While reading Edelson’s (2001) explanation and rationale for the Learning-for-use (LfU) design model I recognize a number elements that I am using while building my final project for this course. A lesson on climate change geared to upper years environmental science students. I used the backward design model to inform my lesson development but I can see many similarities between these models specifically around their shared focus on learning objectives.
As Edelson (2001) describes:
“from the perspective of design, the LfU model articulates the requirements that a set of learning actives must meet to achieve particular learning objectives. The hypothesis embodied by the LfU model is that a designer must create activities for each learning objective that effectively achieve all three steps in learning for use for that objective. To support this design process, the LU model describes different processes that can fulfill the requirements of each step”.
I have developed a series of mini lessons each aligned to a specific learning objective. Each mini-lesson includes activities demonstrate each step in the LfU model:
Motivate (An activity that creates a demand for knowledge). I began each mini-lesson with a guiding question that activates prior knowledge but also allows students to acknowledge the knowledge areas that are missing.
Eg/ What are the physical mechanisms that are causing global warming?
Construct (An activity that provides learners with either direct experience of novel phenomena or receive direct/indirect communication from others). Each mini-lesson then directed students to a web-based experience. The experiences differ depending on the mini-lesson from completing activities (direct experience) to watching a video (direct communication).
Eg./ Complete NASA’s interactive lesson on Introduction to Earth’s Dynamically Changing Climate
Refine (An activity that enable learners to apply or reflect their knowledge in meaningful ways). Each mini-lesson includes an application based group activity that allows students to demonstrate how they have followed the guiding question inquiry and built on their knowledge. I choose to incorporate a peer to peer component in order to activate social constructivism, an opportunity to learn from each other.
Eg./ After going through all the steps of this interactive website explore other resources that review the science behind climate change. What other resources would compliment this module? Be prepared to select one new resource that you think does a good job of presenting the science in an efficient manner. Make sure to collect the resources you found in a working bibliography using APA formatting. At the end of this session be ready to discuss with your working group how you would introduce and teach the science of global warming if you were tasked to teach this lesson? Share the resource you selected and why you think it does a good job of explaining the science.
Students move across a series of mini-lessons all built in this way allowing them to connect themes and reinforce ideas across the lessons. The end result is a synthesis of knowledge to answer a main question. As this lesson uses a guided inquiry philosophy the design model of LfU works very well!
References
Edelson, D.C. (2001). Learning-for-Use: A Framework for the Design of Technology-Supported Inquiry Activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 38(3) pp 355-385
Interesting post, Kari. I like the way you’ve clearly laid out your planning through the steps of the Learning for Use model. I am interested in seeing your final project, too. It seems to me that backwards design is the way of planning that makes the most sense; when we begin with the end in mind we know where we are headed with learners. I agree that LfU and inquiry seem to work naturally together.
Hi Tracy!
Thanks! I agree – I think focusing on alignment is the best way to approach lesson design, regardless of the model used. Focusing on what you want students to achieve (ie/ learning objectives) keeps you as the designer focused on what you are asking students to do. I have come across countless lessons where assessment and resources have nothing to do with the LO’s! My approach is if I can’t see the connection (as the ID) then your students likely won’t either. When I get pushback from faculty about this I try to get them to take the perspective of the student (ie/ content novice). They (the expert) may see the connection but it may not be necessarily clear to someone without their expertise. I am sure that this has to do with zone of proximal development and scaffolding learning, but it is simpler to try to explain it to faculty in lay terms!
Cheers!