Design+Approaches


 * Design Approaches: Abstracts, examples and critiques (Project 2)**


 * __Project #2, Part 2__: Posted by Kelly McDonald **
 * I read "Creating Significant Learning," by L. Dee Fink (and several related papers/articles by Fink - I've posted them on my page). The design model he describes is the "Integrated Course Design." This approach is learner-centered and begins with the instructor "identifying important situational factors." These factors, which include the format of the course, population of students, expectations the course must meet, and other non-negotiable factors that are intrinsic to the course, are central to decisions made about the course's 1) learning goals, 2) feedback and assessment, and 3) teaching/learning activities. Fink emphasizes the importance of these 3 components for a "significant learning experience." He further stresses the importance of integrating the goals with the instructional methods and assessment strategies. Fink also emphasizes the need for learning goals to include more than just the typical "content/factual knowledge." He defines 6 categories of learning goals in his "Taxonomy of Significant Learning." These include "Foundational Knowledge, but also consist of Application, Integration, Human Dimension (learning about oneself and others), Caring, and Learning how to Learn." Also central to the model is the necessity for 'educative assessment" and Fink uses the acronym FIDeLITY, which stands for frequent, immediate, discriminating and loving, to describe key characteristics of good assessment. **


 * The Integrated Course Design, at first glance, looked identical to the backwards design method that I have used in the development of Bio 2, but it seems that the "backward design" is the __method__ used in constructing an "integrated course design," which is the __model.__ We started by defining 8 Key Concepts, which described big overarching concepts. We further defined more detailed learning objectives under each Key Concept. As an example, part of Key Concept 2 states, "The structure of cellular membranes provides a selectively permeable barrier in the aqueous environment." To teach this this concept, students act out "transport" across the plasma membrane. Some are assigned structural components of the membrane or cell, while others are assigned the role of molecules trying to get across. They are given multiple scenarios and have to work together to figure out what would happen at the cellular level. The assessment is oral as each person has a role that they have to play, and they have to justify the decisions that they are making along the way. This activity always leads to a lot of interaction, discussion and questions that don't arise from lecturing on the same topic. Plus, students always identify it as one of their favorite activities. While this activity is focused on teaching foundational knowledge, students must apply this knowledge to multiple scenarios and they must integrate concepts they've learned in multiple chapters to accurately represent an active membrane. Further, they must work together, so it addresses multiple types of learning goals. **


 * I believe that this approach has many strengths. Defining what you want students to know first can lead to a more thoughtful, cohesive teaching/learning experience, and incorporating goals that address different skill sets will make for a more well-rounded learning experience that extend beyond the class itself. The benefits of immediate and formative assessment are well-documented in the literature, and the alignment or integration of the goals, assessment and learning activities is obviously better than the alternative - when these components are disjointed. Fink mentions one of the disadvantageous, which is simply the fact that it is a more time-consuming method of course design. It takes time and thought and multiple revisions to design a course that integrates all of the components of this method. That said, it can be done in stages, by starting to design short activities with corresponding assessments that map to learning goals. In my opinion, it is the specific "foundational knowledge" goals which still take the longest to articulate, as many of the other types of learning goals are general and can be applied to the foundational goals. Also, it takes some time to learn how to develop good educative assessments that can be efficiently used to evaluate and provide feedback to all students, especially in large classroom settings (a situational factor that must be considered). Other than the learning curve and the time-intensiveness, I don't have any criticisms of this course design methodology. **

__Project #2 - Vanessa__ 1) I read the first chapter of Wiggins and McTighe’s //Understanding by Design//. They describe the most effective curricular designs as “backward.” They advocate that we start with the end (the desired results) and then derive the curriculum from the evidence of learning called for by the standard and the teaching needed to equip students to perform.

