Module Discussion Posts

Module 1 Discussion: Introductions

Prompt: So, for your introduction, please tell us:

Your name
Where you are living and working
Highlights from the professional instructional design and/or educational technology work you've done (if any - if you're new to the field, tell us a little about why you're interested in the LDT program)
Did you ever have a learning experience that changed your life big or small, for better or worse? Give us your story (if you'd like to share it with us).

Response: Hi everyone, I'm Angelo and while I work for Las Positas College in Livermore, California, I am temporarily living in Rome, Italy, but I'll return to the San Francisco Bay Area next summer. My educational background is in liberal arts and comparative literature, and I teach English at the community college level, mostly first year composition but also critical thinking and world literature classes in both asynchronous and in-person modalities.

Like many teachers, I got my crash course in distance education the first year of the pandemic, but I had taught some hybrid courses before then and was also familiar with Canvas. The professional development in online teaching offered through my college was good but very introductory, and it sparked my curiosity more than anything else, and this led me to enrolling in the LDT program. I am interested in not only designing and facilitating online courses but also leveraging the online environment to enhance the experience of students enrolled in learning communities.

I’ve had several positive learning experiences, both in and out of the classroom, but one that comes to mind is an undergraduate humanities class on French Decadence. The class was team taught, meaning there were two professors leading the class, and it covered the decadent movement through art, literature, philosophy, and music. What I really liked about the class was how interdisciplinary it was. I felt like I learned so much during that class because of the way it was designed and the course materials that the professors selected. The class also provided flexibility for students to explore their particular interests as well. This was probably one of the more standout classes I took as an undergraduate, and it was the interdisciplinary design along with the embedded flexibility that boosted my motivation to learn, two features that influence the design process for my own courses that I teach now. I really appreciated how thoughtful the professors were with creating the curriculum for that course.

Module 2 Discussion: Instructional vs Learning Experience Design

Prompt: Consider the following quote from our Thurber reading Download Thurber reading this module:

"Learning experience design has a broader focus beyond instructional design. If instructional design asks "how easy is a learning experience to use?", learning experience design asks "how useful is the learning experience?"." - Thurber, 2021, pg. 3

Is this a helpful distinction? In other words:

If a learning experience is complex or ambiguous, can it still be useful in terms of learning outcomes?
For that matter, what makes a learning experience "useful" beyond its design - doesn't good design make a learning experience useful by default?

Response: One of the fundamental distinctions between Instructional Design (ID) and Learning Experience Design (LED) that stood out to me was how the design framework was implemented with ID typically employing a linear framework such as ADDIE and LED using a non-linear framework. While one could argue that the graphic on page 4 of Thurber’s article depicts relatively the same elements of the ADDIE framework, though perhaps a bit less generalized, it attempts to capture the recursive nature of the design process. One strategy I am familiar with is “backwards design,” which is mentioned in the article in its discussion of the non-linear design process. To me, ‘backwards design’ basically means to create summative assessments first in the curriculum building process, and then generate the materials that help students be successful on those major assessments, such as the smaller formative assessments and the subject matter content. This approach, in turn, leads to several refinements in articulating learning goals and a more organic development process (in my experience).

Another distinction that feeds into this is the differing perspectives of approaching design. “Meeting students where they are” is a familiar phrase in the education world and in this article is used to highlight this different perspective: ID approaches design by focusing on “how to best teach knowledge and skills to learners” while LED asks “how will learners best learn knowledge or skills from us?” It emphasizes the learners’ needs first as opposed to the delivery of content. There is value in designing a well-structured course, with easy to process materials, and clear instruction on what to do and when to do it. Sometimes it’s even refreshing, and I see this ethic in the ID process. What the LED approach appears to offer, in the end, is a more thoughtful or comprehensive framework to call attention to the affective nature of the learning in the design process, as well as more thoughtful projects that add value to students’ immediate lives. I believe this is evidenced in the article’s extensive discussion of leaner analysis in the planning phase. Overall, this potential appears to roll out of the more complex, nuanced LED framework.

The notion that ‘good design makes a learning experience useful by default’ seems to elicit an obvious “yes,” but in reality this is hard to measure. In my context as an English composition teacher, students can often question the usefulness of writing an essay beyond academia. After all, most students are not aspiring professors. For English classes, does ‘design’ mean breaking away from traditional academic modes of writing? And even if that is the case, how culturally relevant and ‘useful’ is the content explored in the class? You can view these considerations as design questions, but the overarching measure is whether the content and activities are useful to learners. I think it’s easier said than done, particularly when institutional expectations and traditions directly impact design decisions.

