ELearning/Course design/Course structure

From Encyclopedia of Science and Technology
Jump to: navigation, search

Introduction

Teaching can be accomplished in a number of ways, as discussed elsewhere in this heuristic; course structures, also referred to as pedagogical models, describe these "ways of teaching" from a high level perspective. The models can be thought of as the underlying framework or architecture we utilize as we build a course. Some models arise out of learning theory while others are practice-based. All have their strengths and all can exist together within a single course. The use of structural models is closely tied to theories of learning and one's philosophy of teaching and learning; we recommend you visit or revisit those articles in conjunction with this one.

Here we briefly review sevenstructural models:

  • Traditional linear (teacher-centered, content-centered, accumulative, transmissionist)
  • Cyclical (experiential learning cycle, re-teaching)
  • Problem-based (case-based, project-based, challenge-based, service learning)
  • Inquiry-based learning
  • Collaborative learning (social learning, dialogue intensive learning)
  • Adaptive learning (mastery learning, personalized learning, adaptive control, and self-directed)
  • Competency-based learning
  • Networked learning

Traditional linear structures

When most of us think of pedagogy, we think of this model. It embraces linear time and linear thinking; very Western culture. The linear conception of time ensures that the learning process has a beginning and an end with predictable waypoints between (Ihanainen & Moravec, 2011).

1. The traditional linear structure
1. The traditional linear structure

Instruction involves the dispensing of information or concepts, followed by examples, practice, and assessment of learning (Quinn, 2011). Individual elements may differ, such as discussion instead of practice, but the linear progression is maintained. There may or may not be an assumption that information presented at an earlier point is used to build new and more complex concepts in a building-block fashion. Especially with survey courses, different units of instruction may have little linkage.

Based in behavioral and cognitive theories, the linear approach is best suited for transmitting explicit knowledge and practices to learners. The goal of teaching is for students to obtain existing knowledge and proven practices through a series of learning steps. The social nature of learning is generally not considered, and individual learning is emphasized. As such, this approach is also referred to as teacher- and content-centered since it is the instructor and content that prescribe what is to be taught, the order of elements, and the time allotted for each unit. Students conform to these requirements regardless of their state of learning, frequently leading to a memorize-test-forget emphasis.

Active learning structures

An active approach to learning minimizes lecture in favor of in-class activities, often done in teams, sets of online exercises, and reading. Think of active learning as an approach to instruction in which students engage the material they study through reading, writing, talking, listening, and reflecting. Active learning stands in contrast to "standard" modes of instruction in which teachers do most of the talking and students are passive.

Students and their learning needs are at the center of active learning. There are many teaching strategies that can be employed to actively engage students in the learning process, including group discussions, problem solving, case studies, role plays, journal writing, and structured learning groups. The benefits to using such activities are many, including improved critical thinking skills, increased retention and transfer of new information, increased motivation, and improved interpersonal skills. Refer to Learning activities Part 3 for a full list of possibilities.

A 2014 study (Perez-Pena, 2014) demonstrated that active learning raised average test scores more than 3 percentage points overall, and more than 6 percentage points for black and first-generation college students. Another (Gregory et al., 2016) demonstrated that high school teachers using high-level analysis and inquiry learning activities experienced significantly fewer discipline problems with black students. Student surveys showed that those participating in active classes were far more likely to have done the reading, spent more hours on the work, and participated more in class, and were more likely to view the class as a community. Active learning has also been found to benefit learners with ADHD tendencies (Friedman, 2014).

Other research has shown that disadvantaged students are less likely to participate in class, and report feeling intimidated or isolated. Active learning methods that demand participation and cooperation are likely to help these students achieve parity with their more advantaged peers.

Many of the following structures incorporate active learning principles.

Cyclical structures

Experiential learning cycle

2. Kolb's experiential learning cycle

The cyclical, or spiral, approach to teaching and learning is best illustrated by David Kolb's experiential learning cycle (Kolb & Kolb, 2005), emphasizing the central role of experience in education. They credit William James' radical empiricism from the 19th century as the basis for their ideas. "For James, everything begins and ends in the continuous flux and flow of experience. In short, experience is all there is." They define learning as "the process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experience." The learning process is conceived as a cycle or spiral where the learner progresses through four dialectic modes. "Concrete experiences give rise to observations and reflections that are distilled into concepts from which new implications for action are drawn."

