Reflection on my teaching practice through the GCLTHE
The teaching and learning context of SPH510, is a newly evolving context, grounded in a commitment to blended and flexible learning. The course design itself used a newly develop program deeply embedded in concepts of constructive alignment and authentic assessment. As SPH510 will be online, principles and practices of blended and flexible learning are foregrounded, not only in terms of types of technology, but also with the possibility of the reimagining of teaching and learning ‘spaces’. Increasing use of blended and flexible learning strategies seeks to respond to student needs for flexibility, and the changes in learning that have occurred since the introduction of new technologies over the last 30 years (Spector, 2012). Here I explore theory and practice of teaching and learning by considering six aspects of theory and practice in higher education that have challenged me in previous subjects in the GCTLHE and the extent to which the theories and principles of these are present with the current plans for SPH510.
Integration of technology and pedagogy, and the role of different learning spaces
The term blended and flexible learning is used widely to refer to the use of technology in teaching and learning. Technology can either supplement face to face interaction or be used as the primary means of teaching and learning. SPH510, will be taught online, engaging students with a range of technological learning and teaching tools and environments. Since engaging with Laurillard’s discussion on the blurring of formal and informal learning contexts (2012, pp. 39-42) I have been challenged to try a number of ‘informal’ learning environments including apps and websites for learning grammar and linguistic analysis, Ted Talks as the basis for discussion, and exploration of app based word games which use linguistic knowledge. These experiences have opened my mind to the possibilities of integrating subject content knowledge with online learning environments and tasks. However, I am also challenged that for some students, regardless of their age, the online learning environment is stress inducing (Spector 2012, pp. 124-126) and therefore transition to this environment needs to be supported. Further, beyond the choice of activity and technology, I have begun to imagine university teaching and learning outside of the ‘lecture/tutorial’ framework, where learning can occur within collaborative practice-based experiences. Rather than front-loading the students with knowledge before moving on to practice, maybe knowledge can be gained within the context of doing (Bass, 2012). This reflection forms the foundation for my thinking about SPH510.
Constructive alignment of assessments, learning outcomes and learning experiences
Through the process of creating subjects based on a series of authentic assessment tasks, the course design process has created constructive alignment (Biggs & Tang, 2007) between the learning outcomes above, and the assessment tasks. Biggs model of teaching through constructive alignment of learning outcomes, learning activities and assessment (Biggs, 1996), brought a sense of resolution to many aspects of my teaching and personal experiences of learning. Over the years, I had been in many discussions where people described others as ‘teaching to the test’ as a negative aspect of their practice. Through coming to understand constructive alignment in the creation of a learning environment in which outcomes, activities and assessment are all interconnected, I have found some freedom: the freedom to clearly state to students what they are expected to know and to create learning activities around those specific skills. The clarity of this process in the creation of the Master of Speech Pathology creates the opportunity for clearly communicating with students not only the learning outcomes of individual subjects, but also how these map onto the whole course. The challenge now is to continue the constructive alignment through to the learning experiences.
Collaborative and cooperative group-based learning
Student feedback and personal reflection on my experience of both being a student and a lecturer of first year students, has highlighted for me the important role of the learning community. Further, reflection on connectivist approaches to teaching and learning (e.g. Anderson & Dron, 2011), has supported my reimagining of teaching and learning spaces mentioned above. Given the physical distance and competing responsibilities of the potential students, the creation of a learning community will require intentionality from both the lecturers and the students. While we desire a flexible learning environment, we also seek places and times to bring students together to learn with and from each other. In order to facilitate this, I will be exploring a number of technologies that support group interaction, including wikis, chat rooms, blogs, and online meeting tools. Given the nature of the material of SPH510, it would be easy to allow students to individually develop their knowledge set and then present it for assessment. However, assessment was chosen that requires students to engage in processes of group-based learning whereby students not only discuss ideas and compare responses, but are also required to create a single product (Laurillard, 2012, pp. 187-188). In creating these learning tasks, I have put increased the focus on collaborative learning to include the creation of a group-based product for assessment. While undergraduate students have often struggled with ‘group-based’ assessment, there has not been explicit learning about the process of collaborative or connectivist learning. While I have long seen the benefits and the struggles of various forms of group-based learning, by theorizing these processes, I am beginning to understand the role of the teacher in shaping these processes.