R

Module 3 Discussion: A Module for All Seasons

Prompt: We've reviewed a number of instructional systems and learning experience design models in preparation for designing our own. This discussion centers on your emerging preferences in terms of these models. In other words, which model(s) do you think might emerge to become a favorite of yours?

This may appear to be a deceptively easy question ("I like and use ADDIE the most!") but gravitating towards a particular model of design can have lasting implications for the ways we approach and commit to different projects. For this discussion:

Please share with us design models you may have used in the past that you have had positive experience(s) with; if you HAVEN'T used a model yet, please share one you think is a good fit for you professionally.
Connect your design model preference to a specific design experience you've had in the past; again, if you HAVEN'T used a model in the past, you may speculate or conjecture the type of model you would use for a project in the future.
Finally, do you see yourself using the model for all projects, or would you consider alternatives?

Response: I’ve mainly drawn on Backwards Design Theory for creating my classes, and I’ve drawn on it exclusively to create my online classes. For the most part, I think that it is a good fit, but after reading the articles for modules two and three, I will likely refine my use of this model/incorporate other elements. For example, I like the backwards design because it really just saves me time. By focusing on the big picture first and laying out the skeleton of the course (course and unit-level outcomes and major assessments) before the content, I save a lot of time on the revision process. I start with the student learning outcomes for the course, and then break down the learning outcomes for each unit (I usually do three large units for my classes). I create the major assessments, which are mainly formal essay assignments since I teach English courses, as well as rubrics for evaluation. From there, I build in the formative assessments and then finally the content. Lastly, I throw in a mid-semester and end-of-semester anonymous student survey to crowdsource feedback to inform any future revisions. This process is recursive, so there’s a lot of back and forth with refining things, but overall, it has worked well for me. I’ve used it more explicitly with my online courses (English Composition, Critical Thinking, and World Literature courses) since it really helps with creating clear communication and expectations and structuring a course that is easy to navigate.

Reflecting on this process as we’ve explored the reading material over the last few weeks, I have come to realize that I would change or shift the learner analysis focus. For example, as I have come to learn and apply Backwards Design Theory, the focus on learner analysis comes when crafting unit-level outcomes, focusing on articulating them in a way that connects with and adds value to students’ lives, and also when creating a blurb to introduce each unit. What I realized though is that the learner analysis focuses on how to communicate learning goals to students, focusing on creating ‘buy-in’ rather than focusing creating assessments and activities themselves that are relative to students’ lives, which more readily speaks to the "experience" of the course. Sure, I do this implicitly, usually when selecting culturally relevant reading material and crafting prompts in a way that is flexible so that there is a bit of student choice in terms of what they want to focus their essay/research on, but I feel like I can be more intentional and deliberate with my learner analysis when designing assessments and activities as I think it could lead to more creative design thinking.

Overall, I will definitely continue to use Backwards Design Theory when creating courses. But, I would add to this by incorporating the learner experience design framework of “planning, creating, and refining” because of its emphasis on the recursive nature of the design process and on the learner experience, which, I believe, could help me be more creative with designing assessments.

Module 4 Discussion: Musings on Instructional Design Education

Prompt: Our readings for Module 4 included a back and forth between two perspectives on instructional design education and indeed the nature of learning and learning experiences.

For this discussion, I would like you to:

Post a brief synopsis (in your own words) of the key points of disagreement between Tripp and Quinn and on which side of the argument you agree with most (at this point).

Response: Steven Tripp (1994) discusses how to effectively teach instructional design. He largely draws on more traditional fields of design, such as architecture, to advance his ideas on student study of ‘master works’ and hands on experience in ‘design studios’ in which students collaborate on projects that center around problematic situations, are guided by a teacher, and are judged by a jury of experts.

James Quinn (1995) adds on to Tripp’s ideas. He first takes note of Tripp’s idea of a ‘jury of experts’ to judge student work. In place of a faculty panel, Quinn argues for a blended panel of students and faculty or alternatively a mix of faculty and practitioners. In this way, Quinn argues, it would be more likely for at least one evaluator to have expertise in the content area of focus, something Quinn deems necessary for evaluators to make sound judgements about instruction design. For myself, I would agree with Quinn’s idea of a faculty-practitioner jury of experts if it is a feasible option to a full faculty panel, but not the faculty-student blend. As Tripp described, the design studio is heavily focused on students collaborating with each other, so I feel that the student point of view is already heavily integrated into the process.

