Running head: DESIGN PROJECT SUMMARYkjonesmet.weebly.com/uploads/2/5/9/3/25932645/team2-finalprojec… · ETEC 510 Design Project Summary ! 2! Design Project Summary Key Frameworks

ETEC 510 Design Project Summary

1

Running head: DESIGN PROJECT SUMMARY

Design Project Summary

ETEC 510, Section 65A

April 2010

Richard Biel, Karen Jones, Ernest Pao, Melanie Wong

University of British Columbia


2

Design Project Summary

Key Frameworks

On a daily basis teachers are faced with students who have various learning needs

including learning disabilities such as dyslexia, English language barriers, gifted designations,

diverse cultural backgrounds, emotional or behavioural problems, and sensory and physical

disabilities. It is becoming apparent that teachers need to change the way that they deliver

instruction to their students. The focus of our design project was to adapt and develop a grade 10

science unit of study (Motion) using the concepts of Universal Design for Learning (UDL),

constructivism and multiple intelligence theory.

UDL is a learning framework that focuses on flexibility (Rose & Meyer, 2002; Acrey,

Johnstone, & Milligan, 2005). “The central practical premise of UDL is that a curriculum should

include alternatives to make it accessible and appropriate for individuals with different

backgrounds, learning styles, abilities and disabilities in widely varied learning contexts” (Acrey

et al., 2005, p.70). In most situations, online and offline, textbooks and learning materials used

to instruct students are inaccessible to many students (Pisha & Coyne, 2001). As we have all

found in our own teaching practices, providing instructional material in various formats gives

students choice and more opportunities to succeed. Simple design decisions when creating a

course can ensure that the content is accessible for all learners, not just ones with disabilities

(Burgstahler, 2003). Part of our vision for our module was to accommodate a greater variety of

learners and we did this by including UDL in the design process of our online learning

environment. We also acknowledged that “planning for access as the course [was] being


3

developed [was] much easier then creating accommodation strategies once a person with a

disability [enrolled] in the course...” (Burgstahler, 2003; Dymond, Renzaglia, Rosenstein, Chun,

Banks, Niswander, & Gilson, 2006). The UDL framework encourages teachers to consider

multiple formats, different student needs, and student interests when planning their lessons (Rose

& Meyer, 2002; Kortering, McClannon, & Braziel, 2008). [You raise an important point here

about the potential benefit of incorporating a UDL approach during the design of materials as

opposed to finding ways to respond to accommodation requests as they come in.]

The literature surrounding UDL has had a major impact on why our group decided to use

it as the basis for our planning/developing framework. In Dolan and Hall’s (2001) article, it is

discussed how students with learning disabilities need support in order to be fairly assessed.

They explain that when teachers plan their assessment using UDL principles, students are

provided with accessible assessment (Hitchcock & Stahl, 2003). It is our goal to provide

accessible instruction for all of our students and to provide alternatives to traditional classroom

activities (i.e. worksheets). Students will have options for how they demonstrate their

understanding and how they present learned material, as well as how they interact with the

curriculum.

Another important theoretical concept that had an impact on our design project was the

concept of Multiple Intelligences. According to Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences,

every individual has seven types of information processing skills (Gardner & Hatch, 1989).

Gardner further argues that each individual possesses a different set of intelligences. As a group,

we kept in mind the seven intelligences (logical-mathematics, linguistics, musical, spatial,

bodily-kinaesthetic, interpersonal, and intrapersonal) when creating our digital artefacts in an

attempt to accommodate student diversity in these areas.


4

Our group was influenced by our course readings on constructivism. In particular,

Jonassen’s (1999) work and discussion on Constructivist Learning Environments has affected the

way that we designed our module and learning artefacts. Jonassen explains that constructivism

“[assumes] that knowledge is individually constructed and socially co-constructed by learners

based on their interpretations of experiences in the world” (p. 217). How we presented our

material will have an impact on how our students will learn.

During the term we were influenced by other course readings. In particular we

considered the ideas of the New London Group (2003) in our design process. One of the key

concepts that caught our attention with regards to the New London Group's work was "the

process of shaping emergent meaning [involving] re-presentation and

reconceptionalisation...[and it being] important to stress that listening as well as speaking, and

reading as well as writing, are productive activities, forms of designing" (p.22). These ideas

worked well with our UDL focus. It made us consider the importance of these activities

(listening, speaking, reading and writing) in terms of our actual design. We attempted to create

and add activities that allowed for this multimodality. [You are drawing effectively upon a

number of critical perspectives to support your overall design strategy.]

