Rationale for Course Design Terri Smith
As detailed in the course descriptor, I have designed a blended learning course over a 12 week period. It comprises 3 face to face sessions, the rest of the activities being undertaken online. The principle ethos of the course is
experiential, although there are constraints to that imposed by the organisational context of the course, as I have taken into account the practicality of being able to run this course in the near future within Quarriers. I will look at definitions of experiential learning and use these to explain the features of my course design with reference to the unique affordances of online learning for experiential learning. I will also look at modifications to some traditional principles and practice of how experiential learning should be conducted due to its being conducted in an online group setting.
Kolb’s Learning Cycle ‘Online’.
Toohey (1999) sees the principles of experiential learning as learning that is both drawn from life experience, past and present and experiences planned and organised for the course of learning itself. Kolb’s (1993) view of experiential learning sees it as being about knowledge creation, rather than as a passive act of receiving knowledge, a process beyond the confines of formal educational, but as ‘the major process of human adaptation’ (p149) Within this view, learning outcomes become ‘meaningless’ as we cannot know what will unfold and change in the dynamic cycle of learning (p151). Consequently, content is focused on activity that links concrete experience (work, social and personal life), reflective observation (discussion, recording of personal thought) abstract
conceptualisation (theory - talks, reading etc) and active experimentation (development planning).
My course design offers an alternation of Kolb’s learning cycle throughout .I have written up in red particular activities relating to active experimentation, giving learners a time period for real life implementation, and an aim of feeding back the results of action plans. This sequence ‘restarts’ the cycle of learning, as the result of reflection on that experience will create new knowledge, knowledge which is particular to, and draws its meaning from, the lives and cultural settings of not just the learners, but those they interact with. I would see online learning as a particularly significant way of enabling experiential learning within the setting of Quarriers; we have on occasions up to a 50% cancellation rate for one day training courses. Social care workers can be required for last minute shift cover with very little notice; the central training premises are also rurally located and difficult to access – disruption to planned face to face learning is high.
Steve Eskow (2007) refers to ‘ee – Learning‘(experiential e learning) and points out the particular affordance of online learning to integrate the worlds of theory and practice. Online learning deconstructs the traditional ‘scholastic enclosure’
(Bourdieu cited Eskow) of the higher educational institute. Eskow’s premise is
that ‘ee- learning can bring the two scenes [work and study] together in a single powerful pedagogical practice’. I think here he is referring to the alternation of work / study possible in the flexibility of online learning, but would add my own thought that the ‘two scenes’ are different not only in the ‘activities’ of these different worlds (work/ study) but in the qualities of disembodiment, time lag and so on that are features of digital presence. These features imbue reflective activity (in particular) with a unique quality as the sensory and time parameters are different from face to face. I would think it likely that these differences may enhance the reflective process for some learners.
I have planned the course with the preferences of all learners in mind; reflection takes place in both on and offline settings. I would like however to point out the range of reflective tools available in online learning; text based tools - blog, discussion board, wiki, instant chat, email enable different varieties of individual or collaborative reflectiveness. Asynchronous discussion board is a unique reflective tool which does not have a classroom equivalent. I have made extensive use of this and the other tools above in the course design I have chosen to work within the range of tools provided in Moodle for collaborative work; although some (the wiki, the chat module, the chatbox
module for example) are not the most powerful tools of that nature. This is due to current network policies about the use of skype and pb works in Quarriers,
although access to Facebook, you tube and twitter is permitted. I considered the use of twitter as a tool in this course but decided that the public nature of the platform wasn’t suitable for the levels of disclosure I hoped learners would feel comfortable with. Moodle’s chatbox module, a twitter – like tool, only displays internally in the course, as there are considerations around confidentiality for a course where learners share personal information and views,
I have suggested learners make use of a café forum, or set up a course Facebook page to create a socialising network to complement the course. I imagine it might raise boundary issues, but would be all the more ‘grist for the mill’ in terms of the richness of experience in the course (I envisage it as being owned by the students rather than the organisation)
The pitch of the theory in the course is appropriate to the level of subsequent qualification SCQF levels (6 – 8) for the job roles of the learners. I have opened out the creation of learning resources to the learner group towards the second half of the course, but have kept the resources within the first half of the course pitched at basic level, using multimedia resources whenever possible – video, graphics to break up chunks of reading, and provision of graphic representations of information, or accessed pre authored multimedia resources (week 4, 2). It would be my intention to author most theory presentation within web pages for each week of the course on Moodle (as exampled in week 11, week 6) or on Xerte, our course builder tool. Transcript, or alternative web links for study will be
provided to maximize accessibility; the computer network in Quarriers is untested for efficacy in respect to using multimedia formats in learning.
