In a recent design session with a partner, we debated the merits of the grain size of reporting and learning experience design. Most secondary schools (and higher education) across the United States report out at the course level, where the grade or score received at the course level serves as a proxy for proficiency on the course outcomes. These grades are often aggregated into a GPA – and this single number can determine higher education entrance and scholarship qualification. This practice, built upon the Carnegie unit structures of credit for time-bound course systems, served some but not most learners.
The emergence of competency-based education pushes against this process, introducing questions such as:
- If we want to demonstrate what a student does and does not know why do we average into a letter grade?
- Why does a transcript often reduce a student’s high school experience into a single number, vastly reducing the inherent variability in every learner?
These are big questions but not the focus of this post.
In this post, we argue the merits of learning experience over course experience for design grain size. We believe that to begin this work, a school must be committed to standards-based or competency-based education. Without clearly articulated competencies or outcomes in a course, it is difficult to assess the learning experience level. We propose that by using learning experience as the fundamental unit of design in educational settings, we increase the flexibility of design, the likelihood of adopting a competency-based approach, and the clarity of what a student knows and is able to do for learners, teachers and caregivers.
Benefits of Building Around Learning Experiences Rather than Courses
- Flexible. When a model is composed of learning experiences, any verifiable proof of proficiency on a standard, outcome or competency is considered valid. This might include internships, work-based learning, employment, service-learning, exhibitions and performances outside of school, extracurriculars, etc. all of which typically get pushed to the margins as “extra”.
- Stackable. When a school decides to design around learning experiences, these experiences can be stacked into traditional courses with proficiency on the connected competencies/standards evaluated to determine course completion. Alternatively, schools can report on both the experiences completed by students (helpful for career and higher education job applications) as well as proficiency on the outcomes across many experiences.
- Granular. By replacing courses and seat time with learning experiences, a student who struggles can simply repeat the learning experience rather than the whole course.
- Integrated. Designing around learning experiences leads to more interdisciplinary work. Domain-specific teachers can collaborate on real-world learning that integrates standards/outcomes/competencies across multiple disciplines and contexts. This better reflects the real world and application to skills and knowledge.
- Valuable. Rarely are students’ experiences reflected on their transcript. Courses and letter grades are typical. If a student completes an interesting project in a class, it is hidden unless the student calls it out in an application or interview minimizing the importance and value of the experience itself. Given this, these experiences are neither verified nor validated.
- AI-assisted Design. High-quality interdisciplinary projects are difficult to build. However, with AI assistant tools, they are becoming much easier. Tools like Playlab and Inkwire catalyze the development of high-quality projects much faster than in the past.
- Expanded. Once learning experiences are the foundational building block, the entire learning ecosystem “counts”. Whether inside or outside of school, all learning is an opportunity for students to demonstrate proficiency on outcomes.
- Equitable. Allowing varied learning experiences to showcase student learning supports students from all walks of life to use their lived experiences as demonstrations of skills that align with competencies/ standards.
Challenges of Building Around Learning Experiences Rather than Courses
- Technical. Most legacy LMS systems are built around courses. Some, such as B21 Beacon, e-Kadence and Headrush provide more flexibility, but are still the minority in use (see Competency-based Learning Management System post for more depth on this).
- Understanding. When learning experience-based systems are attached to competency-based approaches for reporting and signaling, it can be challenging for parents and caregivers to understand, given how it disrupts standard reporting. Course schedules in high school typically filled up with names like Biology, English 9, History of the Americas, etc. are replaced with project blocks that contain learning experiences with names that may be more difficult to decipher.
- Standards. Most state standards cover massive amounts of knowledge in addition to core skills like reading, writing, science inquiry, mathematics, etc. The extent of this knowledge makes it difficult to integrate all standards into relevant, real-world projects at the secondary level.
- Preparation. Educators who may only be familiar with creating learning within a specific course may find it challenging to offer dynamic learning experiences to young people. Additional support and planning time is essential to ensure the success of both the educator and students.
Building a Model for Transition
We recognize the challenges of change and transparent, accessible reporting matters to the student, their parents and any higher education organization or employer that requires course-level performance. Given this, we suggest the following architecture for next-generation learning design.
- Be clear on the system outcomes – the knowledge, skills and aptitudes that are required for proficiency at every level of the school.
- Ensure transparent communication with caregivers, parents, and educators in the development of the learning experiences to garner community support. Moving from seeing familiar courses like English 10 to learning experiences and projects such as “Discovering the Impact of Women Leaders” or “Understanding the Economic Impact of Local Farms” will take an adjustment period. The chance to inform with grace is paramount to understanding.
- Change the model to use “learning experience” as the basic architecture of the model. Courses can exist in the background for tracking and graduation requirements.
- Link every learning experience to a set of outcomes. These outcomes can be covered across multiple learning experiences.
- Produce a traditional report card and transcript that describes course completion in addition to the experience and competency reporting system.
- Adopt a set of AI tools to make learning experience design easier for teachers unaccustomed to this type of learning.
- Build a set of processes to allow any learner to advocate for, design and implement a learning experience that would serve them well — in school or out of school.
We can increase ownership, value, engagement and learning for every student when we reduce the grain size in design. Early adopters in project-based learning schools across the country have successfully made this happen. Let’s move this to every school – and build the tools, resources and support needed to make it happen.
The post Should Courses Be Broken Up into Learning Experiences? Smaller Grain Size Increases Flexibility and Transparency appeared first on Getting Smart.
Explore how learning experiences, not courses, enhance flexibility, integration, and equity in competency-based education.
The post Should Courses Be Broken Up into Learning Experiences? Smaller Grain Size Increases Flexibility and Transparency appeared first on Getting Smart. EdTech, Equity & Access, Competency-Based Education, learning design, Project-Based Learning Getting Smart