Students act first, and then reflect on the experience. What happened? What feelings did I experience? Reflection leads to "so what?" questions. Why did this happen? How did I influence the outcome? What patterns do we see? What do the results imply? Reflective analysis leads to "now what?" questions. What will we do differently? How can we be more effective? If 'X' happens, what will we do? Petkus (2000) describes student roles assigned for each mode: the activist, the reflector, the theorist, and the pragmatist.

As an example, the instructor asks students to engage in a round of online role play or simulation. Once finished, they use the discussion board to converse about issues that came up during the experience and draw conclusions and lessons learned. From there students create a set of guidelines or recommendations, which they take into a second round. Each step of the way, the instructor moderates the experience by providing direction, asking probing questions, answering student questions, and providing just-in-time information.

Movement through the cycle does not have to begin with concrete experience and move lockstep through the others. Rather, based on circumstances, subject matter, or preference, learners may begin with observation or theory then move toward concrete experience. Some modes may be emphasized over others. The approach is flexible and is expected to be modified to fit the learning need. What it does emphasize is the use of the different learning modes that together make up a complete learning experience (Petkus, 2000).

Kolb & Kolb (2009) also make the case for using the experiential learning cycle for learning to learn by using reflection, theorizing, and experimentation to identify and strengthen personal approaches to learning (using metacognition). They developed the Kolb Learning Style Inventory to aid in this process.

Click here for a guided tour of a course using the experiential learning cycle

Re-teaching

3. Ebbinghaus' forgetting curve

This approach addresses retention short-falls for many types of learning by ensuring that skills are not just taught, but are also re-taught as needed (Moravec, 2010). The approach is based on Ebbinghaus' forgetting curve (Pickren, 2010), which demonstrates the relationship between learned material, reinforcement of the material, and forgetting.

As Figure 3 illustrates, forgetting begins almost immediately after learning and drops precipitously from there (blue line). Ebbinghaus noted retention of just 30% after 24 hours. However, timely review interrupts forgetting and restores memory to the previous level. Forgetting is slower after review and fades less quickly than before. Repeated review at appropriate intervals (red, green, purple) again resets memory and forgetting is slowed further. Note that we have not indicated specific time frames for forgetting, as time and the extent of forgetting varies among studies (Custers, 2010). Even so, there is wide acknowledgement that the forgetting curve is real. Additional research (Karpicke & Blunt, 2011; Butler, 2010) has demonstrated that repeated testing is superior to repeated review for retention.

Knewton and Axonify learning platforms use the forgetting curve as part of their individualized learning strategies. We also note that these approaches can incorporate gaming, badges, and rewards.

The central idea is that individuals are taught to a particular level of fluency and then tracked over time. When a loss of fluency is detected, the skill is re-taught as part of a continuously updated intervention plan. This approach is especially appropriate for safety practices, emergency procedures, and those with learning disabilities. While simple in concept, the approach is difficult to manage without a sophisticated back end platform, and periodic refreshers are frequently used as a substitute.

Problem-based learning

4. Structured problem-based learning 5. Open problem-based learning
4. Structured problem-based learning 5. Open problem-based learning

Introduced in the 1950s by medical educators, problem-based learning (PBL) places realistic issues at the center of learning. By presenting complex case histories of real patients, PBL demands that students use an integrated, multidisciplinary approach to diagnosis and prescription for treatment - the sort of working knowledge demanded in clinical practice. It can also apply equally to a wide variety of disciplines. Whether communicated as a case, a problem, a mystery, a controversy, a concern or challenge, the reality-based story provides the central focus around which learning occurs. The instructor's role shifts from presenter of information to facilitator of a problem-solving process, monitoring discussions and contributing as appropriate, suggesting resources, asking probing questions, raising new issues, and promoting participation. Students generally view PBL very positively, as both challenging and motivating (Allen, Donham, & Bernhardt, 2011). Murray and Summerlee (2007) characterized PBL as a pedagogy of engagement.

