Search results

This chapter discusses a bottom-up design strategy to support the principles of Universal Design and Universal Design for Learning adapted for online course development. The concept of Universal Design demands a holistic, bottom-up instructional design model for online course development that integrates technology, accessibility, recent instructional and learning theories, and a participatory postmodern worldview. This study is intended for faculty, instructional designers, administrators, assistive technology staff, and Web multimedia software vendors associated with higher education. The research assists these target audiences to design and develop online courses that are accessible without special adaptation or modification. The components of Universal Design for online learning support newer emergent approaches to instructional design, various programming solutions used in the software engineering field for efficiency, Universal Design for Learning, and legal guidelines associated with accessibility.

This chapter presents five differentiated models of curriculum, each designed with templates created from learning theories. The discipline of distributed leadership is chosen to develop a cognition-based curriculum, a behavior-based curriculum, a performance-based curriculum, a values-based curriculum, and collectively arranged into a competency-based curriculum. The research literature frames the attributes of a competency-based curriculum on psychological competence.

In this chapter, curricula are developed to demonstrate the process of adapting theories of learning, instruction, and environment into design templates with which to differentiate the dimensions and components of a curriculum. In these curricula, multiple conceptual frameworks are employed to translate the content and structure of the discipline into instructional objectives, instructional engagement, instructional experience, and instructional environment to align the instructional processes with the intended learning. For these demonstrations, the discipline of organizational leadership is chosen due to the multidimensional structure of this discipline and the opportunities it presents to differentiate the curriculum and learning. Each component of the curriculum adapts an appropriate framework to align and interconnect the instructional processes into an optimized learning experience. The result is curricula that have a coherent flow horizontally across the components for each outcome as well as interconnectedness vertically between the outcomes. This approach creates coherence, alignment, and interconnectedness to the curricula and order to the learning process for the learners.

This methodology is applied to design the curriculum for five instructional modules. Module 1 focuses on dualistic thinking developed through a cognition-based curriculum. Module 2 presents a multiplistic learning experience through a behavior-based curriculum. Module 3 presents relativistic learning through a performance-based curriculum. Module 4 delivers complex learning through a values-based curriculum. Module 5 compiles these four modules into a competency-based curriculum model.

Each of these modules employs a unique set of theories to configure the components of the curricula to reflect the structure of each discipline. The use of each theory is explained and demonstrated in the design process.

Accessibility design over the past several years has focused much of its attention on the development of a universal standard or a set of guidelines for delivering a diverse array of both content and instructional processes. Universal design for learning (UDL), for example, promotes providing multiple means of (a) representation, (b) action and expression, and (c) engagement for learners who have a wide range of disabilities as well as their typical peers. And while each instructional design element that represents a means of providing the differentiation required by the principle generally has a strong evidence-based support individually, it is difficult to assess any one of them within the larger ULD “multiple means” milieu of options. It is especially difficult to do this in regard to learners associated with any particular disability category. When it comes to targeted instruction, learner characteristics matter. It follows then that when it comes to developing an instructional design, that the learning characteristics of a targeted population be first and foremost considered as the point of departure in the design and development process. This chapter considers a wide range of instructional targets within the context of specific disability groups with a focus on learning goals, instructional design supports for those goals, and underlying cognitive processes that may help clarify the goals themselves as well as the instructional supports to achieve those goals.

The process of differentiating each of the dimensions of learning is demonstrated by the application of three possible conceptual frameworks for each dimension, which are based on the theories of learning, instruction, and environment. Multiple existing theories apply to each dimension of the curriculum, including one framework that is a synthesis of several related theories. The purpose of this chapter is to demonstrate how theories may be adapted into design templates and used to configure the components of the curriculum. The outcome of this process is to create coherent curricula through the practical application of theories of learning as design templates.

