Planning For Conceptual Understanding: A New Approach To Course Design

Planning for Conceptual Understanding: A New Approach to Course Design Edmund Hansen Dir., Ctr. for Teaching & Learning Northeastern Illinois University [email protected]

E. Hansen

POD - 2009

1

Intended Outcomes 1. Recognize the benefits of a model of course design that emphasizes students’ conceptual understanding of course material 2. Apply a new approach for defining learning outcomes 3. Explore how to align learning outcomes with student assessment activities 4. Investigate the functions of the components in this new approach to course design E. Hansen

POD - 2009

2

Workshop Outline 9:00 9:15 9:30 9:50 10:00 10:30 10:55 11:05 11:20 11:40 E. Hansen

Intro to our sample course for today Selecting Big Ideas Identifying Enduring Understandings BREAK Choosing Learning Outcomes Creating Authentic Performance Tasks BREAK Formulating Performance Criteria Identifying Needed Abilities Strengths of this Approach & Your Feedback POD - 2009

3

Big Ideas

A

Enduring Understandings Learning Outcomes

Key Concepts, Misconceptions, Essential Questions

B

A.1 A.1.1

A.1.2

A.2 A.2.1

B.1.1

B.2 B.2.1

C.1 B.2.2

I.1 a

b

C.2.1

6, 11, 14 - 20

II

I.2 c

C.2

C.1.1

3, 8 - 13

I

Performance Criteria

E. Hansen

B.1

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Perform. Tasks

Needed Abilities

C

d

1.3 e

POD - 2009

f

II.1 g

II.2 h

i

j

II.3 k

l 4

Big Ideas

A

Enduring Understandings Learning Outcomes

B

A.1 A.1.1

A.1.2

A.2 A.2.1

Perform. Tasks

E. Hansen

B.1 B.1.1

B.2 B.2.1

C.1 B.2.2

I

Performance Criteria Needed Abilities

C

I.1 a

b

C.1.1

C.2.1

II

I.2 c

C.2

d

1.3 e

POD - 2009

f

II.1 g

II.2 h

i

j

II.3 k

l 5

The Sample Course • Context: High percentage of immigrant students at NEIU • FYE program mandatory for all entering freshmen • Courses taught in all disciplines around Diversity in Chicago theme • Courses require teaching of study skills • Course description in Appendix 2 E. Hansen

POD - 2009

6

• •

Individually review info on FYE course Discuss in group: How would you teach this course? – – –

E. Hansen

How to deal with the dual focus? What are the other challenges? What should be the main outcomes?

POD - 2009

7

12 Pictures from Istvan Banyai’s

E. Hansen

POD - 2009

8

Big Ideas Why start here? • Position L.O’s w/in larger curriculum • Thereby facilitate interdisciplinary teaching • Provide more context for L.O’s • Steer course away from mere knowledge • Limit the scope of the course

E. Hansen

POD - 2009

9

Big Ideas What are they? • See examples in Appendix 3 • The glue (“conceptual Velcro”) that holds the field together • Important meta-concepts and theories • Provide “conceptual lenses” for whole knowledge domains • May cut across several disciplines E. Hansen

POD - 2009

10

From Big Ideas to Learning Outcomes

Big Ideas

A

Enduring Understandings

Learning Outcomes

E. Hansen

A.1.1

A.1

A.1.2

B

B.1

A.2

A.2.1

B.1.1

POD - 2009

B.2.1

C

B.2

B.2.2

C.1

C.1.1

C.2

C.2.1

11

Enduring Understandings Why yet another step? • Selected with your students’ experiential and intellectual horizon in mind • Need to be uncovered • Make transfer possible across domains (function as major themes)

E. Hansen

POD - 2009

12

Enduring Understandings What are they? • See examples in Appendix 6 • Derivations from Big Ideas • Key elements of Big Ideas’ definitions, applications, or implications • Generalizations central to the discipline • What students should understand past the end of the course E. Hansen

POD - 2009

13

• Brainstorm a few Big Ideas for the FYE course • Use Worksheet in Appendix 4 • Then review Big Ideas and Enduring Understandings in Appendix 14 • Critique & improve! E. Hansen

POD - 2009

14

E. Hansen

POD - 2009

15

E. Hansen

POD - 2009

16

From Big Ideas to Learning Outcomes

Big Ideas

A

Enduring Understandings

Learning Outcomes

E. Hansen

A.1.1

A.1

A.1.2

B

B.1

A.2

A.2.1

B.1.1

POD - 2009

B.2.1

C

B.2

B.2.2

C.1

C.1.1

C.2

C.2.1

17

Learning Outcomes Why learning outcomes? • Translate E.U’s into more concrete expectations for students • Limit the scope of what can be done with B.I. and E.U. in this course • Enable link with assessment tasks

E. Hansen

POD - 2009

18

Learning Outcomes What are they? • Examples (Appendix 6) • Address some key aspects of the Enduring Understandings • Each Learning Outcome is “sampling” one aspect of an Enduring Understanding • Focus on what students will be able to do • Are concrete and measurable E. Hansen

