last week you did the following learning activities:

  • Shared and discussed your knowledge of a range of different technologies that can be used to support online learning;
  • Engaged with information and guidance to help you evaluate and choose appropriate technologies to support online learning;
  • Investigated, evaluated, shared and discussed the potential of different online tools for supporting online learning, for your own teaching contexts;
  • Reflected on your learning for your CRJ;
  • Explored Digital Resources and where possible, attended the weekly webinar.

In Week 8, we started to focus on developing your capabilities for designing fully online learning environments, applying your previous knowledge and experience about curriculum design with new knowledge about online curriculum (e.g. that shared by Salmon (2013)). As you may already know, there is a range of Learning Design frameworks that learning designers / educators use, to design and develop highly effective online courses (JISC, 2017; Britain, 2004). As an example of one potential framework you could use, this week we will explore in detail one based on Laurillard (2012), developed by the Cambridge Education Group (CEG). This is the CEG Pedagogic Framework, which is the framework we have mainly used to design and develop this online course.

To begin with, you will be introduced to the different learning types used in the framework (Laurillard, 2012) and asked to reflect on and discuss how you are currently embedding those in your current teaching practice. Then you will be presented and asked to engage with the different phases of the CEG Pedagogic Framework, as a way of developing your practice in designing an online curriculum.

As part of your Challenge Activity this week, you will be asked to apply the CEG Pedagogic Framework to design a fully online learning episode (one week in length) within your current teaching practice, and critically appraise it. You will also have the opportunity to reflect on your learning, explore further readings and attend the webinar.

By the end of this week’s learning activities for Week 10, you should be able to:

  • 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.

Enquire / Reflect

One of the key pedagogic components of the CEG Pedagogic Framework focuses on the learning types described by Laurillard (2012). The table below provides an overview of the different learning types:

Learning TypesDescription
ORANGE Learners use existing learning resources for their own intellectual enquiry.
Enquiry
RED Learning through listening, reading and watching.
Acquisition
YELLOW Learning through discussion and collaboration: with or without the tutor present, small groups or large groups, structured or unstructured.
Discussion/ Collaboration
BLUE Learners apply their understanding of the concepts to achieving a task goal.    
Practice
GREEN Learners apply their understanding of the concepts producing a tangible asset, e.g. a digital artifact.
Production

Think about your current practice (face-to-face, blended or online):

  1. Focus on a current teaching week.
  2. Identify what proportions of your teaching delivery encourages your students to concentrate on:
    • Acquisition;
    • Discussion and Collaboration; and
    • Enquiry, Practice and Production.
  3. Calculate the time proportions allocated to those areas in percentages (%).

Example

Your answer might look like this:
Currently my teaching on the the module of Professionalism (Week 1), seems to be encouraging my students to spend their learning time in the following way:

  • Acquisition (40%)
  • Discussion and Collaboration (30%)
  • Enquiry, Practice and Production (30%)

Discuss

Share those percentages associated with the example of your current practice, and provide a brief outline and explanation of why the split of the learning activities for that week looks like that (150 words). Consider the following:

  • What are you trying to achieve (learning outcomes)?
  • What kind of activities – either online or face-to-face – are the students engaging with when acquiring, discussing, enquiring, practising and producing?
  • What do you think and feel about the current split of the students’ learning activities in that week? How well does that match your intentions? How well does it match the intended learning outcomes for the students for that week?

Post this to the discussion forum. Comment on the posts of two fellow students, sharing any reflections prompted by their outlines and explanations. Search entries or author Filtre replies by unread     Write a reply… Reply to Week 10: Forum – Learning Types

In my teaching on the last module, which was delivered 100% online, due to the Covid-19 pandemic, students were encouraged to spend their time in the following way:

Acquisition (30%)
Discussion and Collaboration (20%)
Enquiry, Practice and Production (50%)

In the first week of this module, students were introduced to the module and the expectations of their engagement and for their learning. There was an asynchronous lecture provided by a visiting lecturer on photography, followed up with a live synchronous Q&A for the students to listen to and ask questions and answers, and to get a really in-depth understanding of the photographer’s practice. The students were then tasked with three, relatively simple, photographic challenges where they could put into practice some of the key themes and learning from the lecture and Q&A. The outcomes were then assessed by the teaching staff and feedback was provided in one-to-one sessions on the Monday of the following week.

The lecture was 15 minutes long; the Q&A was 1 hour 15 minutes; the independent enquiry was expected to be in the range 20–25 hours; and the the one-to-one tutorial was 20 minutes. This is based on a full time, 20 credit module.

