lesson planning

November 4, 2018November 17, 2019

Beta-testing Designs with End-Users

Today, learners demand more customization, voice, and practicality from their learning environments (Kalaitzidis, Litts, & Halverson, 2017). Hence, instructional designers will have to upgrade learning environments in order to meet the demand of today’s learners. As discussed in an earlier post, content creation and calibration cannot be done in a silo. Content that is customized, incorporates the students’ voice, and is practical for students, has to be co-designed with students. Hence, content that is co-designed with learners is the ultimate form of personalized learning.

Flow theory

Why should instructional designers include learners in the content creation process? First, by including learners in creating content, the learners themselves intrinsically set learning goals for attainment. In other words, when instructional designers introduce learners to the instructional objectives and learning outcomes for the units and lessons, the learners then can determine their own learning because they have been empowered by the instructional designer to customize and practicalize the content and they have been allowed to add their voices to the content creation and learning process.

Second, by including learners in the creation process, a learning flow that produces deep engagement and learner motivation can be established. Csikszentmihalyi (1990) argued that “clear goals, individual control, tasks that the individual is capable of successfully completing, and skills that must be learned” is what establishes a flow for deep learning and engagement. When learners co-create content, tasks are designed that are not too challenging or too easy. Students co-design tasks with teachers that align with their personal interests, thus placing them in a flow channel of learning.

Third, learner voice, choice, and agency are all embedded in co-designed instructional design models, as these types of models highly value empowering learners to make decisions about ends, priorities, and means (Reigeluth, Myers, & Lee, 2017). When students are empowered, then they are more engaged and thereby more capable of attaining their learning goals and the instructor’s teaching objective.

Alpha vs. Beta testing

In many cases, after instructional designers have created their content without student input, they typically test the content in the alpha stage through the student view. For instance, instructional designers might make sure that the links work, that the dates of content release are correct, and that the aesthetics of the content is appealing. If the content passes the instructional designer’s alpha test, then it is delivered to the student without any trial run. Some would argue that this is a travesty, as students are being held accountable for content that was not given a trial run by the learners. Cars are test-driven, wine is taste-tested, and movies have trailers, all for the sake of testing the quality or operation of the product. Why then are students not given an opportunity to give their content a trail run?

Why content should be beta-tested with students

When instructional designers allow students to co-design and beta test the content, students are able to find bugs and fix them, improve content features, and optimize the distribution of learning, teaching, and assessing (Kalaitzidis, Litts, & Halverson, 2017). “In software development, the beta phase is an accepted, normal, predictable stage of product development” (Gonzalez, 2018). This is not the case in traditional instructional design. Gonzalez (2014) mentioned that “beta is a lifelong commitment to continuous …growth” (para. 4). Hence, shouldn’t instructional designers adopt beta-testing as a form of continuous professional growth?

After doing some research on this topic, I created an instrument that not only supports mega-batching content creation but beta testing content with learners. For the instrument, click here. I also created a content rubric checklist for students that can be used for beta-testing content. This checklist is based on UC Berkley’s checklist. In sum, if instructional designers truly want to personalize learning for students, then they will not only have to incorporate the learners’ voice, choice, and agency, they will also have to incorporate co-designs that are beta-tested with end-users.

Reference:
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2009). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper [and] Row.

Gonzalez, J. (2014). Teaching in Beta: What We Can Learn from Software Developers Retrieved from https://www.cultofpedagogy.com/beta-teaching/ on October 14th, 2018

Reigeluth, C.M., Myers, R. D., Lee, D. (2017). The Learner-Centered Paradigm of Education in Reigeluth, C. M., In Beatty, B. J., & In Myers, R. D. Instructional-design theories and models: Volume IV.

