blended learning – Page 3

March 4, 2015March 4, 2015

thoughts on post-workshop reflection

yes, we’ve completed our first round of ICT for SDL and CoL Clinic for primary school teachers (TRAISI code: 12541, or 12541-00001). was reading wj’s facilitator reflection, and it just occurred to me that we have missed an excellent teachable moment!

“我比较不解的是-其实他们之间分享了很多实例了，老师要的是什么实例？……”

some teachers have indeed voiced during the first f2f, that they would like to learn and see 实例。 yes, in the 1-month online discourse, many tried-n-tested examples have indeed been surfaced by fellow course participants. so what are they exactly looking for? wj’s hypothesis is they may be looking for technical hands-on (knowledge). my guess is it stems from their less sophisticated epistemic beliefs. some do not see that ‘learning’ has occurred if ‘learning’ does not take place the way s/he may have 预期ed.

as the self-proclaimed mentor to wj, her performance is a reflection of my hand-holding. there’s much to learn cos i am just more experienced by 2 workshops *hahaha* *oops*. there’s quite a number of things to take note, many of which i have previously noted down. after reading wj’s reflection, one key takeaway for me is the key influence of the facilitator’s paradigm. not mine, but that of whoever i am hand-holding. the “struggle” could be a great one, for s/he will need to manage two sets of paradigm shifts — participants, and oneself.

that’s all for now. perhaps “more later” (Wu, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015) (:

150304-macro-reflection_640 (acknowledgement: ibangfotografi )

January 20, 2015January 20, 2015

post-workshop thoughts

yesterday’s our first Clinic session for primary school CL teachers (TRAISI: 12541). we have a total of 16 participants (13 prior signup; 2 walk-ins; 1 sit in). the largest class size we’ve experienced is 10 prior to this. 6 more participants may possibly change many things, especially the discourse dynamics (are the participants able to interact well? are posts/threads from 16 an overwhelming number? how many of them will be proactive contributors, and thus influencing the answers to the previous 2 qns?)

on the whole WJ is steady, and facilitated the session well for a first-timer. no doubt some teachers appeared hesitant on the “outcomes” of the workshop, we managed to close the first session with full participation in the first introductory post （帖子A）, as evident in the df.

after looking at WJ’s reflection, i begin to have a deeper appreciation of ‘struggles’ she’s experiencing as a facilitator of such dynamic/fluid workshop that’s set to achieve broad outcomes (cf. lesson objectives). coupled with an audience that may be so familiar (and fixated) with SIOs, it’s not an easy session to facilitate.

on my part, i am also thinking of what i should do more, in terms of handholding future facilitator who would like to try out our blended learning approach.

things that i have done for/with WJ:

1. sharing of past workshop resources
2. reviewing and planning of activities (incl. schedule, instructions in handout)
2. logistical assistance (online: including setting up of coursespace wiki & df, ironing out of course publisher, setting up of fb groups; classroom: furniture arrangement, electrical wirings)

one single thing that stood out which i felt strongly i could have done more:
– to do a recap of the set of slides, and clarify the meaning and the link between slides starting from 缘起 part. i did not take this step as i safely assumed that these ideas would have been clear to WJ as she has sat in two previous sessions. a good reminder for me to rethink how to make my presentation clearer the next time in a single round. i felt it is important to make them see (or at least let them relate to some past experience) on the usefulness of pure f2f workshops, regardless of length. then we follow to sell why our experimental approach may work better.

– my failure to do this also affected the explanation of the 2-part design (Clinic-Studio). making a clearer emphasis of the design, and how the two are related yet focused differently, may also help to allay the doubts of some participants on the ‘takeaways’.

教学相长 as we often say. in the process, may we both improve on our facilitation skills. that’s all for now, “more later!” (Wu, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015) (：

lake photo (acknowledgement: photo by LoggaWiggler)

November 16, 2014November 16, 2014

blended learning 的联想

a fellow co-learner in the course wrote this as part of weekly reflection activity:

“混成式的学习方式，和一般的面对面的上课学习，在时间上的付出更多。面对面的上课，一下课就是下课，可以不去管它了。但是混成式的学习方式好像不是这样，有帖子A，B，C，有贴1反2，有反思等等。对于“自主学习”和“协作学习”的概念，就一直跟着我，好像每一天都要拿出来在脑子里想一想。虽然每天都在想它们，想得很多很多，一有空就想，无时无刻都在想，但是要把所想的都打写出来，又没有那么多的时间。”

混成式学习的“阴魂不散”，其实所发挥的仅仅是ICT教学所提供的可能性，即每一个人，不受时空限制，只要有想法、有问题，都能够展开或进入学习的“状态”。

这里也深刻带出另一个问题，即ICT绝对和“省时”搭不上关系。或许在基本材料的准备从长远来看是省下了一些时间，但是作回复、为回复而事先搜索查证、阅读、理解，整理内容发帖子分享想法、问题，这些种种的种种都是需要大量精神与时间的付出的。

当学生都积极学习时，教师的“Happy Problem”出现了。试想，当班上40名学生的“学习引擎”若被我们开动了，那种学习所产出的排山倒海的内容不是一个教5班带200个学生的教师所能招架的。怎么办？！？

这或许就是为什么我们要培养学生的SDL和CoL。有了SDL的自我监控（无论是个人学习，或是对小组负责），都能省却教师一些“监控”的时间，转而把精神放在引导学生；有了CoL，小组内出现分工，学习不再是一个人的事，同侪间各有所得、各有长进。最重要的是，学习将是学生主动、教师辅动的意义建构中产生的。

我们目前的挑战或许是，有些华文老师也许觉得有太多的“课文要教”、“技能要教”。要让学生有机会负起SDL、CoL式的学习，或许还得从教师如何看待“学习”这回事着手，才有可能改变教学的设计。是这样吗？

感激老师的这一段反思，推进了我的思考　(:

November 13, 2014November 13, 2014

2nd reflection on course 12470-00002 facilitation

转眼下周一就要是课程的“结束”会晤了。需要做准备的事已在脑海萦绕了几天了。

回顾过去10天的线上交流活动，相较于上一轮的课，这一回的老师们在个别讨论的互动率有明显的增多。这主要集中在分享个人的经验和想法，也有一部分的回复是衍生的问题。“质疑性”的问题(questioning assumptions)则还未多见，这或许是老师们对彼此尊重的“文化”表现吗？又或是老师们还不习惯问“为什么” (Why)的问题？急不来，文化是要时间改变的，习惯是要时间培养的 (：

上一轮课的结束会晤我主要做了整个讨论的内容分析和观察，感觉有些过于“说教”，参与度能进一步提高就更好。思索着，是否应该给老师们“增添”一份会晤前的“功课”，让愿意准备想分享的老师(“sdl”)谈谈他们对于这次课的经验如何影响他们日后设计SDL/CoL课时的过程和课本身的内容，限时5分钟，由此或许能引起一些讨论和擦出进一步的火花来？ *hmmmm* 还得想一想。

得去做我的“说教”部分的准备了，期待再度与老师们会晤面对面继续我们的思考与探索 (:

rainbow photo (acknowledgement: photo by werner22brigitte)