This was a really successful way to engage and support the learning and supported the three learning outcomes for the module: Process (demonstrate a creative process that employs speculative enquiry); Innovate (appraise and identify creative opportunities that take risk and challenge conventions); Collaborate (embrace roles and responsibilities as part of a creative community). Reply Reply to comment

I found it hard to split the time between categories as well, as there seems to be much overlap between them. Practice and production seem inextricably linked, and it can be difficult (in my work as well) to split enquiry apart from practice. Reply Reply to comment (1 likes)

    • I agree, Michael! There’s a lot of overlap here which makes the individual quantification somewhat sketchy! For example, ‘practice’ and ‘production’ are pretty much the same thing most of the time in my teaching context. Reply Reply to comment (1 likes)

Collapse Sub discussion Stanley Mbelu

Stanley Mbelu

3 Aug 2020 3 Aug at 10:04

Pre-Covid 19 era, it would have been difficult to convince all stakeholders that one can be able to switch all learning activities online and still achieve all learning objectives, though it has its challenges. My focus will be on activities within this period. Total teaching hours in a week is 6hrs.

Acquisition (25%)
Discussion and Collaboration (50%)
Enquiry, Practice and Production (25%)

I mostly followed 3 steps of my own…

– Overview of the lesson material

– A review of the materials

– Group discussions, activities and questions.

Looking back at the 1st week I had an online class with my students, it was a big shift from the norm of the day. We used some time to discuss the very basics of the new teaching technology and how the students can be able to access information that is provided. During this early stage, sample class activities were prepared for the students as a try out, which they were able to work on. I was then able to look at their work, provide necessary feedback and recommendations, including advise on how to make sure that they utilise the full potentials of the technology that we are using, as all formative and most importantly summative would be done online including all academic activities.

Furthermore, during the rest of the week, we had a normal class activities within the remaining 4 hrs that was spread in two days. To ensure that the students were fully and actively engaged, I prepared a teaching material and send to them through email and also uploading it on Teams. During the first minutes of the session, I did an overview of the materials that are already online, then I present them with an activity for them to do within few minutes. A general feedback on this activity will then be provided to them on spot through the notebook, where they are allowed to comment, as questions and get on the spot feedback.

This process was useful, as it mostly provides room or opportunity for some of the students that normally in a physical setting would have found it difficult to comment or work Reply Reply to comment Collapse Sub discussion Mia Tedjosaputro

Mia Tedjosaputro

4 Aug 2020 4 Aug at 3:46

I am taking the most recent workshop I hosted and facilitated a couple of weeks ago, 6 days hands-on bamboo building exercise (Links to an external site.) in the mountains with architecture students, in 37-38 deg C summer heat days. Specifically on  Day 1 when a team of 11 students arrived and they were not familiar with everyone as it is a joint exercise between two universities from two different cities: Ningbo (Uni of Nottingham) and Hangzhou (Zhejiang Uni).  

Acquisition 20%

Discussion and collaboration 30%

Enquiry, practice and production 50%

21.PNG

The learning outcomes of Day 1 was to build a common understanding what students would be building and kick started a good collaborative practice. We started with project with project briefing, tools induction as there were a couple of power tools students had no prior experience and the day-to-day tentative schedule; which made the 20%. There were three main components of this sitting pod structure: arches, pedestal and the skin.

The 30% was student-led focusing on the arches which are the main structure. Student started to make the first arch (out of 14) from bamboo battens which we have purchased and delivered beforehand. Five students were involved during the computationally generated design and prototyping stages (through some iterations) so they took charge to explain why the final arch’s joints and demonstrated how to build the first one.

The rest of the day was spent on the work stations and distribution and getting familiar with the production line of the arches, which made the 50%. And it was student-led and two project managers were appointed. They worked in pairs or a group of three in stations: measuring and labelling based on the drawings, cutting bamboo battens, making the profiles and drilling and lastly attachment station. 

The split was 20:30:50 on the first day. However, as the days go by,  morning briefing got shorter as just am and pm work distribution in three main stations (arches, pedestal and skin). The split changed to somewhere in the order of 5:40:55 for the rest of days. Discussion and production happened at the same time during the rest of construction stage, especially when students were faced with technical on-site problems.  I also noticed the importance of dining table discussion. Dinner was interesting as it was the time for reflections as a team and adjusted next day’s strategy. 