Kalaitzidis, T.J., Litts, B., and Rosenfeld Halverson, E. (2017). Designing Collaborative Production of Digital Media in Reigeluth, C. M., In Beatty, B. J., & In Myers, R. D. Instructional-design theories and models: Volume IV.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

October 28, 2018January 26, 2019

Scaling Content Creation

“Learners now demand more customization, voice, and practicality from learning arrangements, and can find it almost exclusively outside of formal, designed education” (Kalaitzidis, Litts, & Halverson, 2017, p. 180). Hence, our current content creation and delivery will have to change in order to meet these new learner demands. As I mentioned in an earlier post, much of what is currently being used is mass produced by publishers. Hence, the current learning arrangements that teachers have with students are strained because the specific learning needs of the students are not being met.

Current state standards make it hard for teachers to implement learner-centered designs; instructional designs that give learners more customization, voice, and practicality. As Kalaitzidis, Litts, and Halverson (2017) mentioned, students can access much of their sanctioned Grade level content outside of formal education. Therefore, what is inherently valued within standards-based teaching and learning is not inherently valued within learner-centered designs, as learner-centered designs value “a complex system of authentic and legitimate learning activities” (Kalaitzidis, Litts, & Halverson, 2017, p. 183).

Content creation for learner-centered designs
What constitutes authentic and legitimate learning activities? Kalaitzidis, Litts, & Halverson (2017), argued that authentic and legitimate learning activities have learning tasks that constitute the following:

tasks are personally meaningful
tasks honor disciplinary and/or professional practices
tasks are assessable within the context of the production and learning process
tasks are linked to real world practices and communities of practice

For teachers to create such content like the tasks listed above, there will have to be a major overhaul of their current teaching practices. Kalaitzidis, Litts, & Halverson (2017), argue that classrooms need to be converted into workshops, since this format engages learners in a “collaborative production process through which they may pursue their own individual projects, yet work together toward the same ‘umbrella goal'” (p. 185). Hence, the standards-based teaching format will have to convert to a performance-based learner format where teaching is framed as a mentorship and “the roles and responsibilities of the ‘teacher’ and ‘student’… transform in ways that reflect distributed learning relationships in digital culture” (Kalaitzidis, Litts, & Halverson, 2017, p. 194).

By converting the classroom into a workshop, the leaners’ demand for more customization, voice, and practicality within learning arrangements can be met with a work-shop-style format. This particular format will enable teachers to assume the role of a mentor and distribute learning, teaching, and assessment within the workshop.

Distributing learning spreads the onus of learning across the entire class community.
Distributing teaching acknowledges and leverages the variations of learner interests as pedagogical opportunities.
Distributing assessment expands the objects of assessment to include peer review, audience reactions, mentor notes, and learner feedback about the instructional task (Kalaitzidis, Litts, & Halverson, 2017, p. 197).

Scaling customized content
Scaling learner-centered designs that promote authentic and legitimate learning activities perhaps can be done with the assistance of the learners. In other words, more customization, voice, and practicality doesn’t have to come solely from the teacher. Simply allowing students to co-design content with the teacher will increase customization and voice in the classroom workshop. On the contrary, more practicality for students may not always be feasible if learning is centered around content and concepts that students deems worthless. Nonetheless, learner-centered designs and the learners themselves can help teachers scale content creation.

Reference:
Kalaitzidis, T.J., Litts, B., and Rosenfeld Halverson, E. Designing Collaborative Production of Digital Media in Reigeluth, C. M., In Beatty, B. J., & In Myers, R. D. (2017). Instructional-design theories and models: Volume IV.

September 30, 2018January 26, 2019

Content Creation and Calibration

Let’s be honest, it is hard to truly personalize learning when there are established standards for learning. Please don’t get me wrong. I am not arguing against standards for learning, I’m simply trying to reconcile the ideas behind the two approaches to distributing and measuring learning. I call this ideological dissonance, the instructional dichotomy. The table below illustrates my ideas on the difference between standardized learning and personalized learning:

Table: The Instructional Dichotomy

Learners vs. Students

Why am I interested in this topic? To answer this question, I must first start with a quote.

