I will be borrowing your use of the term "learning targets." Other terms (like standards, objectives, competencies) are used so broadly that people might assume I mean one thing when I actually mean another. With the term "learning target," I can define exactly what I mean in the syllabus and (hopefully) avoid confusion
The method outlined for writing course standards, emphasizing concrete action verbs and clear conditions, resonates strongly with the principles of effective time management, especially the 'time blocking method' discussed in an article about time blocking method (https://productive.fish/blog/time-blocking/). Brainstorming, refining, and creating specific, assessable standards mirrors the approach of meticulously planning one's day with time blocks. Both methods stress the importance of clarity and specificity for optimal results, whether in learning or managing time efficiently. This alignment between educational strategies and personal productivity techniques is fascinating and highlights the universality of well-structured planning methods.
Great content to get thinking on this. I'm in a graduate setting trying to figure out how to present a Grading for Growth approach to faculty.
Questions:
1. Objectives vs. Outcomes = We, like many Universities, use an outcome based model, so in your “levels of objectives” graphic would that mean they are naturally at the Assessment level anyway since there are only 3-5 for an entire 16 week graduate level course?
2. In determining Outcomes or, Assessment level objectives, wouldn’t using the BbD model be most effective for setting up the learning targets and aligning the assessments and activities? In Stage One you use a nested egg approach to brainstorm all the outcomes first, then categorize them essentially as NEED to know no matter what (i.e. absolute essentials), Necessary to know in order to meet the lesson/course outcomes, and Nice to know (i.e. worth being familiar with if there is time). https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/understanding-by-design/ Do Grading for Growth advocates integrate Backward Design into their repertoire? Looks like you are doing something similar.
3. “Standards” looks exactly the same as “Outcomes” to me. Is there a difference I am missing or are they synonymous?
One request: slap a Creative Commons license on your figures (like in the Bloom's Taxonomy figure). Of course, I understand if you want to maintain a copyright on the figures. But it would help me (and probably others) to be able to share your ideas so nicely summarized in those figures.
This article is a very comprehensive and mostly very helpful explanation of how to develop and write standards. I think it is not helpful to use "I can" statements as many students can't (especially initially). A better way to frame these statements is "I am learning to . . ." I would also like to know where I can find an explanation of the very dubious third pillar - "marks for progress."
How to write standards
I will be borrowing your use of the term "learning targets." Other terms (like standards, objectives, competencies) are used so broadly that people might assume I mean one thing when I actually mean another. With the term "learning target," I can define exactly what I mean in the syllabus and (hopefully) avoid confusion
The method outlined for writing course standards, emphasizing concrete action verbs and clear conditions, resonates strongly with the principles of effective time management, especially the 'time blocking method' discussed in an article about time blocking method (https://productive.fish/blog/time-blocking/). Brainstorming, refining, and creating specific, assessable standards mirrors the approach of meticulously planning one's day with time blocks. Both methods stress the importance of clarity and specificity for optimal results, whether in learning or managing time efficiently. This alignment between educational strategies and personal productivity techniques is fascinating and highlights the universality of well-structured planning methods.
Great content to get thinking on this. I'm in a graduate setting trying to figure out how to present a Grading for Growth approach to faculty.
Questions:
1. Objectives vs. Outcomes = We, like many Universities, use an outcome based model, so in your “levels of objectives” graphic would that mean they are naturally at the Assessment level anyway since there are only 3-5 for an entire 16 week graduate level course?
2. In determining Outcomes or, Assessment level objectives, wouldn’t using the BbD model be most effective for setting up the learning targets and aligning the assessments and activities? In Stage One you use a nested egg approach to brainstorm all the outcomes first, then categorize them essentially as NEED to know no matter what (i.e. absolute essentials), Necessary to know in order to meet the lesson/course outcomes, and Nice to know (i.e. worth being familiar with if there is time). https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/understanding-by-design/ Do Grading for Growth advocates integrate Backward Design into their repertoire? Looks like you are doing something similar.
3. “Standards” looks exactly the same as “Outcomes” to me. Is there a difference I am missing or are they synonymous?
Thank you!
Your link to standard for Fall 2021 Math 225 is broken since you add -225 to the directory name.
One request: slap a Creative Commons license on your figures (like in the Bloom's Taxonomy figure). Of course, I understand if you want to maintain a copyright on the figures. But it would help me (and probably others) to be able to share your ideas so nicely summarized in those figures.
This article is a very comprehensive and mostly very helpful explanation of how to develop and write standards. I think it is not helpful to use "I can" statements as many students can't (especially initially). A better way to frame these statements is "I am learning to . . ." I would also like to know where I can find an explanation of the very dubious third pillar - "marks for progress."