Intentions and Positions

Some of our primary intentions in adapting a currently available (BCLN – BC Learning

Network) web-based course in Moodle were to bridge the divide that occurs when curriculum is

delivered in a heavily text-based environment, to support those learners with and without

perceptual difficulties with a richer and more varied learning opportunity, and to provide gifted


5

learners with opportunities to be challenged. Our secondary intention was to provide an example

that could be used in the future by teachers affiliated with BCLN, who would like to incorporate

the principles of UDL into their own web-based courses. These courses could then be shared

province and nation-wide. Once developed, these web-based courses could be used by a student

in a self-directed environment, by an instructor in a traditional teacher-centred environment, and

by an educational technologist in a blended learning environment. Yet another intention of

developing this resource was to provide classroom teachers with an online curriculum that met

the BC Ministry of Education’s Prescribed Learning Outcomes. Finally, when beginning

teachers start their careers they must often spend a considerable amount of time on curriculum

development, only to find themselves in a new position the following year with new courses to

develop. By providing a curriculum designed with Multiple Intelligence Theory, UDL, and

Constructivist Approaches in mind, the beginning teacher can focus on supporting student

learning in other ways. Brown (2004) from UBC wrote his thesis on the emotional disconnect

that currently exists in public schools. He cites the development of emotional literacy and

relationships with the instructor as critical for any type of learning to occur. Allowing teachers

to use these resources could ‘free up’ teachers to focus more time on these two fundamental

tenets. [Perhaps.]

Significant scholarship indicates adapting resources with principles of UDL in order to

mitigate for the deficiencies of a traditional text-based learning environment will benefit special

needs and non-special needs students (Petersen, 2005; Hall, 2004; Fitzgerald, 2005; Riele,

2006). The Ministry of Education in its white paper titled, A guide to adaptations and

modifications, (2009) states that it is BC policy that all students should have equitable access to

learning, opportunities for achievement, and be supported in the pursuit of excellence in all


6

aspects of their educational programs. Distance learning and classroom instruction have tended

to be text-heavy, relying on traditional means of information delivery. As Bolter (2001) outlines,

the primacy of print that has existed since the invention of the movable type printing press by

Gutenberg is being replaced by information depicted in a more visual format, such as can be seen

on the Internet. Kress (2003) argues that new media (screen) is dominating over old media

(books). He explains how reading has changed in this new age and how there are different

expectations of a reader as a result of new media. Curriculum needs to be revisited in order to

move away from traditional text and make use of the affordances of a rich digital-media learning

environment.

Much of the debate against UDL usage may arise from resistance by teachers,

administrators, and support staff who are threatened by unfamiliar teaching strategies found in

the adapted resources. Funding could also be an issue in successfully integrating this approach

on a wide scale. As well, significant and on-going professional development would need to be in

place to maximize the use of the adapted resource. Another argument against adapting text-

based material or adding video content is that the original piece of work may have been intended

to be in the textual form. By altering the medium, the intention of the author and the original

message may also be modified.

The BC government has made addressing the needs of at-risk/marginalized youth a

priority. The second “great” goal, as set out by the Ministry of Education in their Service Plan

2009-2012 (BC-Service Plan) emphasizes choice, flexibility and most notably for our project,

access as key elements in working towards this goal. The BC UDL project is an initiative of the

Ministry of Education. At the time of writing, there were seven pilot projects that received

grants to implement Universal Design for Learning into the classroom. Of the seven pilot


7

schools, three were elementary schools, two were high schools, and two were collaborative

teams from SET-BC (Special Education Technology - BC). It is clear that the government of

British Columbia, as represented by the Ministry of Education, is firmly behind implementing

UDL in the classrooms of the province. [It is significant that education policy is formulating

around principles of access. This fact makes your own early work on developing strategies in

your project quite timely and highly useful as a potential approach with other provincial

curriculum.]

We used Moodle as a learning management system (LMS) to host our modules and

student interactivities. Our reasons for selecting this platform were based on the fact that we

wanted to use existing modules and teaching materials from BCLN and edit them to incorporate

UDL strategies and philosophies. [So the BCLN is using Moodle for their materials?] By

modifying existing information, our intent was to provide consistency among BCLN courses and

maintain ‘user-friendliness’ across the BCLN teaching resources. Modification of BCLN

teaching resources also provides teachers with a possible model for UDL instruction that is

within the BCLN framework of design.

Key Concepts and Contexts

Any effective design must first take into account the context in which it is to be used.

There are a number of characteristics shared by grade ten science students. First of all, the

majority are between the ages of fifteen and sixteen. Studies of adolescent psychology show that

the development of cognitive abilities has reached the stage where thinking becomes more

abstract and idealistic (Whitmire, 2000). Unfortunately, traditional teaching practices in high


8

school science classes tend to provide fewer chances for autonomy to match students' increasing

maturity and ability to engage in abstract thinking (Whitmire, 2000).

A further similarity between students at this age is their perceptions and attitudes towards

science and science teaching. Several studies involving students from BC, Australia, Sweden,

and England reveal three themes: that students do not appreciate the often unvaried transmissive

pedagogy used to teach science, they see little personal relevance in the curricular content, and

they perceive science courses, in particular physics, to be difficult (Ebenezer & Zoller, 1993;

Lyons, 2006). These perceptions arise when material is not given enough time for in-depth

discussion, and is presented without efforts to engage interest, establish relevance, or to clarify

unfamiliar terminology and abstract concepts. It is unclear whether these attitudes may be

directly linked to the increasing decline in enrolment in the senior sciences in Canada (Bordt, De

Broucker, Read, Harris, & Zhang, 2001). [Your source here is 9 years old. Do you have any

more recent data concerning enrolments in science classes in Canada?]