On separate note, I did a 4 days trial run on building the first bamboo structure 3 weeks before this exercise to test out the logistics as the site is in the mountains and quite remote: sourcing bamboo locally, accommodations, transport, etc . And I am glad I did it, made the actual exercise smoother and we could focus on the building activities instead. Reply Reply to comment (3 likes)

Great course Mia – what a great learning experience all round 

Alex  Reply Reply to comment Collapse Sub discussion Angela Coskey

Angela Coskey

7 Aug 2020 7 Aug at 12:06

  • Hi Mia,   I really love your course. It’s an amazing project that you’ve designed.  I see that you spent a lot of time preparing so that it would all run smoothly.  The weather is really hot right now and so I can only imagine how that must have been.  I noticed you said that reflections was over dinner, what a nice touch! Reply Reply to comment

Collapse Sub discussion Alex Bailey

Alex Bailey

4 Aug 2020 4 Aug at 11:11

For this forum I possibly sit slightly outside the box as I am not involved in full time education and teaching photography rather I guest lecture and mentor as an expert or specialist practitioner. Therefore my profile for this exercise is probably not typical?

When I am engaged with students my time is almost exclusively taken up as follows:

10% skill acquisition.  I do very little technical or practical teaching of photography or related techniques other than supporting on the occasional field trip or studio session. I am mainly about application and context.

0% Discussion / collaboration. I have no direct involvement with cohort forums or discussions. 

90%+ Of my time is taken up with the application and understanding of key concepts and the students producing tangible assets, e.g. portfolio’s, websites and mission statements to further progress their careers or work out what direction they are heading with their creative ambitions and support them to for fill those ambitions (or at least help them to help themselves with their ambitions).

The way that I work in my teaching context means that I never do a full week at one institution or with one cohort of students. Most of my teaching engagements are with individuals or very small groups, either individuals that have moved on from full time education or are in their 3rd years. Hence why I tend to look on what I do as mentoring rather than teaching passé.   Reply Reply to comment

Sounds like a very hands-on module! must be very time consuming on your end, especially with all the one-to-one work. Very different from the lecturing to large audiences and doing examples on the board I do! Reply Reply to comment

  • Hi Michael Yes, it is very hands on. A lot of dealing one-to-one with students in many ways I am more like a career advisor than a teacher as such, a mentor best describes my intervention. I support students from a variety of institutions and at different stages in their career development. But unfortunately no one pays, only occasionally for the odd guest lecture. It’s all for the love of it and in fairness gaining an over view of the HE sector from my perspective. At some point I will have to monetise what I do as it’s not sustainable. Hopefully this PGCHE is a partial route to that? Alex  Reply Reply to comment (1 likes)

Collapse Sub discussion Angela Coskey

Angela Coskey

8 Aug 2020 8 Aug at 9:15

  • Hi Alex,   I think your course is super exciting and beneficial. Whilst you are teaching technical skills are you also engaging with your one-on-one students in discussion in relation to those hands-on skills?  Reply Reply to comment

Collapse Sub discussion Michael Berthaume

Michael Berthaume

4 Aug 2020 4 Aug at 16:49

Looking back to the module I was teaching this past spring, students were expected to spend 48 hours in class listening to lectures and 152 hours studying outside of class. Assuming students would spend 60 hours between studying for the final and doing their term project, this would be 92 hours of learning outside the class during the semester. Or, about 4 hours of lecture and 7.66 hours of learning outside the classroom per week. Assuming we are looking at a week after the group project is due, broken down by category, this would be

Enquiry – This would overlap with practice outside of the classroom: 60%

Acquisition – 25%

Discussion/collaboration – unknown. Students often do group work outside of the class for problem solving, but not always. This would often occur at the same time as practice and enquiry.

Practice – This would be the same 60% as enquiry, plus time in the classroom – 75%

Production – 0%

The learning outcomes would be to have the students gain an understanding of formulations related to solid mechanics and failure, so they would need to learn the theory and apply it through practice. In that respect, I believe the LOs are being met by reading and doing practice problems, both in class and on their own outside of class. Reply Reply to comment

  • It’s nice to see how you have linked enquiry and practice! Looking at this framework the first thing I thought was how some areas overlap or how some students will acquire via trial and error better than any lecture. Reply Reply to comment (1 likes)

Collapse Sub discussion Suzanne Strudwick

Suzanne Strudwick

5 Aug 2020 5 Aug at 22:39

My current course design is approximately 90% face 2 face and 10% online with videos and some reading (history and rules).  

Acquisition = 40% 

Discussion and collaboration = 15%

Practice and Production = 45%

The LO’s for the course are:

1. Learn the full swing basics to a standard that you can apply differences to your own prior knowledge of understanding or as a beginner learning for the first time. 

2. Have a working knowledge of the rules of golf and the different games that can be played. 

3. Understand the game’s history and how the game can influence your own life in society. 

I have realized the course differentiation has a lot of inadequacies and requires a new design. In developing a new course, a lot of the skill acquisition will be learned via visual delivery online and some f2f for student feedback and enquiry. This is because I have come to understand some of the beginners i teach have fears and suffer from anxiety because of the peceived pressure of performance in front of everyone in the group learning sessions. 

