This is an example of how an existing skills course was redesigned for the new online/offline context in period 5. The example is based on a course that is offered at the Maastricht Science Programme. The course was “Research, Data Analysis, and Presentation Skills (2.5 ECTS)”, and the course is listed as a 1000, beginner level in the curriculum. The redesign was developed by the current course coordinator in collaboration with colleagues from MSP, the Language Center and the University Library. 

Activities & assessment 

The first step towards redesign is to create an inventory of essential features of the course, along the lines of constructive alignment: what are the intended learning outcomes, what are the teaching and learning activities, and what forms of assessment are being used?

Activities 

The course coordinator started via revisiting the intended learning outcomes (ILOs). One ILO had to be rewritten, as it was impossible to conduct a physics experiment at Chemelot. The rest of the ILOs could be retained. Next, the teaching and learning activities were considered in order to meet the ILOs. Many teaching and learning activities could be transformed into an online format: 

• Lectures were all turned into prerecorded videos by either using MyMediaSite or Blackboard Collaborate Ultra. 
• Tutorials were hosted online via Zoom and more structured as students received some powerpoint slides in order to guide the discussion. Students had ample opportunity to ask questions to their peers and the tutor. These sessions stimulated collaborative learning. 
• The experience of a physics lab experiment was retained as much as possible: students received an elaborate description of the experimental set-up, had to do Blackboard Quizzes, and received a dataset with data that they normally would have obtained themselves during the lab experiment. Students had to conduct similar analyses and write these down in a lab report. 
• Virtual office hours were scheduled for students to have an opportunity to ask questions and discuss difficulties. The course coordinator aimed to respond within 24 hours to student’ questions. 
• Each week, the course coordinator provided an elaborate announcement via ELeUM to describe the expectations of that week regarding the teaching and learning activities and assessment. 

Assessment 

Assessment was done in a similar fashion as the onsite variant. Assessment was divided into four parts: Academic Paper (50%), Presentation (30%), Lab Report (20%), and Reflection on critical assessment module (Pass/Fail). 

• In the online setup for the academic paper, students conducted similar activities: online videos, tutorials for discussions, and submission of a first draft in order to receive feedback (formative assessment). The final draft was part of the summative assessment.
• The presentation assignment was changed from a physical presentation on campus to an assignment in which students had to pair up and submit an online video via FeedbackFruits on ELeUM (stimulating collaborative learning). 
• Quizzes were used on ELeUM as a formative assessment component for the lab report. Students had to pair up as well to submit a lab report together (as summative assessment). 
• Reflection on the critical assessment module was similar to the previous set-up of the course. 
• A range of (additional) materials were provided via Blackboard in order to stimulate self-directed learning:
  • Overall course manual 
  • Academic Writing manuel 
  • Reformulated Intended Learning Outcomes 
  • E-book on Physics experiments 
  • Supportive videos (YouTube) 
  • Prerecorded videos (MyMediasite) 
  • Online Modules (by UM and Khan Academy) 

The table below gives an overview of teaching and learning activities, as they were in the original design of the course (“Old”) and how they were rewritten for a blended or online format in period 5 (“New”). In the example, we have worked with the assumption that all education need to be conducted online. 

This is an example of how an existing course can be redesigned for the new online/offline context. The example is based on a course that has been offered at UCM until the academic year 2016-2017. The course was “Theorizing Terrorism. A Philosophical Investigation”, and the course was listed as a 2000, intermediate level in the Humanities. The redesign was developed by the former course coordinator, with the intent to make this course suitable for the new conditions, even though the course is currently not offered at UCM. 

The first step towards redesign is to create an inventory of essential features of the course, along the lines of constructive alignment: what are the intended learning outcomes, what are the teaching and learning activities, and what forms of assessment are being used? For this course, that inventory looks like this: 

Intended Learning Outcomes 

• Students can understand, and hypothesize, about the the impact of defining social phenomena – in this case: terrorism; 
• Students can explain and explore the relationship between ideas (ideologies) and social action/terrorism; 
• Students have a basic understanding of several 19th and 20th Century developments in ideology and philosophy that provide a context for the development of modern terrorism; 
• Students can design a process for critical analysis, applying concepts and theories to social phenomena. 

Assessment 

• Summative/functioning: group presentation on terrorist movement; 
• Summative/functioning: individual paper supporting or challenging a position on terrorism in academic literature or art. 

Purpose of assessment 

• Presentation: to analyze the role justifications for the/a structure of society (and the need for change) informed particular terrorist movements 
• Paper: to support or reject a position on the role of justifications in terrorism as presented in academic literature, or art – personal academic engagement with the issue. 

Lectures & Workshops 

• Week 1: Lecture: “Theorizing Terrorism” 
• Week 3:  Workshop: “The Human Condition at The Turn of the Century” 
• Week 4: Workshop: “Writing the Paper” 
• Week 5: Student presentations during tutorials 
• Week 5: Lecture: “Four philosophers on terrorism” 
• Week 6: Consultation hours book review 

Redesigned 

Based on this description of the original ILO’s, teaching and learning activities, and assessment, a new design was developed, which retained the intended learning outcomes and forms of assessment, but introduced new teaching and learning activities. These activities however were built around the existing course materials and the purposes of the subsections of the course. The UM principles of Constructive, Contextual, Collaborative and Self-directed 

The table below gives an overview of teaching and learning activities, as they were in the original design of the course (“Old”) and how they were rewritten for a blended or online format. In the example, we have worked with the assumption that part of the education could be conducted on campus. These activities are all transferable to an online setting, but when done on campus/ on site, they have the advantage of more small scale, ‘in real life’ interactions between students and teaching staff. 

Such interactions, all revolving around the content and intended outcomes of the course, stimulate student (and staff!) motivation, and make it easier to remain engaged during the online segments of the course. In fact, if done well, the distinction will become less pronounced, as the emphasis shifts from the formats of learning, to the purpose of learning. 

The table follows the standard weekly schedule of one lecture (X.L) and two tutorials per week (X.1 and X.2), as it was before the lockdown. While the new model contains online and onsite components, we retained the basic weekly structure. 

This sample redesign has these main features: 

• To promote student engagement, the purpose of the overall course, as well sections and tasks within the course is made more explicit. While this seems to take away from the aspect of self-directed learning, it in fact enhances the need and opportunities for collaboration and co-construction of new knowledge, which will require more immediate and focused self-directedness on the part of students. 
• The onsite sessions are used for brainstorming, which includes a regular evaluation of ‘where we are’ within the course. Onsite interaction between the members of a group, including the time for chit-chat and walking around, spending time together in the faculty building etc., is important for maintaining a sense of connectedness and shared purpose. Making explicit the way students progress through the course will make it easier for students to stay on track and understand the relevance of what they do. More on the decisions between online and onsite can be found here. 
• Much of the original written material was retained. Lectures are divided into smaller units and recorded, using the original lecture and accompanying slides. Tasks remain the same (some minor edits may be necessary), and existing workshops remain identical in design, while using online tools instead of offline materials. 
• Assessment in the original course was both summative and formative, with an emphasis on assessing functioning knowledge (for more on assessment see here), and could be transferred easily to an online setting 
• The use of Canvas is encouraged, for several purposes: 
  • Course overview /  course manual 
  • E-reader 
  • Links to online resources 
  • Discussion platform 
  • Subgroup pagesAssignments and feedback options