After an introduction, student groups are presented with the problem and follow a problem-solving sequence such as the Seven-Jump Method created at the University of Maastricht (Clark & Mayer, 2006) See figure 4 above.:

  1. Clarify unknown terms and concepts (individually then together)
  2. Define the problem in the case (together)
  3. Analyze the problem by brainstorming plausible explanations (together)
  4. Critique the different explanations produced (together)
  5. Define the learning issues (together)
  6. Engage in self-directed study to fill gaps specified by the learning issues (individually)
  7. Share learning, and develop a final explanation and solution, conclusions or other appropriate findings (together)

Quinn (2011) describes a more open approach to problem-based learning where students are introduced to the process, provided the problem case, then allowed to explore concepts and examples, and try out different solutions before they arrive at a final outcome. The process is then followed by a summary, reflection of the experience, and lessons learned. See figure 5 above.

Research (Allen et al., 2011) suggests that PBL does not necessarily improve declarative knowledge over other methods, but does confer an advantage for learning organizing principles, integrating new with existing knowledge, linking knowledge domains, and applying knowledge. It also supports the development of "soft skills" such as research skills, negotiation, teamwork, reading, writing, and verbal communication. Yew, Chng, and Schmidt (2011) found strong evidence that the staged approach (e.g., University of Maastricht process above) to PBL, with its individual and group work, results in cumulative learning resulting in superior outcomes compared to unstructured approaches. An & Reigeluth (2008) argue that designs should account for context and offer the following guidelines:

  • Determine the appropriate group size. The more dialogue built into the problem-solving process, the smaller the group - 2-3. Other problem types may require 4-6 members in order to sustain dialogue, especially if asynchronous tools are used exclusively. Time and scope required to complete the process should also be considered, with shorter time spans and smaller scope calling for fewer members.
  • Overall, a fairly strict structure and guidelines are needed for online PBL, although motivated, experienced, and highly engaged students do well with less structure.
  • Ensure that students have sufficient requisite knowledge. Without sufficient grounding, students can be overwhelmed by the volume of available information and not pay sufficient attention to important issues. One useful approach is to introduce the problem early, then take students through the concepts and practices they will use during problem solving, and finally engage them in the problem.
  • Emphasize both process and product by assigning near-equal weight to both, and establish grading rubrics for participation and the final product.
  • Provide both synchronous and asynchronous communication tools. Asynchronous tools alone encourage more cooperative behavior where students divide the whole task into subtasks performed individually and stitched together, while synchronous tools promote collaborative behavior. As much as possible, decisions should be made in the synchronous environment.
  • Monitor progress for each group and provide tailored instruction, guidance, and scaffolding when appropriate.
  • Build reflection into the process to take full advantage of the learning process. Hold a synchronous forum or online sharing space where groups present and examine each others' final solutions and provide feedback.
  • Finally, provide detailed, thoughtful feedback on groups' process and final product.

Critical to the success of problem-centered is the use of well-developed problems. They should primarily represent ill-defined real-life situations with practical outcomes. To encourage creativity, they need to reflect real life complexities and have less definitive criteria for successful outcomes - allowing for a variety of solutions. They need not provide all relevant information, requiring active investigation.

To summarize, problem-based learning teaches students a variety of cognitive and interpersonal skills not available through other means. Students find them highly engaging, energizing, and applicable to their lives.

Inquiry-based learning

Inquiry-based learning (IBL) actively involves students in the exploration of the content, issues, and questions surrounding a curricular area or concept. Activities and assignments can be designed for individuals and groups. Assignments are best assessed using grading rubrics to ensure that students focus on the most important issues.