Also, I need to have a more flexible delivery for those that cannot meet f2f or have the benifit of driving to the range for each session.  Reply Reply to comment Collapse Sub discussion Dejan Levi

Dejan Levi

7 Aug 2020 7 Aug at 11:57

I’m currently teaching the introductory module on MA Writing for Script and Screen. I’m using week 10 (this week) as the example for the exercise, but most of our weeks have an almost identical balance I think:

Enquiry & Acquisition (I’ve grouped them as there’s a lot of overlap I feel) – 30%

Each week contains lecture content delivered as a mix of text, video and audio, all based off the weekly topic (e.g. 3-act story structure)

Discussion/Collaboration – 30%

Each week students have 3 discussions forums

– A brief icebreaker discussion as part of the topic intro

– A more substantial discussion which follows the key lecture content (usually based off a prompt that draws on the week’s reading/watching resources and encourages them to demonstrate their learning from it)

– A peer review forum where students feedback on each others work-in-progress writing for the week

(In some weeks there is also a live webinar which offers additional discussion and interaction opportunities)

Practice & Production (also grouped as I don’t perceive significant distinctions between the two categories) – 40%

Students have weekly writing tasks which build towards the completion of their assessment portfolio. Reply Reply to comment Collapse Sub discussion Angela Coskey

Angela Coskey

8 Aug 2020 8 Aug at 8:55

  • Acquisition (10%)
  • Discussion and Collaboration (60%)
    Inquiry, Practice and Production (30%)
  1. The acquisition is set at 10% because it is like a mini-lesson with a narrow focus that provides instruction in a skill or concept that students will then relate to a more important lesson that will follow. I use it to teach particular skills, extend previous learning, create interest in a topic, generate questions, or introduce strategies.
  2. Giving more time to in-class discussion and collaboration will benefit the students with Enhanced Problem-solving Skills and will also inspire Critical-Thinking. Collaborative and discussion lessons help shy students in social interactions and support diversity. It is an excellent way for all students to benefit from the module. The students also learn self-management skills, as this will help them with life-long learning.
  3. Since the inquiry, production, and practice need not be long-winded as these parts of the lesson are through questions, research, and curiosity. The task is not meant to be complicated and should be completed in the shortest amount of time, which are in line with this module’s outcomes. 
  4. Collaborative learning creates an opportunity for students to hold discussions and have opinions. Accountability is a framework where students can learn about discourse to enrich peer interactions – Resnick (2000). These include staying on topic, using accurate and appropriate information for the topic, and thinking deeply about what the partner has to say. Students are taught accountability using the content and discussing the content in various ways to gain a better and deeper meaning of the learning material. Peer collaboration keeps the conversation going and keeps the students engaged and excited to be learning something new. The students are encouraged towards a richer understanding of one in which they are the center.

Reply Reply to comment Collapse Sub discussion Dario Faniglione

Dario Faniglione

9 Aug 2020 9 Aug at 20:45

Tutor Summary

Hello everyone,

As usual, many thanks to all of you who have contributed such interesting views and relevant discussion points this week.

It’s been good to see how you have analysed one of your (module’s) teaching in relation to the components of the CEG framework. It is very clear to me that everyone’s learning design choices are generally aimed at providing as much opportunity as possible for the more student centred active learning activities (practice, production, collaboration, discussion).

As you have highlighted, it can be a little difficult to decide where to ‘position’ certain learning activities or approaches across the various categories within the CEG framework. This I would say can always be a little subjective but nonetheless the exercise might provide a perspective around the balance between the various types of activities, and most importantly how your learners are involved. There was for example a discussion around the extent to which practice and production might actually be overlapping.

One thing that comes through really strongly to me from reading the posts is the very engaging nature of some of the ‘session’ descriptions – it made me realise how collectively you are all so committed to getting your students involved and undertaking work that is really relevant to their future. The emphasis on authentic experiences in many of the details that you collectively provided is to be applauded. It must be potentially so exciting and indeed fun for students to have the opportunity to practice skills that are key in their future professional life in simulated exercises or if even luckier, in surroundings and practices that reflect places of work which they aspire to. Some of these exercises might have an explicit output, such as an artifact, a project, etc.

For your CRJ, it might be worth reflecting on how this exercise has made you re-think some of your current session/week design. What would you need to change in future iterations? Why? Would this apply to a fully-online delivery?
  Reply Reply to comment Collapse Sub discussion Joel Ferguson

Joel Ferguson

10 Aug 2020 10 Aug at 14:57

The current weekly structure for my teaching is: 1h lecture, 1h seminar, 3h workshop.

