Planning for Conceptual

Understanding:
A New Approach to Course Design

Edmund Hansen
Dir., Ctr. for Teaching & Learning
Northeastern Illinois University
e-hansen@neiu.edu

E. Hansen POD - 2009 1

 Intended Outcomes
1. Recognize the benefits of a model of course
design that emphasizes students’ conceptual
understanding of course material
2. Apply a new approach for defining learning
outcomes
3. Explore how to align learning outcomes with
student assessment activities
4. Investigate the functions of the components in
this new approach to course design

E. Hansen POD - 2009 2

 Workshop Outline
9:00 Intro to our sample course for today
9:15 Selecting Big Ideas
9:30 Identifying Enduring Understandings
9:50 BREAK
10:00 Choosing Learning Outcomes
10:30 Creating Authentic Performance Tasks
10:55 BREAK
11:05 Formulating Performance Criteria
11:20 Identifying Needed Abilities
11:40 Strengths of this Approach & Your Feedback

E. Hansen POD - 2009 3

Big Ideas A B C

Enduring
Understandings A.1 A.2 B.1 B.2 C.1 C.2

Learning
Outcomes A.1.1 A.1.2 A.2.1 B.1.1 B.2.1 B.2.2 C.1.1 C.2.1

Key Concepts,
Misconceptions, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 3, 8 - 13 6, 11, 14 - 20
Essential Questions

Perform. Tasks I II

Performance
Criteria I.1 I.2 1.3 II.1 II.2 II.3

Needed Abilities a b c d e f g h i j k l

E. Hansen POD - 2009 4

Big Ideas A B C

Enduring
Understandings A.1 A.2 B.1 B.2 C.1 C.2

Learning
Outcomes A.1.1 A.1.2 A.2.1 B.1.1 B.2.1 B.2.2 C.1.1 C.2.1

Perform. Tasks I II

Performance
Criteria I.1 I.2 1.3 II.1 II.2 II.3

Needed Abilities a b c d e f g h i j k l

E. Hansen POD - 2009 5

 The Sample Course
• Context: High percentage of immigrant
students at NEIU
• FYE program mandatory for all entering
freshmen
• Courses taught in all disciplines around
Diversity in Chicago theme
• Courses require teaching of study skills
• Course description in Appendix 2

E. Hansen POD - 2009 6

 • Individually review info on FYE course
• Discuss in group: How would you
teach this course?
– How to deal with the dual focus?
– What are the other challenges?
– What should be the main outcomes?

E. Hansen POD - 2009 7

12 Pictures from Istvan Banyai’s

E. Hansen POD - 2009 8

 Big Ideas
Why start here?
• Position L.O’s w/in larger curriculum
• Thereby facilitate interdisciplinary teaching
• Provide more context for L.O’s
• Steer course away from mere knowledge
• Limit the scope of the course

E. Hansen POD - 2009 9

 Big Ideas
What are they?
• See examples in Appendix 3
• The glue (“conceptual Velcro”) that holds
the field together
• Important meta-concepts and theories
• Provide “conceptual lenses” for whole
knowledge domains
• May cut across several disciplines
E. Hansen POD - 2009 10
 From Big Ideas to Learning Outcomes

Big Ideas A B C

Enduring
A.1 A.2 B.1 B.2 C.1 C.2
Understandings

Learning
Outcomes A.1.1 A.1.2 A.2.1 B.1.1 B.2.1 B.2.2 C.1.1 C.2.1

E. Hansen POD - 2009 11

 Enduring Understandings
Why yet another step?
• Selected with your students’ experiential
and intellectual horizon in mind
• Need to be uncovered
• Make transfer possible across domains
(function as major themes)

E. Hansen POD - 2009 12

 Enduring Understandings
What are they?
• See examples in Appendix 6
• Derivations from Big Ideas
• Key elements of Big Ideas’ definitions,
applications, or implications
• Generalizations central to the discipline
• What students should understand past the
end of the course

E. Hansen POD - 2009 13

 • Brainstorm a few Big Ideas for the
FYE course
• Use Worksheet in Appendix 4
• Then review Big Ideas and Enduring
Understandings in Appendix 14
• Critique & improve!

E. Hansen POD - 2009 14

E. Hansen POD - 2009 15
E. Hansen POD - 2009 16
 From Big Ideas to Learning Outcomes

Big Ideas A B C

Enduring
A.1 A.2 B.1 B.2 C.1 C.2
Understandings

Learning
Outcomes A.1.1 A.1.2 A.2.1 B.1.1 B.2.1 B.2.2 C.1.1 C.2.1

E. Hansen POD - 2009 17

 Learning Outcomes
Why learning outcomes?
• Translate E.U’s into more concrete
expectations for students
• Limit the scope of what can be done with
B.I. and E.U. in this course
• Enable link with assessment tasks

E. Hansen POD - 2009 18

 Learning Outcomes
What are they?
• Examples (Appendix 6)
• Address some key aspects of the
Enduring Understandings
• Each Learning Outcome is “sampling” one
aspect of an Enduring Understanding
• Focus on what students will be able to do
• Are concrete and measurable
E. Hansen POD - 2009 19
 •Discuss the Learning Outcomes in
Appendix 14
• Would you have chosen different ones,
given the B.I’s and E.U’s from which they
are derived?
• Your thoughts on the 3-step process of
determining outcomes?

