Here’s what caught our eye this week and we think you might find interesting…

Academic Redshirting– Joanne Jacobs

Three Trends that Will Shape the Future of Curriculum– Mind/Shift

The Benefits of Failure–EDWeek

Here’s what caught our eye this week and we think you might find interesting…

How Machine-Based Tutoring Will Disrupt Human Tutors–Disrupting Class

Loose Canons–Core Knowledge Blog

Not Everyone Is Jumping on the Banned Wagon–The Innovative Educator

How Much Does Blended Learning Cost?–the Journal

E-Textbooks, What’s the Rush?–Linking and Thinking on Education

One of the key ideas identified in our study with the Girard and Pollinate Foundations, was the idea of the coverage teaching model versus the performance teaching model. In the coverage model a student is presented with material that addresses the objectives. However, there is often a lack of precisely identified outcomes designed to demonstrate a student’s true mastery of the objectives and a truly coherent structure (goal) to the course. Movies and lectures provide valuable content, yet the high-level thinking that is necessary in a competitive global environment is largely ignored. In a similar fashion, role-playing, debates, and projects while offering more promise, often miss their intended mark. This typical planning, while well intentioned, rarely achieves meaningful success in student performance.

In contrast, the performance model focuses on identifying specific evidence of mastery. These specific outcomes are carefully chosen to demonstrate the student’s understanding of the major concepts. Once identified, the outcomes are clearly described in great detail and the means of measurement are constructed. The emphasis is upon the overall course connection rather than individual assignments. To ensure the necessary level of mastery, student assignments are designed to address these major outcomes. With clearly identified expectations, the instructor receives powerful information regarding a student’s achievement. The data created by the student, in these meaningful activities, establishes compelling evidence as to the best course of actions. When this data is combined with specific strategies to aid a student in improving their performance, a powerful systematic learning model is created.

While many of the tools used are the same in both methods, there are two key components lacking in the coverage model. The first is the ability to meaningfully apply data to shape learning outcomes. The second are clearly defined outcomes. These outcomes are necessary to develop the the data necessary for designing the best, next step for a particular student. The coverage model can often be described as an express train with no stops between destinations. Lacking an opportunity for the student to understand the material and improve their mastery.

If the term mastery seems familiar it should. Programs that exhibit the greatest success focus upon mastery. Holding students accountable to outcomes that are well documented provides a clear goal for the students, in addition to the instructor. This presumes that a student’s performance is used to prescribe a specific course of action when the desired goal is not met. Mastery, not the school year dictates a student’s progression.

Despite its unassumingly simple nature, mastery poses a major problem for most learning programs. Mastery simply doesn’t lend itself to the current educational model. School day schedules, support programs, and the necessary time for teacher planning often provide significant barriers to mastery of objectives. By their very nature, these barriers steer most instruction toward the coverage model.

A tool that many exceptional programs have found successful is Understanding by Design, by Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe. Understanding by Design provides an easy to implement system for course design. Through its clear identification of big ideas and essential questions it provides a potent framework for the identification of desired outcomes. These outcomes are addressed through the thoughtful creation of supporting activities. Such activities are constructed to achieve not only the specific lesson objectives but also the course objectives. This framework lends itself to differentiation and a personalized learning experience.

Constructing a course based upon Understanding by Design should not be taken lightly. The time commitment and the effort required to design activities that clearly aid learners in achieving a specific learning outcome are significant. Expect to spend 30-50 hours on each course. However, any short term pain is well worth the effort. The time invested up-front in designing a course in this manner will provide significant dividends in course management and learner feedback. In addition it will help you implement the next tool in our discussion of Revolutionizing Education.

Today, I begin with with Sal Khan and his journey to reinvent education. I had the opportunity to visit with Sal, prior to his keynote speech last week, at the 2011 CCSA conference in San Diego. It was great to share ideas with and ask question of someone helping to radically impact education. During our conversation, we spoke about the disruption the Khan Academy has presented to traditional education. Sal began with a decidedly low-tech approach to teaching and posted his lessons to Youtube. Since 2004, he has created more than 2,100 videos that receive millions of views each year.

I was able to record a ten minute selection of our conversation. Listen to Sal explain the Khan Academy and his vision for the future of education.

• Sal Khan-Khan Academy (MP3 Audio File)

As always we look forward to hearing your thoughts and comments. You can find us on Twitter (@darylljohnson or @sroner) and Facebook (EDBuzz).