Assignment 2: Scoping and Analysis (MBarrett)

Start

ASSIGNMENT 2

Assignment 2 · Analysis and Scoping

Analysis and Scoping

Magdalena Barrett

The WHO of Learning

| INDEX & INTRODUCTION

The WHY of Learning

The WHAT of Learning

The HOW of Learning

1

2

3

This assignment focuses on the scoping and analysis of a training programme for Study Group's EAP tutors hired, or re-deployed, to deliver the company's suite of digital English products. The scoping document submitted for this assignment is made up of four key components, as listed below. Click on each compenent's name to navigate to the relevant pages of this interactive document.

4

The WHO of Learning

Learning Personas

Click on each persona's id card opposite to read their full profile.To access the commentary section, please click on the button below

commentary

Back to index

Go to the "WHY of Learning" section

The four learning personas have been created using data collected from staff questionnaires, recruitment notes, and interviews with line managers. What has become evident very quickly in the process of designing the personas is just how diverse the target audience for the proposed training course really is, not just in terms of their digital skills and teaching experience, but also in terms of the general demographics as well as attitudes towards their new appointments and/or digital learning in general. While the personas have revealed many differences between the prospective course participants*, they’ve also shed light on a few key similarities; namely, lack of previous experience with the Insendi platform, preference for social learning, and - finally and predictably - participants being time-poor. Designing learning personas has also helped to bring into focus accessibility considerations that need to underpin the course design. I found this particularly useful as, from personal experience, I found accessibility is given a lot of thought and attention in the higher education sector when designing courses for students, but is often overlooked or skimmed over in staff training, particularly in relation to ‘invisible’ learning difficulties or disabilities (ADHD, hearing loss, colour vision deficiency). Bringing those into focus in the process of creating learning personas should help ensure these considerations are addressed at the design level. Overall, the analysis of the personas has led me to the following conclusions regarding design considerations for the proposed training course:

• asynchronous, self-paced format will likely work best for this course, given that partipants are located in different time zones and have complex work and non-work related time-commitments
• given the range of skills and experiences amongst the prospective course participants (as illustrated by the four personas), it is important to ensure the content is appropriately scaffolded and, where appropriate, offers opportunities for extension to learning so as to offer more value to the more experienced participants
• all personas expressed preference for social learning, this needs to be embedded within the course design, offering participants an opportunity to build a strong learning community; opportunities for best practice sharing should also be built in to facilitate peer learning and networking
• to accommodate learning styles and preferences, and ensure participants can refer back to specific exemplars and guides within the course at various key points in the academic cycle, participants should retain access to the course past the induction period.

*Please note, the term 'participants' is used instead of 'learners' to avoid any potential confusion, as - in the context of my company - the term 'learners' is used to refer to students enrolled on our courses (who will be taught by tutors participating in this training course) rather than employee trainees.

The WHO of Learning

Gloria McKenzie

Age: 25 Job: Sessional AES Tutor Location: Washington, USA Time with SG: new hire

Gloria is a newly qualified teacher, who is currently working on completing her master’s degree in Applied Linguistics. She loves learning from others and is equally keen to share her own experiences. Ambitious and highly driven, she hopes to secure a permanent position at SG by end of the year (by which time she will have finished her degree) and progress to more senior roles over time.

• Keen to upskill at speed
• Keen to take on a full-time teaching role at SG upon the completion of her master’s
• Ambitious – would like to progress to senior teaching roles in the next 3 years and educational management within 5 years

• Some experience of taking online CPD courses – found them a little ‘dry’ and ‘impersonal’, but ultimately useful
• No previous experience of delivering blended or online courses

• Time constraints (completing her master’s degree alongside working for SG) • Colour vision deficiency

• Very good level of digital skills
• Enthusiastic about exploring different technologies
• Good broadband
• Avid social media user
• Uses laptop for work and study and mobile/tablet for personal use
• Limited experience of VLEs
• Has never used Insendi before