Secondly, Quinn argues that while studying “master works” (as Tripp suggests) is important, instructional design students should also be exposed to more “accessible works.” Quinn does not go into detail about what ‘accessible’ means other than mentioning commercial works and likely implying contemporary works of ‘high standards.’ To this, I could only say that studying ‘master works’ is valuable but could be limiting. Studying a variety of works, even those without solid design, could be valuable as they may highlight a handful of brilliant design principles even if they fall short in other areas. All in all, I think studying a diverse range of design examples is more valuable than only those lifted up by academia as the ‘canon’ of design.

Quinn also mentions that the “problematic situations” presented to students in the design lab be from “actual problems currently being encountered by a client,” and I believe Tripp would agree. While he may have been a bit vague when he introduces this in his article, Tripp later mentions that the design studio should offer students hands-on experience with real clients, which is, for me, ideal. Lastly, Quinn suggests integrating process reflection assignments at key points in their project, which I think is a good idea and valuable to any skills-based class (or as Tripp puts it, “open skill”) whether the reflection assignments are formal (such as a short paper) or informal (such as a running journal).

Module 5 Discussion: Assessment for Learning

Prompt: How does the notion of assessment for learning apply when modes of communication and feedback are less than instantaneous? Put another way, is it always possible to provide the kind of feedback that counts as assessment for learning? Is it always desirable?

Response: In an online environment, feedback that is both timely and specific is a challenge. My typical course load is four English classes with twenty-eight students each; I assign three major essays for each class, so I’m reading and commenting on 336 papers per semester. In my experience, feedback is either timely but not specific, or specific but definitely not timely. The best scenario that I have been able to work out is to mix in a bit of teacher and peer feedback throughout the process of planning and writing a paper, none of which is “perfect” but collectively it helps students with their process. For example, I’ll create simple quizzes for reading assignments, which give students immediate feedback and the opportunity to retake if they missed any questions. I can’t say this promotes any deep learning, but it helps students that struggle with comprehension and completing reading assignments. In terms of essays, discussion boards help students process the reading material and generate ideas together. Students typically submit a “partial draft” as an assignment; it is this draft that I give relatively timely feedback on, but it’s not always specific. I generally copy and paste a list of “tips” or “common obstacles” that are specific to the particular paper I assigned, but I only give individualized feedback to students who are off track in terms of focus and/or basic requirements. This usually helps students to complete a full rough draft, which they submit in a discussion board and receive peer feedback on. With the final draft, I use a pretty robust rubric that offers commentary, and I’ll add in some very brief specifics if I find they are not represented in the rubric commentary.

As I reflect on my assessment system, I realize that it's designed to stack small activities with the goal to walk them through the reading and writing process. Feedback (hopefully) functions to motivate them to continue through the process, building their paper part by part, pausing to reflect, and hopefully being less stressed out when the final draft is due. In the meantime, peer discussions offer social support and collaborative feedback on writing. Instructor feedback functions more to encourage students and give them a bit of confidence more than anything else. For a few, it’s there to flag any plagiarism or missing requirements earlier in their process so they have time to adjust before submitting the final draft. In terms of their final draft, it seems odd that this is when instructor feedback is traditionally expected, as students are not able to directly apply the feedback and must not only understand it but be responsible to imagine how it applies to another context, recall it when that context arrives (i.e. the next paper), and apply it then. I’m not saying that feedback at this point is not valuable; it’s only that any concrete impact is less likely. Perhaps the more lasting impact of feedback at this time would be if it reaffirmed a sense of pride in student work, focusing on strengths instead of errors and amplifying the feeling of accomplishment that has come with following through with a process to complete a larger project.

The looming question on this prompt is “Is it always desirable?” To this, I would say for some students, feedback is always desirable, but for others it can depend on context. As noted in the readings, students’ relationship with feedback has long developed by the time they enter college and while this relationship can be subject specific and relatively positive or constructive, it can also be traumatic, especially if it has historically functioned to do nothing but lower self-esteem. William (2011) touches on this when he identifies a common thread in several studies that suggest the relationship a student has with learning is “shaped by the feedback they receive from a very early age.” With the population that I serve (entry-level college English), lack of confidence in writing and/or lack of process knowledge are common barriers to success. This does not speak to all students, who perhaps have a more positive history with feedback. And, of course, there are always several students that are not interested in feedback. But in terms of it being ‘desirable,’ I’m not sure if this is the right question. Perhaps we should ask “what types of feedback are desirable and in what contexts?” I think the end goal of feedback is to help develop (or maintain) students’ intrinsic motivation to learn. Considering the extent to which specificity and timeliness impact this end goal also requires us to reflect on the varying needs of students (knowledge gaps, emotional barriers,) as well as their relationship with their own learning process and the work for the class. Some students/contexts require brief but pointed feedback, others simply some words of encouragement, and still others a more in-depth evaluation. Designing a practical system to manage this is very important; as we know, the quality and frequency of feedback really comes down to the amount of “time” teachers have in the end.