Other Learning Styles
Toohey (1999) cites Malcolm Knowles views of andragogy, which has overlapping principles with experiential learning, as both learning from experience and changing the nature of lived experience is a key aim of adult education.
Toohey(1999) proposes that knowledge ‘gaps’ within experiential learning can be identified by adopting Knowles use of competencies, seeing self direction as constrained by the requirements of a profession or discipline that learners are engaging with. Within my course design, I have included some external models of ‘competency’ assessment for areas of behavioural and psychological
competence, I have used standard testing instruments e.g. MBTI scores (not a deficit model, but an awareness one), transactional analysis style etc. I have also encouraged individual self assessment through use of reflection in learner’s own blogs, and paired or group feedback on aspects of each individual’s self development plans at various stages in the course. The latter are more in line with the ‘self directed’ principles of andragogy, in that competency is self assessed and in some instances, potentially modified by peers.
The use of a competency model in adult learning gives emphasis to a strand closer to Toohey’s account of the systems approach to learning, which is also an aspect of my course design. The course’s purpose is to develop the
communication skills of social care workers – it has a definite performance ethos.
Paradoxically, social care is a ‘vocation’ in the traditional sense, of a job that carries a social mission element within it. A core part of the skills base that contributes to overall performance of the worker is human relations skills, and
‘personal’ development is an inferred part of professional practice. Kolb (1993 p138) sees experiential learning not as an ‘alternative to behavioural and
cognitive learning theories’ but ‘as a holistic, integrative perspective on learning which combines experience, perception, cognition, and behaviour’. I have included a range of activities which cover these approaches particularly in the discussion board topics around reading, but also in the some of the development planning which looks to learners implementing new behaviours, particularly in the assertiveness topics. The difference here is that experience and feedback on the implementation of new behaviours – arguably a performance oriented goal – changes the learning from performance based to experiential, and introduces the potential for critiques of the models of behaviour, and/or creative changes to what can be a passively taught ‘canon’ of knowledge.
Self Directed Learning v. The Group
The course design, although integrating aspects of learner’s self direction in articulating personal and practice goals (week 2,5, week 6,5) has not been the result of the collaboration between learners and tutor, as advocated by Knowles (Smith 2007) There are I think practical difficulties with meeting the assignment remit here, but further to that, there are difficulties conceptualising self directed learning within a group environment, an online environment and a learning process which is in itself an experiential focus. Knowles envisages a 5 step process throughout the course of learning, starting with a diagnosis and
formulation of learning needs with the student. Smith (2007) cites Merriam and Cafferella’s (1991) and others concerns with Knowles conceptualisation, both in its linearity, and in its failure to integrate the experiential nature of learning.
The ending of the course (week 12) is the point at which I would see genuine self directed learning occurring; the facilitation for the face to face evaluation of
learning would be of a quality which sought to enable learner centred activities of an informal type to be created. This would be formed by the learners themselves to fit with their needs and their availability for meeting up online or offline and would potentially be entirely self directed. This fits with Kolb’s (1993) notion of learning as a ‘continuous process’.