“If you consider anyone who is learning at any age and anywhere a “learner,” then you give the responsibility for the learning to the learner. When the institution or anyone who is teaching students are accountable for the learning — not the learners — the responsibility falls on the teachers for what “students” learn. Doesn’t this seem backwards? Where is the incentive and motivation to learn if all the responsibility is on the teacher? If you change the thinking behind the terms, then using the term “learners” makes more sense” (Bray & McClaskey, 2014).

Bray and McClaskey’s (2014) quote caused me to examine the notion of personalized learning in a standardized classroom. How can teachers possibly shift the onus of learning from the institution to the learner? And how can teachers employ individualized instructional procedures that are in sync with each students’ learning stage and learning process? There is no straight answer for this. Nonetheless, Kalaitzidis, Litts, and Rosenfeld Halverson (2017), asserted that today’s communities of learners “thrive upon innovation in tools, meanings, and ways-of-knowing, and favor distributed, emergent, and egalitarian methods for achieving goals” (p. 179). Hence, to authentically personalize learning in a standardized classroom, teachers will have to adopt “design identities” and learn to distribute learning, teaching, and assessment across the entire class community (pp.195-197). This will require ontological and paradigmatic shifts towards learner-centered instructional designs (Kalaitzidis, Litts, and Rosenfeld Halverson, 2017, p. 182).

Action steps for personalizing learning in a standardized classroom

Developing “design identities” will take time to cultivate and implement in our schools. Nonetheless, I have created some action steps that I believe teachers can use to help address the instructional dichotomy of personalizing learning in a standardized educational field. Let’s begin by stating, true personalized learning starts with the student and his or her learning goal. However, to remain in compliance with the State’s required standards, I suggest starting with the standard and help students contextualize their learning goals within the required State’s standards. The student’s learning goals can be converted into competencies that align with the State’s standards. Below lists the remaining steps in my action plan:

Identify Learning Objectives and Learning Outcomes – aligned with the standards and converted into “I Can” statements
Identify Student Learning Goals and Student Learning Goal Attainment – aligned with the learners
Identify Instructional Methods and Procedures: How will the learning objectives be achieved? (e.g., direct teaching, games, simulations, lab, multimedia, discussions, reading, field trip, drills, demonstration, brainstorming, etc.) – aligned with the standards
Identify Learning Stage: What learning stage is the student in? (e.g. acquisition, fluency (reinforcement), generalization (maintenance), adaptation (experiential)) – aligned with the learners
Identify Learning Process – Doing something (Concrete Experimentation), Thinking about it (Reflection), Doing some research, Talking with others and applying what we already know to the situation (Abstract Conceptualization), Doing something new or doing the same thing in a more sophisticated way based on our learning (Active Experimentation) David Kolb – aligned with learners
Teacher provides feedback to student – Feed-up, Feedback, Feed-forward; (Feed-up – clarify the learning objectives; Feedback – Respond to Student Work; Feed-forward – Modify instruction for future lessons). – aligned with the standards
Student provides feedback to teacher – Feedback – aligned with the learners

In sum, I still believe that it is hard to truly personalize learning for students when there are established standards for learning. Nonetheless, to help address this instructional dichotomy, I suggest that we continue to start with state standards and help students contextualize their learning goals within those standards.

References:

Bray, B., & McClaskey, K. (2014, March ). Building Personalized Learning Environments. Retrieved July 10, 2018, from http://www.advanc-ed.org/source/building-personalized-learning-environments

Fisher, D; Frey, N. (2009). Feed Up, Back, Forward. Educational Leadership. Retrieved September 12, 2018, from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/nov09/vol67/num03/Feed-Up,-Back,-Forward.aspx

Kalaitzidis, T.J., Litts, B., and Rosenfeld Halverson, E. Designing Collaborative Production of Digital Media in Reigeluth, C. M., In Beatty, B. J., & In Myers, R. D. (2017). Instructional-design theories and models: Volume IV.

August 12, 2018January 27, 2019

Gamification Can Help Teachers Personalize Learning

Gamification is the key to helping teachers implement personalized learning because “gamified environments are ideal for mastery learning[;] allowing students to repeatedly practice skills to meet learning outcomes” (Kingsley & Grabner-Hagen, p. 553). Research shows that gamification increases learner engagement, motivation, and critical thinking. Furthermore, games offer challenges to learners and are the best way to support student agency, student identity, and student “productive” power.