Which this in mind I would place the percentages as follows.

  • Acquisition (20%)
  • Discussion and Collaboration (30%)
  • Enquiry, Practice and Production (50%)

The teaching in this module is trying to make students experiment with technologies relevant to advertising. Most of this is done in pairs or small groups (4 or 3 people). So althought the seminars maybe only represent 1h a week (20%) students work collaboratively in the worshops as well where they discuss and practice. Although I am writing this from a reflective perspective as this is based on my teaching from the previous year as my new teaching only begins in September.

I think this split is relevant to teaching advertising. Advertising requires a lot of lateral thinking and iteration to reach a point where students are understanding the learning outcomes and coming up with interesting ideas. Moving foward I think this will suit the module I have planned for the upcoming semester. The planned learning outcomes in super-short are: Collaborate, Experiment and Research. I think the experimentation and research fall into the ‘enquiry, practice, production’ category here and so it will need the most time. Reply Reply to comment Collapse Sub discussion Anna Dovey

Anna Dovey

10 Aug 2020 10 Aug at 16:38

  • Acquisition 60%
  • Discussion and Collaboration 20%
  • Enquiry, Practice and Production 20%
  • What are you trying to achieve (learning outcomes)?
  • What kind of activities – either online or face-to-face – are the students engaging with when acquiring, discussing, enquiring, practising and producing?
  • What do you think and feel about the current split of the students’ learning activities in that week? How well does that match your intentions? How well does it match the intended learning outcomes for the students for that week?

Like Alex I sit outside the box on this one too. I’ll use my pre-Covid weekly Study Skills course hour.

This is tricky as ‘practice’ was frequently in class, and involved some group tasks so that included ‘discussion’ and ‘collaboration’ simultaneously.

I was seeking to improve student’s understanding and application of a variety of study skills. In the week I’ve chosen it was Information Literacy what it is, why it’s important and how information an be analysed and arranged in hierarchies.

Activities:

Acquiring – watching / listening to me, slides and relevant multi-media resources about the topic.

Discussion – if I posed questions during content delivery.

Enquiring – Listening / watching me and the multi-media resources I’ve used, reading the slides.

Practicing – two activities; 1. in small groups, arrange cut-outs images of front covers of subject relevant journals, prof. magazines, newspapers etc. into the correct info. hierarchy tree provided. Lots of discussion. 2. in small groups, assess given articles using the CRAAP test. Lots of dicsussion. For each activity I showed and went through the correct responses and ther was some discussion as to why they were correct.

I think / feel it was about right. These are L0 students who have had not much exposure to study skills before or not for some time, so it was necessary to provide the information needed to help them succeed at the tasks (otherwise you’re setting them up to fail and they *will* disengage). The activites were relevant, simple but challenging enough and the small groups resulted in some quite obvious competitiveness!

I’m now thinking about how those could be translated into online activites. The article could be fairly simple – in breakout groups on Zoom, sharing the CRAAP test and article. Aaaaand this reveals one of the drawbacks of online ed – it will be tricky using a desktop to simulatneously write onthe CRAAP test, skim read an article and engage with an online discussion simultaneously, let alone if using a phone. ..

The info. hierarchy game could be easily gamified, but that then misses the social learning element of working in groups and the competitiveness. Hmmm.

I think overall it worked well; the only issue was I asked the students to evaluate 3 articles using the CRAAP tst and we only had time to go through 1. With hindsight I think 3 was overkill anyway.

It met the LO’s, I believe. Reply Reply to comment Collapse Sub discussion Toby Carr

Toby Carr

10 Aug 2020 10 Aug at 17:53

Reflecting on my pre COVID teaching practice using the final major project module as an example, I had sessions with the students all day on Monday and then 1:1, sometimes group tutorials on a Thursday. We also had formative and summative project reviews with industry partners and peer to peer feedback. 

I think there are slightly different perspectives looking at my time spent on these activities and the student experience, For example, if Enquiry practice and production is delivered through 1:1 tutorials of 20-30 mins once a week, then the majority of the student’s time is spent in activities and sessions which relate to acquisition and collaboration. 

