Presentation of Learning Objectives and Activities

Learning Objectives and Activities Layout 1

Following some thought about how best to design and present learning objectives and differentiated learning activities, I have put these two together. Layout 1 mimics the ideas in the previous post, putting the learning objective as an overarching aim for everybody with three levels of activity to support progression. Layout 2 builds on these principles, looking to apply an axis map between skills and understanding. The sole aim of the two layouts is to help learners orient themselves during the session. On this occasion the lesson is an INSET day for our new Frog learning platform. However, I am also trying to develop a method for designing and communicating learning objectives and activities for the ICT in Subjects project to be implemented September 2012.

Learning Objectives and Activities Layout 2
Learning Objectives and Activities Layout 2

The first was made in PPT and the second in Google Drawings. Any thoughts you have about these layouts, the approach they are built on or any research you have found insightful into this area would be great to hear about.

 

Update in light of comments and further thought:

The idea here is to cage the language in a way that helps the learner understand why they have done the activities listed to the right. Im not convinced yet. Maybe something like:

  1. I am able to use the basic functionality of the learning platform and understand how it can be used to host resources online and communicate with other users.
  2. I understand how workspaces provide an interactive platform to work with my pupils and can manage the social aspects of my profile.
  3. I am able to create learning resources and understand how these might help to structure access to content for learners.

Is putting Levels on the activities and the statements being too directed?

Presentation of Learning Objectives and Activities

6 thoughts on “Presentation of Learning Objectives and Activities

  1. Weteachhistory says:

    Great article. Like the idea of students navigating around the objectives and intentions.

    Thanks

    @weteachhistory

  2. Interesting development on the idea of LOs and success criteria. In terms of presenting the material to students I find both diagrams intriguing. The former which I have been working with myself is IMO the clearest way of presenting the material, however looking at the axis map, I wonder whether the former still makes learning appear (to the students at least) to be a linear process. The axis map visually suggests that two different types of learning (knowledge and skills) are happening synchronously and asynchronously. I therefore so not have a conclusive answer to which way of presenting them is best. It perhaps depends on the context and the learners themselves. 

    I am also interested in your choice to present ‘activities’ instead of success criteria. These appear more as steps rather than conceptual ideas. I am not being critical here as I can see benefits for either approach. Perhaps, to be useful to the teachers of other subjects however, these need to presented in what the students will be able to show they have learned. Instead of “Login; Access training material; Book a resource…”, they should read as: ‘I can access the course and my personal workspace.’ ‘I can personalise my workspace and make use of the social features.’ ‘I can teach others how to login and personalise their workspace.’ The reason I suggest this is that this enters into a more reflective process over what is being learned rather than simply describe a series of steps. It is just a suggestion.

    This has got me thinking about the realtionship between LO’s, SC and Activities/Tasks. Perhaps you could have an activity rubric for each module where the students can map the LO/SCs on to it. I need to think on this further!

    1. daibarnes says:

      Interesting James. I do invite critical scrutiny because it makes me think. Maybe I’m guilty of setting these particular success criteria as step-through activities in a similar way a teacher might sacrifice *learning* when getting pupils to do jump-through-hoop coursework. This might be a twist of language as you have suggested and I imagine, when designing objectives and evaluation criteria, the simple twist will lead to more creative, less dictatorial success criteria.

      I can see how the axis approach would be an interesting plenary exercise in lessons whereby learners might position their activity on the axis to represent how they feel they have contributed toward their understanding and skill-set. Each lesson the position of past activities may be moved to make way for the latest entry as the wider picture emerges through the learning.

      I’m with you on the reflective point as well. You want to encourage awareness of why an activity is being done rather than it simply being achieved. I will have a think and try to develop better language for what is being learnt and maybe put an activity list separate to this, albeit on the same visual space.

      Cheers. D

  3. Wow! These look great. I agree with James’ comment about the axis objective; the problem with arrows is they are, by their nature linear. I am at pains to point out to students that this is not about differentiated outcomes, rather it’s about seeing that objectives can be accessed and met at different levels – the point is for them to explain how they’ve met the objective.

    I’ve also been using visual learning objectives (http://learningspy.co.uk/2011/09/21/learning-journeys/) to get students thinking about their learning in different ways – I’m sure it would be interesting to see how these could be combined with either the continuum or the axis.

    Thanks, David

    1. daibarnes says:

      Thanks David.

      I agree too about the axis concept. Needs work still so I am going with the updated version on the post. Many thanks for your comment.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *