BLENDED LEARNIING Dr. S. M. Gawande Assistant Professor School of Education Central University of Kashmir
CONTENT Introduction Components of Blended Learning Blended Education Delivery BL for teaching and training
Introduction Technology and online learning in social work education Rising convergence between online and traditional education Potential for social work in providing educational opportunities Both online and traditional education can offer E-learning is being combined with traditional classroom methods To create a new, hybrid teaching methodology Flipped Classroom
Components of Blended Learning Classroom activities facilitated by a trained educator Online learning materials, pre-recorded lectures given by instructor Guided by the material in the lectures and skills developed
Blended Educational Delivery Strengths of online educational delivery Face-to-face educational delivery Direct interaction Lectures can be videotaped ahead of time so the student can watch on their own time Emphasize, to solve problems, work through tasks Emphasize classroom time at the beginning Increase the amount of work Watch lectures online at home, and do homework Flipped Classroom
BL for Teaching and Training Combines online educational materials Opportunities for interaction online Traditional place-based classroom methods Physical presence of both teacher and student Elements of student control over time, place, path, or pace.
Benefits of Blended Learning Learner is more engaged using a variety of content types Different learner, different learning style Instructor can assess learner trends and act accordingly Improved feedback It can make learning fun!
References- 1. Verliefde, N., Vermeyen, A., & Van Den Bossche, J. (2010, March). Didactic scenarios for an effective use of web lectures: A collaborative research project in higher and university education to maximize the use of web lectures and its effect on learning. Paper presented at the 4th International Technology, Education and Development Conference. Retrieved from https://lirias.kuleuven.be/handle/123456789/342412 2. Von Konsky, B. R., Ivins, J., & Gribble, S. J. (2009). Lecture attendance and web based lecture technologies: A comparison of student perceptions and usage patterns. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(4), 581-595. 3. Retrieved from: https://www.talentlms.com/blog/5-reasons-why-blendedlearning-works/ on 30/11/2018 4. Ayala J, S.( 2009) Blended Learning As A New Approach To Social Work Education Journal of Social Work Education, Vol. 45, No. 2 pp. 277-288
Bloom s Revised Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Presented By Dr. S.M. Gawande Assistant Professor Central University of Kashmir
Educational Objectives, by Benjamin Bloom in the 1950s Framework for classifying educational goals, objectives, and standards. Used as a means of expressing qualitatively different kinds of thinking.
Classification of Objectives-
Taxonomies of Objectives 1. Objectives in Cognitive Domains
2. Objectives in Affective Domain-
3. Objectives in Conative or Psychomotor Domains
Revised Bloom's Taxonomy (RBT)- Taxonomy of Cognitive Objectives 1955 developed by Benjamin Bloom Means of compressing qualitatively different kinds of things Been adopted for classroom use as a planning tool Continuous to be the most universally applied modes Provides a way to organize thinking skills into six levels, from the most basis to the more complex level of thinking 1990s Lonin Anderson (former students of Bloom) revised the taxonomy to reflect 21 st century leaning As a result a number of changes were made Verbs are used to represent what the learner is to do at such level
Original Terms Evaluation Synthesis Analysis Application Comprehension Knowledge New Terms Creating Evaluating Analysing Applying Understanding Remembering (Based on Pohl, 2000, Learning to Think, Thinking to Learn, p. 8)
Bloom's Taxonomy of the Cognitive Domain Bloom's taxonomy of cognitive learning, originated by Benjamin Bloom and collaborators in the 1950's, describes several categories of cognitive learning. ORIGINAL BLOOM COGNITIVE TAXONOMY Category Knowledge Comprehension Application Analysis. Synthesis Evaluation Description Ability to recall previously learned material. Ability to grasp meaning, explain, restate ideas. Ability to use learned material in new situations. Ability to separate material into component parts and show relationships between parts. Ability to put together the separate ideas to form new whole, Ability to judge the worth of material against stated criteria.
