The Architecture of Instructional Theory

I recently read "The Architecture of Instructional Theory" by Andrew S. Gibbons and P. Clint Rogers. The authors suggested that instructional designers should think of their design theories as having a framework (instructional design theory) for the different parts of the theory (instructional theories). To make it easier for me to grasp, I imagine something like a book shelf. (Simple image, I know.) The instructional design theory is the bare book shelf. Then there are instructional theories. The authors proposed dividing the theories up by function. Functions include control, message, strategy, representation, media-logic, and data management. These different functions go in different layers of the overall framework. To go back to my image, each function would go on its own shelf. Books that fulfill different functions would be on separate shelves. One shelf could be for books that give the reader a scare, act as a tear-jerker, make the reader think, provide instruction for self-improvement, etc.

Dividing different design layers by their functions is done in architecture, and the authors said it was a sign of a design field's maturity. I suppose one of the reasons for this chapter was to move the instructional design field into a deeper and more mature state. While I think technically most of the papers contributed to a field are attempting to add to the field, I like that this one has a specific direction for the field to move in and improve with.

An improvement that this framework provides is that the different function fields/layers/shelves (enough options?) can be altered on their own without destroying the other layers. In the architecture example, the structure (bones) of the building was on a different layer than the services (electricity, water, etc.). In other words, changes can be made to the wiring, and the structure of the building doesn't have to change. It makes sense. A design that tried to incorporate all the different layers into one layer could cause disruption in the structure when a service element is changed. I think the layers, with the elements divided according to function, provide an appropriate division strategy for separating the different elements of a design (including instructional design). I can remove or add a book on the "tear-jerker" shelf. While it would have an effect on my overall library (represented by the bookshelf), it wouldn't affect the other shelves' collections.

There is a further advantage that the framework gives designers. With the different functions of control, message, strategy, etc. in different layers (or shelves), they are in their own individual compartments. This way, they can safely have their own languages. Different instructional theories (the books that will fill the shelves) tend to have their own language and vocabulary. Trying to create an overarching theory with so many different languages is difficult (a design of a building combining all the layers into one). However, dividing the functions up individualizes each theory so it can be treated on its own. That way, the different languages won't have to interact. They can be treated on their own shelf. There are different languages to describe a horror story, a tragedy, a book about abuse, and a self-help book about getting out of debt. Being able to talk about them separately makes thing simpler. The authors give additional benefits of this framework system, but these were the two big ones that I took away from the chapter.

Badges

I believe that badges are one of many plausible ways of improving educational experiences for future learners. I've looked at learning analytics on this blog previously, and that's another avenue for improving education. The beauty of badges is that they can be combined with other changes in education. Unless the methods of schooling change in a drastic way I can't imagine, badges can be included in the system. Badges recognize a learner's achievement and display it in a way for others to see. I think they will motivate students to learn better. Instead of cramming for a test, they'll study for the purpose of accomplishing something. I think it will also help because the reward is so close to the action. I was on a website and decided to get my first badge. I normally would have thought the test was a waste of my time. After all, I didn't really need it for anything. However, seeing something that I could earn motivated me to spend a few minutes going through the information and answering some questions. If I'm any kind of example, I'd say badges will be a powerful motivator for learners to study and excel.
Now a big question. Are badges assessments? That depends. I don't think they're tests that one would take in a controlled environment. However, I think they do assess a learner's skills. So my answer is yes and no. They aren't traditional assessments, but they do show what a learner is capable of. And they do so in a more realistic and reliable way than multiple choice tests.