Within an average grade 10 science class in BC, there may be a great diversity of

learners. Unfortunately, all of these students need to write the provincial exam to obtain a pass

in Science 10, making the task of the teacher more daunting. These students come from a variety

of learning groups that include English as a Second Language, low cognitive abilities, physical,

and behavioural disabilities. Bates and Poole (2003) discuss how students will have differences;

however, the design of teaching environments should cater to these differences.

In subjects such as science where the vocabulary is very subject specific, it is beneficial

to teach vocabulary explicitly to all students. One way to achieve increased science literacy is

through the use of glosses. Lomicka (1998) conducted a study regarding glosses: “Glosses

provide a short definition or note in order to facilitate reading and comprehension processes


9

for...learners” (p. 41). In her study, she discovered the importance of glosses for students. We

were also influenced by the work done by Cummins (1999). Although Cummins' work is

specific to English as a Second Language students, many of his comments are relevant for all

learners. He discusses the concept of Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP) and

how CALP is developed throughout schooling. Classrooms that promote bilingual students’

CALP should focus on language, message and usage; this emphasizes the importance for

teachers to teach language (i.e. vocabulary) to their students. Focusing on vocabulary and using

the appropriate subject language throughout our module is beneficial for all our learners, not just

our ESL learners.

Students with low cognitive or reading disabilities abilities may benefit from breaking

concepts down into smaller sections, reducing the amount of reading required, and providing

templates for note-taking (Sagor & Cox, 2004). While many students with physical disabilities

may need special hardware, vision and hearing impairments can be addressed by providing audio

files, and computer-processing tools may be used to mediate poor handwriting skills. Students

with low motivation or behavioural issues respond positively to use of computers, connecting

curriculum to real life applications, and being provided with choices in assignments that use

different "intelligences" (Kraemer & Ruzzi, 2001). All students can benefit from organizational

tools and opportunities for social interactions.

Drawing on the prior knowledge of the students is vital. As students in a science 10 class

will come from various knowledge levels, material will have to be presented in a way that is

relevant and easy to comprehend. An inquiry approach to learning is beneficial for students of

various levels and cognitive abilities as they will be able to personalize their learning. Referring


10

back to Jonassen’s (1999) work, students need to be constructing their own knowledge. All

students will benefit from such activities that allow for this to occur.

In order to address these issues, the content of our science module focuses on providing a

learning environment in which students take an active and responsible part, by incorporating

elements of Multiple Intelligences and UDL within a computer mediated platform. Studies on

diversity by Guild (2001) and Tomlinson (2002) show that a student’s gender, culture,

experiences, skills, and interests, in combination with different teaching approaches, affect

learning within the classroom. For student success to be possible, it is necessary to recognize a

student’s strengths, while planning for their limitations. In addition, when opportunities for

students to use their multiple intelligences for learning and assessment are provided during

instruction, this has been shown to increase the motivation, and engagement of students who may

not achieve in traditional ways (Campbell, Campbell, & Dickinson, 1999). [You are doing a

great job of providing a research-based analysis of your target learners!]

We intended our design project to be used in a blended learning environment, in the context

defined by Harrison (2010) as the integrated combination of traditional learning with web-based

online approaches. We hope that teachers can use the multimedia to support the learning that

goes on in their classrooms. The design of our module enables students to be self-directed in

their learning, and to benefit from the extra practice and activities available online. It is our

intention that students working independently may also use individual lessons.

Reasons for using blended instruction according to the research include: improved

pedagogy, easy access to knowledge, greater interaction among learners, better cost

effectiveness, and ease of review of learning content (Osguthorpe & Graham, 2003). Combining

these aspects of self-regulation with the interpersonal contact between students and teachers


11

afforded by the classroom, blended learning was found effective in addressing social

collaboration and diverse learning styles (Bielawski & Metcalf, 2003). In addition, the blended

delivery format seems to provide clearer instruction to learners (Lim, Morris, & Kupritz, 2006).

[Are you comparing blended delivery here to face-to-face or to fully online contexts, too? What

are you (and your critics) comparing this mode to?]

Digital multimedia learning tools are aptly suited to address the heterogeneity in student

abilities and learning styles when framed with the UDL guidelines. Figure 6.1 lists the critical

guidelines outlined by The Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST) located in

Wakefield, Massachusetts.


12

http://www.cast.org/teachingeverystudent/ideas/tes/chapter6_2.cfm

A review of the current UDL literature shows a decided gap in this area, as

documented applications at the high school level and empirical validation are hard to come by

due to the relative recentness of this approach (Subban, 2006). The question has arisen,

however, whether or not differentiated instruction will completely meet the needs of all learners

in the regular classroom, or whether special needs students will continue to require specialist

support (Johnsen, 2003). Although this is out of the scope of our project, there is a definite need

for further investigation into UDL usage in the classroom and the effects it has on students. As a

group we are aware of these issues, however, also believe in the benefits of this design process


13

for our students. [This is quite an interesting issue (and it is definitely broader than this

particular assignment)! In many respects the affordances of mixed-mode and online delivery

create a lot of potential opportunities to develop UDL strategies, particularly in comparison to a

traditional, face-to-face course. Accommodations in the physical classroom can obviously be

made, but they are quite expensive, potentially disruptive to other students, and quite difficult to

manage for individual students.]