Even though IBL is considered a student-directed approach, if a course is the first time students encounter the inquiry process, the design will need to provide more structure early on in the course. Too often, students experience frustration because assignments are too difficult for their level and they do not know where to start. To avoid this dilemma, it helps to assume that the majority of your students are not “ready to go solo: and provide them with prompts, cues, and a chance to watch you model the process for them. Lane (2007) provides a liguistics example for different levels of student preparedness:

Inquiry problem question: When the “Darmok” episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation was first shown on television, the question “Is Tamarian a possible human language?” was hotly debated among professional linguists. The opinion of linguists was divided equally among those who believed Tamarian could be a possible human language and those who believed that it lacked some of the features that all human languages possess. In an essay, make a strong and convincing argument on whether Tamarian does or does not demonstrate each of the design features of human language.

Inquiry-based learning (IBL) instructional plans for levels of preparedness
Structured Plan for "New to IBL" Guided Plan for "Previous Exposure to IBL" Student-Directed Plan for "Experienced with IBL"
Provide viewing instructions and link to "Darmok" video Provide viewing instructions and link to "Darmok" video Lead student discussion to develop a question or issue to research based on the unit of instruction
Pose the question to students Pose the question to students Assign students, individually or in groups, to research information about the question or issue
Present a series of lectures on the design features of human languages and provide resources Assign students to individually research design features of human languages Assign students, individually or in groups, to design how to research the question and conduct the analysis
Guide discussion of how to research the problem and conduct analysis Assign small groups to summarize design features of human languages, and decide how to research the problem and conduct analysis Assign students, individually or in groups, to analyze the results
Assign students to conduct analysis in small groups Assign students to conduct analysis individually or small groups Assign students to individually write their own conclusions based on the evidence
Assign students to individually draw their own conclusions and provide supporting evidence Assign students to individually draw their own conclusions and provide supporting evidence

Collaborative learning

6. Collaborative learning

More formally known as social-constructivist pedagogy, this approach accentuates the social nature of knowledge and its creation in the minds of learners (Anderson & Dron, 2011). Learning is located in contexts and relationships rather than merely in the minds of individuals. According to this view, every individual development appears twice: first, on the social level, and later, on the individual level; first between people and then inside the individual (Vygotsky, 1978). The emphasis moves from teaching to learning where students construct their own meaning from knowledge and information shared with and by the instructor, other students, and others outside the formal setting. Common themes found in collaborative approaches include:

  • new knowledge is built on and integrated with previous learning,
  • context is a powerful influence in shaping student development,
  • learning is active not passive,
  • teamwork competencies are learned during collaborative activities,
  • language and other social tools are used in constructing knowledge,
  • exposure to multiple perspectives is of central importance, as is,
  • self-knowledge and evaluation as a means for developing learner capacity,
  • knowledge needs to be subjected to social discussion, validation, and application in real world contexts.

Collaborative learning can be practiced within the other structures, but can also be the focus around which the course is built: dialogue-intensive learning (Dool, 2009). This approach begins similarly to other discussions, with an initial starter (trigger) question. After students respond, the instructor enters the discussion as a member, sharing professional experiences, personal insights, using teachable moments, acting as devil's advocate, asking follow-up questions, using the Socratic Method, and asking students to do the same. The discussion is extended through a full week or even two, typically resulting in 150+ posts for a group of ten students. Grading uses a blend of quantity and quality criteria.

Conflicts and frustrations are to be expected in collaborative learning, especially with group work with a specified outcome. Capdeferro and Romero (2012) report 100% of student subjects expressing some type of sporadic frustration, the most common being an imbalance of commitment, responsibility, and effort toward the shared task (57%). "Some people just want to pass courses while others want to be the best" (p. 32). Lesser issues include unshared goals and difficulties with organizing (22%), communication difficulties including differing frequency expectations (20%), and lack of negotiation skills (17%).

Instructors who see these phenomena as expected and integral to learning can do at least two things: (1) provide an orientation to group work, describing typical issues that arise and how students can manage them, and (2) use specific occasions as teachable moments, helping students work through their issues.

Adaptive structures

The essence of adaptive approaches to learning is "individualized" instruction, with the premise that instruction should adapt to each learner (Knewton, 2012). Given what we understand about a student's current knowledge, what should that student be working on right now? Individualized instruction is distinct from personalized learning in that the former is prescriptive while the later is about providing choices. As we will see, the two approaches can be used together in a single system. Although we generally think of adaptive systems as computerized, the approach is older than computers.

