Development of online learning materials.

For the BLE, given that content is learned independently online, it is imperative for students to be provided with learning materials complete, concise, engaging, and easy to understand. My ultimate objective is efficient and effective learning of key course concepts in the independent, online environment. I achieve this objective by developing my own online learning materials, for example the online textbook I developed for SPPH 552: Risk and Communication in Public Health.

Promoting student engagement with online learning materials.

I promote active engagement with online materials by asking students to synthesize, interpret, and apply their online learning in different ways. For example, after reading a section of the online textbook on risk communication, students might be asked to distill something that they have learned into the form of a Tweet (280 characters) or to share examples and additional information on topics of articular interest to them using the class blog.

I also use the Discussion Board feature of Canvas within each module to answer questions, share additional content, facilitate asynchronous discussions among the students, and ensure the BLE is ‘working’. I have found that by asking students to use this feature (vs. emailing me directly) and by responding to posts at least every 24 hours, students become more engaged with the online platform and with each other.

Finally, I continuously revise the online materials based on student feedback in order to maximize the accessibility and impact of these resources. For example, I deployed a survey at the end of the spring 2020 offering of SPPH 552 focused on identifying those areas of the online textbook that would benefit from expansion, reorganization, and clarification. The results of this survey are currently being used to develop the second version of the textbook.

Synergy between the asynchronous/online and synchronous/face-to-face components.

I carefully design the online and face-to-face components so that they work together for maximum impact. For example, I no longer deliver lectures as I find that students are better able to ‘digest’ (i.e., learn and practice) the didactic portions of the course online. Instead, I use face-to-face time to engage in activities and exercises that enable students to synthesize concepts and develop higher order thinking skills (e.g., creating and evaluating).

For example, for SPPH 552, after completing modules regarding message development, media engagement, government communications, and communication style, students are asked to develop a briefing note in preparation for a face-to-face session. During that session, students work in pairs for a simulated media interview activity (“Mastering the Media”) in which they trade briefing notes and use the other student’s briefing note to develop journalistic questions. The students then interview each other in front of the class, evaluate their own experience, and receive structured feedback from their peers and from the instructors.

Focus on collaborative inquiry.

Face-to-face sessions are entirely based around collaborative activities that focus on inquiry-based learning. I believe that higher-level learning is best achieved through open-minded dialogue between individuals with varying perspectives, and that this dialog is facilitated through activities that involve grappling with interesting and challenging problems. Dialog is further supported by providing the students with sufficient structure to progress through the activity efficiently, while still putting the students’ own questions, ideas, opinions, etc. at the centre of the learning experience. Below are two examples of activities involving collaborative inquiry.

Creating learner-centred assessments.

I develop assessments within a framework (provided to the students) so that it is clear how they flow from the modules, how they fit together and, how they help the students to achieve their learning goals.

I also prioritize opportunities for formative assessment, both within and beyond the formal assessment.  For example, I like to employ repeat assignments, where the students revisit the same type of assignment across several modules so that they can hone their skills and learn from past experiences. I also provide students with opportunities for feedback and revision on assignments prior to summative assessment. In SPPH 552 I have students work towards their final assignment (a risk communication plan) by submitting a weekly diary discussing how they could apply the concepts learned that week to the development of their communication plan. The diary entries are low stakes (points awarded mainly for effort) and I use them to engage students in an ongoing ‘conversation’ about their project.

Finally, in my experience, students are enthusiastic about assessing each other, and do so in a supportive, creative, and impactful way – frequently providing unique and interesting perspectives and ideas. For this reason, I incorporate structured peer feedback opportunities in all my in-class activities and many of my assignments, such as the Elevator Pitch activity.

Promoting the development of meaning and agency.

I try to develop assignments and activities that resonate with the students beyond the classroom. For example, I usually require students to come up with their own topics, whether it be for a blog post or a term-long communication plan project. I also encourage students to work on topics that have personal meaning, that can be used for their jobs or theses, or that can be incorporated into the textbook so that future students can learn from past ones.

Most importantly, my first and most important learning goal is for student to find their own authentic voice. I do this by creating a learning environment that fosters creativity, individuality and bravery. For example, I reward students for expressing themselves in the context of the course and bringing their own persona into their work. I do this by clearly outlining the core requirements for an exercise or assignment, but then allowing students the latitude to interpret those requirements in any way that they wish. I express the fact that I value diversity in the finished product and I allow students room within the course and marking rubrics to be brave and try out new ideas, even if they don’t end up working out as the student intended.

The Communication Plan Assignment provides an example of this approach to teaching.

Creating a flexible and adaptive BLE.

I believe that a blended learning environment should require the same time commitment from the student as more traditional formats. Unfortunately, this time commitment can be difficult to measure without the ‘contact time’ metric. I therefore also use tools like Rice University’s workload estimator to keep my courses at ~ 100 hours. However, I also recognize that students are in the best position to assess workload, therefore I schedule time during the face-to-face sessions for group discussions regarding the course progress and make adjustments in real time accordingly. Where possible I try to allow students flexibility and choice in order to allow them to manage the course in the context of their own lives. So, for example, I might post a blogging assignment in every module but have only the top 3 blogs count towards the final grade.