How many times as a teacher or designer have you heard the complaint that the separate parts of a course ‘don’t seem to belong to each other’? You have probably had to respond to the complaint of non-integration in a course or lesson more than once. It’s a common problem. Continue reading 4.3.5 The non-integration problem
Tag: Sequence
4.4 Case study no. 5: Riding out the storm
In this case study we return to the Botany students and their encounter with the use of the scientific method of enquiry into the phenomenon of apical dominance in plants. The results, you will remember, were not all that we hoped for in this think-band-do-for-yourself type of experiment. The encounter in most groups scored too low on effectiveness (-/+) and efficiency (-/+). What was the problem? What was the solution? Continue reading 4.4 Case study no. 5: Riding out the storm
3.3 What choice is there for sequencing the S-R events?
‘Chain’, ‘necklace’, ‘spiral’, ‘network’, ‘hybrid’ — these are the titles we use in the Think Tank workshop for the different methods of sequencing S-R events that a thought-up design can demand. A thought-up design has a ‘route map’ in it; it will tell you the order in which it wants the worked-out design to let the learner meet the content (substance) of the course or lesson. Continue reading 3.3 What choice is there for sequencing the S-R events?
3.6 Case study no. 4: Giving students the chance to think for themselves
As a designer of courses and lessons you will always be in demand if you have success in creating response environments for learning in which students are given the responsibility and the chance to think for themselves. Continue reading 3.6 Case study no. 4: Giving students the chance to think for themselves
2.5 Referent 3: An appropriate model (an existing design)
Thinking up a design takes time: before the optimum design is found a lot of mental effort will be demanded.
It can be nice to have something to accelerate the process. This is what referent 3: an appropriate model is for. Continue reading 2.5 Referent 3: An appropriate model (an existing design)
2.7 Case study no. 2: Fighting forest fires safely
On repeated occasions in 1964 on the shuttle flight between La Guardia airport New York and National airport Washington DC, I was struggling with a course design problem. It seemed relatively simple and yet the solution (the choice of a plan, structure and strategy of instruction for the course involved) eluded me time and time again.
At the time I was assigned by the consulting company for which I worked in New York to an account in the US Forestry Service (Fire Control Division) in Washington DC. The service was concerned about the loss of life and injury to personnel that had occurred in some large forest fires in the western states of America. A directive on the subject, formulated years earlier, was re-issued for urgent attention.
The directive was crystal clear. It referred to Ten Safety Orders for strict observance when fighting forest fires. ‘These orders’, the directive ran, ‘are to be committed to memory by all personnel with fire control responsibility’. The directive to me was also unequivocal: to Washington, work with the US Forestry Service Training Department (Bert Holtby) and with the Fire Control Division (John Pierovich) and make an effective, valued (etc) course to teach the ten orders.’ Continue reading 2.7 Case study no. 2: Fighting forest fires safely
1.4 Where does the ‘design process’ begin and end?
The activities involved in designing a course or lesson are illustrated in Fig. 1. By name, they will be quite familiar to those of you who know and have used the so-called ‘systems approach’ at the micro level. Activity 4 in the activity cycle (Fig. 1) is the one which interests us most in this book. Continue reading 1.4 Where does the ‘design process’ begin and end?