We look at four approaches:

  • Mastery learning (prescriptive)
  • Personalized (prescriptive)
  • Adaptive control (prescriptive)
  • Learner controlled (choice)

Mastery learning

Mastery learning, dating back to the 1930’s (with multiple updates), introduced many innovations to the teaching profession. Perhaps its largest contribution was the introduction of criterion-referenced grading: using explicit standards of knowledge or performance to assess learning. We can contrast this approach with the traditional norm-referenced approach in which performance is evaluated against the group as a whole (grading on the curve), by evaluating the whole without regard to the specifics of performance, or by accumulating enough points to pass. Mastery learning also introduced the concept of moving from set time frames, such as quarters or semesters, to variable time frames allowing learners to progress at their own pace according to their mastery of the subject matter. Mastery learning also introduced the use of formative assessments to determine what the learner has achieved, but more importantly, to serve as a guide for corrective feedback and/or additional coaching and instruction, as necessary for the learner to reach mastery. The key here is that students do not advance until they have mastered the current content. And finally, it was the first approach to break content into smaller units of instruction, arranged in the appropriate order. Order is critical when new content is based on mastery of prior content. Research tells us that about 70-80% of learners achieve mastery using the criterion-referenced approach (Collins, 2012).

Personalized learning

The formal definition of personalized learning provided by the U.S. Department of Education is: "Personalized learning refers to instruction in which the pace of learning and the instructional approach are optimized for the needs of each learner. Learning objectives, instructional approaches, and instructional content (and its sequencing) all may vary based on learner needs. In addition, learning activities are meaningful and relevant to learners, driven by their interests, and often self-initiated."

Although instructors have been informally individualizing instruction for centuries, the Annehurst Curriculum Classification System (ACCS) was the first systematized approach to adaptive instruction (Frymier, 1977). "The ACCS is a matching process: a way of matching individuals with curriculum materials." In simplified form, the system is designed to (1) understand the individual, (2) systematically classify learning materials and activities, and (3) the instructor selects materials to match individual student needs. As such, instruction is very personalized. We go into some detail because ACCS provides a concrete example of personalized instruction. Note, however, that automated learning analytics, or datamining, has become the defacto approach. See below for details.

Understanding the individual

The ACCS uses a framework to describe individual learning needs. For learners, there are some things we all have in common, some things we have in common with certain others, and there are some things unique to the individual. For learning, there are some things everyone needs to know (general education), some things some people need to know (vocational education), and some things are particular to each individual (needs and interests). Thus, there is no one best way because people are different. As examples, some people learn best:

  • when content is sequenced inductively or content is sequenced deductively
  • through direct experience or through observation
  • when learning is spaced or fully immersive

Students differ from one another at any given time, and also differ from themselves over time. Some of these differences affect learning in important ways while others do not.

If instructors rely on transmitting information (e.g., lecture), it is impossible for them to use their knowledge of individual differences. They are preoccupied with what they're doing and not on what students are doing.

Student profiles include:

  1. Interest in the subject matter
  2. Age and associated developmental milieu
  3. Previous experience with the subject matter
  4. Mental capacity
  5. Motivation
  6. Emotional and personal qualities
  7. Creative abilities
  8. Social beliefs and skills
  9. Verbal skills
  10. Auditory, visual, and motor perception skills

We can see that many of the dimensions are not easily assessed, especially in the short-term, an impediment to the practicality of the system. Frymier (1977) recommended instructor assessments using Likert scales for most dimensions with descriptions on the high and low ends of the continuum, with frequent reassessments.

Classifying learning materials

The ACCS materials classification system seeks to label learning materials in a way that mirrors the student profile. To keep the system as manageable as possible, materials are rated simply "high" or "low" on relevant dimensions.

