Más contenido relacionado


Más de Parisa Mehran(20)


Design, Implementation, and Evaluation of an English Blended Course

  1. Parisa Mehran ETA-ROC 2018 Design, Implementation, and Evaluation of an English Blended Course
  2. Osaka University Global English Online (OUGEO)
  3. Instructional Design for Online Course Delivery Photo: things-you-could-create-instead-of-an-e-learning-course
  4. ADDIE Model Analysis Design DevelopmentImplementation Evaluation Needs, Requirements, Learners’ current capabilities Learning objectives, Delivery format, Activities and tasks Developing course materials, Piloting Measurement of performance, Learning analytics Training implementation, Observation
  5. Successive Approximation Model (SAM 1)
  6. Successive Approximation Model (SAM 2)
  7. Designing and Developing a Blended Course Using SAM
  8. Checklists and Rubrics Photo: handy-e-learning-course-review-checklist
  9. The Standards Checklist by Marjorie Vai and Kristen Sosulski (2011) The checklist contains items on: • learning outcomes • ease of communication • pedagogical and organizational design • visual design • engaged learning • collaboration and community • Assessment • Feedback • evaluation and grading • ease of access
  10. Quality Matters Higher Education Course Design Rubric Standards, Fifth Edition (2014): “A set of eight General Standards and 43 Specific Review Standards used to evaluate the design of online and blended courses”
  11. 1 Course Overview and Introduction 2 Learning Objectives 3 Assessment and Measurement 4 Instructional Materials 5 Learner Activities and Learner Interaction 6 Course Technology 7 Learner Support 8 Accessibility and Usability
  12. Detailed Analysis of the Situation
  13. Detailed Analysis of the Situation Needs Analysis e-learning Readiness
  14. Needs Analysis Survey Listening Speaking Pronunciation 278 Japanese undergraduate students 12 instructors
  15. Placing emphasis on EGAP  ESP courses Having three levels based on CEFR (Common European Framework of Reference) Integrating all four skills with special focus on speaking Focusing on pronunciation training Course Design Implications
  16. Alizadeh, M., Mehran, P., Koguchi, I., & Takemura, H. (2018). Language needs analysis and internationalization of higher education: The unaddressed factor in Japan. JACET Kansai Journal, 20, 156–173.
  17. When one thinks of Japan mons/3/39/ASIMO_4.28.11.jpg
  18. Low digital literacy among Japanese “digital natives” Technology has not yet been normalized in Japanese educational settings
  19. e-Learning Readiness Survey Willingness Educational Use Personal Use AccessOwnership Computer Literacy  299 Japanese undergraduate students  The study focused on:
  20. Are Japanese Digital Natives Ready for Learning English Online? The answer is clearly “no”! Japanese digital natives also tend to use their phones for gaming, entertainment, and personal communication far more than for educational activities (Lockley & Promnitz- Hayashi, 2012)
  21. Digital literacy training (e.g., typing) Desktop computers and mobile devices Edutainment and gamification Learning/Teaching Implications
  22. Sample student-generated AR-based poster 1 Code: 238935
  23. Mehran, P., Alizadeh, M., Koguchi, I., & Takemura, H. (2017). Are Japanese digital natives ready for learning English online? A preliminary case study at Osaka University. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14(8), 1–17. doi:10.1186/s41239-017- 0047-0
  24. What To Do? • Determining the course overall goals, learning objectives, and learning outcomes • Designing a multidimensional syllabus: skill-based and task-based • Increasing motivation and global awareness among Japanese learners of English • Addressing copyright issues • Writing the course calendar • Designing tasks, activities, and quizzes • Preparing tutorials and rubrics for writing and speaking assignments
  25. English Listening Lesson Library Online Course Content & Copy Right issues
  26. Global Explorers
  27. Prototyping • Creating a sample for demo at the Osaka University FD Seminar • Uploading the course content on Blackboard • Checking the quality of the content on Blackboard mobile applications • Iterative review cycles to evaluate, refine, and modify the previous process  Course labeling • Modifying course learning objectives and materials  Adding global concerns and issues
  28. e-Learning Authoring Tools Adobe Captivate iSpring Suite
  29. Mehran, P., Alizadeh, M., Koguchi, I., & Takemura, H. (2017). Designing and developing a blended course: Toward best practices for Japanese learners. In K. Borthwick, L. Bradley, & S. Thouësny (Eds.), CALL in a climate of change: Adapting to turbulent global conditions – short papers from EUROCALL 2017 (pp. 205–210). Dublin: doi:10.14705/rpnet.2017.eurocall2017.680
  30. Alizadeh, M., Mehran, P., Koguchi, I., & Takemura, H. (2017). Learning by design: Bringing poster carousels to life through augmented reality in a blended English course. In K. Borthwick, L. Bradley, & S. Thouësny (Eds.), CALL in a climate of change: Adapting to turbulent global conditions – short papers from EUROCALL 2017 (pp. 7–12). Dublin: Research- doi:10.14705/rpnet.2017.eurocall2017.714
  31. • After prototyping and applying the changes, OUGEO was implemented in the spring semester of 2017 (April–July). • The iterative evaluation continued, and some minor modifications were applied during the implementation phase such as adding Japanese translations to the course instructions.
  32. An attitudinal survey: Students’ perception on the usefulness of the course To add an outsider positionality, the blended course was peer-reviewed by a certified reviewer from Quality Matters (QM) after having been self- reviewed by the researchers.
  33. Students’ overall satisfaction with the course despite the occasional technical difficulties caused by the malfunctioning of the learning management system The QM peer review: First round: a score of 70 out of 99 Second round: the course currently meets all the requirements of the Higher Education Course Design Rubric (Fifth Edition) upon amendment.
  34. Lessons Learned and Advice
  35. Be ready to change Designing and developing an online/blended course is an ongoing process Do not forget about OER resources Consider time demands Check for course organization and navigation Instead of constantly reinventing the wheel, look for freely available resources Developing effective online resources is often much more time- consuming than creating classroom learning materials No matter how professionally you have developed and compiled your online resources, they will not be effective as long as they are not well-organized.
  36. Care about course accessibility and usability Include information on accessibility support as well as technical and academic support services Foster social presence Always keep your course objectives in mind Be ready to deal with technical glitches For example, simple activities such as introducing themselves to the class Your objectives are the core component leading all your actions and decisions No matter how hard you have attempted at designing and developing your course, there are things that will not work occasionally or constantly Think of alternative solutions
  37. Alizadeh, M., Mehran, P., Koguchi, I., & Takemura, H. (2018). Evaluating a blended course for Japanese learners of English: Why Quality Matters. Manuscript submitted for publication to IALLT Journal.
  39. #OsakaUniversityGlobalEnglishOnline #OUGEO