E. Hansen POD - 2009 20

 Compare:
Your old learning outcomes and your new
learning outcomes:
• Which ones are better defined?
• Can be measured more easily?
• Seem more meaningful?
• For more examples, see Appendix 7

E. Hansen POD - 2009 21

Big Ideas A B C

Enduring
Understandings A.1 A.2 B.1 B.2 C.1 C.2

Learning
Outcomes A.1.1 A.1.2 A.2.1 B.1.1 B.2.1 B.2.2 C.1.1 C.2.1

Perform. Tasks I II

Performance
Criteria I.1 I.2 1.3 II.1 II.2 II.3

Needed Abilities a b c d e f g h i j k l

E. Hansen POD - 2009 22

 The Oreo Model
of Course Design

Big Ideas
Enduring Understandings
Learning Outcomes

Performance Task/s

Performance Criteria
Needed Abilities

E. Hansen POD - 2009 23

 Authentic Performance Tasks
Why “authentic performance tasks”?
• Shift focus to hands-on learning: generate
student motivation
• Provide evidence whether students truly
“understand” (achieve the L.O’s)
• Force instructor to build course around
practice & feedback opportunities
(“assignment-based teaching”)
E. Hansen POD - 2009 24
 Authentic Performance Tasks
What are they?
• Examples in Appendix 8
• Contextualized in a realistic scenario
• Ask students to “do” the subject
• Replicate challenging (work) situations
• Assess ability to use a repertoire of knowl.
• Allow opportunities to practice & get feedb.

E. Hansen POD - 2009 25

 Create one for the FYE course
(see Worksheet in Appendix 9)
and then…

E. Hansen POD - 2009 26

 Performance Criteria
• See examples in Appendix 10
• Used in rubrics, e.g. Critical Thinking:
http://www.neiu.edu/~ctl/teaching/rubrics2.html
• Break down a complex task into a set of
discrete expectations
• Allow for these expectations to be used in
smaller practice activities
• Link the performance task with the
learning outcomes
E. Hansen POD - 2009 27
 Needed Abilities

Performance Task

Performance
1
Criteria 2 3

Needed
Abilities a b c d e f

E. Hansen POD - 2009 28

 Needed Abilities
Why “Needed Abilities”?
• Performance criteria are not concrete
enough
• Complex cognitive skills require multiple
steps
• “Needed Abilities” and “Competencies”

E. Hansen POD - 2009 29

 Needed Abilities
What are they?
• See examples in Appendix 11. (They still need
to be made course or discipline-specific)
• Needed Abilities translate a P.C. into hands-on
action
• Faculty need to explore what their students’
barriers are for performing a task
• Then break those barriers down into specific
steps

E. Hansen POD - 2009 30

 • Discuss the Performance Criteria
and Needed Abilities in Appendix 14
• Do they seem to match the
Performance Tasks?
• Do the Abilities seem to address the
Learning Outcomes?

E. Hansen POD - 2009 31

 Needed Abilities meet
Learning Outcomes
LEARNING OUTCOMES NEEDED ABILITIES
1. Analyze key reasons a. Brainstorm relevant
behind tensions in questions
different immigrant b. Identify missing or
neighborhoods inaccessible info
2. Identify respondents c. Recognize external
with different but influences on own
relevant perspectives behavior/attitudes
on certain issues d. Distrust “gut reactions”
and “pet answers” and
learn to “dig deeper”

E. Hansen POD - 2009 32

 The Course Design Document
Big Ideas
Enduring Understandings
Learning Outcomes

Authentic Performance Tasks

Performance Criteria
Needed Abilities
E. Hansen POD - 2009 33
 Strengths of this Approach
1. Replaces syllabus with Course Design
Document as the course blueprint
2. Systematically derives Learning
Outcomes
3. Creates connectors across curriculum &
disciplines
4. Achieves curricular alignment

E. Hansen POD - 2009 34

 Strengths of this Approach
5. Addresses faculty concerns about teaching &
student learning through:
a. Motivational quality of authentic performance
tasks
b. Transparency of instructor expectations
c. Expanded time for practice & feedback
6. Connects course design with critical thinking
(not shown today)
7. Defines nine structural elements of course
design (APPENDIX 12)
8. Focuses on conceptual understanding, not
content topics

E. Hansen POD - 2009 35

 References
• Erickson, H.L. (2007). Concept-Based Curriculum
and Instruction for the Thinking Classroom.
• Huba & Freed. (2000). Learner-Centered
Assessment on College Campuses.
• McTighe & Wiggins. (2004). Workbook to
Understanding by Design.
• Tewksbury & McDonald. (2005). On the Cutting
Edge: Professional Development for Geoscience
Faculty.
• Tomlinson, a.o. (2002). The Parallel Curriculum.
• Walvoord & Anderson. (1998). Effective Grading.
• Wiggins & McTighe. (2005). Understanding by
Design.

E. Hansen POD - 2009 36