(my time)

25% Acquisition (talks on key aspects, visiting practitioners,  sharing different viewpoints)

25% Discussion and collaboration (group workshops, role play, challenge activities) 

50% Enquiry, practice and production  (tutorials, group discussions, project reviews) 

(Student time)

40%  Acquisition

40% Discussion and collaboration

20% Enquiry, Practice and Production  Reply Reply to comment Collapse Sub discussion Harriet Beesley

Harriet Beesley

10 Aug 2020 10 Aug at 21:24

Analysing the GDE710 week 9 (Type and Layout) structure, I would dissect it into the following percentages:

Acquisition (watching lectures and reading supplied material): 30%

Discussion and Collaboration (through padlet/Ideas Wall discussions, sharing thoughts and further resources): 20%

Enquiry, Practice and Production (typesetting a found piece of poetry or prose): 50%

The students have a week to cover this, but it is a part-time course so we don’t expect them to focus all of their time on their study. This week the course content is covering new but quite technical ground for most of the students, so the acquisition phase is more in depth than in other weeks. The main lecture is just over 1hr in duration, and other materials are provided for further research. These are new concepts so cannot be rushed. The discussion and collaboration segments overlap with the enquiry, practice and production as the students will be sharing their enquiry/practice/production WIP through the discussion/collaboration Ideas Wall. Overall, I expect the students to spend about 3/4hrs looking at different concepts and avenues, sharing their thoughts on the Ideas Wall and interacting with their peers and tutors, then about 2/3hrs crafting and refining their final concept. These numbers can vary wildly depending on what other commitments the students have in their week. But I guess it’s about 8-10hrs per week of study. Reply Reply to comment Collapse Sub discussion Rachel Butt

Rachel Butt

Tuesday 11 Aug at 14:06

The course is physical assessment and clinical reasoning and therefore requires a “hands on approach”. Prior to covid restrictions the module often ran 

Acquisition 30%

Discussion and Collaboration 30%

Enquiry, Practice and Production 40%

however I feel that this has now significantly changed and the enquiry, practice and production element has reduced to 20% via zoom or ms teams , Acquisition has increased to 60% and discussion and collaboration is now 20% 

most of the module is delivered via on line resources and the practice element is often recorded or done live stream via zoom as long as the patient/participant has consented to this form of assessment online

follow up via 1-1 online session is used to check understanding and rationale for examination technique to ensure the pt/participant has not been coached and to ensure safety

Very different way of working but so far seems to be successful.

The CEG Pedagogic Framework

The CEG Pedagogic Framework is a method for designing and developing online and blended learning activities through design, prototyping and testing ideas with academics and learning designers in an experimental way (Toro-Troconis & Aleksiev, 2018; Toro-Troconis & Alexander, 2018).

https://codesignsframework.com/

You may have noticed already that the activities in your PGCHE modules in Canvas have been colour-coded to match the learning type colours we presented in Phase 4.

Please note: The colour-coding for Laurillard’s learning types (on Canvas) is different to the Blue and Green colour-coding for the active verb areas discussed in Phase 2, in the previous page.

For example, the learning activity below is driving Reflection (blue) and Discussion (yellow).

reflect-discuss.png
Forum activity panel – Reflection, Discussion

The learning activity below is driving Production (green) and Discussion (yellow).

reflect-discuss.png
Webinar activity panel – Production, Discussion

The colours provide visual cues for the students to associate different types of activities with different colours. (However due to accessibility issues, the Acquisition activities are represented in grey in Canvas, even though on the CEG cards, it shows the colour red.)

Week 10: Activity – Apply the CEG Pedagogic Framework

Practice / Produce

By now, you should have a good understanding of this CEG Pedagogic Framework and the background and theories that are embedded within it.

Now we would like you to put into practice what you have learned this week. We would like you to:

  1. Select a week of your current teaching practice (face-to-face or online);
  2. Do a draft design of that week as an online curriculum, by applying the CEG Pedagogic Framework;
  3. Download this form: CEG Pedagogic Framework Activity [Word] and complete all the sections.

You will have the opportunity to share your form in the discussion forum on the next page.

Week 10: Forum – Share Your CEG Pedagogic Framework Form

5 5 unread replies. 19 19 replies. Discuss

Once you have completed the activity on the previous page, upload your form onto the forum. Read and comment on the posts of at least two other colleagues (100 words minimum for each comment). Consider:

  • How do the learning designs presented by your peers compare to yours?
  • Are there any significant differences in the 70:20:10 split presented by your peers, compared to your own? How and why?
  • What do you think is good about what they have suggested in their learning designs?
  • How do you think they could further develop their draft design ideas?
  • What can you learn from this, to help you with your own attempts to design an online learning week?

Search entries or author Filtre replies by unread     Write a reply… Reply to Week 10: Forum – Share Your CEG Pedagogic Framework Form

Here is my first attempt on the framework, I used Week 5 (out of 17) of my Digital Architecture module, the same week for EDU720 Assignment 1 as I spent a bit of time re-thinking about that particular week’s material for the flipped classroom and hybrid (F2F and online) session. The topic is Parametric Design.