• Social learning
• Videos
• Articles

Short bio

Tech skills and experience

Main drives and motivators

Accessibility considerations

Learning preferences

Digital Learning perceptions

BACK TO LEARNINGPERSONAS

Back to index

The WHO of Learning

Gareth Raynall

Age: 60Job: EAP Tutor (full time)Location: Brighton, UKTime with SG: 14 years

Gareth is a long time Study Group employee and, as such, very familiar with our EAP module learning outcomes and assessment suite. Having been furloughed during the UK lockdown, however, he has not done any online teaching. He would prefer to focus on in-person delivery only; however, as the student numbers in his Centre plummeted this year, he must pick up teaching hours on the digital courses in order to meet his contractual teaching requirements.

• Content with his current role – hopes to keep it until he can retire
• Not focussed on progression or professional advancement
• Hopes to gain enough confidence and competence to do his new assignment well and return to on-site teaching asap.

• No prior experience of delivering or participating in online or blended courses (furloughed during Covid)
• Apprehensive about digital learning - feels he's been 'forced' into this delivery mode

• Time constraints: at the time of induction will be delivering his usual face to face sessions • Heightened anxiety

• Average digital competency
• Apprehensive about new technologies
• Uses laptop/PC for work
• Does not use tech for pleasure in his private life
• Access to fast broadband as will be delivering from the office
• Familiar with some VLEs
• Has never used Insendi before

• Social learning
• Articles
• Needs time to 'digest' any new learning

Short bio

Tech skills and experience

Main drives and motivators

Accessibility considerations

Learning preferences

Digital Learning perceptions

BACK TO LEARNINGPERSONAS

Back to index

The WHO of Learning

EllenSamson

Age: 32Job: EAP Tutor (full time)Location: Huddersfield, UKTime with SG: 6 years

Ellen has just returned from an extended maternity leave and, in an effort to manage childcare commitments and achieve a better work-life balance, requested flexible working arrangements. The management suggested switching from on-site teaching to digital delivery on a trial basis, which Ellen has welcomed with enthusiasm. Ellen is an experienced teacher, familiar with Study Group’s EAP modules and assessment suite. She has delivered online classes at the beginning of lockdown but has started her maternity leave prior to the launch of the Insendi-powered products.

• Ellen's keen to keep a role that would allow her to work from home and, so, is determined to make online teaching her permanent position, following the 1-year trial.
• Keen to learn all the skills needed to succeed in teaching online so as to make the above happen

• Delivered some online classes before, but has no experience of e-moderation/asynchronous learning support

• Completed several online CPD courses – enjoyed the format and the flexibility they offered

• Time constraints due to caring responsibilities
• Mild hearing loss - hearing aid user.

• Very good level of digital skills
• Access to fast broadband
• Uses laptop for work, but tends to use mobile/tablet for study and personal use
• Social media user
• Good working knowledge of several VLEs
• Has never used Insendi before

• Visual Learner
• Social learning
• Likely to access learning at ‘unsociable times’

Short bio

Tech skills and experience

Main drives and motivators

Accessibility considerations

Learning preferences

Digital Learning perceptions

BACK TO LEARNINGPERSONAS

Back to index

The WHO of Learning

SyedAlinur

Age: 41Job: Support EAP Tutor (part-time)Location: Perth, AustraliaTime with SG: new hire

Syed has just been hired as a part-time support tutor. He will be responsible for supporting asynchronous delivery of the EAP courses, including e-Moderation, activity feedback provision and assisting with marking. Syed is a very experienced ESOL teacher, but has never taught EAP or delivered university preparation courses. He sees his role at Study Group as an entry route to working in higher education. Syed is very tech-savvy and passionate about using technology in the classroom. He is very sociable, energetic, and keen to learn.