Age Experience Mental capacity Motivation
  • interest level
  • cognitive level
  • readability
  • vocabulary
  • common vs. specialized language
  • direct vs. vicarious experience
  • beginner vs. advance reading level
  • introductory vs. advanced content
  • real thing vs. representative
  • simple vs. complex examples, illustrations
  • fact vs. concept oriented
  • concrete vs. abstract
  • explicit vs. implicit intentions/purpose
  • simple vs. complex organization
  • evokes recognition vs. analysis
  • evokes isolated vs. integrated thinking
  • evokes recall vs. evaluative thought
  • visually attractive vs. plain
  • stimulating vs. calm
  • evocative vs. routine
  • provocative vs. unprovocative
  • marked contrast vs. contrast not evident
  • compelling vs. bland
  • unique vs. ordinary
  • simple or uniform vs. complex
  • immediate feedback vs. no feedback
  • activity oriented vs. thinking oriented
Emotional, Personal characteristics Creativity Social/Belief characteristics Physical/neurological development
  • set and unequivocal vs. ambiguous
  • stasis vs. change oriented
  • non-ego vs. ego-involving (appeal to self-concept)
  • reflects positive vs. negative self-esteem
  • expresses appropriate vs. inappropriate emotion
  • decisions controlled by others or chance vs. by the learner
  • learner not required vs. required to make decisions
  • evokes imitation vs. imagination
  • limited use vs. versatile
  • responses restricted vs. allows alternatives
  • declarative vs. interrogative (create questions in the learner's mind)
  • predictable vs. unusual
  • conventional vs. novel
  • does vs. does not lend itself to be judged right or wrong
  • stereotyped vs. respects individuality
  • reflects positive vs. negative concern for people who are different
  • prejudicial vs. non-prejudicial
  • lacks vs. reflects sensitivity to people
  • reflects positive vs. negative concern for people and things
  • fosters interpersonal skills vs. no interpersonal skills required
  • verbal expression
  • auditory perception
  • visual perception
  • motor perception

Additional classification, or metadata, for each item or activity:

  1. Discipline
  2. Major subject
  3. Subject division
  4. Topic
  5. Media format

Matching student needs and learning materials

The instructor is responsible for matching the current students' needs, and possibly preferences, to the available learning materials in the following sequence:

  1. Instructor observes student output and effort or otherwise diagnoses student characteristics
  2. Instructor interprets his or her observations using the ACCS classification system
  3. Instructor prescribes and arranges learning activities
  4. Student engages in learning activities
  5. The cycle begins again

In many, if not most, instances, instructors must select the most relevant dimensions to focus on whenever exact matches are not available. Learners who are low on a particular dimension need learning materials that are high on that dimension and vice versa, except for experience, mental capacity, and developmental characteristics that are matched high to high or low to low.

Adaptive control

Technology used to assign human or digital resources to learners based on their unique needs; computers adapt the presentation of educational materials based on students' needs, as indicated by their responses to questions, tasks, and experiences (Culatta, 2016).

The adaptive control approach relies on either diagnostic testing to allow student access to specific units of instruction, or by continually adapting instruction based on learner responses, either adding additional or skipping some instruction and practice (Clark & Mayer, 2003). The individual "learning path" may or may not be linear.

7. Linear and nonlinear learning paths
7. Linear and nonlinear learning paths

Simpler programs resemble the linear model of teaching, taking students through pre-assessments to determine their current level of knowledge and skill, and allowing them to skip units in which they scored at a passing level. Once students have completed their assigned units, they are then tested again over the entire topic. These tests then recommend or require returning to specific units for repeated and possibly extended instruction.

More sophisticated platforms like Knewton and McGraw-Hill's Learnsmart Advantage use every student interaction to develop a learner profile. The system adapts to what the learner's interactions with the material suggest about his or her mastery over time and eventually anticipate things about the learner and serve up content based on that profile (Education Growth Advisors, 2013). With this level of adaptivity, individual learning paths are highly adaptive and less likely to be linear, as we see in Figure 8 below.

8. Nonlinear adaptive learning paths
8. Nonlinear adaptive learning paths (credit: Knewton)

Such systems aggregate data on large numbers of learners to continually "optimize" the system. For example, providing real-time remediation when students encounter problems they can't master after a certain number of trials. They also provide continuous feedback and learning "dashboards" to help students track their own progress. These systems need to be large-scale in order to be cost effective. See the article on the Gwinnet County GA School District for an example of how this approach is being used within a large system.