Inter-Activities

Please Note: Our Design Project Artefact may be found at:

http://www.idealminischool.net/moodleubc/

[I couldn’t find the info Richard sent me with my access into the course, but fortunately, you had

toggled guest access, so I visited your site that way!]

Our intention was to modify an existing Science 10 unit currently delivered through

BCLN via Moodle. Based on the BC Science 10 curriculum, we selected the Physical Science

unit on Motion as our primary focus. The prescribed learning outcomes that we aimed to meet

are shown below.

BC Science 10 Curriculum Prescribed Learning Outcomes (PLOs):

Physical Science: Motion

C6: explain the relationship of displacement and time interval to velocity for objects

in uniform motion

C7: demonstrate the relationship between velocity, time interval, and


14

acceleration

We met these curricular goals by using a variety of online tools within our Moodle shell, which

hosted the course materials, activities, and assignments while providing a delivery platform that

was consistent with other BCLN courses. Moodle was also selected since it is “designed using

pedagogical principles” and “support[s] a social constructionist framework of education (Moodle

Presentation, n.d.). As well, it is open-source software and is free; hence, increasing its

accessibility to teachers around the world who wish to adopt materials from our Moodle site to

suit their curricular needs. As of March 2010, there are over 33 million registered users (Moodle

Statistics, 2010).

As mentioned previously, we used a variety of dynamic tools in a blended environment.

We provided our students with choices in instruction, activities, and assessment. This included,

but was not limited to, links to external websites, videos and animations, discussion forums,

online self-marked questions, and quizzes. Some tools were used to enhance learning; others

were used explicitly to teach course content. With UDL principles in mind, we used educational

technologies to achieve the following goals:

• Provide support to various types of learners

o auditory support

o visual support

• Create hands-on, engaging, and authentic learning activities

o simulations

o online inquiry projects

• Offer mechanisms for conceptual support


15

o online textbook

o online notes, content materials, and graphic organizers

o glossary tool

o pre and post unit quiz

• Promote collaborative learning

o interactive comments through Voicethread

o discussion forums

o chat tools

• Course delivery and teacher support

o calendar feature

o online assignment submission

To meet our stated goals, we researched a variety of tools that we intended to incorporate

into our module. Below is a brief overview of how these tools were used to meet learning

outcomes and support student learning.

Support and Presentation Tools:

Moodle

Moodle was used as our learning management system to host our motion unit. It was

selected for several reasons. First, when referring to the SECTIONS model, we

determined that Moodle would be easy to be use by both the teacher and student (Bates &

Poole, 2003). The interactivities that Moodle provided went well with our UDL goals

(i.e. chatroom, glossary, discussion forum, journal feature). Recognizing that we will be


16

making changes frequently within our course, especially when using it for instruction,

Moodle allows for quick and easy modification. Furthermore, the low cost of using

Moodle relative to its commercial counterparts, makes it an economical choice for

budget-conscious school programs.

Voki Avatars

Voki avatars were embedded into our Moodle web pages as a fun way to support our

learners and capture their interest. Textual information was translated into audio and

used in conjunction with text to meet the needs of both auditory and visual learners.

Podcasts

"Podcasting can be utilized in various types of knowledge management practices

including, a collaborative and social networking activities” (Zactham & Zhang, 2006, p.

314). We used Audacity to add audio to the glossary.

Kurzweil 3000

Kurzweil 3000 was used to support learners with reading challenges. It was primarily

used to assist the design team with converting digital text to audio files.

Chat tools

Chat tools will allow students a chance to interact with their peers synchronously. We

feel that this will be a great tool to allow for group discussions, or to get one-on-one


17

support from a teacher for concepts that students are unclear about outside of designated

classroom time.

Slideboom

Powerpoint slides were uploaded to the media content host, Slideboom. This particular

tool was easily embedded into the Moodle module and allows students to view

presentation slides at their own pace. Furthermore, it enables enlarged views of these

slides and does not require storage on school servers, which would be the case if

Powerpoint presentations were uploaded to our Moodle site. [Does Slideboom work with

screen readers?]

Student Activities and Projects:

Simulations and Videos

A variety of online simulation activities and videos related to the motion unit were used

to support student learning and reinforce conceptual comprehension. We developed

student activities that were coordinated with these tools.

WISE Inquiry Project (“Airbags”)

Our group modified an existing inquiry project on the WISE system that was related to

motion. This was included as a student summary inquiry project that will help to

reinforce concepts studied through this unit, in an authentic and meaningful way.

Discussion Forums/Assignments using Voicethread


18

A VoiceThread is a collaborative, multimedia slide show that holds images, documents,

and videos and allows users to navigate pages and leave comments using voice, text,

audio file, or video. Users can doodle while commenting, and view other users'

comments. We used them to introduce authentic context in lessons in order to create

discussions and to add to the online learner community by the virtue of exposure to users'

faces and voices.

Glossary

In order to help students scaffold and build vocabulary, we created a narrated Glossary

within the Moodle Shell. Students are encouraged to add and modify definitions.

Reflection Journal

A learning journal was provided for students to write and reflect on concepts learned in

each section. This journal will allow for students to be able to explore ideas further than

what is covered in the course material.