• Keen to upskill in delivering EAP courses within the higher education sector
• Would like for his role to expand next year, and span synchronous and asynchronous delivery
• Would like to advance in his career and progress to senior tutor roles in the short to medium term

• Experienced in delivering online and blended courses
• Positive personal experience of distance learning: completed his first degree with Open University
• Enjoys participating in and delivering online courses

• Time constraints: works part time as an ESOL teacher at a local language school• ADHD

• Excellent level of digital skills
• Proficient in the use of many different learning apps and software
• Access to fast broadband
• Uses laptop for work, but tends to use mobile/tablet for study and personal use
• Some experience of Moodle and Blackboard
• Has never used Insendi before

• Social learning
• Interactive activities
• Videos
• Likes to go back to previous learning for reference/revision

Short bio

Tech skills and experience

Main drives and motivators

Accessibility considerations

Learning preferences

Digital Learning perceptions

BACK TO LEARNINGPERSONAS

Back to index

The WHY of Learning

The WHY of Learning

Click on the '+info' buttons to learn more about each aspect of 'the WHY of learning' analysis

Business Problem

Learning Gap

Learning Outcomes

Info

Info

Back to index

Commentary on the different aspects of the analysis is included in respectives sections below.

Info

BUSINESS PROBLEM Following the acquisition of the ed tech platform developer Insendi, Study Group has diversified its portfolio of products by developing a suite of digital EAP modules and standalone courses. The changing preferences in international students’ choice of modality for the pre-sessional and in-sessional academic English courses have resulted in enrollment numbers for digital English products far exceeding on-site student recruitment. This created a staffing gap within most centres, prompting the company to redeploy some long-standing face-to-face tutors to online teaching positions, and widen their staff recruitment strategy to include recruiting new tutors specifically for online delivery. Both re-deployed tutors and all new hires are required to undertake training prior to commencing teaching on the digital English programmes. Previous, ‘traditional’, methods of training, delivered synchronously by the centralised English Curriculum Team have become unsustainable for operational as well as financial reasons. Main factors making traditional training incompatible with the current training needs are detailed below:

• global nature of the business means that training needs to be accessible for teams in different time zones
• rolling recruitment (necessitated by high staff turnover and multiple intakes for different programmes within the network of Study Group’s International Study Centres, Colleges and Learning Hubs) means training would need to be repeated multiple times in each academic year cycle
• there is no budget for hiring more trainers or freeing up the English Curriculum Team from their other duties to deliver more training
• the tutors participating in the training have diverse needs; the training they undertake must, therefore, offer the type of flexibility that is difficult or impossible to replicate in in-person training.

In light of the above, the English Curriculum Team has been given the go-ahead to develop an online course providing training and practical advice for Study Group tutors hired (or redeployed) to deliver our suite of digital English products. For new hires, unfamiliar with the company and their local centre/college/hub, the course will be delivered as part of the wider induction programme, and will be supplemented with face-to-face induction sessions delivered, either on site or online, by the local management teams. These sessions will focus on matters relating specifically to the local centre, rather than the module contents or delivery method, and are thus not in scope for the training module being developed by the English Curriculum Team.

LEARNING GAP As shown by the learning personas presented in the previous section of this assignment, our target group is comprised of tutors with varying needs, digital learning experiences and tech skills. Some (re-deployed tutors) will have prior knowledge of Study Group’s assessment strategy and processes, while for others (new hires) this will be brand new information. It is expected, however, that few (if, indeed, any) participants would have used Insendi in their previous teaching posts, which is the primary learning gap this course will need to address. The main focus of the course, therefore, must be on helping tutors understand how the platform supports the asynchronous delivery of the digital English products and apply this knowledge to their day-to-day teaching practice. The secondary focus of the course must be on helping tutors bridge the gap between their previous teaching experience (this includes teaching face-to-face only or teaching online courses developed by providers other than Study Group) and their new teaching roles. To do this, tutors will need to understand Study Group’s digital modules’ purpose, structure and assessment, and apply this knowledge to their practice when delivering classes or marking students’ assessments. The course, therefore, will need to straddle levels 2 (understand) and 3 (apply) of Bloom’s taxonomy. Where possible, extension content should be embedded within specific sessions to enable more experienced tutors, or those returning to the module further down the line, to deepen their skills. This may eventually potentially help some participants move from the knowledge and skills sphere into the lower levels of the expertise sphere.