Formative feedback
Especially in a newly developed subject, there can be differences between the intended learning outcomes and the actual learning outcomes as displayed by the students, despite the processes of constructive alignment. The feedback processes described by Hattie and Timperley (2013) seek to bridge that gap by focusing on providing appropriate goals, tasks and strategies to students, and then feedback that identifies the goals, the students’ progress and next steps. In this process, the aim is for formative, rather than just summative, feedback, whereby students are given the opportunity to get and respond to feedback before the completion of a task (Irons, 2007). By engaging in such a process of feedback, not only will students’ learning be supported, but the learning tasks themselves can be adjusted to meet the needs of individual students and cohorts. Through this process, the students gain feedback on their own progress, the teachers gain feedback on the subject and the teaching, and further, the student diversity comes to be something that enriches the learning and teaching experiences.
Authentic and criterion-based assessment
The assessment tasks for SPH105 were developed from a set of integrated standards. They are authentic tasks (Boud, 2008) that reflect the requirements of speech pathology practice as well as the academic requirements of a Masters-level course. In this first subject, students will create online clinical resources and develop clinical thinking and research skills. Students not only learn facts and concepts, but are immediately applying their new knowledge and skills to a tangible project, and gaining insight into ‘being a speech pathologist’. Authentic assessment tasks are particularly beneficial in subjects such as SPH510 which is often considered to be a ‘dry, knowledge-based’ subject that is necessary foundation rather than being itself authentic. They allow us as teachers to move beyond traditional cognitive-behaviourist approaches to teaching core knowledge and explore more constructivist, and possibly even connectivist approaches to teaching this material (Anderson & Dron, 2011). When students can not only understand why this is important, but also complete an authentic task, their motivation for not only the subject, but also the course increases.
Principles of transition
While SPH510 is a Masters level subject, it is also an introductory subject for an online course. Consequently, the First Year Curriculum Principles (Tinto, 2009; Kift, 2009) offer a framework for exploring ways to support student transition and engagement. For most students, this will be the first time they have studied online, and for many they will be returning to study after a number of years. They will use a range of technologies and group processes to support the development of student engagement, an support a process of ‘cognitive conflict’ (Laurillard, 2012) individually and collaboratively as they begin to engage with the subject content.
Kift (2009) lists six factors that influence the first year experience of students: transition, diversity, design, engagement, assessment, evaluation and monitoring. The last two of these have been discussed above, so here I will focus on the first four.
Transition refers to providing support for students as they begin engage in the cultural, social, and academic context on their learning. The challenge for SPH510 is to provide the support students need to engage positively with the online learning environment, and the tools that will be using to learn. The exploration of online learning tools is embedded into the assessment tasks. In designing the learning experiences, I will need to explore how to introduce and the model the use of these tools for the students. Further, exploring tools that may already be part of students networks and how these can be used in teaching and learning networks will further support student engagement. Further, be creating realistic assessments and learning experiences, students will be motivated to explore the tools as tools that are relevant for their future practice, not just a learning task. Breaking down the barrier between formal and informal learning environments (Laurillard, 2012), and allowing experiential learning to be part of the 'core curriculum' (Bass, 2012), student engagement will be increased. In order to support the ongoing constructive alignment of assessment tasks and learning experiences, the Smart Learn program will be used in the design of the learning experiences which support transition to online study through realistic learning experiences.
The diversity of backgrounds and personal and professional experiences of the students will be a potential source significant learning. In order to allow for this, learning through connectivity will need to be fostered. As Anderson and Dron (2012) discuss, the theory around learning through connectivity is much more developed than the theorising of the teaching practices. This will be a challenge for the design of SPH510. Online tools that support connection such as blogs, online meetings and wikis offer opportunity for student collaboration and the creation of a learning community. While the assessment includes tasks that require interact between students, the practicalities of this will be a challenge as we attempt to balance student flexibility with student connection.
Reflection on each of these trends has had a impact on my teaching, and the outcomes of students I teach. Along with my own teaching experiences and feedback from students, they have led me to trial some new learning experiences and assessment processes with the students. The opportunity of developing the new subject SPH510, and continue developing of the Master of Speech Pathology, will give me further opportunity to reflect on each of these principles and the practices that they led to.