Analysis

One of the phases in the process of instructional design is analysis. I think this is one of the more important phases. It's the first phase, after all, so it sets the stage for all the others. Meaningful time spent on this phase saves time later on. I think this phase would be difficult to skip. Even if someone gave a half-hearted effort in it at first, they wouldn't be able to do well in the later phases. The result would probably be them being forced back to phase one to do further analysis to implement in the later phases.
I'm currently taking a class on the introduction to instructional design, and in the second half of the term, the class will participate in a competition where we'll design a course that will be taught in the fall semester. There will be a lot of information we'll need in order to fully analyze the situation. We'll need to understand the context of the class to understand what kind of prior knowledge the learners might have and in what situation they're learning. We'll also need to understand the attitude the learners will likely have toward the material and instruction, since that will affect how it is presented. If the learners are worried about the material, they'll need information to give them confidence with early successes. If they're fairly confident, that isn't as necessary. As far as the details of the task go, I think the most important thing for us to know will be the constraints.

7 Things You Should Know about Learning Analytics

Summary. Learning analytics (LA) involves taking information about a student's behavior in the course (such as time spent working on online readings and other participation) and comparing it to other data to determine if the student is at risk or not. Interventions can then be taken for students who are at risk for not doing well in the course. When grades are included in the information, if a student shows at-risk behavior but is still earning good grades, the program can ignore the behavior. If the grades are not high, and the student behaves in an at-risk manner, the program can alert the student to ways the student can improve. Teachers can also take action as necessary.
My thoughts. I am a very private person. I don't like providing information online, and I even have a minimum amount of information in something considered more public like my Facebook account. However, as long as the LA software only tracked online work having to do with the course, such as on the course's website or other related sites, then I don't think even I would have a problem with submitting to the program. After all, I think it is an excellent way to also help solve part of the teacher bandwidth problem. Though it would help every student to have teacher/student interaction, at least this way, the students that need the help most in order to succeed can get help (from the program or the teacher or both). In fact, sometimes I think the program may be better at helping students than the teacher, depending on the teacher. Though I figure this program would be used for higher education, an applicable example comes to mind from elementary school. A student would stare out into space instead of looking at the board or the teacher. Instead of taking the student aside and explaining that paying attention would help, the teacher called her out in class at various times in front of all the other students. To top it off, the teacher wasn't gentle or kind about it but was rather blunt instead. A reminder from a program to help the student, even though it isn't human-to-human interaction, would at least be better than such a scenario.

The State of Learning Analytics in 2012: A Review and Future Challenges

Summary. Learning analytics has developed from the need to find a way to handle large amounts of data, to find a way to improve online learning (e.g., help students who may be confused with the teacher not realizing), and to find a way to increase the quality of education. Because there are three different groups of people with concerns (educational institutions, teachers/learners, and government) the analytics that are developed depend on the balance of these three interest groups.
As more data became available in the twenty-first century, educational data mining developed, which sought to find patterns in the vast amounts of data. The focus was not always on learning, though educational data mining (EDM) did focus on learning. The field eventually included social network analysis (SNA), data could be collected on the relationships between students and their "tutors and resources." It took more time for teaching pedagogy to be incorporated into LA than it did to add SNA. Then politics entered the realm as people became worried about the deteriorating level of education in the country. Also with time, there began to be more of an emphasis on "learning and teaching." As new tools began to be developed in order to meet needs, the issues of "ethic and privacy" needed to be better addressed.
Learning analytics separated itself from other analytics fields in 2010. It dealt with the teaching and learning aspect of the three areas of concern listed in the first paragraph. Educational data mining helped with the educational institutions' wanting to now how to handle the large amounts of data. "Academic (and action) analytics" helped with the government's concern with improving the quality of education. The three areas aren't clearly delineated from each other, but they are separate in the broad scheme.
Learning analytics continued to gain attention when it was included in the 2011 Horizon Reports and the 2012 Horizon Reports. It was also said to be applicable to K-12 education and not just higher education. More fields are being drawn into the discussion. Linguistics contributes to learning analytics with discourse analysis. There are also social analytics. To achieve an ideal future, more work still needs to be done.
My thoughts. It was interesting to see the development of this field and how basically three groups grew out of one in order to satisfy the three competing interests. It's a good example of the self-organization of many people. Just as towns would organize themselves with leaders, law keepers, teachers, and other necessary community roles such as blacksmiths, the field of analytics has separated itself into different groups to fulfill different needs.