According to Moje and Lewis (2007), student agency is the making and remaking of the students’ self, identity, and relationships. According to the Merriam-Dictionary, agency is defined as “the capacity, condition, or state of acting or of exerting power.” Hence, gamification places learners in a role, condition, or state in which they have to exert their power through decision making, perseverance, leadership, and critical thinking.

Moje and Lewis (2007) submitted that Student identity is a continuous formation of the student acting as a subject within a community. In other words, how students behave, speak, and function ultimately forms the basis of the students’ identity. Hence, gamification requires that learners act as a particular subject in a particular discourse community. Strictly speaking, depending upon the goals of the learning quest, learners have to function in a particular role in order to successfully complete the learning goals of the quest. They must also understand the context, nomenclature, and linguistic rules of the discourse community within the quest. What is more, gamification places learners in a variety of roles and discourse communities that they would not otherwise be.

Student “productive” power, as defined by Moje and Lewis (2007), is not only having the skill and will to achieve learning goals, but also having independent thought and autonomous action towards self-regulated learning and self-directed learning. Hence, gamification capitalizes on autonomy, learner choice, and learner control.

In sum, gamification shows learners that failure is not final… As a matter of fact, the repetitive activity of games supports perpetual skill building and leaves little time for players to sulk in failure. Much like gaming, personalized learning environments allow students to be immersed in a rich learning experience that yields multiple outcomes of learning, thus generating a learning constellation progression of knowledge and skills. If educators really want to implement personalized learning in their classrooms, then they will need to consider gamification.

Reference:
Kingsley, Tara L. & Grabner-Hagen, Melissa M. (2017). Vocabulary by Gamification. The Reading Teacher. 71. doi:10.1002/trtr.1645.

Moje, E. B., & Lewis, C. (2007). Examining opportunities to learn literacy: The role of critical sociocultural literacy research. In. C. J. Lewis, P. Enciso, & E. B. Moje (Eds.), Reframing sociocultural research on literacy: Identity, agency, and power. (pp. 15-48). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

July 3, 2018January 27, 2019

How is Personalized Learning related to an Ownership Quotient?

“Tailoring learning for each student’s strengths, needs and interests–including enabling student voice and choice in what, how, when and where they learn–to provide flexibility and supports to ensure mastery of the highest standards possible” (Abel, 2016).

This quote is an excellent summary of all of the articles that I have read on personalized learning thus far. Embodied in Abel’s quote is the assumption that learners will take ownership of their learning, hence leading to greater self-efficacy, self-regulation, self-direction, and learner independence, which are all by-products of learner ownership. As a result, all of these by-products create high quality personalized learning.

Using the balance scale as an analogy, high quality personalized learning repositions the learner on the balance scale, thus placing equal weight of accountability on both the learner and the teacher. Therefore, high quality personalized learning enables learners to pursue proficiencies and competencies that are aligned to established standards while teachers create on-demand “instructional interventions and supports for each student” during the learning process (Abel, 2016). Out of this dichotomy comes an ownership quotient.

In the world of business, the ownership quotient encompasses a degree or amount of a specified quality within an organization. Specifically, it is the quality of the linkages between employees, customers, and profits. These linkages create a service/profit chain.

This same concept is applicable to education, especially under the umbrella of personalized learning. Instead of the linkages being the employees, the customers, and the profits, for a school district or educational organization, the linkages are the faculty, the students, and student achievement.

According to the Ownership Quotient (2008), there are 8 key links within the service/ profit chain that influences linkages. I’ve adjusted those 8 links to fit education, hence they are key links within the service/student achievement chain.