Revised Bloom's Taxonomy of the Cognitive Domain This taxonomy was revised in 2001 by Anderson and Krathwohl to change the category names from nouns to verbs, and to switch the Evaluation and Synthesis levels in the hierarchy. REVISED ANDERSON AND KRATHWOHL COGNITIVE TAXONOMY Category Remember Understand Apply Description Ability to recall previously learned material. Ability to grasp meaning, explain, restate ideas. Ability to use learned material in new situations. Analyze Ability to separate material into component parts and show relationships between parts. Evaluate Ability to judge the worth of material against stated criteria. Create Ability to put together the separate ideas to form new whole, establish new relationships.
. Verbs to help in writing objectives in the cognitive domain ACTION VERBS APPROPRIATE FOR EACH LEVEL OF BLOOM S TAXONOMY (Cognitive Domain) Knowledge Comprehension Application Analysis Synthesis Evaluation Know restate translate distinguish compose Judge interpret define discuss apply analyse plan appraise memorize describe employ differentiate propose evaluate repeat recognize use apprais calculate design rate record explain demonstrate experiment formulate compare list express dramatized test arrange value recall identify practice compare assemble revise name locate illustrate contrast collect score relate relate criticise create construct select review operate diagram design choose schedule tell shop inspect setup assess sketch debate organize estimate inventory manage measure question prepare relate
Many people also call the analysis, synthesis/create, and evaluation categories problem solving. ACTION VERBS APPROPRIATE FOR EACH LEVEL OF BLOOM S/ANDERSON & KRATHWOHL S TAXONOMY (Cognitive Domain) Remember Understand Apply Analyze Evaluate Create Define Identify List Name Recall Recognize Record Relate Repeat Underline Choose Cite examples of Demonstrate use of Describe Determine Differentiate between Discriminate Discuss Explain Express Give in own words Identify Interpret Locate Pick Report Restate Review Recognize Select Tell Translate Respond Practice Simulates Apply Demonstrate Dramatize Employ Generalize Illustrate Interpret Operate Operationalize Practice Relate Schedule Shop Use Utilize Initiate Analyze Appraise Calculate Categorize Compare Conclude Contrast Correlate Criticize Deduce Debate Detect Determine Develop Diagram Differentiate Distinguish Draw conclusions Estimate Evaluate Examine Experiment Identify Infer Inspect Predict Question Relate Solve Test Inventory Appraise Assess Choose Compare Critique Estimate Evaluate Judge Measure Rate Revise Score Select Validate Value Test Arrange Assemble Collect Compose Construct Create Design Develop Formulate Manage Modify Organize Plan Prepare Produce Propose Predict Reconstruct Set-up Synthesize Systematize Devise
Summary Bloom revised taxonomy Systematic process of thinking & learning Assists assessment efforts with easy-to-use format Visual representation of alignment between goals & objectives with the stands activates & out comes Helps from challenges questions to help students gain knowledge & critical thinking skills Assists in development of goals, objectives & lesson plan
1. Anderson, L.W., & Sosniak, L.A. (Eds.). (1994). Bloom's taxonomy: a forty-year retrospective. Ninety-third yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Pt.2., Chicago, IL., University of Chicago Press. 2. Bloom, Benjamin S. & David R. Krathwohl. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals, by a committee of college and university examiners. Handbook 1: Cognitive domain.new York, Longmans. 3. Pechi, 2000, Leaning to think, Thinking to Learn,pp7-8. 4. http://www.personal.psu.edu/bxb11/objectives/actionverbsforobjectives.pdf Retrieval on Dated 05/03/2016. 5..https://www.google.co.in/search?q=blooms+objectives&espv=2&biw=1366&bih=667&site= webhp&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source= univ&sa=x&ved=0ahukewj8- Lu7uMnLAhXGRI4KHd7kAO0QsAQIQg&dpr=1Retrieval on Dated 05/03/2016.
Thanking You