In short ==>
If discussions (evaluations, negotiations, decisions, etc.) are important during learning, address this in face-to-face phases.
If collecting ideas (memorizing, etc.) is important when learning, address this in online phases.
If an architect creates a plan for a building, his creative act still has to follow certain laws.
A course designer has also to repect certain aspect
Treat learning processes with a high degree of synchronicity in f2f phases (such as negotiation, evaluation, comparison…)
Treat learning processes with a low degree of synchronicity in online phases (such as collecting ideas, studying concepts ….)
After you have finished a draft of your course map, consider the following:
1. How do the assessments in the course connect back to course objectives?
2. How accurately do the assessments measure student achievement of learning objectives?
3. Are there any learning objectives that are not measured in the course assessments?
4. Is there a mix of both instructor-led teaching (direct instruction) and student-centred learning (guided inquiry)?
5. Do you provide students with both f2f and online opportunities for direct instruction and guided inquiry?
6. Do you create a strong sense of social presence of yourself and your students
In the hands of a skilled educator with experience in blended learning course design, AI can serve as a valuable and supportive tool. However, its suggestions should never be accepted uncritically.
In the attached document, I have compiled several examples—some more successful than others—that illustrate this point clearly. Even the most promising AI-generated ideas required substantial refinement and enhancement through my own expertise.
For those with a solid background in course design who view AI as a capable assistant rather than an autonomous creator, the efficiency gains can indeed be significant.