LEARNING OUTCOMES On successful completion of this training module, participants* will be able to:

1. describe the purpose, structure, and assessment strategy of the digital Academic English Skills module
2. use a range of platform-embedded tools and features to support the asynchronous delivery of the AES module
3. identify a range of platform-embedded activity types, including their expected student/tutor interaction patterns, and explain their wider purpose within the course
4. employ strategies for building a strong online teaching presence through the effective use of feedback tools and communication mechanisms available on the platform
5. use the platform’s authoring tools to localise, differentiate and enhance the delivery of the AES module within the context of the participants’ groups and cohorts
6. apply relevant marking criteria to a range of AES assessments.

COMMENTARY ON THE LEARNING OUTCOMES The learning outcomes for the proposed training course have been written to address the learning gaps identified during the analysis of sample personas against the specific business problem (see the learning gap and business problem sections in the main slide). As the primary learning gap centres on tutors’ competence in using the Insendi platform to support the asynchronous delivery of Study Group’s digital English product suite, four of the six outcomes (LOs 2-5) relate to platform-specific competencies. These are mostly set at level 3 (apply) of Bloom’s taxonomy, as participants (tutors) will need to be able to put what they have learnt into practice in their own teaching upon the completion of the training course. Learning Outcome 5 is set at level 3 as all tutors will need to use the authoring tools to carry out basic localisations of the content in their teaching; however, the course may also help more experienced participants and/or those re-visiting the course further down the line reach level 6 (create) on Bloom’s taxonomy, should they use their learning to design/author original content using the platform’s authoring tools. Extension content will be built into the course to “stretch/challenge” participants and thus enable such progress. Learning Outcomes 1 and 6 aim to address the secondary learning gap (bridging the gap between participants’ previous experience of teaching and their current roles within Study Group - see the learning gap section in the main slide for further details). These are set at level 2 (understand) and 3 (apply) of Bloom’s Taxonomy respectively, reflecting the role of these competencies in the participants’ day-to-day practice. All six learning outcomes are learner-centred and express what participants should be able to do by using action verbs linked to Bloom’s Taxonomy. The learning outcomes have been written with the SMART principles in mind. The LOs are:

• specific - each LO clearly describes what participants should be able to do upon the completion of the course (e.g. use the platform’s authoring tools to localise, differentiate and enhance delivery of the AES)
• measurable - it is possible to assess each LO both within the confines of the training course (through formative and/or summative assessment activities), and “on the job” once the participants move on to teaching their groups
• achievable - the outcomes are set at the level achievable for all participants who have successfully met the minimum recruitment criteria for the job
• relevant - the outcomes are directly related to the participants’ day-to-day jobs
• time specific - all outcomes can be achieved within the time confines of the training.

*Please note, the term 'participants' is used instead of 'learners' to avoid any potential confusion, as - in the context of my company - the term 'learners' is used to refer to students enrolled on our courses (who will be taught by tutors participating in this training course) rather than employee trainees.

The WHAT of Learning

MODULAR FRAMEWORK

REFLECTION

Learning Gap

Learning Outcomes

Info

Click on the image above to open a full-size interactive overview of the modular framework.

