Feedback on Learning Outcomes and Objectives

Drafting has become an exploratory yet deeply focused and detailed part of our design process. After writing and fine-tuning the learning outcomes and objectives for the two courses in the pathway, we put the drafts out there for feedback in this problem solving session. Colleagues were invited to participate in the session from a variety of perspectives:

• Subject matter expert (SME) – in math, computers, communications, or digital culture
• Learner
• Instructor but not SME
• Curriculum developer

This allowed us incorporate a variety of different views into this review of outcomes and objectives. After a group discussion around the course outcomes and whether the scope was right and whether the components fit together and made sense, we individually reviewed and commented on the objectives for each outcome for both courses.

The written comments and subsequent discussion led us to modifications, such as:

• Breaking objectives down into sub-parts, to ensure adequate time would be planned for
• Re-combining elements into groups that fit together better
• Adding missed potential objectives
• Eliminating “nice to have” objectives that went too far outside the scope of a course

This resulted in a second draft that incorporated more viewpoints, benefitted from more eyes, and pushed us to think deeper about a few key issues. Once again, we are grateful to those who were able to participate in this problem solving session for their time and expertise.

We are holding these open problem solving sessions every two weeks as part of the development of the Career Program Pathway – Creative Technologies project. The purpose of these sessions is twofold: give SFL and CT faculty multiple opportunities to get involved in the development process, and for the course developers to be able to learn from the expertise of others and apply that knowledge in this project.

Interested in the results of our last Problem Solving Session? Check out our post on this blog: Depth of Knowledge. Have ideas to share but not able to make a session? You can chat anytime with Allison, Penny, or Deanna.

Depth of Knowledge - Problem Solving Session

How deeply do learners understand what you are teaching them? Do they get why they are learning this? Can they apply it to a new situation? During the design process we purposefully develop assessment to address these questions.

This session focused on applying Webb’s Depth of Knowledge (DOK) levels to determine how in-depth learners need to know each of the learning outcomes in the CPP-CT courses. See the image below for a brief explanation of each level.

Source: http://www.synergiseducation.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Dok.svg

 We broke into three groups and each group chose one learning outcome to focus on. The group discussed what the learning outcome meant and the sub skills that learners need to be introduced to before they can achieve the learning outcome. The group then looked at each sub skill and determined which DOK level it represented.

As this was a brainstorming session, we also tried a new approach to increase our creative ability. We had containers of legos set out that participants were encouraged to sort by colour into piles, in between brainstorming the DOK targets. This idea is based off of research that suggests that keeping the mind engaged in a simple/mindless task enhances creativity. The lego sorting worked for some; others said they have found chores such as folding laundry or washing dishes to be beneficial.

We came away from this session with three fully developed learning outcomes with various objectives aligned to DOK level targets. This kind of work is time consuming but important, as it sets the stage for a well scaffolded course. We are thankful for the full participation from everyone who was able to join us.

We are holding these open problem solving sessions every two weeks as part of the development of the Career Program Pathway – Creative Technologies project. The purpose of these sessions is twofold: give SFL and CT faculty multiple opportunities to get involved in the development process, and for the course developers to be able to learn from the expertise of others and apply that knowledge in this project.

Interested in the results of our last Problem Solving Session? Check out our post on this blog: Authentic Tasks and Audiences. Have ideas to share but not able to make a session? You can chat anytime with Allison, Penny, or Deanna.

Authentic Task and Audience - Problem Solving Session

We often hear about the value of using authentic tasks in the classroom. They can motivate learners, provide an opportunity to integrate skills, and help us focus on the big issues of a course. When developing courses and trying to create authentic tasks, we need to understand what they are in a little more detail. We wanted to differentiate between authentic tasks and other ways of applying skills and knowledge, so we opened up the conversation and got other instructors’ input.

We came into this session asking the following questions. For any subject:

• What are some ideas of authentic tasks?
• What are your sources or contacts when creating authentic tasks?
• What tips can you give us from your experience? Any pitfalls to avoid? Any amazing successes?

After describing various examples of authentic tasks that we have been involved with, we tried to define what makes a task authentic and came up with this list of characteristics:

• Has value outside of educational setting (may be workplace or general life)
• Utility beyond the project
• Can be simulated, real, or a hybrid
• Can be simple or complex
• May involve authentic props/documents
• It considers: what will be meaningful to students?
• Includes an element of performance/execution of a skill
• An authentic audience – is someone who would actually use this product or process outside of the educational setting? Community, industry, general public, peers
• Assessment of authentic tasks can be based on process or product, depending on the learning outcome

Other considerations that came out of the discussion include:

• Community partnerships can contribute to authentic task creation. Establishing and maintaining these can be challenging.
• Timing and the timeline of such a task needs to be carefully planned for
• Flexibility needs to be built into such tasks
• Reflection time should be built in early and often
• Instructors will need different types of support for some of the bigger ideas discussed

This has given us a great starting point for integrating authentic tasks into these new courses. We appreciate the people who showed up and offered insights and asked thoughtful questions. We look forward to learning with you in the next session.

Not everyone can make it to the scheduled sessions. We appreciate your emails and conversations around these topics anytime. Some of the resources shared with us this way include:

• Creating Learning Partners Literacy Tutor Training manual,Unit 13
• Creating authentic materials and activities for the adult literacy classroom: A handbook for practitioners

We are holding these open problem solving sessions every two weeks as part of the development of the Career Program Pathway – Creative Technologies project. The purpose of these sessions is twofold: give SFL and CT faculty multiple opportunities to get involved in the development process, and for the course developers to be able to learn from the expertise of others and apply that knowledge in this project.