The teaching and learning context of SPH510, is a newly evolving context, grounded in a commitment to blended and flexible learning. The course design itself used a newly develop program deeply embedded in concepts of constructive alignment and authentic assessment. As SPH510 will be online, principles and practices of blended and flexible learning are foregrounded, not only in terms of types of technology, but also with the possibility of the reimagining of teaching and learning ‘spaces’. Increasing use of blended and flexible learning strategies seeks to respond to student needs for flexibility, and the changes in learning that have occurred since the introduction of new technologies over the last 30 years (Spector, 2012). Here I explore theory and practice of teaching and learning by considering six aspects of theory and practice in higher education that have challenged me in previous subjects in the GCTLHE and the extent to which the theories and principles of these are present with the current plans for SPH510.
Integration of technology and pedagogy, and the role of different learning spaces
The term blended and flexible learning is used widely to refer to the use of technology in teaching and learning. Technology can either supplement face to face interaction or be used as the primary means of teaching and learning. SPH510, will be taught online, engaging students with a range of technological learning and teaching tools and environments. Since engaging with Laurillard’s discussion on the blurring of formal and informal learning contexts (2012, pp. 39-42) I have been challenged to try a number of ‘informal’ learning environments including apps and websites for learning grammar and linguistic analysis, Ted Talks as the basis for discussion, and exploration of app based word games which use linguistic knowledge. These experiences have opened my mind to the possibilities of integrating subject content knowledge with online learning environments and tasks. However, I am also challenged that for some students, regardless of their age, the online learning environment is stress inducing (Spector 2012, pp. 124-126) and therefore transition to this environment needs to be supported. Further, beyond the choice of activity and technology, I have begun to imagine university teaching and learning outside of the ‘lecture/tutorial’ framework, where learning can occur within collaborative practice-based experiences. Rather than front-loading the students with knowledge before moving on to practice, maybe knowledge can be gained within the context of doing (Bass, 2012). This reflection forms the foundation for my thinking about SPH510.
Constructive alignment of assessments, learning outcomes and learning experiences
Through the process of creating subjects based on a series of authentic assessment tasks, the course design process has created constructive alignment (Biggs & Tang, 2007) between the learning outcomes above, and the assessment tasks. Biggs model of teaching through constructive alignment of learning outcomes, learning activities and assessment (Biggs, 1996), brought a sense of resolution to many aspects of my teaching and personal experiences of learning. Over the years, I had been in many discussions where people described others as ‘teaching to the test’ as a negative aspect of their practice. Through coming to understand constructive alignment in the creation of a learning environment in which outcomes, activities and assessment are all interconnected, I have found some freedom: the freedom to clearly state to students what they are expected to know and to create learning activities around those specific skills. The clarity of this process in the creation of the Master of Speech Pathology creates the opportunity for clearly communicating with students not only the learning outcomes of individual subjects, but also how these map onto the whole course. The challenge now is to continue the constructive alignment through to the learning experiences.
Collaborative and cooperative group-based learning
Student feedback and personal reflection on my experience of both being a student and a lecturer of first year students, has highlighted for me the important role of the learning community. Further, reflection on connectivist approaches to teaching and learning (e.g. Anderson & Dron, 2011), has supported my reimagining of teaching and learning spaces mentioned above. Given the physical distance and competing responsibilities of the potential students, the creation of a learning community will require intentionality from both the lecturers and the students. While we desire a flexible learning environment, we also seek places and times to bring students together to learn with and from each other. In order to facilitate this, I will be exploring a number of technologies that support group interaction, including wikis, chat rooms, blogs, and online meeting tools. Given the nature of the material of SPH510, it would be easy to allow students to individually develop their knowledge set and then present it for assessment. However, assessment was chosen that requires students to engage in processes of group-based learning whereby students not only discuss ideas and compare responses, but are also required to create a single product (Laurillard, 2012, pp. 187-188). In creating these learning tasks, I have put increased the focus on collaborative learning to include the creation of a group-based product for assessment. While undergraduate students have often struggled with ‘group-based’ assessment, there has not been explicit learning about the process of collaborative or connectivist learning. While I have long seen the benefits and the struggles of various forms of group-based learning, by theorizing these processes, I am beginning to understand the role of the teacher in shaping these processes.