George Siemen's LAK12 Keynote Address

There were four things that he wanted to focus on:
1. The first was that people in the field should developing new tools that users were able to operate without major difficulty, develop new techniques, and develop people who will be able to do analytics in the future. Right now the field takes technology and techniques from other disciplines rather than developing things themselves. But learning analytics is a new field, so that isn't surprising to me.
2. He encouraged more openness with data. He felt sharing would help since others can see and improve the data, it would increase understanding, and provide links across cultures. The question with openness becomes who has their name on the information. He also discussed the need of ethics with data and the need for a greater scope of data. He encouraged looking outside the box of LMS and digital-only data research.
3. He proposed that the target of analytics activity is questions, not answers.
4. He discussed the need to develop connections with related fields and practitioners. There needs to be more people working together instead of just one person with all the necessary knowledge.
He had some final thoughts in the end before the question and answer session, such as how we need people too not just computers. He also asked whether the field of learning analytics was proving a theory or discovering a theory with the research? He pointed out that in this field, the researchers can be closer to the practitioners, and he suggested that we gain more information for the "science of learning."
My thoughts. Someone made a point in the Q&A session, which wasn't included in my summary, about how teachers need to be willing to be analyzed as much as they wish to analyze students. It made me realize that what I'd read about learning analytics previously had been focused on student behavior. Learning analytics also included some focus on whether certain sections of the materials covered and activities the instructor had students participate in were achieving the desired effect with students, but that was as close as it came to pointing any kind of finger at faculty.
I don't believe that a struggling student is entirely at fault all the time. I participated in a pageant when I was in junior high, and the top ten of my age group were each asked to draw a question out of a hat to answer before the judges and audience. My question was, "What makes a teacher a good teacher to you and why?" Ha! As a junior high student, I was dumbfounded, so much so that I think my hearing shut off for a bit. (I'll explain in a moment.) I said, "What makes a teacher a good teacher to me is that I learn, because if I'm not learning, then I don't think they should be called a teacher." My mother who was in the audience told me there was a great deal of cheering, but it was blocked from my ears. I would back down from this extreme statement today. I do believe that learners have their own responsibility. However, I still think teachers can enable learning more than some do. As such, I would say it is a joint effort, and I would even offer the suggestion that teachers be analyzed and receive their own warnings and notifications about their effectiveness and at-risk behavior and how they can improve.

Intro to Creative Commons

Summary. A creative commons license is one that lets people know that certain things can be done to a copyrighted work. Rather than not being able to do anything, the CC license is a simple way to alert people that certain things can be done to alter and build on a work. There seem to be plenty of people using these licenses, as an be seen from the number of CC licensed photos on Flickr. (Over three years ago, there were over 100 million.) There are three basic qualities that a CC license can have. The work needs to be attributed to the author (BY). The user needs to license their derived work under the same license (SA). The work is not allowed to be changed when it is reused (ND). The work cannot be reused commercially (NC). These attributes are combined in various ways to create the different kinds of CC licenses.
My thoughts. I think this is a wonderful way to allow people ownership of their work while also allowing other people to use and adapt the work. I also think, because it makes it easier to deal with, there will be fewer people who blatantly break the law. Why? Motivations. It's easier to keep the law with these licenses. People may not have thought it was worth whatever they would have to do (time, energy) to keep the law before by searching for permissions and contacting lawyers. But if it's easier (the permissions are printed right in the CC license), people may think it's worth the small amount of effort they have to put in (such as attributing the owner).