To access the commentary section, please click on the button below

Back to index

Info

Info

commentary

MODULAR FRAMEWORK Please note, in my commentary and the accompanying images and diagrams, I will be using terminology specific to the course design principles established in my company. 'Sessions' are what DLI templates refer to as 'modules', and 'lessons' are the equivalent of 'topics'. The proposed training course is made up of 5 core sessions, intended to be completed in the order indicated in the picture below. Each session is made up of a number of bite-size lessons. The interactive diagram embedded within the main slide lists the lessons included within each session thus providing content mapping for the proposed course. Within each session, there are also two navigational/orientational sections (Session introduction and Session review) which do not form the core of the learning, but contribute to course cohesion. Each lesson is an individual unit of learning, the completion of which contributes to meeting the learning outcomes of a session and, by extension, the course as a whole. Course learning outcomes 1, 5 and 6 align to Sessions 1, 4 and 5, respectively. In the case of the remaining learning outcomes, these may span over more than one session, or a session may address more than one course learning outcome, depending on the context. This may be because the course learning outcome is set at level 3 ('apply') of Bloom's taxonomy, but participants must first reach levels 1 and 2. This is the case, for example, with learning outcome 2 (use a range of platform-embedded tools and features to support asynchronous delivery of the AES module), where participants must first learn what these tools and features are, and understand their purpose (covered in Session 1) before they can use them effectively (covered in Session 2).It may also be that the hollistic course learning outcome focuses on an overaching skill or function that may be completed in more than one way. This is the case with learning outcome 4, which focuses on building a strong online teaching presence through effective use of feedback tools (covered in Session 2) and communication mechanisms (covered in Session 3). The interactive overview of the modular framework embedded within the main slide shows how learning was segmented to address the learning gaps identified in "the WHY of learning" analysis, and explains how each session relates to the hollistic course learning outcomes.

The HOW of Learning

The HOW of Learning

Click on the '+info' buttons to learn more about each aspect of the learning experience design analysis

DELIVERY MODE

BUILDING BLOCKS AND FORMATS

Info

Info

Info

Info

Info

LEARNING FLOW

BUILDING BLOCKS & FORMATS

TIMELINE

Commentary on the different aspects of the LX design is included in the respective sections below.

Back to index

DELIVERY MODE The delivery mode that best suits the proposed training course is online asynchronous. The following factors (discovered during the "WHO", "WHY" and "WHAT of learning" analyses) have informed the choice of the delivery mode for the course:

• training must be available and accessible to participants* in different locations and time zones
• training needs to be available and accessible at multiple points during each academic year cycle
• there is no budget for hiring more trainers or freeing up the English Curriculum Team of their other duties to enable them to deliver more in-person training
• training must fit around the participants' other commitments (work and non-work related)
• all participants have the digital skills and equipment required to access asynchronous learning
• as the learning outcomes are set at low to medium levels of learning (levels 2 and 3 of Bloom's taxonomy), it is realistic for the participants to meet these outcomes in an asynchronous setting.

Additionally, as the primary learning gap this course aims to bridge focuses on the participants' competence in using the Insendi platform to support the asynchronous delivery of the digital English courses, the asynchronous delivery mode of this training will help to replicate for the participants the learning experience of the students they will teach upon the completion of the training, thus adding an additional layer of learning. *Please note, the term 'participants' is used instead of 'learners' to avoid any potential confusion, as - in the context of my company - the term 'learners' is used to refer to students enrolled on our courses (who will be taught by tutors participating in this training course) rather than employee trainees.

LEARNING GAP As shown by the learning personas presented in the previous section of this assignment, our target group is comprised of tutors with varying needs, digital learning experiences and tech skills. Some (re-deployed tutors) will have prior knowledge of Study Group’s assessment strategy and processes, while for others (new hires) this will be brand new information. It is expected, however, that few (if, indeed, any) participants would have used Insendi in their previous teaching posts, which is the primary learning gap this course will need to address. The main focus of the course, therefore, must be on helping tutors understand how the platform supports the asynchronous delivery of the digital English products and apply this knowledge to their day-to-day teaching practice. The secondary focus of the course must be on helping tutors bridge the gap between their previous teaching experience (this includes teaching face to face only or teaching online courses developed by Providers other than Study Group) and their new teaching roles. To do this, tutors will need to understand Study Group’s digital modules’ purpose, structure and assessment, and apply this knowledge to their practice,when delivering classes in virtual classrooms and/or marking students’ assessments. The course, therefore, will need to straddle levels 2 (understand) and 3 (apply) of Bloom’s taxonomy. Where possible, extension content should be embedded within specific sessions to enable more experienced tutors or those returning to the module further down the line to deepen their skills. This may eventually potentially help some participants move from the knowledge and skills sphere into the lower levels of the expertise sphere.