It did not fit exactly to the 70:20:10 split however, but close. I feel I can easily rectify it to get even closer to the split. Mia_EDU720 Week 10 Challenge Activity.pdf Reply Reply to comment

Hi Mia – I had also had a higher acquisition of 20%. I felt it was important in my challenge, as this week was the only one students were learning about this topic.  I had gotten closer to the 70% for the first section, but was more surprised about this than anything else, as I had not planned it in that manner, but instead planned the week how I would have wanted it to go, and just happened to hit 70%. I thought your set up was easy to read and enjoyable, and it looks like your format is excellent for the blended learning approach. Reply Reply to comment

    • Hi Michael, I also feel my typical sessions have a high percentage of acquisition, this exercise gave me an opportunity to think back on my regular practice. Well done on getting close to 70% enquiry, practice and production. Mia Reply Reply to comment (1 likes)

Collapse Sub discussion Nick Raven

Nick Raven

4 Aug 2020 4 Aug at 17:22

This is my draft design for the first week of the upcoming Graphic Design Typography module I teach on which will delivered online. It has highlighted some clear areas to address, especially how much to orientate the learning based on its previous in-person incarnation, or how much to translate and adopt this for online delivery…Nick Raven – EDU720 Week 10 Challenge Activity.docx Reply Reply to comment

  • It seems like a nice week of lessons you have planned! I was surprised by the 20 minutes of acquisition time , particularly as they are expected to do 20 hours worth of work. Do you not think acquisition would be also occuring during the challenges ? This could be me interpreting the challenges wrong , but I assume they would be receiving some sort of feedback Which may count as acquisition? Perhaps you can use one of the challenges as an instructive tool, providing a video tutorial at the end of the first challenge, only after it has been submitted, explaining what you expected the results to be, or an example of a good result? Reply Reply to comment

Collapse Sub discussion Michael Berthaume

Michael Berthaume

4 Aug 2020 4 Aug at 20:11

Here is mine!Week 10 challenge activity_Berthaume.docx Reply Reply to comment

  • Looks good to me Michael. I had the same issue around the split – where it’s necessary to convey information so students understand what it is they have to do and why, I think a higher acquisition / enquiry total is fine. This is a concern I have with this – I know Dario has said it is just a guideline and not to apply it rigidly, but it does feel like one has got it ‘wrong’ if the split isn’t what is suggested! Reply Reply to comment (1 likes)

Collapse Sub discussion Alex Bailey

Alex Bailey

5 Aug 2020 5 Aug at 9:48

Here is my draft design challenge activity. As such I do not teach as my main activity, rather I mentor leaners in their practice so there is no typical weeks teaching for me. In view of this I have used a web portfolio activity that I have been developing for my practice, that can be done over the course of a week for a learner to support them in defining and developing their creative practice, this manifests itself eventually in a web site. AB-EDU720 Week 10 Challenge Activity.pdf Reply Reply to comment

Like yourself I’m not involved in day-to-day teaching, which clearly affects the split. It’s also intriguing how much caries depending upon the subject being taught – the more practical and skills based it is, the greater the emphaisis / scope for practice and production…? Reply Reply to comment Collapse Sub discussion Suzanne Strudwick

Suzanne Strudwick

Tuesday 11 Aug at 18:32

  • Hi Alex, One aspect that I noticed immediately is the stated LO’s seem more to me as Aim’s. I’m not sure the learners would understand what their expectations are for the class based on the LO. I am also not sure which color code you would utilize based on the challange sheet activities. I would have thought the Green, lower cognitive activites, more production, watching, listening learning activities would be the framework. Very similar to my content. I do however understand the importance of this class in the overall learned knowledge and skill for the students and as you state, you are acting more of a mentor in this class.   Reply Reply to comment

Collapse Sub discussion Suzanne Strudwick

Suzanne Strudwick

Tuesday 11 Aug at 1:55

Here is my Week 10 CEG Framework. 

My class design used the Green Cards as this best reflects the course content with lower-order cognitive skills and more procedural production knowledge requirements. The class is part of the module for learning the full golf swing, this particular class is week 4 – Chipping. 

Learners are required to learn how to chip the ball correctly using fundamental movement skill in the correct sequence to apply these skill and build knowledge and understanding to learn the full golf swing movement patterns. 

Constructive alignment and SOLO Taxonomy for assessment is the core learning theory for the module, assessment is achieved through students applied to understand of the LO and how they apply and contrast to their own movement patterns and understand their own improvements. EDU720 Week 10 Challenge Activity SPS .pdf Reply Reply to comment Collapse Sub discussion Harriet Beesley

Harriet Beesley

Tuesday 11 Aug at 14:13

Hi all, attached is the framework for the first week of the first module on the Graphic Design MA. I’ve kept it pretty simple, as the first week of any course can be quite daunting and there is a lot of new information to assimilate. EDU720 Week 10 Challenge Activity – Harriet Beesley.pdf Reply Reply to comment

this looks good, i’m glad you have done a days activities as opposed to a week, as I only do 1 day a week modules and cover a different topic each week. The split is different as the expectation is for the student to do alot of online/self dorected study on top of the weekly taught session.