License Compatibility

Summary. There are still problems with CC licenses. For instance, due to the qualifications of an SA requirement in a CC license, logic quickly tells us that two different kinds of CC licenses with an SA requirement cannot be mixed (BY-SA and BY-NC-SA, for instance). Thus, certain licenses are not compatible with each other, even if technically they can be reused and remixed. However, combining  a BY and a BY-SA is allowable, so there are still usable combinations.
My thoughts. There are drawbacks to most things. In my opinion, these problems are relatively small. The SA licenses may prevent certain remixes, but there are always other materials that a person could mix, even if the secondary materials weren't their first choice. I think it's a tolerable hindrance, since it is the owner's right to determine what kind of CC they wish to license their creation under.

eduMOOC 2011

Characteristics

There seems to be a heavy emphasis on participation. There are weekly live sessions for people to listen to. People can also participate using Twitter at the same time as the live discussion.
Participants are also recommended to look at the open (free of charge) material/resources (blogs, articles, Twitter, sites and organizations, videos, etc.) and discuss them in a Google Group. There is even a thread for people to form study groups or to focus on an area they're interested in. People say what they're interested in to see if anyone else wants to join them. I saw one for elementary science teaching picking up interested followers.

What It's About

It seems to be about online learning. Every week is a different topic, and different field experts comes every week to participate in the live discussions: online learning today, research in online learning, technology used in online learning, mobile learning and apps, what higher education is worth, personal online learning [vs dropping early?] (people are already using Facebook, so teach safety and ethics and how to use it effectively), how online learning is changing the field, and a look to the future.

What Others Are Saying

I found someone's blog discussing it. They summarized the main points of a presentation and seemed to appreciate what was said.
The University of Virginia was advertising a course, how people were from around the world, and that there would be 1600 people in the discussion. The number seemed a selling point.
On another blog, Abu Dhabi writes about his participation of the MOOC. His opinion seems to be that MOOCs are about meeting other people and learning and changing.

Questions

One person suggested using technology for learning. But what are some difficulties with technology in the classroom? What does it change about learning if it doesn't actually change learning?
Has technology changed learning not teaching?
Patricia McGee: It's how we choose to use the tools. Choices should primarily be driven by how the technology (apps) can streamline our learning rather than add to the burden on learner and instructor. What do you think adds to the burden of an instructor? Do problems with learning suite count? Or is it whether the benefits outweigh the difficulties?

Open Educational Resources--Shifting the Landscape

The above video is one of a growing number of videos submitted to a contest where the video makers discuss why open education matters and what benefits it creates. Of the five I watched, this one was my favorite. I probably liked it because it spoke to me and opened my eyes about more than open education. Other videos talk about how we can help people in less developed countries. I agree that such help is needed, but I always like it when even the people here at home can receive benefits. Maybe it's because I'm selfish. Maybe it's because I know less-developed countries aren't the only places that need help. But the video also opened my eyes to something I'd never thought about--turning off our electronics in the classroom. I agree they're distracting. In fact, I had a fellow classmate that I never want to sit behind again, because her game of minesweeper was rather distracting. However, I think technology can be utilized better in the classroom, and I think this video makes the point better than I could.

Open Educational Resources

One definition for "open educational resources" is as follows: "Educational materials which use a Creative Commons license or which exist in the public domain and are free of copyright restrictions are open educational resources" (Wiley, Bliss, McEwen 2). It is difficult to actually define. The term open is quite open for debate. Some people define parts of the term separately in two or three pieces. In many definitions, copyright permissions come up, and there are generally assumed to be "four R's" that people are allowed to do with the open educational resources: reuse, revise, remix, redistribute.
Creative Commons Licenses for Open Educational Resources: They can combine BY (giving the creator credit), SA (licensing revised content under the exact same license as the original), and NC (not using the material for commercial purposes).
Models of Sharing OER: individual OER, open textbooks, open courseware. (The last two are more familiar and may help instructors who aren't as comfortable with technology.)
Models of Producing OER: institutional production model (from formal to OER: integrity model--as close as possible to original, essence model--only the main important features are kept, remix model--used as starting point for designing OER "specifically for web based delivery" (10).) The institutional production model is done by experts, so it is valued, but it possibly costs too much. The second model is the commons-based peer production model, which is done by individual people who are not motivated by money (e.g., Wikipedia). There can also be combinations of the two.
Benefits of OER: Motivations for participating in OER can range from mission-aligned to self-interested motivations. Institutions generate sales for courses and students save money on textbooks.