At a high level, the proposed training course will follow a linear flow. This is because each session* builds on the learning completed in the previous sessions. For example, participants** will not be able to meet the learning outcome associated with session 5 (apply relevant marking criteria to a range of AES assessments) without first completing session 1 which introduces the assessment strategy of the digital Academic English Skills module, and session 3 which looks at different platform-embedded assessment activity types. At a modular level, however, the course will have a core and spoke flow, as sessions and lessons will include:

• content and activities that all participants must complete to meet the learning outcomes of individual sessions and the course as a whole
• additional content and/or activities that are optional for learners to complete/access.

This approach allows for more differentiated learning, meeting the needs of learners with different levels of experience, ability and/or ambition. It will also help the training remain relevant past the initial induction period; as the participants' confidence in using the platform grows on the job, they can return to the training to extend their skills. The interactive image below illustrates the core and spoke model using the example of Lesson one in module three. The same flow model will be replicated for all lessons within each of the five sessions of the training course. The core is made up of both content and activities, as the course focuses on the practical application of the skills and knowledge presented in the content blocks. Therefore, both content and activities are integral to meeting the learning outcomes. Click on the image below to view a full-size, interactive version of the flow map for session 3, lesson 1 *As explained in my commentary on the modular framework in 'the WHAT of learning' analysis, I am using terminolgy specific to my company and the platform in use. As such, what I call 'sessions' is the equivalent of 'modules' in the DLI templates, and 'lessons' are the equivalent of 'topics' within a module. **Please note, the term 'participants' is used instead of 'learners' to avoid any potential confusion, as - in the context of my company - the term 'learners' is used to refer to students enrolled on our courses (who will be taught by tutors participating in this training course) rather than employee trainees.

The primary building blocks for the proposed training course are: content, activities and assessment & feedback. As the course is delivered fully asynchronously online, there will be no facilitation. The interactive image below shows the format types to be used for each building block

• content - most appropriate format will be chosen for specific content segments within each lesson*; where possible and appropriate, more than one format will be used to address different participants'** learning needs and preferences
• activities - a variety of activities will be used to check comprehension and allow participants to put to practice the skills and knowledge presented in the content segments. Activity types used in the training will mirror the type of activities participants' students will interact with in the digital English courses.
• assessment and feedback - the course is assessed formatively via quizzes and practical tasks; in the majority of cases, activities have immediate automated feedback embedded (textual/audiovisual or in the form of 'model answers'); where this is not possible, the course makes use of peer feedback mechanisms (as the participants are all teaching professionals, they have the cognitive skills required to engage in this form of feedback and understand its purpose and value).

Click on the image below to view a full-size, interactive version of the blocks and formats overview The following image illustrates how the three building blocks interact with each other in a sample lesson in session* three. The interaction pattern in the training course is the same as the interaction pattern used in Study Group's digital coureses (elicitation and knowledge sharing activities -> content/input -> comprehension-checking, social learning and practical application activities) and thus mirrors students' experience. Click on the image below to view a full-size version of the interaction patterns between different building blocks in the proposed training course. *As explained in my commentary on the modular framework in 'the WHAT of learning' analysis, I am using terminolgy specific to my company and the platform in use. As such, what I call 'sessions' is the equivalent of 'modules' in the DLI templates, and 'lessons' are the equivalent of 'topics' within a module. **Please note, the term 'participants' is used instead of 'learners' to avoid any potential confusion, as - in the context of my company - the term 'learners' is used to refer to students enrolled on our courses (who will be taught by tutors participating in this training course) rather than employee trainees.