Another difficulty that arises from elements of the individualistic tradition of
experiential learning models is the failure to conceptualise the effect of the group setting on the learner process. This is part of the ‘experience of the learning experience’ which Knowles omits from his model. In my course design I have anticipated that the experience of the differing learning environments and the experience of the learning group will become an experiential focus for learning about communication. I have therefore built in opportunities for reflection on group role and process in week’s 9 & 10. Groupwork models of many kinds would identify that development in a group is distinct from self development, though the two inevitably overlap.
Farhad Dalal (2000), writing of group analysis, says that we are subject to elements of the wider experience of the group as they have encountered the
‘structuring forces of ideology and discourse’ embedded in what is referred to as the ‘social unconscious’, a group analytic concept which has parallels to Jung’s concept of the collective’s unconscious. Dalal’s point is that we are each an
‘undigested piece of society’ (Harland cited in Dalal 2000 pp219 - 220) and that to meet up as a group enables us to draw on a far richer realm of experience than that of the boundaries of our ‘western monological self’ (Usher 1997) It then becomes problematic to plot individual courses of learning, as the experience of the learning group starts to change our view of what we might need or want to learn.
Thus self directed activity needs to alternate with group negotiated activity. I have incorporated this alternation in the course design through the range of tasks and tools available; extensive wiki activity, both group and individual runs throughout the course in conjunction with use of blog and discussion board, with both
individuals and groups being tasked with activities.
This brings into play another element which I consider to add to the complexity of both self and group directed activities – the development of the specifically online group. Gilly Salmon (2006) advocates clearly structured tasks to support group learning and advises the tutor that their ‘participants are clear about your intended objectives for an e - tivity. Start with the end in mind’.(p88) In some respects this flies in the face of shaping learning process round experience, but I take Salmon’s point that to some degree structured activities provide ‘scaffolding’
within digital environments which can have their own anxiety factors for learners, over and above the anxiety of the ‘forming’ stage of a new group. I have
envisaged the course as being available to learners who may be new to online learning, which is why the first day is face to face. I would hope to reduce anxiety factors with this approach, and the increased intensity of projection that can occur in online environments. (Suler 2004). I have also incorporated a series of technical workshops to skill learners to negotiate the ‘access and motivation stage of Salmon’s 5 stage model.
In conclusion, online learning offers a particular affordance for experiential
learning due to its range of tools, elements of digital presence and the practicality of achieving group and individual reflection that interfaces with regular access to active experimentation in work settings
References
Dalal, F (2000).Elements of a Post Foulkesian Group Analytic Theory in Taking the Group Seriously (Jessica Kingsley London) pp157 - 227
Kolb, D. (1993). The process of experiential learning. In Culture and processes of Adult Learning. M. Thorpe, R. Edwards, and A. Hanson (Eds.). (Buckingham, OUP): pp. 138-156.
Salmon G. (2006). E – tivities, The Key to Active Online Learning (RoutledgeFalmer)
Suler. J, The Disinhibition Effect in The Psychology of Cyberspace, 2004 http://users.rider.edu/~suler/psycyber/disinhibit.html
Smith, M. K. (1996, 2000). Curriculum theory and practice. The encyclopedia of informal education.. http://www.infed.org/biblio/b-curric.htm
Toohey, S. (1999). Beliefs, values and ideologies in course design. In Designing courses for higher education. Toohey, S. (Buckingham, SRHE and OUP): pp. 44- 69.
Trevitte, C., and S. Eskow. 2007 Reschooling Society and the Promise of ee – Learning: An Interview with Steve Eskow. Innovate 3 (6).
Usher, R., Bryant, I. and Johnston, R. (1997). Reconfiguring the other: self and experience in adult learning. Adult Education and the Postmodern Challenge.
(London, Routledge): pp. 93-121
Course Descriptor
Course Title: Effective Communication for Social Care Practice
Course Level: This course is designed primarily to support interpersonal and professional practice in communication for frontline workers in a variety of social care related job roles; it links into elements of underpinning knowledge for SQA accredited qualifications in social care such as HNC/HND, SVQ3 & 4 in Health and Social Care at level SCQF 6 – 9
Within the context of the SSSC’s Continuous Learning Framework, this course aims to increase the personal capabilities of workers in social care and can be characterised as a ‘soft skills’ course.