Challenges for OER:

1. Discovery problem

Some methods to solve it involve enabling it to be found on search engines (such as by searching for learning outcomes), creating sites that list OER and provide links, using features from social networking sites (such as tagging), and giving recommendations.
2. Sustainability problem

OER has promising results on small scale, but we need more research to better understand how it can be sustained and be more certain that this problem can be solved.
3. Quality problem

The problem stems from the question of how consumers can learn about the quality of OER. Computations and consumer ratings could work, but it also needs to be of quality to the individual user.
4. Localization problem

Consumers need to be educated about OER in order for them to localize it for themselves. I can't localize it for someone else as well as they could do it for themselves.
5. Remix problem

Few people actually revise and remix and such. Part of the problem may be that certain things that can be revised (pedagogical assumptions) lack visibility.
Future Directions for Open Educational Resources
Open education policies will need further research, and open assessment needs to be paired with OER in order to make them as great as they can be.

Online Self-Organizing Social Systems: The Decentralized Future of Online Learning

First, there is a Teacher Bandwidth Problem. Teachers can only hold (or teach) so many students effectively at a time. It is too expensive to have individualized instruction. But using technology enables more personal instruction.
BUT social interactions are important, so technology isn't a perfect answer. I remember one reason my mother wanted me to stay in public school instead of going to home school was for the social benefits. Even if highly decontextualized learning objects are the most reusable, they are the most expensive to reuse. And there are human elements to instructional design that computers cannot actually do.
So if technology doesn’t work, but teachers are too expensive, what is the third choice? “Students support each other.” (I have personal reservations about this approach. The paper convinced me in the end, but initially I remembered a teacher suggesting that the whole class not work together on a test, because the overall class scored lower in those situations. Of course, my memory could always be faulty.)
The phenomenon of self-organization
Humans are able to self-organize. Social interactions would organize districts in cities without zones being defined by an overseeing authority.
Online self-organizing social systems
With Slashdot, a ready example, moderators rate the quality of comments, and meta-moderators are given a counter power to rate the ratings of the moderators (e.g., fair or unfair). It’s a successful peer review process like that of academic journals.
OSOSS, learning objects, and online learning
From “facilitation” to “mediation” (10). OSOSS’s very structure needs to be one that can make it successful., since it affects the self-organization that occurs. It doesn't have same problems that normal learning objectives have. The burden is distributed when the community is large enough so that one person isn't bearing the whole burden.

The instructional design underlying OSOSS
These communities will need instructional design methods in them. The beauty is, some were found in an example conversation from PerlMonk, such as collaborative problem solving, goal-based scenarios, legitimate peripheral participation, and instructional design super-theory.
Potential problems with OSOSS and future research directions
It may be free of the flaws in normal approaches, but it has its own problems, in fact, it lacks certain strengths with curriculum, assessment, feedback, and identity and trust relations.
(Upon thinking [a dangerous past time--I know], I came up with a compromise. Where you have a centralized authority who establishes a curriculum and provides assessment and some feedback. However, then those students are deposited into a larger community of other students during the problem-solving phase. For instance, in the Japanese courses taught at BYU, there is a larger class with a teacher that breaks down into smaller classes with TAs. If the same sort of model is developed, the teacher would be required to give less feedback, because the students support each other. So they have a wider bandwidth. However, they also then get human-to-human interaction and a centralized curriculum to work through.

My impression of the MOOC Guide

It seemed pleasantly informal (not in a disrespectful way but a comfortable way). It made me feel more welcome. I think it helps with getting people to contribute. It's a good central site that's easy to navigate, so I could find my way to another site. It seemed to me like the people who contributed had an enthusiastic outlook on improving education, though acknowledging realistically that it will take work. I look forward to going more in depth with one of the sites. Stay tuned.

"Providing Feedback in Computer-based Instruction: What the Research Tells Us"

Prepared by Beryl Jean Maxon and Roger Bruning

Previous Thought in Research
Feedback was believed to either weaken or strengthen the learner's responses.
It enabled educators to think more positively about feedback but was a narrow view of what feedback could ultimately contribute.

