In this final week of LRNT524, I find myself wishing that I had written more blog posts and been more engaged online with my peers.  The readings have been thought-provoking, and I have enjoyed the assignments…all, except the requirement to blog.

Why Am I Delinquent?

One of the readings that resonated with me was Differentiated Instruction and Implications for UDL Implementation by Hall, Vue, Strangman, and Meyer (2003). Although focused on the classroom, the principles of differentiated instruction apply to online environments, too.

Differentiated instructional (DI) methods” recognize students’ varying background knowledge, readiness, language, preferences in learning and interests” (p.3).

Hall, et al. (2003), identify the philosophy, principles, and practices of DI followed by the elements where instructors may differentiate their methods for different students–content, process, product, and affect/environment.  One of the practices that instructional designers (IDs) and instructors keep in mind for DI is “teaching up [which means that] students should be working just above their individual comfort levels” (p. 5).

Just Beyond the Comfort Zone

In this and our previous course, the activity that has been just beyond my comfort zone has been contributing to this blog–which has continued to surprise me given that I have been teaching online since the early 2000s; my area of expertise is interpersonal communication (verbal, nonverbal, written); and, I am extremely comfortable with technology.

It is only in the last few weeks that I have been able to figure out my reluctance to blog: my preference for learning in a closed environment (Moodle forums) has been challenged, and I lack the motivational readiness for writing blog posts which may be discovered, out-of-context, sometime in the near or distant future.

Design Challenge for MALAT: Differentiated Learning

So, I have a design challenge for the MALAT program: use the design-thinking process to create graduate-level online courses that address the challenges of providing differentiated learning activities to meet the “varying background knowledge, readiness, language, preferences in learning and interests” (Hue, et al., 2003) inherent in every cohort.

Knowing what we now do about learning and instructional theories and ID models, a design challenge might be fun. The difficult part for many of us would be to resist the urge to create solutions before spending time in the muddy areas of empathic design where learners interpretations, emotions, and everyday life activities ( Mattelmäki, Vaajakallio, & Koskinen, 2014)  underpin the design principles and eventual course design.

Do you think we could TAPPA, TAPPA, TAPPA an awesome course for a future cohort? Does anyone want to do this design challenge with me? Perhaps after we have graduated ;-).

References

Hall, T., Vue, G., Strangman, N., & Meyer, A. (2003). Differentiated instruction and implications for UDL implementation. Wakefield, MA: National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum. (Links updated 2014). Retrieved from http://aem.cast.org/about/publications/2003/ncac-differentiated-instruction-udl.html

Mattelmäki, T., Vaajakallio, K., & Koskinen, I. (2014). What happened to empathic design?. Design Issues, 30(1), 67-77.