This is a blended learning course running over 12 weeks, with 3 face to face sessions, and 9 weeks of learning conducted online. You need daily access to a computer with adobe flash player, sound output, and a broadband connection, although transcripts of multimedia material will also be provided. It is expected that participants would spend an average of around 5 hours per week
undertaking course activities.
Learning Outcomes
To understand effective communication and listening skills in professional practice and the application of these to diverse contexts
To develop a complex understanding of your own assertiveness skills and the application of this to your own personal or professional development
To understand the key elements of effective team working, and to assess the impact of your own personal team ‘type’ on your contribution to, and experience of, teams
To understand and apply the principles of groupwork theory and practice to your professional contexts with both colleagues and service users
To gain an experiential understanding of digital environments for learning and communicating, and its application to peer and team learning.
Course Content Week 1: Introduction
The course starts with a face to face group meeting. This will be a course overview and introduction to the elements of theory and practice relating to communication contexts of the individual, the pair, and the group. Learners will
also undergo an orientation to the online environment we will be using for the course.
Week 2 – 4: Communication Skills
The following 3 weeks online we will look at the practice of effective
communication and listening skills, referring to a diverse set of contexts in social care relating to the experience of the learners real work activities
Week 5 – 7: Assertiveness
This part of the course enables the learners to work practically on their own assertiveness through a self development plan and reflective weblog, charting the application of assertiveness in either personal or professional contexts, or both
Week 8: Group work
The group meet again for a face to face session on groupwork practice,
introducing the theme of communication in groups and teams. There will also be opportunity to reflect on the impact of practice changes and development plans actioned by learners so far
Week 9 – 11: Communication in Groups and Teams
Participants will look at the application of communication to group and team settings, including online groups and teams. There will be the opportunity to reflect on their own style of participation in these, and consider the relational and dynamic issues that arise in these settings.
Week 12: Course Evaluation and Feedback Session
In the final week, participants will meet up again face to face to reflect on the experience of the course and how it has impacted on them personally, and on their work practice.
Course Methods
The course interweaves face to face sessions with learning online. Both these settings will make use of group discussion and a variety of collaborative activities to enable learners to draw on their own experience and knowledge, as well as that of their peers, when considering models and concepts relating to
communication contexts.
Use will be made in the online environment of a variety of learning tools,
including extensive use of multimedia (podcasts, videos and graphics) as well as wikis, blogs, surveys, discussion boards and instant chat. Support for use of these will be given on the course. If learners wish to utilise multimedia input for their own course contributions (these are optional) and require further help with this, please contact Claire Jeffrey of the e learning team prior to, or during, the course. The environments and tools being utilised across the course will be part
of the learning of the course. Whilst this is not specifically a course in online communication, we will periodically reflect on the additional or differing factors in online environments for communication between individuals and groups.
It is expected that you will be able to bring a reflective approach to learning materials, relating these to the context of your work, and being open about the nature of your experience of others and yourself within your workplace and the learning group. The course spans 12 weeks to allow time for the integration of your learning into real life / work activities.
Assessment and Certification for the Course
The course assessment will take place in the final session, and will consist of self and peer assessment. You must attend 90% of sessions and (i.e. participate in 90% of all learning activities on or offline) to attain a certificate of completion of this course. The emphasis in the assessment process is to enable you to utilise the course to become a better practitioner, as well as to improve your group and one to one communication skills for your personal benefit
It is expected that you will be able to use much of your text based contributions to learning activities as APL for SVQ3 or 4, in the units indicated at the start, or as the basis for further assignments in HNC/D for the relevant units. You should discuss this with your tutor or assessor if you are currently undertaking any of these qualifications
Confidentiality
Given the nature of the course, participants are assured that both offline and online discussions are considered confidential, and that agreements will be clarified with the learning group in regard to this at the start of the course. The online discussion board is permission protected and is only accessible to course participants, the tutor and the site administrator.