1. The ownership opportunity (e.g.,opportunity for faculty and students to own the teaching and learning process).
2. Build ownership into the strategic value vision (e.g., adding methods for achieving staff and student ownership in the both the district’s vision and the strategic plan).
3. Leverage value over cost (this principle is aimed specifically at district level leadership).
4. Put [students] to work.
5. Boost the [Faculty] Ownership Quotient (e.g., faculty feels like a co-owner within the organization).
6. Engineer ownership through anticipatory management (e.g., create buy-in from faculty and students by planning for possible learning difficulties or setbacks).
7. Build a strong and adaptive ownership culture (beginning at the district level and ending in the classroom, every individual associated with the district owns the teaching and learning process).
8. Sustain success.

In sum, the Ownership Quotient theory applies well to the idea of personalized learning. As students begin to own their learning, the quality of the service/student achievement linkages improve since the following elements show true ownership of learning and constructs each link in the chain:
a) self-efficacy,
b) self-regulation,
c) self-direction, and
d) learner independence

Reference:

Abel, N. (2016, February 17). What is Personalized Learning. INACOL. Retrieved July 02, 2018, from https://www.inacol.org/news/what-is-personalized-learning/

Heskett, J. L., Sasser, E. W., & Wheeler, J. (2008). The ownership quotient: Putting the service profit chain to work for unbeatable competitive advantage. Boston, Mass: Harvard Business Press.

December 9, 2017January 27, 2019

Empowering Learners with Non-linear Learning Progressions

Most curriculum theory models use linear learning progressions that create continuous linear pathways of knowledge and skills for students to achieve within a fixed period of time. Students must know and be able to do several predetermined behaviors that are a direct result of a meaningful learning experience in order to achieve mastery. But are linear continuous learning progressions conducive to personalized learning?

Curriculum Theory Models use prearranged learning criteria that fails to include the students’ voice or offer the students choice in what, how, when, and where they learn. Whereas design-oriented models, use a prescribed set of learning criteria that begins with the students’ voice while offering the students choice in what, how, when, and where they will learn.

Thanks to technology and adaptive learning platforms, the linear path of learning progressions that currently exist for many students can now be rearranged into a constellation map of knowledge and skills. This constellation map of knowledge and skills is also known as a learning skills map. With the learning skills map, students are no longer limited to a linear scope and sequence of knowledge and skills of content acquisition, and they can progress through their learning with more flexibility and enrichment. The learning skills map links many interconnected concepts that students opt to pass through on their learning journey, in any order they wish. The learning skills map also allows students to craft their own learning playlist. Thus, students choose which concepts and skills they would like to study and the sequence they would like to study in.

In sum, personalized learning is far from being a continuous and neat linear learning progression. It’s a messy discontinuous non-linear learning progression that is different for every student. Much like gaming, personalized learning allows students to be immersed in a rich learning experience that yields multiple outcomes of learning, thus generating a constellation of knowledge and skills.

Reference:

Achieve, (2015). Retrieved from https://www.achieve.org/files/Achieve-LearningProgressionsinCBP.pdf

November 25, 2017

Finding the Sweet Spot in Personalized Learning

The optimum point at which the most effective contact occurs, is known as the Sweet Spot. Hence, what is the optimum point of personalized learning?

According to the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE), Personalized learning tailors instruction, expression of learning, and assessment to each student’s unique needs and preferences. Hence, learners are the heart of personalized learning because they have to make the choice to interact with the content and they have to decide how much attention and effort they will devote towards the learning task. In other words, the optimum point or the sweet spot of personalized learning is the learner’s ability to self-regulate and to be self-directed during the learning task.

So what is the difference between self-regulated learning (SRL) and self-directed learning (SDL)? According to Pamela Bracey’s Literature Review, self-regulated learners decide what, when, where, and how to learn. They also choose how much effort they will employ on the metacognitive, motivational, and behavioral aspects of learning. On the other hand, self-directed learners diagnose their learning needs, formulate learning goals, identify resources necessary for learning, choose appropriate learning strategies, and evaluate their learning outcomes. With self-directed learners, the learning is self-paced and usually initiated with an incentive and/or an interest.

