While reading educators' blogs, it has become clear that learners offer a view of lesson planning and instruction that fits only a fraction of what educators do. I've started outlining a learners' view in a Learning Efficiency Analysis Paradigm (aLEAP).
Now I'm starting to address lesson planning and instruction from that view. At some point, I'll adjust both efforts, so they blend seamlessly (or more closely at least).
Educators know from professional preparation how to match their's and learners' views. They all know at least the vocabulary and logic about (if not of) behavioral science descriptions of behavior patterns people use to learn.
For whatever reasons, lesson planning and instruction seldom match behavior patterns people use to learn. If they did match, learners' academic performance would match de facto global standards.
In short, planners and instructors have two choices. They choose to or not to base their actions on the empirical experimental behavioral science descriptions of observable behavior patterns people use to learn.
Those who choose to apply these descriptions use them as design principles for lessons and instruction, much the way an architect designs a building or an interior designer plans a room.
Education designers craft plans and instruction in order to call attention to features that tell learners precisely and accurately how to reach a learning criterion quickly. They manage learners' time, effort, etc. by reducing the number of trials-and-errors learners go through to learn.
Those who choose not to base lessons or instruction on behavior patterns people use to learn, instruct much as a room decorator follows a theme such as color or size.
Hmm, this seems worthy of further development. I think learners offer a view of whether lesson plans and instruction are by design or as decoration. Watch for more development of these ideas as part of NESI (New Era School Initiative).
Check Labels for aLEAP and New Era School Initiative (NESI)
Now I'm starting to address lesson planning and instruction from that view. At some point, I'll adjust both efforts, so they blend seamlessly (or more closely at least).
Educators know from professional preparation how to match their's and learners' views. They all know at least the vocabulary and logic about (if not of) behavioral science descriptions of behavior patterns people use to learn.
For whatever reasons, lesson planning and instruction seldom match behavior patterns people use to learn. If they did match, learners' academic performance would match de facto global standards.
In short, planners and instructors have two choices. They choose to or not to base their actions on the empirical experimental behavioral science descriptions of observable behavior patterns people use to learn.
Those who choose to apply these descriptions use them as design principles for lessons and instruction, much the way an architect designs a building or an interior designer plans a room.
Education designers craft plans and instruction in order to call attention to features that tell learners precisely and accurately how to reach a learning criterion quickly. They manage learners' time, effort, etc. by reducing the number of trials-and-errors learners go through to learn.
Those who choose not to base lessons or instruction on behavior patterns people use to learn, instruct much as a room decorator follows a theme such as color or size.
Hmm, this seems worthy of further development. I think learners offer a view of whether lesson plans and instruction are by design or as decoration. Watch for more development of these ideas as part of NESI (New Era School Initiative).
Check Labels for aLEAP and New Era School Initiative (NESI)