In order to produce the materials required to support interactivity, we divided our motion

unit into lessons in coordination with the B.C. Science 10 textbook. For each lesson, we

identified the key concepts and materials, then considering technological tools that enhanced and

supported student learning. Some activities and resources were embedded within our Moodle

course site; others were externally linked, and clear directions provided for students on how to

access these resources. We also included some assessment activities in the form of quizzes.

Support discussion forums (announcements, Q&A, troubleshooting, etc) were set up to allow


19

communication between students and teachers. Course outlines, expectations, online rules, and

organization tools, such as the calendar feature with important dates, were also provided to

ensure student success.

Keeping in mind Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences and UDL certain tools were

added in the module in order to make the unit more accessible to all learners (Gardner & Hatch,

1989; Rose & Meyer, 2002). For example, in our module we provided students access to an

audio version of the textbook. [Any copyright issues here?] We also tried to ensure that the font

was easy to read and key points were highlighted. Recognizing that some of our students may

have reading disabilities, we limited the amount of text presented. It is important that we are not

essentializing our learners; we recognize that many of our students may not be as capable with

technology as others. We also included lessons that did not require the use of much technology.

Part of our design included use of various icons. Firstly, the icons provide an aesthetic

appeal to our student audience. Secondly, they make the module more accessible to students

with disabilities or language issues. For this reason, we tried to create an environment that was

easy to navigate for students by using relatively few and simple icons. The 'lesson' tool was used

to create each section of student learning activities. This tool allowed content and materials to be

presented in a sequential order for our students to follow. Within some lessons, embedded

questions were also used to direct progress. Students would be unable to move forward in the

module until they answered questions correctly. In this way, we were able to provide guided

practice with immediate feedback. This could be further developed in future versions to redirect

students to lesson pages for extra practice in areas they found difficult, thus tailoring the learning

experience.


20

Anderson (2008) argued the importance of "teacher presence." Tools such as

Voicethread were incorporated into the design to accomplish this. As a team we were very much

concerned about creating and implementing activities (such as the discussion forum) in our

module to encourage discussion between teacher-student and among students. We recognize the

importance of having communities of practice and creating an environment that is learning-

centred (Anderson, 2008). Activities such as 'ice-breakers' were included to encourage this. We

attempted to provide our students with a variety of different activities recognizing this to be one

of the key criteria of creating a UDL environment. Many of these activities incorporated into our

module consider real-life applications. As we read in our course readings from such scholars as

Papert (1980), there is a definite disconnect between what is taught in school and the real-life.

As a group we felt it was important to encourage students to think about what they were learning

and promote inquiry. A journal was created and incorporated into every module in hopes of

encouraging students to reflect on their own learning.

[You’ve integrated a broad set of Moodle-native and external tools within your site, and the

short descriptions you’ve provided here give me a good sense of some of the thought that went

into your initial analysis of the tools.]

Verification

Verification has and will be an important part of our design process. As a group we

recognize the significance of assessing our module in order to create a design that is more

effective for both teachers and students.

In terms of Bates and Poole's (2003) SECTIONS Model, we have considered Ease of

Use. As Bates and Poole (2003) discussed in their writing, "...it is important that students and


21

teachers not spend a great deal of time on learning how to use educational technologies or on

making the technologies or on making the technologies work" (p.87). We wanted to ensure that

our module was easy to use. Our group has taken the time to test our module on both a Mac and

PC platform, recognizing that both students and teachers may be using either. We also

recognized the possibility that some of the applications we chose may not work in both

environments.

When diving further into the SECTIONS model we recognize that our students will have

various degrees of access to technology. Using this unit within a blended environment may pose

some difficulties for many students. Many of the students using this module may not have

access to computers outside of the classroom. As Bates and Poole's (2003) point out in their

writing, "no matter how powerful in educational terms a particular technology may be, if

students cannot access it in a convenient and affordable manner they cannot learn from it" (p.

81). Part of the verification process will have to include a survey at the beginning of the course

to gage the access of technology. Changes may need to be made to the design of the course in

order to accommodate all learners.

Part of our verification process has been touring our module in a "student" role. We have

made changes according to our explorations of the unit in attempts to make the unit more

accessible to our learners. To ensure students are able to post messages to discussion forum

activities and submit assignments online through Moodle, we have setup a couple of "test"

activities in the 'Getting Started' section of our Moodle site. The 'Icebreaker Self-Intro Activity

Forum' will be used as an introductory task to ensure students are able to post and become

familiar with the expectations for their discussion responses. The 'Mr. Picassohead' activity is

one that allows students to 'test submit' an assignment through Moodle. Both of these activities


22

have been designed as fun, introductory activities, but with the intent of ensuring technical

difficulties are avoided when later assignments occur.

While part of the verification process may be its presentation to the BCLN, the ultimate

test is, of course, in the classroom. We are hoping that students will be a part of this verification

process. If we were to evaluate this module further in a classroom setting, we would ask

students to fill out surveys and we would keep detailed anecdotal records of their interactions in

the module. We could also conduct informal interviews to get a better indication of what the

learners found interesting, difficult, or confusing. As we did not include a specific test that is

tailored to the unit, it is unclear whether measuring learning outcomes would show changes in

achievement, as the emphasis on some topic areas varies with different teachers. Of course, the

consideration of the module's ‘match’ to the provincial exam, in terms of question style, content

area, and detail would bear investigation.