Lest we give the impression that everyone believes adaptive learning is the best way to learn, we add a comment by George Sieman (2016), co-creator of connectivism:

Both Udacity and Knewton require the human, the learner, to become a technology, to become a component within their well-architected software system. Sit and click. Sit and click. So much of learning involves decision making, developing meta-cognitive skills, exploring, finding passion, taking peripheral paths. Automation treats the person as an object to which things are done. There is no reason to think, no reason to go through the valuable confusion process of learning, no need to be a human. Simply consume. Simply consume. Click and be knowledgeable.

Self-directed learning

The self-directed approach places control into the hands of the learner, allowing partial or complete freedom to select the order of instruction, the choice of specific learning activities (Quinn, 2011). By definition, self-directed learning occurs where students have a degree of control over the time, pace, and place of their learning. Students begin to feel ownership of their learning, begin to self-evaluate, reflect on their progress, and set goals for learning more. Exams and deadlines help maintain scholastic rigor and progression, allowing flexibility within these academic restraints. Research tells us that novices are not equipped to use navigational control on their own, and so open choice should be limited to higher-level courses where students possess sufficient expertise (Clark et. al., 2006). Adaptive control has proven to yield higher achievement than open choice for most learners.

Advisement is a middle ground between adaptive and self-directed learning. In this approach, learners are pretested to determine their current level of knowledge and skill. Rather than automatically branching to appropriate sections of instruction, the assessment provides recommendations to the learner regarding what instruction they will benefit from the most. However, the learner is free to take or ignore the advice. Clark & Mayer (2003) cite evidence that advisement and adaptive control give equivalent results, both better than full learner control.

This approach, as well as any approach unfamiliar to learners, must be introduced and explained to students prior to engagement. Some examples (University of Denver, ND):

Planning for learning

  • Include self-directed learning outcomes in your syllabus.
  • Ask students to set their own goals or learning outcomes for the class, through a discussion, a short assignment, or a learning contract.
  • Include a short reflective assignment such as, “How I earned an A in this class.”
  • Help students learn about learning. There are numerous "Learn How to Learn" videos and articles on the subject.
  • Use knowledge surveys (where students do not actually answer content questions but report their confidence at being able to do so) at the beginning, beginning and end, or throughout a course as a way for students to reflect on what they think they know and can apply.

Monitoring learning

  • “Wrappers” are short handouts or surveys that students complete along with an assignment or exam. The wrapper focuses on the learning process rather than on the content itself. Exam wrappers are often completed after an exam is returned. Other types of cognitive wrappers help students self assess their learning progress before, during and after an assignment.
  • Reflective writing assignments can help students explore their own learning. Molly Smith from University College uses RDQ prompts with course readings: what Resonated with you, what do you Disagree with, and what Questions do you have?
  • Simple Classroom Assessment Techniques (CATs) can be used to help students monitor their learning progress. Useful methods include One Minute Papers (simply asking students to take a minute to answer 2-3 questions such as “what was the most important thing you learned today? or What question remains unanswered?) and The Muddiest Point (“What is the biggest area of confusion for you in this assignment/today’s class?”)
  • Encourage students to read materials using a version of Read-Recall-Review.
  • Concept maps are useful tools for both students and instructors to explore how ideas and concepts relate to each other. Some instructors have students create simple concepts maps early in the course, and then revisit them over time as a way to see how their knowledge has changed and grown.
  • Test autopsies ask students to describe their study time and strategies, and examine their test answers, to look for patterns and identify successful and unsuccessful study methods.

Evaluating learning

  • After providing detailed feedback to students, ask them to paraphrase your feedback back to you in their own words.
  • Ask students to write a letter to the next class/cohort, describing what worked for them in this course and what they would have done differently.
  • Have students create a list of personal takeaways or write a “future uses” paper describing how they anticipate using 3-5 course concepts or skills in their future lives.