Types of Feedback
There are two basic types of feedback.
Verification labels an answer as correct or incorrect.
Elaboration gives more information to lead the learner to a correct answer.

• Informational elaboration gives information that the learner can use to reach the correct answer.
• Topic-specific elaboration gives more detailed information about the topic and leads the learner through the correct answer. It does not address incorrect responses.
• Response-specific elaboration gives information on both correct and incorrect responses. The learner finds out why the incorrect answer was wrong.

The current belief is that feedback needs both verification and elaboration.

Types of Feedback (used individually and in combination)

• No-feedback: no verification and no elaboration 
• Knowledge-of-response feedback: verification and no elaboration 
• Answer-until-correct feedback: verification and no elaboration (The learner answers it again and again until he or she chooses the correct answer.) 
• Knowledge-of-correct-response feedback: verification and no elaboration except telling what the right answer is 
• Topic-contingent feedback: verification and elaboration containing information with the correct answer 
• Response-contingent feedback: verification and elaboration based on the learner's response 
• Bug-related feedback: verification and elaboration on the error the student may have made (It allows the learner to discover where they went wrong and determine the correct answer.) 
• Attribute-isolation feedback: verification and elaboration on the general concept

Factors That May Influence the Feedback's Effectiveness
Elaboration. some studies show that elaboration has no effect, but more studies show that elaboration helps increase learning. There is a "trend for increased learning in response to more elaborate feedback," but there are apparently other variables at work.
Student achievement levels. immediate feedback better for low-achieving students while higher ability students may receive more benefit from feedback that allows them to process information on their own
Depth of knowledge. There weren't exact answers in this area (in fact, results conflicted) but learners with more understanding could get more out of answer-until-correct feedback than learners with less understanding. Feedback effects seem to be weaker for higher-order learning, but learners at a lower level could benefit more from delayed and knowledge-of-correct-response feedback than from answer-until-correct or no-feedback.
Attitude toward feedback. Students seem to want "more elaborative, immediate feedback" (11). So giving learners feedback that they believe helps is probably a good idea even though the attitude may not actually impact learning outcomes.
Learner control. It may be beneficial to allow high ability learners control over the type of feedback they receive. However, it may not be as good of a policy to allow low ability learners to choose their feedback type, because low ability learners may just want the correct answer instead of the feedback that will provide the highest amount of learning.
Response certitude. A correct answer may be from a guess or from total understanding. An incorrect answer may be from a simple mistake or from a total lack of understanding. The impact of the feedback would be different depending on the reason.

1. High certitude and correct answers. the learner does not spend much time on feedback.
2. High certitude and incorrect answers. the learner wants to find the reason for the error. (This situation is possibly when feedback is the most helpful.)
3. Low certitude and correct/incorrect answers. the learner may not receive as much benefit from the feedback if the understanding (and thus certitude) is low. However, a study by Mory (1994) found that learners with low certitude spent more time studying the feedback.

There was not a significant difference in learning when the feedback was adjusted for certitude and correctness.Timing. There is a debate between whether immediate feedback is better due to immediate correction before the error is ingrained or whether delayed feedback is better so that correct information can be studied without interference. It seems immediate feedback is better for applied studies, list learning, decision-making, novel information tasks, and lower level knowledge based tasks. It helps with learning the content. Delayed feedback is better for learning test content, abstract concepts, and application/comprehension skills. It helps with remembering content for the long-term. Both types could be used. For example, the student can know immediately whether they were correct (verification) but learn later about the information behind the correct answer after having some time to think for themselves (elaboration).

Conclusions and Recommendations
"The challenge therefore is to identify the type of feedback that is most effective in specific educational settings" (14).