Teachers using this module would also be a part of the verification process and could

assess it using such tools as checklists, interviews, and surveys. We would look for information

on which parts they used to teach the whole class, and whether the sections integrated smoothly.

Was it used as a standalone catch-up tool and were students capable of using it with little

guidance or assistance? Was the choice of assignments useful and were teachers able to assign

different choices without confusion? What was the ratio of assignments done offline or online?

Teacher access in Moodle allows the teacher to determine whether or not students have been

logging on and participating in Moodle activities. Last logins, assignment submissions, forum

posts, and general online activity reports can be afforded through Moodle and could be used to

rate the amount and quality of online student participation. Of major importance would be

assessing the technical difficulties surrounding Moodle functionality, computer hardware, and


23

bandwidth. [I was going to comment on the fact that your verification process should also

address evidence of how effectively your design supports students’ achievement of learning

outcomes, but then I realized that you are adapting an existing curriculum. That said, it might

still be beneficial to try to get at the extent to which your own design or the use of UDL

principles has impacted overall student performance. This is part of a standardized provincial

curriculum, so there should be some ways to compare student/educator experiences with your

adapted module to the traditional approaches used to deliver this content.]


24

References

Acrey, C., Johnstone, C., Milligan, C. (2005). Using Universal Design to unlock the potential

for academic achievement of at-risk learners. Teaching Exceptional Children, Vol. 38(2),

pp. 22-31.

Anderson, T. (2008). “Towards and Theory of Online Learning.” In Anderson, T. & Elloumi,

F., Theory and Practice of Online Learning. Athabasca University.

Anderson, T. (2008). “Teaching in an Online Learning Context.” In: Anderson, T.& Elloumi, F.,

Theory and Practice of Online Learning. Athabasca University.

Bates and Poole. (2003) “A Framework for Selecting and Using Technology.” In Effective

Teaching with Technology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 75-105.

Bielawski, L. and D. Metcalf (2003). Blended elearning: Integrating knowledge, performance

support, and online learning. Amherst, MA: HRD Press.

Bolter, Jay. (2001). Writing space: Computers, hypertext and the remediation of print. Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, New Jersey, London.

Bordt, M., De Broucker, P., Read, C., Harris, S., & Zhang, Y. (2001). Determinants of science

and technology skills: Overview of the study. Education Quarterly Review, 8(1), 8 - 11.

Brown, F. L. (2004). Making the classroom a healthy place: The development of affective

competency in aboriginal pedagogy. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of British

Columbia.

Burgstahler, S. (2003). Universal design of distance learning. Informational Technology and

Disabilities, 8 (1). Retrieved from

http://hcc20.harford.edu/irc/archivedpresentations/ITDJournal.pdf


25

Campbell, L., Campbell, C., and Dickinson, D. (1999). Teaching and Learning Through the

Multiple Intelligences (2nd ed.). Needham Heights: Allyn and Bacon.

Cummins, J (1999). Bics and calps: Clarifying the distinction. ERIC Document Reproduction

Service No. ED438551.

Dolan, R. P. & Hall, T. E. (2001). Universal design for learning: Implications for large scale

assessment. IDA Perspectives, 27 (4), 22-25.

Dymond, S.K., Renzaglia, A., Rosenstein, A., Chun, E.J., Banks, R.A., Niswander, V. and

Gilson, C.L. (2006). Using a participatory action research approach to create a

Universally Designed inclusive High School Science course: A case study. Research and

Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, Vol. 31(4), pp. 293-308.

Ebenezer, J. V., & Zoller, U. (1993). Grade 10 Students' perceptions of and attitudes toward

science teaching and school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(2), 175

-186.

Fitzgerald, G.E.(2005). Using technologies to meet the unique needs of students with

emotional/behavioral disorders: Finding and directions. In D.Edyburn, K.Higgins, & R.

Boone (Eds.), Handbook of special education technology research and practice. pp. 335-

354.

Gardner, H. & Hatch, T. (1989). Multiple Intelligences go to school: Educational Implications of

the theory of multiple intelligences. Educational Researcher, 18 (8), 4-10.

Guild, P. B. (2001, October). Diversity, learning style and culture. New Horizons For Learning.

Retrieved January 24, 2010, from http://www.newhorizons.org/strategies/styles/guild.htm


26

Hall, G. (2004) Teens and technology: Preparing for the future. New directions on youth

development. 2006 (111), 41-52.

Harrison, M. (2010). Blended learning: An epic white paper. Brighton, UK: Epic Group.

Retrieved January 24, 2010, from http://www.epic.co.uk/thinking/white-papers.html

Hitchcock, C. and Stahl, S. (2003). Assistive Technology, Universal Design, Universal Design

for Learning: Improving Learning Opportunities. Journal of Special Education

Technology. 18(4), pp. 45-52

Johnsen, S. (2003). Adapting instruction with heterogenous groups. Gifted Child Today, 26(3), 5.