Module 6 Discussion: What's in a Name?

Prompt: Consider the Table 1 from our Schmidt & Huang (2021) reading for this module, then discuss this question: Which of the terms or definitions in Table 1 would you say best describes what you've done in the past? Which would you say best describes what you will or want to do in the future?

Response: I could probably consider a few of the terms to describe what I’ve done before as my practice has significantly evolved since I started teaching, which was around 2010. Even still, I can look at several of these descriptions and identify with at least a part of each one of them. For example, my approach to teaching is reflected in User Centered Design through describing the design process as iterative and informed by the user; in Learner Experience through its description of the impact of experiential elements and perception on performance; and in User Experience Design through its inclusion of design thinking and empathy mapping. But, if I had to choose one to reflect, albeit imperfectly or in an incomplete way, what I have done in the past few years or so, it would be Learner-Centered Design. It emphasizes a student-centered, equity-minded approach that takes into consideration affective factors like motivation.

In terms of where I want to go with my teaching in the future, it seems like the logical next step is to strive for Learning Experience Design (LXD), which is described as an offshoot of learner centered design and user experience design blended together. We are obviously given a lot more context for LXD since the article goes into more depth on it, but I can say that I am already doing some of what the author’s describe as LXD. For instance, it describes one aspect of LDX as promoting “empathetic understanding of the learner, their socio-cultural context, as well as context in which they engage in socially-mediated meaning making.” This really stood out to me as an important dimension of LXD, and it is one which I identify with as it continues to inform my practice. The authors offered a complex understanding of LXD, one which they attempted to capture in a diagram they created (Fig. 7) that included disciplinary and design perspectives as well as methodology and theory. I actually looked up other diagrams that attempted to capture LXD and the authors are right; for the most part they were all very different with some terms being used interchangeably.

Module 7 Discussion: Novel, Effective, Whole

Prompt: Our discussion prompt come from Henriksen & Cain (2020):

"The problem of creating novel and effective learning experiences in online studies is that the contexts are still relatively new or evolving, such that we do not always fully understand how the goals, outcomes or challenges will emerge. In evolving technological contexts, change and uncertainty are almost constant. This is why we suggest teachers and instructional designers focus on a mindset that corresponds with the broad strokes of creative thinking, rather than chasing specific outcome targets of novelty and effectiveness." [emphasis added]

Based on your understanding of the reading, how do you think creativity and creative thinking might play a role in your Learning Experience Design proposal for this class? Or in the learning experiences and assessments of your potential future students?

Response: For my LXD proposal, I designed a unit focused on identifying logical fallacies and evaluating logical reasoning. This is the first major unit for my critical thinking and composition class. Because of the subject matter, the unit emphasizes analytical thinking over creativity, but I did integrate some creative ideas, usually in the form of flexible options.

For example, the major project for the unit asks students to evaluate the logical reasoning of a given text. Students can choose their text and medium, but creativity is integrated as a flexible option. They can complete this task with a traditional academic essay (which is what students are used to for English classes); they can perform a reaction video (which may work well if they choose a speech or debate to evaluate); or they can create a video presentation.

For the formative assessments, creativity is built in early on when they are in the first stages of understanding the various types of logical fallacies. One activity asks students to create a short dialogue, scenario, or statement which illustrates one or more of the logical fallacies they learned about, which they then post in their discussion board and add further examples as they reply to others

For another activity, students keep a journal for two or three days of the logical fallacies they encounter in their everyday lives, both in terms of social interactions as well as those encountered through everyday media consumption. Students then compose a reflection that highlights a few of the fallacies they encountered, which they can do in a written form, or create a short presentation or video.

As I reflect on how I designed this, I think that I should actually take out some flexibility so that I can scaffold the different ways the major assessment can be delivered. For example, I may require that the reflection on everyday observations of logical fallacies be delivered as a video presentation. And I could consider incorporating an additional activity that models a reaction video style analysis.