SRL and SDL are both necessary in a web-enhanced classroom in order to support the learner’s acquisition of knowledge and skills. Furthermore, the more sophisticated the learning needs of the learner, the more self-directed and self-regulated the learner will become. Adler (2011) in his Paideia Proposal, submitted that learners need to know the what of learning but not at the expense of the how for learning. Hence, by allowing learners to choose what, when, where, and how to learn, teachers are supporting SRL. When learners take the initiative to diagnose their learning needs, formulate learning goals, identify resources necessary for learning, choose appropriate learning strategies, and evaluate their learning outcomes, then they are at the why for learning. In other words, they are becoming self-directed learners. Teachers can support SDL by teaching students to use feedback, to self-assess, and to set learning goals.

What makes SDL and SRL the sweet spot of personalized learning? First, students need to have an ample amount of self-directed and self-regulated learner characteristics since these learning dispositions help students reach the optimum point of personalized learning.

Second, SDL and SRL support student agency, student identity, and student power. In an earlier post, student agency was defined as the making and remaking of the students’ self, the students’ identity, and the students’ relationships. Student identity was defined as the ability to be able to identify with a particular discourse community or identifying with the language of various learning communities. Finally, student power was defined as productive power built on rich relationships and high quality interactions. SDL and SRL provides students with space to develop their intellectual skills and to enlarge their understanding of ideas and values related to the learning outcomes.

In sum, possessing SDL and SRL skills are necessary for 21st century learning. The instructional design process for web-enhanced classrooms can not meet the unique learning needs or preferences of students without consideration of SDL and SRL, the sweet spot of personalized learning.

References:

Adler, Mortimer J. (2011). The Paideia program: An educational syllabus. New York: Macmillan.

Turn your classroom into a personalized learning environment. (n.d.). Retrieved November 24, 2017, from https://www.iste.org/explore/articleDetail?articleid=416&category=Personalized-learning&article=Turn%2Byour%2Bclassroom%2Binto%2Ba%2Bpersonalized%2Blearning%2Benvironment

November 18, 2017

Learning Objects promote personalized learning

As I do more and more research on personalized learning, I realize that student voice can easily be incorporated into lesson designs. One way that students can contribute to their own learning is by creating learning objects. Learning objects are modular instructional tools related to content, practice, or assessment. Depending upon the topic at hand, students can be encouraged to create learning objects for themselves and/or their peers.

Learning Objects in a web-enhanced classroom can increase learning engagement and student understanding. Learning objects can take the form of a video, an interactive learning module, or a photo. The main purpose of learning objects is to take a “meaty” learning standard and boil it down to specific knowledge and skills that can be taught in smaller units.

For example, according to the Common Core State Standards, in Grade 8, students should: Understand and apply the Pythagorean Theorem.

CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.8.G.B.6
Explain a proof of the Pythagorean Theorem and its converse.

CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.8.G.B.7
Apply the Pythagorean Theorem to determine unknown side lengths in right triangles in real-world and mathematical problems in two and three dimensions.

CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.8.G.B.8
Apply the Pythagorean Theorem to find the distance between two points in a coordinate system.

This is a “meaty” standard that requires unpacking. Once unpacked, one can see that students need to know and understand how to first explain a proof of the Pythagorean Theorem. A learning object can help with that. Students can learn Pythagoras’ theorem using a professionally created learning object or a student created learning object. Once they understand the concepts behind the theorem, then they can be encouraged to apply the theorem to a relevant situation within their lives.

In a web-enhanced classroom, teachers would encourage their students to create learning objects using such tools as Explain Everything, Screencast-o-matic, or Doceri. With student created learning objects, students can now clarify their understanding at their learning pace and share their learning with others. Thus, having students create learning objects authentically promotes personalized learning because the student’s voices are now added to the mix.

November 11, 2017

Goal Setting F.A.S.T.

One technique Instructional Designers use to focus on the goals of instruction is the functional analysis system technique, or F.A.S.T. technique. FAST is a simple chart that the Instructional Designer fills in, that starts with the action and ends with arriving at a goal for fulfilling that action. In other words, the FAST technique works backwards in order to help put a focus on the larger goal or goals at hand.