Interesting to break the session down in this way though, isn’t it ? Reply Reply to comment Collapse Sub discussion Suzanne Strudwick

Suzanne Strudwick

Tuesday 11 Aug at 19:11

  • Hi Harriet I had to look up what a quadtritych was! But now I know! I like your idea of giving the learners time to investigate the content, course during the first weeks sessions. This is sometimes overlooked in course design and I think this is important. You have given time for this investigation and inquiry. I also like giving a platform for the participants to share initial research, ideas and general discussion points on the Wall / Padlet showing WHO you are, WHAT you do, WHERE you are and WHY design.   Reply Reply to comment

Collapse Sub discussion Anna Dovey

Anna Dovey

Tuesday 11 Aug at 14:38

Here is my first attempt at the framework. It was a struggle as the only sessions I have produced have been on Study Skills, which sits somewhat outside the teaching norm and I chose the session on Information Literacy (IL) as I used a couple of exercises from that that worked really well. However it’s more about conveying information and putting that information into practice (assessing info) rather than producing a document per se.

This also didn’t fit the 70:20:10 split due to the above, however it did encourage me to think about *how* that session could be delivered purely online.EDU720 Week 10 Challenge Activity 1A.docx Reply Reply to comment

Hi Anna,

In my opinion, the split does not always work as a general rule for each teaching session for everyone. I think there are sessions which need more acquisition proportion, so did mine. 

Mia Reply Reply to comment (1 likes)

    • Hi Mia, Agreed, and this is a concern I have with the system – whilst I can see it’s helpful to have a best practice guideline, I worry a little it can be seen as a ‘rule’ – certainly I worried tht I hadn’t ‘met’ it! Reply Reply to comment

Collapse Sub discussion Rachel Butt

Rachel Butt

Tuesday 11 Aug at 17:42

Draft design , was interesting to break it down into these sections, may need tweaking depending on test sessionEDU720 Week 10 Challenge Activity.docx Reply Reply to comment Collapse Sub discussion Joel Ferguson

Joel Ferguson

Wednesday 12 Aug at 17:10

Hi all

Here is my first application of the CEG framework! I’m not quite sure I applied it very well. I feel like some items will overlap, for example: some students may find they acquire via practice. Also most of my tasks are designed to be done as creative pairs in keeping with UK advertising industry standards.

If I stretch some definitions ( I feel like I may have done some interpretation) then I land up rather close to the 70:20:10 split. I think this process is a really nice way to structure each week and I’m definitely considering applying this to the other weeks I have drafted so far to see where they can be improved to match!

I hope everyone is well and safe.Joel Ferguson – EDU720 Week 10 Challenge Activity.docx Reply Reply to comment

The framework reminds me of the lesson planning form – the first section at least asks many similar questions.

This framework seems like a good way to help tutors (who may not be pedagogic experts) design good online courses, but I’d be concerned that some would apply to rigidly (especially if new to teaching) and not bear in mind it is *one* model that can flex depending on the context.

PROFESSIONAL DIARY – so I was reflecting on the CRJ last week (only just remembered this) and it reminds me in some respects of the professional diary I had to keep for my CILIP chartership. Just the diary was more formal, organised and concise. I wonder if that format might suit some students better than this? It’s very easy to be sidetracked by Herodotean style digressions…

So this week was around the Cambridge Education Group pedagogic framework, to assist with the design of online learning based on research and best practice. This has resulted in the view that a 70:20:10 split between various learning activities achieves the best learning. My concern with this is that it seems to vary between subjects, skills sets and contexts in which the learning is occurring (see week 10 forum). Somehow, when you introduce numbers into the mix, psychologically they become ‘fixed’ and ending up with a different set of numbers feels ‘wrong’, no matter how often one is told it’s a guideline. If one is told that this equates to ‘best practice’ then failing to meet that feels just that – a failure in some way, no matter whether it’s actually a better split for that topic…

Reading Salmon ET’s chapter 2; she makes an interesting point that links with the ‘invisible student’ in Week 11; ” the lack of face-to-face and visual clues in online participation is a key ingredient of equity and success rather than a barrier. If the remoteness and virtuality are handled appropriately, they can increase the comfort level of e-moderators and participants alike.” This runs counter to my initial perspective. I wonder if there are those out there that prefer online to F2F?

Leave a comment

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started