2) A brief example from my own work: //Honors 103: Civic Engagement, Service Learning// According to this design approach, there are 3 stages: //Honors 103// student learning goals include: According to the approach, teachers need to decide what enduring understanding or experience they want students to take away. I think that what I was really after was for students to document evidence of a growing understanding about what can be learned from experience in diverse communities and cultures; and for students to analyze salient identities and power relations; explore intercultural issues seeking similarities between differing cultural contexts. I also hoped that students would be open to entering unknown or unplanned cultural interactions and deepen their insight into behaviors from them. What I’m learning is that many students do not see the connection between in-class work and the “real world.” One of my goals was to show the connection through authentic doing. “Authentic learning experiences shift a student from the role of a passive knowledge receiver into a more active role as a constructor of meaning” (11). I wanted to assess what was most important, namely how the students promoted others’ engagement with diversity and how they connected and extended knowledge (facts, theories, etc.) from their own academic study/field/discipline to civic engagement and to their own participation in civic life. I assigned an e-portfolio (which needs to be revised!) and a social media project or documentary film for the benefit/mission of the community partner. An authentic challenge of nonprofits is to market their organization, alert the public of their mission/raise awareness, and find funding for the organization. Students needed to work with their community partners to develop a clear research question that would (a) address community’s identified needs, and (b) guide the rest of the community-based research process. This is another area in need of improvement. I should offer students more resources next year connected to nonprofits/philanthropy/community engagement/service learning, etc. What materials and resources are best suited to accomplish the goals above? What essential knowledge and skills will the students need? I should also allow the students to select their own text to read in light of their community partners' needs (suggested at our last FLC meeting!).
 * Stage 1: Identify desired results**
 * Gain practical experience assessing the circumstances of real organizations.
 * Gain experience regarding the application of theory and research to real organizations.
 * Gain experience communicating ideas for audiences in both academics and industry.
 * Stage 2: Determine Acceptable Evidence**
 * Stage 3: Plan Learning Experiences and Instruction**

3) Critique of approach There should be one more stage to this approach – student feedback. We (instructors) might have an understanding of the “big picture” but how do we get our students to be on the same page as us? What we value these days does not seem to go hand-in-hand with what generation Y values. Understanding our audience needs to be part of the design considerations. Kelly (in Project 2) points out that** "backward design" is the __method__ used in constructing an "integrated course design," which is the __model.__ **Let's discuss!

Project #2 Mark


 * RE: my ComS 5 Communication Experience course**
 * As I consider the "projects" approach, I get excited about the possibility of really significant projects to draw students into critical thinking, research, and presentation. For example, the students are not buying the textbook--too expensive they complain. So, I'm considering having students read, say, Goffman's, Presentation of Self in Everyday Life from Google Scholar; then, compare Goffman's theory about unmediated, face to face presentation with emerging use of social mediate as location of presentation of self. It would engage their interest more, I think, and be a bigger, more significant task than what they often have to do. **


 * Move the speech anxiety activity to the front of the course and expand the treatment. Students are required to speak making brief informative speeches. The Personal **
 * Report of Speech Anxiety will provide a good project through which to get students thinking about PS, about how they can intervene in their own development, and__research__. All facilitate more valuable presentations during the course and the final project. **


 * Develop projects around the contexts of communication we treat wherein students collect various forms of qualitative and quantitative data;e.g. video recordings of interpersonal interactions; group activities in classes; do interviews with campus experts, etc. **


 * I find Gagne's model below to be a nice set of prompts for thinking about the re-organization of my course and revision of assignments. **
 * [[image:http://www.wikispaces.com/i/mime/32/application/pdf.png height="32" link="http://csuscoursedesignflc.wikispaces.com/file/view/Gagne-Model+of+Design1.pdf"]] [|Gagne-Model of Design1.pdf] **

A negative, I think, is that it advocates attending to evaluation before any other dimension of the design except construction of objectives. That can limit adjustments to teaching somewhat in that commitment to design of evaluation before teaching may discourage adjustments or changes that you find may be needed by students; it can get in the way of taking up instructional opportunities that may emerge during a unit or course.
 * A postive element of this model is it's focus on objectives as the means for guiding topic choices, instructional strategies and evaluations (both formative and summative). **