Student Achievement	Lower Level		Higher Level
Task Level	Lower level task	Higher level task	Lower level task		Higher level task
Timing of Feedback	Immediate feedback		Immediate feedback		Delayed feedback
Prior Knowledge	Low prior knowledge	High prior knowledge	Low prior knowledge	High prior knowledge	Low prior knowledge	High prior knowledge
Type of Feedback/Level of Elaboration	Knowledge-of-correct-response feedback with response-contingent feedback	Knowledge-of-correct-response feedback with topic-contingent feedback	Knowledge-of-correct-response feedback with RC feedback	Knowledge-of-response feedback with TC feedback	Knowledge-of-response feedback with delayed knowledge-of-correct-response feedback + RC feedback	Answer-until-correct feedback and delayed TC feedback

Questions

1. Is it fair to split up lower order learners and higher order learners? Is it a reality or a label? How can we create higher order learners from low level learners? Can we instill it in them from the very beginning?
2. Is there a way to overcome the problem in student's scores reflecting guesses and simple mistakes? After all, a learner could memorize a chapter and spit it out but still not understand it. Is there a new type of "question" we haven't thought of?
3. Is our view of feedback still narrow? In what ways could it be broadened?

Backwards Design and Outcomes

Backward Design for Forward Action"
Summary. The article focused on a "backwards" process of raising student performance. It's only backwards compared to the normal order people go in. Instead of immediately rushing in with an action to fix student performance like usual, the article stressed that other steps should be taken before trying to fix the performance. The first step is identifying desired results. After all, how do you know what to do to "fix" the performance, if you don't even know what you want to achieve? It emphasizes teaching key concepts that are behind the standardized test questions rather than teaching the narrow aspects of the specific test questions. The second step is to analyze multiple sources of data. Get the students to "apply their learning . . . and explain their responses" instead of giving them strictly multiple choice examinations (53). Improvement teams should then write up the data in a summary, which is easier for educators to understand. The third step is developing the action plan. Identify the root causes of the low achievement, and then finally implement the action plan.
Experience. I think it would have helped me in school to be taught the key concepts behind the narrower aspects of learning. I thought history was a rather useless subject; in fact, I can remember having a conversation with a fellow student about which subjects we could understand the reasons for and which were unnecessary. I believe history was placed in the "unnecessary" category. We were still in elementary school. I wouldn't come to the same conclusion today, but that is because I understand how history applies to life and can teach us about what mistakes to avoid in the future. The article gave an example about identifying key concepts in history and gave the question, "What can we learn from studying other places and times" (53). I believe if we had been taught such key concepts to apply our learning to, I would have been able to be more excited about learning history because I would have understood the purpose it served.


"What Is Backward Design?"
Summary. This chapter starts off identifying the teacher as a designer. The audience for this design is the students and the constraints of the design include both the standards for the teacher to meet and also the students needs. The reason it is called "backward design" is because it's backward from the usual method not backward in effectiveness. The first step is identifying the desired results based on what is worth the students being familiar with, what is important for students to know and do, and what students should keep as "enduring" understanding. The second step is determining acceptable evidence. The ways of gathering this evidence include casual checks for understanding, observation, and conversations with the students. The ways also include quizzes, tests, academic prompts, and application tasks and projects. The third step is to plan the learning experiences and instruction that go along with the decisions made in the first two steps.
Experience. I think a simple negative experience can be seen in my reaction to math problems in high school. The teacher would work through problems on the board that I understood and could handle. The difficulty came because the homework had more complicated problems. I either didn't understand how to apply what I had learned in the simple problems, so the information was not presented in the broader frame, or the teacher legitimately did not identify the more difficult problems as the learning assessment goals and then did not teach me so that I could meet those assessment goals well.


