This document outlines an activity-based approach to curriculum design for online programs and modules. It discusses creating a curriculum framework, developing a team-based approach, and sharing experiences. The agenda presented includes an overview, blueprint and action plan, and creating storyboards for modules. Key aspects to consider are aims, learning outcomes, assessment, feedback, activities, resources, and tools. Potential consequences of assessment strategies are discussed. Feedback should be dialogic, timely, related to criteria, and support future learning. Learning activities should be motivating, interactive, and adaptable. Resources and references are provided.
1. Activity-based approach to curriculum design
Professor Linda Creanor, Sheila MacNeill, Jim Emery
Blended Learning Team, GCU LEAD
With acknowledgements to:
Professor Gilly Salmon, University of Western Australia
Prof Alejandro Armellini, University of Northampton
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
2. To plan the development of online
programmes through –
creating a curriculum design framework
for online programmes and modules
developing a team-based approach
sharing experiences and ideas
http://ow.ly/JcJEl
3. 10.00 – 10.10 Welcome and introductions
10.10 - 10.20 Overview of ‘Carpe Diem’
10.20 – 11.00 Blueprint and Action Plan
11.00 – 11.10 TEA / COFFEE
11.10 - 11.50 Creating Storyboards -
Calendar for the module
Topics covered
Assessment and feedback points
Learning activities
Resources
Tools and techniques
11.50 – 12.00 Summary and next steps
4. What are the essential aspects of
your programme?
Aims and learning outcomes?
How can these be assessed?
What about feedback?
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2059/2237177661_99d3e8de8e.jpg
7. Assessment and feedback
Learning activities
Communication & collaboration
Learning resources
Support
Academic, technical, facilitation
Technology
& tools
VLE
Blogs
Wikis
Social media
Podcasts
Video
E-portfolio
File-sharing
Mobile
…
…
…
9. Possible consequences:
•Undistributed student workload
•Teachers not seeing student conceptions till too late
•Final assessment too high stakes
Mark Russell, ESCAPE project, University of Hertfordshire
10. Possible consequences:
•Engages students early with the curriculum
•Students workload reasonably well spread out
•Not reliant on high stakes assessment activity
•No opportunity to provide feedback after the third assessment
Mark Russell, ESCAPE project, University of Hertfordshire
11. Possible consequences:
•Engages students early with the curriculum
•Students workload evenly distributed
•All assessments are low/medium stakes
•Could be demanding of staff /student time
•Can assess specific parts of the curriculum
•Teacher gains early feedback on student performance & understanding
Mark Russell, ESCAPE project, University of Hertfordshire
12. Feedback should be :
A dialogue
Supportive of future learning
Timely
Related to clear criteria
Accessible to all students
A continuous process
Available on all forms of assessment
Flexible and suited to students’ needs
Feedback for Future Learning,
http://www.gcu.ac.uk/futurelearning/
13. They should be –
Motivating
Interactive
Flexible and adaptable
Customisable
14.
15.
16. Carpe Diem web site http://www.gillysalmon.com/carpe-diem.html
REAP Project, http://www.reap.ac.uk
Feedback for Future Learning, Glasgow Caledonian University, http://www.gcu.ac.uk/futurelearning/
Escape Project, University of Hertfordshire, http://jiscdesignstudio.pbworks.com/w/page/12458419/ESCAPE
%20Project
Jisc Design studio, http://jiscdesignstudio.pbworks.com/w/page/12458422/Welcome%20to%20the
%20Design%20Studio
Jisc (2009) Effective Assessment in a Digital Age, http://www.jisc.ac.uk/digiassess
MacDonald, J. & Creanor, L. (2010), Learning with online and mobile technologies: a student survival guide,
Gower http://www.gowerpublishing.com/isbn/9780566089305
Nicol, D. (2009), Assessment for learner self-regulation: Enhancing achievement in the first year using
learning technologies. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 34 (3), 335 -352.