I’ve been thinking about and participating in the activities for week 2 while reading a paper for work and applying for grad school (in Instructional Design) and then it occurred to me to think about the structure of the week’s activities and think about the what and the how, but more importantly the why.
This course is structured using a blend of a constructivist and social constructivist pedagogies that encourages self exploration and discovery and reflection for building self-knowledge (individual activities) and using a project (situation/problem) and activities/tasks to weave in collaborations and communications (interactions and engagement) with the full class and in smaller groups (teams) through a structure purposely designed by an instructional designer with the learning outcomes and pedagogical approaches in mind and the instructor’s frequent activities (engagement, modelling, providing examples/anecdotes) supporting them. There appears to be little or no behavourist (instructivist) methods in use.
The checklist for Week 2 with the supporting pedagogical methodology and a mix of revised Bloom’s taxonomy and 7 Cs of Learning Design:
- Contributed to class discussion (social constructivist; consider and communicate; understanding, analyzing)
- Created a personal dream from a template (constructivist; conceptualize, consider and create)
- Negotiated a shared dream/mission with the team (social constructivist; communicate, consider, collaborate, combine/synthesize, consolidate/implement)
- Updated TEAM SPACE, as a team (social constructivist; collaborate, communicated, create)
- Wrote a learning reflection in the learning journal (constructivist; consider create, conceptualize, consolidate)