Retrieved January 24, 2010, from

http://tal.lm.worldcat.org/?genre=article&volume=26&issue=3&spage=5&issn=1076217

5&date=2003&aulast=Johnsen&auinit=S&title=Gifted+Child+Today&atitle=Adapting+i

nstruction+with+heterogenous+groups&sid=google%3A&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fgoogle

.com%3A

Johnston, S. S. & Evans, J. (2005). Considering response efficiency as a strategy to prevent

assisted technology abandonment. Journal of Special Education Technology. 20 (1), 55-

57.

Jonassen, D. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C. Reigeluth (Ed.),

Instructional design theories and models: Volume II. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Kortering, L.J., McClannon, T.W., and Braziel, P.M. (2008). Universal design for learning: A

look at what Algebra and Biology students with and without High incidence conditions

are saying. Remedial and Special Education, Vol. 29. pp.352-363.

Kraemer, J., & Ruzzi, B. B. (2001). Alternative education cannot be left behind. Education

Week, 21(6), 56.


27

Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. New York, NY: Routledge Taylor & Francis

Group.

Lim, D. H., Morris, M. L., & Kupritz, V. W. (2006). Online vs. blended learning: Differences in

instructional outcomes and learner satisfaction. University of Tennessee.

Lomicka, L. L. (1998). ‘To gloss or not to gloss’: An investigation of reading comprehension

online. Language Learning & Technology, 1 (2), 41-50.

Lyons, T. (2006). Different Countries, Same Science Classes: Students’ experiences of school

science in their own words. International Journal of Science Education, 28(6), 591-613.

doi:10.1080/09500690500339621

Ministry of Education. (2009). A guide to adaptations and modifications. Retrieved January 20,

2010, from http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/.../adaptations_and_modifications_guide.pdf

Moodle Presentation (n.d.). Retrieved January 23, 2010, from http://moodle.org/about/

Moodle Statistics. (n.d.) Retrieved March 27, 2010, from http://moodle.org/stats/

New London Group. (2003). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. In B. Cope

& M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social

futures (pp. 9-37). New York, NY: Routledge.

Osguthorpe, T. R. and Graham, R, C. (2003) Blended learning environments. Quarterly Review

of Distance Education, 4 (3), 227–233.

Peterson-Karlan,G, R. and Parette, P. (2005). Millennial students with mild disabilities and

emerging assistive technology trends. Journal of Special Education Technology, 20 (4),

27-38.

Pisha, B & Coyne, P. (2001). Smart from the start: The promise of universal design for learning.

Remedial and Special Education, 22 (4), 197-203.


28

Riele, K. T. (2006) 'Youth 'at risk': further marginalizing the marginalized?'. Journal of

Education Policy, 21(2),129-145.

Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design

for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Sagor, R., & Cox, J. (2004). At risk students: Reaching and teaching them (Second Edition.).

Larchmont, NY: Eye On Education.

Sandner, L., Fatkin, G., Lacy, D., Martha, J., Milross, J., & Naso, K. (2008) . BC Science 10.

Toronto, ON: McGraw-Hill Ryerson.

Subban, P. (2006). Differentiated instruction: A research basis. Adelaide, South Australia:

Shannon Research Press ISSN 1443-1475 http://iej. com. au, 7(7), 935–947.

Tomlinson, C. A., & Kalbfleisch, M. L. (1998). Teach me, teach my brain a call for

differentiated classrooms. Educational Leadership, 56(3).

Tomlinson, C. A. (2002). Different learners different lessons. Instructor, 112(2), 21-25.

Zactham, P. & Zhang, X. (2006). Podcasting in academia: A new knowledge management

paradigm with academic settings. In Proceedings of the 2006 ACM SIGMIS CPR

conference, 314–317.


29

Richard, Karen, Ernest and Melanie,

You have provided an effective overview of your design project in this document, and in each of the sections you develop, you carefully ground your design approach with reference to critical theories relating to teaching and learning, as well as to the specific students you are hoping to reach with your adapted curriculum. This project is particularly important in the context of the provincial curriculum you are adapted. Many diverse students encounter this curriculum, and if it is possible to adopt a UDL approach in the original design of the materials, it is likely that students will have more success than they currently do when engaging with Science 10. Your adaptation of this curriculum is also important when considering the larger need to create opportunities for access to education for all learners. It is too often the case that learners are left behind because they don’t quite fit with the normative models of print-based, literacy or with standardized assessment of learning. Curiously, it is possible that UDL will have more opportunities to flourish in online and mixed-mode spaces than has been the case in face-to-face contexts because these modes allow for parallel paths for learners and multiple strategies for engagement and assessment: these are often difficult to achieve within a typical classroom. Interactivities I spent quite a bit of time exploring your Moodle site. You’ve effectively organized your content on the site and it is easy to navigate through the chapters as well as to explore the various resources on the site. I like that you’ve also gone so far as to produce contact information on the Course Outline, particularly as you are building into the material a full integration of the face-to-face and online components of the course. Articulating your expectations of how the students will work with the online components of the course is also useful, in this regard. The audio overviews are quite fun, particularly with the talking critters you’ve trained to lipsync! I’m not sure that the robovoice you’ve used on a few of the texts (automatically from printed text, I’m assuming) works so well, though it is kind of fun. Having audio in the course will help some students (though those with screen readers will be able to generate their own robo-voice), but a personally recorded course overview with the instructor’s voice would be more personal. You use a human voice with the glossary and that works quite well. It is difficult to listen to text-generated voices for an extended period of time. It is quite interesting how you’ve created branches in each of the lessons to allow for reading or hearing of the BC Science 10 textbook chapters. It is a great resource for students to have access to the whole textbook as pdf files. You’ve also made a good use of the slideshows, voicethreads and other media elements that you’ve added to the lessons. One thing to think about, though, is that it can be a bit disorienting to learners (and readers), to move screen to screen only to encounter so many different media components (each with its own control). And in some cases, such as the podcast you’ve added to Lesson 8.2, you might consider embedding such a media object within some text that helps to build coherence across the lesson or, at least, sets up the media you are now asking them to engage with using a consistent editorial voice/approach that you will repeat in every lesson of the course. Think about our own ETEC510 course and how after reading through a module or two, you basically knew what to expect in terms of how activities were set up, how you were directed (and why) to different media, and how there was a flow from page to page that went beyond just clicking on continue or next. On that note, you