Competency-based learning

9. Capella University approach to competency-based education

Learning experiences in which students progress through a learning pathway based on their ability to demonstrate competency (what they know or can do) rather than on their time spent learning, the number of points accumulated, norm-referenced grading, or completing previous courses (Cullata, 2016). In essence, competency-based learning can be seen as a rebranding of mastery learning, above.

Competency-based education is gaining wide acceptance at the college and high school levels, and we will likely see more in the future (Lewin, 2011). This approach can save time and resources, particularly for adult learners who may already have deep expertise in some areas but not others. Perhaps the greatest challenge to competency-based learning is figuring out the right level of granularity. The basic features of the competency approach:

  • Students advance upon demonstrated mastery.
  • Competencies include explicit, measurable, transferable learning objectives.
  • Assessment is formative and subject to updating based on new learning.
  • Students receive rapid, differentiated support based on their individual learning needs, with a focus on those elements not yet accomplished.
  • Learning outcomes emphasize competencies that include application and creation of knowledge along with the development of important skills and dispositions.
  • Advancement through the system (grade levels) is based on achieved competence rather than time spent.

Competency and mastery

Defining "competent" is more difficult than it may appear. Student grades have constituted a rough measure for decades, with an A or A+ indicating the highest achievement. However, a consensus has formed that grades do not measure competence, but rather "what it takes to get a good grade." Have they jumped through enough hoops (e.g., quizzes, assignments, tests)? Competencies focus on the core skills and concepts students should master and only move them forward once they’ve achieved mastery of every competency rather than their “seat time." or accumulated points. They are based on criteria of performance; standards. Most competency assessments use rubrics to spell out the criteria, dividing performance into 3 to 4 levels. Finally, competency separates achievement from effort.

The question remains, then, at what level of performance does one achieve competence? At this point, there is no consensus. Here is a sampling of how different institutions define competency:

  • Western Governors University - passing the final assessment with a grade equivalent of B or better, or 3.0 grade points on a 4.0 scale.
  • Western Kentucky University defines competence as 86% and mastery as 94% of possible points.
  • Iowa Department of Education uses a 4-point scale: 4 Mastery, 3 Very close, 2 You're not understanding, 1 You need lots of help.

Visit the Western Governors University and Southern New Hampshire University websites for additional insight.

Networked learning

Ready access to huge numbers of people, overflowing amounts of information, and powerful computing resources via the web has changed the nature of learning, according to connectivist advocates (Siemans, 2005). The learner's role is not to memorize or even understand everything, but to have the capacity to find and apply knowledge when and where it is needed (Anderson & Dron, 2011). It assumes that much mental processing can be off-loaded to machines. Learners are seen as actor/agents in the network, literate and confident enough to exploit these networks in completing learning tasks.

Educators expose students to networks and provide opportunities for them to gain self-sufficiency in networked-based cognitive skills and to build their own net presence. In this context, students share responsibility with the instructor for determining their learning needs and filtering resources for relevance, and practice knowledge creation and retrieval skills. Networked learning is based as much on production as consumption of educational content: produsage (p. 88). Central to the connectivist view is the development of personal networks, plugging into existing ones, and developing influence and social capital. Websites, blogs, discussion boards, twitter posts, and multimedia webcasts are the tools of networked learning.

Used in a formal education setting, a top-down structure created by the instructor coexists with bottom-up emergent connections of the network. This approach is frequently used in massively open online courses (MOOC) where the leaders provide information and instruction, establish machine-graded assessments, and establish twitter feeds and blogging sites for learner use. A cacophony of activity ensues, more or less in a linear fashion. It can be very disorienting for the uninitiated.

Conclusion

Although linear course structures have been dominant for hundreds of years, there are other models to be utilized that can add interest, variety, focus, and efficiency. Designers and nstructors are encouraged to combine different models within their courses, adopting and adapting them to the needs of the content and learners.


#top

Up to Instructional strategies

⇑ ⇑ Up to Course planning

⇑ ⇑ ⇑ Up to Course development

⇑ ⇑ ⇑ ⇑ Up to Home