TIMELINE The course is made up of a series of lessons* grouped into five sessions. The expected completion time of the lesson units ranges between 30 and 60 minutes, depending on the specific focus of each lesson and the assessment tasks used. The completion time for each session, therefore, ranges from 2hrs 55 mins to 4 hours 35 minutes (assuming completion all spoke and core elements within each session). Session two differs from other sessions in that it has two core lessons that all participants** are expected to complete, and four 'spoke' lessons that are optional. Session five does not need to be completed before a participant is approved for teaching on Study Group's digital courses, so participants may leave the completion of this session until later in the academic year and closer to the specific assessment points for their assigned groups/cohorts. A level of flexibility is built into the expected completion patterns and timelines to accommodate participants' learning styles, preferences and other time commitments. Participants can complete one session a day, split a session over the course of a few days, or bundle sessions together and complete the entire course over two full days. Operational issues must also be taken into consideration given that participants cannot be signed off to teach on the digital courses until they have completed sessions 1-4 of the course. Participants, therefore, must agree course completion deadline with their line managers. The following image shows a suggested timeline for participants new to Study Group, taking the course as part of their induction programme. Click on the image below to access full-sized interactive timeline overview for the proposed course. *As explained in my commentary on the modular framework in 'the WHAT of learning' analysis, I am using terminolgy specific to my company and the platform in use. As such, what I call 'sessions' is the equivalent of 'modules' in the DLI templates, and 'lessons' are the equivalent of 'topics' within a module. **Please note, the term 'participants' is used instead of 'learners' to avoid any potential confusion, as - in the context of my company - the term 'learners' is used to refer to students enrolled on our courses (who will be taught by tutors participating in this training course) rather than employee trainees.

Bibliography

BUILDING BLOCKS AND FORMATS

Info

Back to index

FutureLearn. (2022, October 25). Developing learning outcomes using the SMART. Retrieved March 8, 2023, from https://www.futurelearn.com/info/courses/adult-teaching-essentials-student-centred-course-design/0/steps/331159 Malamed, C. (2022, January 8). Learner Personas for Instructional Design. The eLearning Coach. Retrieved March 8, 2023, from https://theelearningcoach.com/elearning_design/audience/learner-personas-for-elearning/ Shabatura, J. (n.d.). Bloom’s Taxonomy Verb Chart | Teaching Innovation and Pedagogical Support. https://tips.uark.edu/blooms-taxonomy-verb-chart/ Valamis. (2022, December 28). Learning Theories: Bloom’s Taxonomy. Retrieved March 8, 2023, from https://www.valamis.com/hub/blooms-taxonomy

Bibliography

LEARNING GAP As shown by the learning personas presented in the previous section of this assignment, our target group is comprised of tutors with varying needs, digital learning experiences and tech skills. Some (re-deployed tutors) will have prior knowledge of Study Group’s assessment strategy and processes, while for others (new hires) this will be brand new information. It is expected, however, that few (if, indeed, any) participants would have used Insendi in their previous teaching posts, which is the primary learning gap this course will need to address. The main focus of the course, therefore, must be on helping tutors understand how the platform supports the asynchronous delivery of the digital English products and apply this knowledge to their day-to-day teaching practice. The secondary focus of the course must be on helping tutors bridge the gap between their previous teaching experience (this includes teaching face to face only or teaching online courses developed by Providers other than Study Group) and their new teaching roles. To do this, tutors will need to understand Study Group’s digital modules’ purpose, structure and assessment, and apply this knowledge to their practice,when delivering classes in virtual classrooms and/or marking students’ assessments. The course, therefore, will need to straddle levels 2 (understand) and 3 (apply) of Bloom’s taxonomy. Where possible, extension content should be embedded within specific sessions to enable more experienced tutors or those returning to the module further down the line to deepen their skills. This may eventually potentially help some participants move from the knowledge and skills sphere into the lower levels of the expertise sphere.