A blueprint template is presented to visualize the internal alignment, interconnectedness, and overall coherence of each curriculum. This template visually depicts the functional interactions between the curricular components as dynamic relationships. This tool reveals the design relationships within the curriculum for purposes of design and evaluation. For curriculum design purposes, this form is used to establish and maintain the alignment among the dimensions of a curriculum (horizontally in the template) as well as the interconnectedness of the components. Engagement with the learning process begins by translating the content of each learning objective into instructional objectives, which aligns the instructional components with each learning objective. The instructional objectives are configured to align the content and structure contained in the outcomes and objectives with the instructional components. In this curriculum design system, the instructional taxonomies of Bloom, Engelhart, Furst, Hill, and Krathwohl (1956) are adapted as design templates to demonstrate three strategies to configure the structure of the learning engagement dimension into three distinct purposes of developing cognition, skills, or values within each dimension (vertically in the template).

The learning experience in this curriculum demonstration differentiates three distinct instructional functions: the learning of thinking skills, the learning of performance skills, and the learning of values-based performance. A template adapted from credible theories of instruction configures the specified learning.

Three models also differentiate the learning environment dimension of a curriculum. The learning environment is structured to deliver learning through individual, cooperative, or collaborative processes. Although the environmental considerations mostly impact the activities through which learners interact with the content of the curriculum (reinforcement activities, assignments, assessments), the environmental factors influence all components of the curriculum and can be differentiated to promote and enhance learning. From the learner perspective, the learning environment is created by the dynamic interaction of all components of the curriculum to facilitate an unobstructed path to learning.

In this chapter, each of the completed models of curriculum is presented and evaluated using criteria from the attributes of effective curricula discussed in Chapter 1. Explanations of the design strategies that are used to demonstrate each attribute in a differentiated manner are included. The evaluation process provides an evaluation methodology to demonstrate the effectiveness of each model of a curriculum in a credible and trustworthy way.

In the previous chapters, the individual parts of the curricula were configured, aligned, and interconnected to deliver specific outcomes in each learning module. In this chapter, the components of each curriculum are assembled into one table to exhibit the order contained within each learning module within the overall curriculum. The standards for curricular attributes adopted at the beginning of the design process are the criteria for the evaluation of the completed curriculum. The strategies used to configure the components of each curriculum provide evidence of the curriculum’s characteristics, which demonstrate compliance with each criterion.

The evaluation of these attributes within a curriculum serves several purposes. First, they provide a checklist to guide the design process toward curricula that reflect these standards as developed by the profession of curriculum design in higher education. Second, they provide a measurement of the attributes of the curriculum to demonstrate the compliance of each curricular design with conventional standards. Third, these measurements can be compared with other institutional data to uncover correlations between the design assumptions and learner performance. These correlations often reveal unanticipated results, which inform the effectiveness of the instructional system.

These criteria are applied to the evaluation of the curriculum for each module to demonstrate the diverse manner in which each can be achieved in a discipline-specific manner. The compliance with these criteria is explained to be a matter of demonstration, as used in the discipline of qualitative research. These qualitative evaluations can then be compared with other operational data to understand the effectiveness of the design assumptions for each curriculum.

Chapter 1 builds a shared understanding of the definition and role of curriculum in learning. The attributes of a curriculum are presented and described with the research literature. The role and function of these attributes in the design of an effective learning experience are examined in detail.

As there are multiple meanings of the word “curriculum” in use, it is necessary to define this term as used in this work. This definition is not meant to suggest that this is the “one,” “true,” or “only” way to conceive of the term, but instead to suggest a useful and practical conceptual framework for curriculum as a multidimensional, dynamic, and causal component of the instructional system. This definition provides the conceptual framework for curriculum as used in this work.

The term derived from a Latin word (currere) denotes “a race course” (Etymology Online, 2018). Educators in the sixteenth century borrowed this denotation for what is now higher education to increase “order” in the learning processes and enhance learning (Hamilton, 2013). The term now describes the collection of learning experiences in a prescribed instructional unit of study, leading to a defined outcome.

The purpose and function of the curriculum in the learning process are to organize, order, and structure the learning process to facilitate learning. In this system of design, three global dimensions are differentiated to promote and enhance the learning of all individuals who pursue it. These global dimensions determine a learner’s ability to engage with, learn from, and demonstrate authentically the intended learning articulated in the curriculum.