To implement this technique into lesson designs for web-enhanced classrooms, first start with the desired action and then work backwards by doing a functional analysis of that particular action. Asking how and why questions will help with the functional analysis. For instance, How does it function? Why does it function? The answers to those questions will help students derive at a goal for learning that particular course learning outcome.

Starting with the action will help students arrive at a final goal for learning. For instance, when students are enrolled in a Mathematics course, first assist them in becoming familiar with the course learning outcomes for that particular mathematics course. Then, show the students how to convert those course learning outcomes into actionable goals.

Here is an example from Grade 6 mathematics CCSS Standards: Understand ratio concepts and use ratio reasoning to solve problems.

CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.6.RP.A.1
Understand the concept of a ratio and use ratio language to describe a ratio relationship between two quantities. For example, “The ratio of wings to beaks in the bird house at the zoo was 2:1, because for every 2 wings there was 1 beak.” “For every vote candidate A received, candidate C received nearly three votes.”

Converting this standard into an actionable goal using the FAST technique would look like this:

The FAST technique is a foolproof way to incorporate student voice and choice in lesson design for web-enhanced classrooms because it allows the students to set goals from themselves within a framework of standards for learning. By teaching students to convert course learning outcomes into actionable goals, students automatically add their voice and choice to their learning and their goals for learning.

November 5, 2017

Where should teachers begin?

Over the last two months, I’ve been examining the difference between instructional-design theories and curriculum design theories. I learned that instructional-design theories are design-oriented in nature because they focus on the means to attain the given learning goals. They are probabilistic, which means that the prescribed method of instruction will increase the chances of attaining the learning goals byway of instructional conditions, desired outcomes, and the instructional components. Instructional-design theories are founded on customization and diversity from the key markers of the Information Age.

In contrast, Curriculum-theory designs are description oriented in nature, which means that they focus on the results of any given learning event. They are also deterministic, which means that the attainment of the learning goals are assured with operant conditioning. Curriculum designs are founded on standardization and conformity from the key markers of the Industrial Age.

This inquiry has helped me to understand why I am mixing ideologies from both educational theories. Since curriculum-design theories limit a teachers ability to personalize learning for students, it is obvious that teachers have to make the shift. Hence, how do we shift from a curriculum-design theory mindset to an instructional-design theory mindset?

I started exploring an answer to that question using a Goal Analysis. Goal Analysis is one of the steps that instructional designers take when determining instructional needs. Typically, the goal analysis occurs during the analysis phase of A.D.D.I.E. Instead of using standards to commence instruction, teachers in web-enhanced classrooms would use the learners’ goals as the starting point for planning instruction. Robert Mager (1997) devised a process for analyzing goals:

Write the goal.
Identify the necessary behaviors learners would need in order to demonstrate achievement of this goal.
Using the list of these behaviors, write a goal statement that describes what exactly the learner will be able to do.
To ensure you have clarified the goal, look at the goal statement and ask: if the learner was able to achieve each performance behavior, would he or she have achieved the goal? If yes, then you have properly clarified the goal.

Therefore, by starting with the learner, instead of the standard, we can shift to an instructional-design theory mindset. So how would that look in a typical classroom? It would be unfair to apply the instructional-design theory mindset to an elementary web-enhanced classroom because it is not developmentally appropriate for that age group. As Mortimer Adler described in the Paideia Program, elementary age students require didactic instruction. However, a secondary web-enhanced classroom, is suitable for applying the instructional-design theory mindset because secondary students are in the need of developing their intellectual skills.

Hence, to answer the question: Where should teachers begin, I say, begin with the learner.

What are the learners goals based on their current needs and interests?
What is the student’s ability in terms of achieving his or her goals?
What is the probability of the student achieving their goals based on their current level of performance?
What instructional design models should be employed that will increase the students probability of achieving his or her goals?
What are the constraints?
Is the goal aligned with the real-life goals that the students have?

Finally, we can contextualize the student’s learning goals with their grade-level standards within the design phase of A.D.D.I.E.