Customized vs Standardized
This idea should include customized content as well as customized methods.
I recognize that it may not be practical to do this individually in a large class – but it is possible in smaller classes. What is possible, even in a large class (I know because I’ve done it) is to set up a collection of content, methods and work for the students and then let them choose from a variety of tasks. This of course means that you, as the instructor (or course designer) must actually design all (*) of your assignments before the term starts. It also means you must have your assessment schemes set up at the start of term too. Students deserve to know how they will be assessed before they start an assignment.
Another way to do customization is to support a variety of paths through the course content. When a game is designed it usually gets laid out in a map according to the places the player can access or the regions on the game world. Each “node” in the map is a place where the player can do something. All eventually lead to the final challenge of the game. Sometimes you can go directly to the end game but players will rarely have the skills and assets they need in order to meet the final challenge. Often you will need to meet specific challenges at various points before being allowed to continue to the next one.
We can take this same approach to the design of allowable paths through a course. Although most of us learned our disciplines through lectures and textbooks that were organized linearly (see Figure 1), there is nothing inherently natural about this approach and there is very little evidence to suggest that this is an appropriate way to learn. It gets done mostly because it is easiest and most ‘efficient’ for the institution and the instructor, not because it is best for the student.
If instead of thinking about subjects as an ordered set of topics, we consider the actual dependencies of various topics, concepts, and skills, we can use that to create a flexible learning path (Figure 2). Clearly, some things must be addressed in a specific order, but others will be order-independent, and some are truly required while others can be optional. This has the added benefit of making relationships between the various topics explicit.
(*) You don’t actually need to have all of them ready, but you should have most of them. I often have a few categories (such as my Discovery and Delivery Quests) that I can set up on the fly to meet the needs of the class.
Just to keep things organized: these are Reigeluth’s 8 core ideas for a new post-industrial paradigm of instruction:
- Learning-focused vs. sorting focused.
- Learner-centered vs. teacher-centered instruction.
- Learning by doing vs. teacher presenting.
- Attainment-based vs. time-based progress.
- Customized vs. standardized instruction.
- Criterion-referenced vs. norm-referenced testing.
- Collaborative vs. individual.
- Enjoyable vs. unpleasant. [1]
For more on my gamified approach to course design, see here. I am working on a book that should be out in 2016.
- C. M. Reigeluth, “Instructional Theory and Technology for the New Paradigm of Education,” Revista de Educación a Distancia, vol. 11, Sept. 30 2012 2012.
In a gamified course, all students start off with a score of zero, and everything they do adds to their score (in my version they are guaranteed never to lose points they have earned(**)). If they blow an assignment they simply earn fewer points and must either re-do it or do something else to earn the points they need. There is no one thing they can do that will prevent them from earning an ‘A’.
As much as possible, students should spend their time learning by doing rather than listening to lectures, reading textbooks, and watching others. Sometimes teaching via lecture, assigned reading, or video is appropriate, but it is far too easy to simply choose a textbook and then follow that chapter by chapter. We need to focus on what students can do – beyond writing exams – to demonstrate their mastery of the subject matter. Assignments (quests) should focus on what students can do to demonstrate mastery of the material rather than simply being able to repeat what they’ve been told.
McCombs and Whisler [1] define learner centered as: “The perspective that couples a focus on individual learners (their heredity, experiences, perspectives, backgrounds, talents, interests, capacities, and needs) with a focus on learning (the best available knowledge about learning and how it occurs and about teaching practices that are most effective in promoting the highest levels of motivation, learning, and achievement for all learners)” (p. 9).
Learning vs Sorting