POD - 2009

19

•Discuss the Learning Outcomes in Appendix 14 • Would you have chosen different ones, given the B.I’s and E.U’s from which they are derived? • Your thoughts on the 3-step process of determining outcomes? E. Hansen

POD - 2009

20

Compare: Your old learning outcomes and your new learning outcomes: • Which ones are better defined? • Can be measured more easily? • Seem more meaningful? • For more examples, see Appendix 7

E. Hansen

POD - 2009

21

Big Ideas

A

Enduring Understandings Learning Outcomes

B

A.1 A.1.1

A.1.2

A.2 A.2.1

Perform. Tasks

E. Hansen

B.1 B.1.1

B.2 B.2.1

C.1 B.2.2

I

Performance Criteria Needed Abilities

C

I.1 a

b

C.1.1

C.2.1

II

I.2 c

C.2

d

1.3 e

POD - 2009

f

II.1 g

II.2 h

i

j

II.3 k

l 22

The Oreo Model of Course Design Big Ideas Enduring Understandings Learning Outcomes

Performance Task/s

Performance Criteria Needed Abilities E. Hansen

POD - 2009

23

Authentic Performance Tasks Why “authentic performance tasks”? • Shift focus to hands-on learning: generate student motivation • Provide evidence whether students truly “understand” (achieve the L.O’s) • Force instructor to build course around practice & feedback opportunities (“assignment-based teaching”) E. Hansen

POD - 2009

24

Authentic Performance Tasks What are they? • Examples in Appendix 8 • Contextualized in a realistic scenario • Ask students to “do” the subject • Replicate challenging (work) situations • Assess ability to use a repertoire of knowl. • Allow opportunities to practice & get feedb. E. Hansen

POD - 2009

25

Create one for the FYE course (see Worksheet in Appendix 9) and then…

E. Hansen

POD - 2009

26

Performance Criteria • See examples in Appendix 10 • Used in rubrics, e.g. Critical Thinking: http://www.neiu.edu/~ctl/teaching/rubrics2.html

• Break down a complex task into a set of discrete expectations • Allow for these expectations to be used in smaller practice activities • Link the performance task with the learning outcomes E. Hansen

POD - 2009

27

Needed Abilities Performance Task

Performance Criteria Needed Abilities

E. Hansen

1

a

2

b

c

POD - 2009

3

d

e

f

28

Needed Abilities Why “Needed Abilities”? • Performance criteria are not concrete enough • Complex cognitive skills require multiple steps • “Needed Abilities” and “Competencies”

E. Hansen

POD - 2009

29

Needed Abilities What are they? • See examples in Appendix 11. (They still need to be made course or discipline-specific) • Needed Abilities translate a P.C. into hands-on action • Faculty need to explore what their students’ barriers are for performing a task • Then break those barriers down into specific steps E. Hansen

POD - 2009

30

• Discuss the Performance Criteria and Needed Abilities in Appendix 14 • Do they seem to match the Performance Tasks? • Do the Abilities seem to address the Learning Outcomes?

E. Hansen

POD - 2009

31

Needed Abilities meet Learning Outcomes NEEDED ABILITIES a. Brainstorm relevant questions b. Identify missing or inaccessible info c. Recognize external influences on own behavior/attitudes d. Distrust “gut reactions” and “pet answers” and learn to “dig deeper”

LEARNING OUTCOMES 1. Analyze key reasons behind tensions in different immigrant neighborhoods 2. Identify respondents with different but relevant perspectives on certain issues

E. Hansen

POD - 2009

32

The Course Design Document Big Ideas Enduring Understandings Learning Outcomes

Authentic Performance Tasks Performance Criteria Needed Abilities E. Hansen

POD - 2009

33

Strengths of this Approach 1. Replaces syllabus with Course Design Document as the course blueprint 2. Systematically derives Learning Outcomes 3. Creates connectors across curriculum & disciplines 4. Achieves curricular alignment E. Hansen

POD - 2009

34

Strengths of this Approach 5. Addresses faculty concerns about teaching & student learning through: a. b. c.

Motivational quality of authentic performance tasks Transparency of instructor expectations Expanded time for practice & feedback

6. Connects course design with critical thinking (not shown today) 7. Defines nine structural elements of course design (APPENDIX 12) 8. Focuses on conceptual understanding, not content topics E. Hansen

POD - 2009

35

References • Erickson, H.L. (2007). Concept-Based Curriculum and Instruction for the Thinking Classroom. • Huba & Freed. (2000). Learner-Centered Assessment on College Campuses. • McTighe & Wiggins. (2004). Workbook to Understanding by Design. • Tewksbury & McDonald. (2005). On the Cutting Edge: Professional Development for Geoscience Faculty. • Tomlinson, a.o. (2002). The Parallel Curriculum. • Walvoord & Anderson. (1998). Effective Grading. • Wiggins & McTighe. (2005). Understanding by Design. E. Hansen

POD - 2009

36