Formative feedback
Especially in a newly developed subject, there can be differences between the intended learning outcomes and the actual learning outcomes as displayed by the students, despite the processes of constructive alignment. The feedback processes described by Hattie and Timperley (2013) seek to bridge that gap by focusing on providing appropriate goals, tasks and strategies to students, and then feedback that identifies the goals, the students’ progress and next steps. In this process, the aim is for formative, rather than just summative, feedback, whereby students are given the opportunity to get and respond to feedback before the completion of a task (Irons, 2007). By engaging in such a process of feedback, not only will students’ learning be supported, but the learning tasks themselves can be adjusted to meet the needs of individual students and cohorts. Through this process, the students gain feedback on their own progress, the teachers gain feedback on the subject and the teaching, and further, the student diversity comes to be something that enriches the learning and teaching experiences.
Authentic and criterion-based assessment
The assessment tasks for SPH105 were developed from a set of integrated standards. They are authentic tasks (Boud, 2008) that reflect the requirements of speech pathology practice as well as the academic requirements of a Masters-level course. In this first subject, students will create online clinical resources and develop clinical thinking and research skills. Students not only learn facts and concepts, but are immediately applying their new knowledge and skills to a tangible project, and gaining insight into ‘being a speech pathologist’. Authentic assessment tasks are particularly beneficial in subjects such as SPH510 which is often considered to be a ‘dry, knowledge-based’ subject that is necessary foundation rather than being itself authentic. They allow us as teachers to move beyond traditional cognitive-behaviourist approaches to teaching core knowledge and explore more constructivist, and possibly even connectivist approaches to teaching this material (Anderson & Dron, 2011). When students can not only understand why this is important, but also complete an authentic task, their motivation for not only the subject, but also the course increases.
Principles of transition
While SPH510 is a Masters level subject, it is also an introductory subject for an online course. Consequently, the First Year Curriculum Principles (Tinto, 2009; Kift, 2009) offer a framework for exploring ways to support student transition and engagement. For most students, this will be the first time they have studied online, and for many they will be returning to study after a number of years. They will use a range of technologies and group processes to support the development of student engagement, an support a process of ‘cognitive conflict’ (Laurillard, 2012) individually and collaboratively as they begin to engage with the subject content.
Kift (2009) lists six factors that influence the first year experience of students: transition, diversity, design, engagement, assessment, evaluation and monitoring. The last two of these have been discussed above, so here I will focus on the first four.
Transition refers to providing support for students as they begin engage in the cultural, social, and academic context on their learning. The challenge for SPH510 is to provide the support students need to engage positively with the online learning environment, and the tools that will be using to learn. The exploration of online learning tools is embedded into the assessment tasks. In designing the learning experiences, I will need to explore how to introduce and the model the use of these tools for the students. Further, exploring tools that may already be part of students networks and how these can be used in teaching and learning networks will further support student engagement. Further, be creating realistic assessments and learning experiences, students will be motivated to explore the tools as tools that are relevant for their future practice, not just a learning task. Breaking down the barrier between formal and informal learning environments (Laurillard, 2012), and allowing experiential learning to be part of the 'core curriculum' (Bass, 2012), student engagement will be increased. In order to support the ongoing constructive alignment of assessment tasks and learning experiences, the Smart Learn program will be used in the design of the learning experiences which support transition to online study through realistic learning experiences.
The diversity of backgrounds and personal and professional experiences of the students will be a potential source significant learning. In order to allow for this, learning through connectivity will need to be fostered. As Anderson and Dron (2012) discuss, the theory around learning through connectivity is much more developed than the theorising of the teaching practices. This will be a challenge for the design of SPH510. Online tools that support connection such as blogs, online meetings and wikis offer opportunity for student collaboration and the creation of a learning community. While the assessment includes tasks that require interact between students, the practicalities of this will be a challenge as we attempt to balance student flexibility with student connection.
Reflection on each of these trends has had a impact on my teaching, and the outcomes of students I teach. Along with my own teaching experiences and feedback from students, they have led me to trial some new learning experiences and assessment processes with the students. The opportunity of developing the new subject SPH510, and continue developing of the Master of Speech Pathology, will give me further opportunity to reflect on each of these principles and the practices that they led to.