Hinweis der Redaktion

  1. Osaka University Global English Online (OUGEO) Under the project title of Osaka University Global English Online (OUGEO), a blended course of English for General Academic Purposes (EGAP) was designed and developed at Osaka University targeting second-year undergraduate students for a period of 15 weeks, of which 10 sessions were purely online and 5 sessions were face-to-face.
  2. The basic Successive Approximation Model (SAM 1) proposed by Allen (2012) was selected as the guiding instructional design model upon which the course was created. The first reason we opted for this model was that it is an improvement over earlier models of instructional design such as the ADDIE model. The latter consists of five discrete stages of Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation sequenced in a linear fashion and is described as a waterfall approach, whereas SAM 1 not only allows for but also necessitates iteration. In addition, it is a more appropriate choice for smaller projects where an individual or a small team are involved in the process of instructional design.
  3. The first step in this process was to conduct a meticulous review of standards checklists for online course design and development to determine where to start from. One useful resource was the checklist provided by Vai and Sosulski (2011, pp. 189-195), which is a reader-friendly guide on the basics of online course design and includes a detailed list of criteria to consider when designing and developing an online course. The checklist contains items on learning outcomes, ease of communication, pedagogical and organizational design, visual design, engaged learning, collaboration and community, assessment, feedback, evaluation and grading, and finally ease of access.
  4. The second major resource used was the Higher Ed Course Design Rubric developed by Quality Matters (2014) which can be used for the design of fully online and blended courses.
  5. This rubric contains eight general standards on course overview and introduction, learning objectives, assessment and measurement, instructional materials, course activities and learner interaction, course technology, learner support, accessibility and usability, which can aid course designers in meeting those standards from the outset.
  6. We also created a Google site for OUGEO (, where we could document everything and keep track of all the procedures involved in course design and development.
  9. The findings of the evaluation survey demonstrated students’ overall satisfaction with the course, and their responses to the open-ended questions provided further insight into the educational and technical difficulties they encountered. The QM peer review also yielded a score of 70 out of 99, resulting in failure to meet the essential standards. However, comments from the peer reviewer guided the refinements and improvement of the course design, and the course currently meets all the requirements of the Higher Education Course Design Rubric (Fifth Edition) upon amendment.