30

might want to consider using meaningful titles for some of your links. For instance, leaners have access to their journal on many of the pages, but it is often accessed via a link that says “click to view.” Is there a way for you to use a more evocative phrase like “access your journal”? Personally, I found the voicethread media more effective than the McGraw-Hill Ryerson powerpoint slides. The presence of Karen’s voice has an impact on how the viewer engages with the material. Finally, when you do things like send students out to a site like WISE, you need to consider building in some scaffolding and learner support materials on your own site so that it is easy for students to go into that other interface and be successful in using the material. At present, students are pretty much left on their own to find their way into the site (though I would expect that there is some potential for support in the drop-in labs). I believe that I mentioned to you in my comments on your proposal (or in one of the chat sessions), that it is important to determine just how your Moodle site serves as a component of a mixed mode course. When I look through the various lessons that are keyed to the textbook, I don’t see many linkages to whatever activities might be taken off-line (into the classroom), nor do I see hooks that show where classroom activities have come online into your Moodle pages or activities. The closest example of this mixed-mode or hybrid movement that I saw on the site involved your assignments (and perhaps that is the place to consider the interface between website and classroom here). One could easily see some of the experiments in the assignments taking place in a classroom with students working on teams. My comments concerning how you need to set-up or scaffold an activity before sending people off applies here, too, especially with the Balloon Brain Activity, an activity which combines a bunch of different resources together. I can see learners getting a bit confused in terms of what to do. Your adaptation of the Science 10 lessons within your Moodle site provides a good proof-of-concept for integrating UDL approaches with standard curriculum. To really push this model, I believe that you would need to use more in-house or standard tools in place of the Voki or audio components, as well as find ways to simplify or streamline activities that use external tools. Otherwise, you add a layer of complexity into a site that is intended to demonstrate ease of use to students who may need some additional assistance in navigating through resources. It is clear to me that the Interactivities you’ve developed on the Moodle site represent a true team effort, and I’m glad that you were able to achieve so much as you explored UDL in the context of the design project. Design Focus Educationally Significant Not clearly educational Excellent-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐ X -‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐Avg-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐More Work Needed Well elaborated Unclear Excellent-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐X-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐Avg-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐More Work Needed Specific Focus Too general Excellent-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐X-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐Avg-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐More Work Needed Use of Scholarship Good use of research Little integration of


31

literature research literature Excellent-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐X-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐Avg-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐More Work Needed Appropriate literature Omission of important

research Excellent-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐ X-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐Avg-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐More Work Needed Research-‐based design framework

More connections needed

Excellent-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐X-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐Avg-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐More Work Needed Research-‐based description of learners

More connections needed

Excellent-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐X-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐ -‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐Avg-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐More Work Needed InterActivities Appropriate for Objectives Inappropriate for

Objectives Excellent-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐X -‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐Avg-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐More Work Needed Achievable Scope Too ambitious/not

achievable Excellent-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐X-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐ -‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐Avg-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐More Work Needed Appropriate plans for use of technology

Inappropriate

Excellent-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐X-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐ -‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐Avg-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐More Work Needed Clear implementation of design plan

Unclear design plan

Excellent-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐X-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐Avg-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐More Work Needed Good fit between objectives and plans for objects

Poor fit

Excellent-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐X-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐ -‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐Avg-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐More Work Needed Verifications Valid assessment strategy Validity problems Excellent-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐X-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐ -‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐Avg-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐More Work Needed Reflections Knowledge-‐transforming Knowledge-‐telling Excellent-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐X-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐Avg-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐More Work Needed


32

Quality of Writing Argument deals with multiple points of view

MySide bias

Excellent-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐X-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐Avg-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐More Work Needed Clear and concise Rambling and

disorganized Excellent-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐X-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐Avg-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐More Work Needed Free of grammatical errors

Multiple grammatical errors

Excellent-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐X-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐Avg-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐More Work Needed APA style correctly used APA style used incorrectly Excellent-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐X-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐Avg-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐More Work Needed Mark: 37/40 Excellent work!

Documents

Running head: DESIGN PROJECT SUMMARYkjonesmet.weebly.com/uploads/2/5/9/3/25932645/team2-finalprojec… · ETEC 510 Design Project Summary ! 2! Design Project Summary Key Frameworks