The attributes of an effective curriculum are extracted from the educational literature and converted into criteria with which to evaluate a completed curriculum. These criteria include externally valid content, coherence, alignment, interconnectedness, complexity, and the inclusion of opportunities to demonstrate the expected outcomes. Additionally, the structure of the course groupings is evaluated by the criteria of structure, integration, sequence, and consistency. Each of these standards is discussed and explained as it applies to the design of effective curricula.

In grades K-3, the primary focus of instruction is learning to read. In grades 4 and beyond, however, the focus shifts to reading to learn. Whereas teachers may use a variety of instructional approaches, research has clearly documented that learning from text is the primary instructional model found in most classrooms. This means that efforts to close the achievement gap must focus on ensuring that all students can access text-based learning materials, engage with the content in meaningful ways, and ultimately demonstrate success in the form of measurable gains in learning outcomes. Whereas the philosophy of UDL is relatively easy to understand, it has proven problematic to design, implement, evaluate, and scale. The purpose of this chapter is to describe a universal design engineering approach known as Design for More Types that can be applied to the design of text-based learning materials, this chapter will describe the conceptual and practical issues involved in the development of text-based learning materials for diverse learners. We begin by providing some foundational concepts for this multidisciplinary work. Next, we provide a series of case studies to illustrate how universal usability can be applied to various instructional designs. Finally, we describe how the Design for More Types framework can be used in both research and practice.

HyFlex course design is an effective instructional course design that combines active and transformative learning techniques. HyFlex course design encourages active learning by focusing on interactive activities, discussions, and collaboration. It also allows learners to collaborate effectively and flexibly as a community, providing peer support and opportunities for authentic dialogue and learning experiences. HyFlex course design provides the opportunity for transformative learning through its ability to offer personalized educational experiences to individuals. It facilitates greater customization of the learning experience, allowing individual learners to access tailored educational modules, offer personalized educational experiences to individuals, and effectively develop and build independent and critical thinking skills. This conceptual review, supported by implications from HyFlex literature and triangulated with experts' views undertaking a Delphi study, facilitates understanding the current state of research in HyFlex course design and future application strategies. Existing research has identified HyFlex courses as a promising means of engaging students in active learning. Allowing students to learn through flexibly predesigned mixed online and in-person experiences enables higher levels of student autonomy and supports students in taking more ownership of their learning. This approach can facilitate an understanding of how HyFlex courses can improve active learning practices in higher education. The review study findings identify the reported alignment issues and challenges, suggest four strategies and actions for policymakers and stakeholders, and provide a suggested research agenda for bridging identified research gaps.

Future research can provide evidence of the benefits of HyFlex course design and how flexible course design can address the challenges of traditional face-to-face courses, such as reduced student engagement, lack of student-centered approaches, and limited support for different learning styles. Further research can focus on strategies that can be used to promote active learning in HyFlex courses. Moreover, research can investigate how this kind of course design can equip educators with the skills and knowledge needed to design and implement effective and meaningful active learning experiences. Finally, research can assess the potential impact of HyFlex course design on student outcomes, including performance, satisfaction, and engagement.

E-learning programs exist in a wide variety of formats. Without a framework for distinguishing between different e-learning programs, it is a challenge for researchers to compare their effectiveness or identify characteristics of e-learning that contribute to learning effectiveness. Based on general theories of learning, we develop a typology that compares e-learning programs in terms of the nature of the learning interactions they provide for learners in three dimensions: degree of interaction, learner control of interactions, and informational value of interactions. The typology dimensions apply to learner–instructor, learner–learner, and learner–instructional material interactions. We also discuss important theoretical implications of the typology. First, we show the utility of the typology for comparing the effectiveness of different e-learning programs. Second, we apply the typology dimensions to develop a theoretical framework for e-learning research that provides a foundation for examining factors that influence learning effectiveness in an e-learning program. The framework identifies e-learning program characteristics, learner characteristics, and contextual factors that impact learning effectiveness in different e-learning environments. It also shows how the typology dimensions align with learning goals to influence learning effectiveness.