"Understanding by Design"
Summary. The introduction gives several key definitions and explains that the rest of the book will be looking for the definition of understanding. The first chapter was "What Is Backward Design" and is summarized above. The second chapter, entitled "What Is a Matter of Understanding," was new material that I will summarize here. It is important to determine what the audience needs to have uncovered. To do so, the teacher needs to know the subject. There are different levels of specificity in the standards that teachers are given: topical statements, general understandings, and specific understandings. The last part of the chapter focused on the importance of questions. Questions help get the students from being passive knowledge accruers to active learners. Asking questions also helps to encourage rethinking. Teacher's shouldn't be satisfied with just getting answers from students but should look for the students to start asking more questions from the answers they come up with. Entry-point questions help lead students to the more general and overarching questions. The entry-level questions help students relate the subject to their real life. 
Experience. I don't think I was encouraged to ask questions in my education. Sure, teachers would try to pound into us that "good students" don't just accept textbook answers. But those lectures just made me feel like a bad student, because I didn't. The teachers didn't teach me how to get into the deeper questions. The classes just weren't set up that way. Every once in a while, a teacher would say something that would get me thinking. For example, one professor (not an editing professor) said, "The best editing is invisible." I've continued to reflect on this statement and question it and come up with my own answer in my mind. I think I would have enjoyed a discussion in an editing class on that whether the best editing is invisible or not. Questions really would have improved my thinking.


"Developing Learning Outcomes"
Summary. Learning outcomes use course lessons as a means to the ends of students' learning. They help the teacher focus the teaching and provide students with a clear understanding of where their learning is going. The outcomes should be specific with action verbs.
Experience. A learning outcome for my major is the following: Identify the linguistic structures of present-day and historical varieties of the English language in terms of sounds, sound patterns, word-formation processes, grammar, meaning and discourse. This outcome uses the action verb "identify" and the terms in which we are expected to identify the structures are specific. It might have helped to be introduced to these more in my classes. I have some teachers who went through the class's learning outcomes, but I don't think I've ever had a class that related them to the overall outcomes of the major. It would have helped me relate to how the class would help me achieve my learning goals.


"Techniques & Methods for Writing Objectives & Performance Outcomes"
Summary. All three formats for writing learning objectives were similar. The Mager Format is the most basic. It includes the performance (what a student should be able to do), conditions (what situation the student is working in), and criterion (how well the student should be able to do and what expectations they should be able to meet in the performance). The second format, Gagné and Briggs, includes situation (conditions), learned capability (performance), object (performance), action (performance), and tools and other constraints (criterion). Object and tools are additions to the Mager Format. The ABCD format includes audience, behavior (performance), condition (condition), and degree (criterion). The audience is added to the Mager Format's basic items for inclusion
Experience. I see these in the syllabi of my courses, such as the following one in a course this semester: "Students who successfully complete the requirements for this course [audience] will be able to demonstrate [performance] that they have acquired an understanding of the Isaiah text in its historical and cultural context." This is less specific. It includes nothing of what the performance is that the student will do with this acquired understanding. It does not mention the criterion at all. Nor does it mention the conditions the student will be performing in. It does mention the audience and the presence of a performance, but that is about all. There are no mentions of action or tools.


"Bloom's Taxonomy"
Summary. This article began with a short history of Bloom's Taxonomy. It was going to be one leg of a three-part study. The researchers came up with six learning levels, and then a new team, which included one of Bloom's students and also included a co-editor of Bloom's taxonomy, performed a new study and created the Revised Bloom's Taxonomy after six years of work. It changed all of the nouns to verbs and changed "synthesis" to "creating" and "knowledge" to "remembering." It also switched the order of the top two levels so that "evaluating" was then second from the top and "creating" became the top level. The revised taxonomy also added a second dimension with the four knowledge dimensions: factual, conceptual, procedural, and meta-cognitive. The revised taxonomy was also designed for a broader audience. The article then stressed the usefulness of the revised version in classrooms, giving an example of how it was used to design a history and literature team course.
Experience. I was in a class on language and literature--not the most common of course combinations--that moved us through the revised Bloom's Taxonomy. On the midterm, our instructor gave us rhetorical terms and short quotes from Emily Dickinson poems, and the class was tested on our understanding of the terms by whether we could apply the terms to the correct quote from the poem. In the next big project, a paper, I analyzed the use of quantifiers to determine how they were related to each other and the characters that used them. For the final, we moved on to the "creating" stage and wrote a hymn using the devices we'd been learning about during the semester.