LDT Seminar – Week 7 – Class Notes

Did a group checkin with everyone in the class – administrative questions basically and some more about the LDT Expo happening on July 29 – open to ALL!!

I also prepared my Online Teacher Experience Qualtrics Survey – now waiting for feedback from the cohort.

Then we had the pleasure of having Ashley Moulton come and talk to us about her work at YouTube Kids as a User Experience Design Researchers – most of her slide are confidential but she was able to share some here. I also took a photo of an important one, which reads:

Some related Stanford classes:

  • HCI Seminar
  • d.media
  • Qualitative Research
  • Quantitative Research
  • Needfinding
  • Survey Design
  • Any d.school class
  • Any behavior design class (B.J. Fogg or d.school class about habit change)
  • LDT Master’s Project


LDT Seminar – Week 7 – Next steps & Appendices: Time, Money, People Assignemnt


Appendices are for anything else you think you need to share with your reader, in case they’re interested. I am asking you for a draft timeline, budget, and a list of collaborators and supporters. Plan on ~300 hours for the project. Note that a budget is required before I can release project funds.

If you’d like you can add other information such as an annotated list of competing products or copies of surveys and interview questions.

Do not assume appendices will be read; these are reference materials that provide the opportunity for the reader to go deeper should she or he so desire. Summarize the message or insights gleaned from these materials in the text of your proposal. They should inform your “next steps.”



  1. Candace Marie-Thille – online teaching platform pedagogy
  2. XXX – Udemy platform expert
  3. Pedro Cunha – graphic design
  4. Eduardo Cremon – software architecture
  5. Karin Forsell & Paulo Blikstein – feedback & support

(need to expand this list) 









Define survey questions and send them out




Define problem and target audience




Define problem and target audience




Collect Reasearch




Hot to measure success







Feature list




Feature list








Define technologies












User Interface




User Interface




User Interface




Final Adjustments










User Testing




User Testing




Analyze User Testing Data & Feedback




Final Adjustments




Final Adjustments




V1 LDT Expo



  • Hybrid Online Learning
  • Instructional Design
  • Train the Trainer
  • Professional Development

Research / Citations

“While students rated the instructors very positively, the results also indicate that instructors still need to have their roles transformed pedagogically, socially, and technologically if they are to establish a more engaging and fruitful environment for online learning.” – Liu, X., Lee, S., Bonk, C., Su, B., Magjuka, R. (2005). Exploring Four Dimensions of Online Instructor Roles: A Program Level Case Study. Online Learning Consortium http://onlinelearningconsortium.org/sites/default/files/v9n4_liu_1.pdf

“This study found a change in the beliefs and teaching presence of the instructors from their initial resistance to online teaching to an approach which is mindful of the student experience and promotes a dialogical approach to online learning.” – Redmond, P., (2011) From face-to-face teaching to online teaching: Pedagogical transitions. ascilite 2011 Hobart: http://www.ascilite.org/conferences/hobart11/downloads/papers/Redmond-full.pdf

“In spite of the proliferation of online learning, creating online courses can still evoke a good deal of frustration, negativity, and wariness in those who need to create them.” – Vai, M. & Sosulski, K. (2015). Essentials of Online Course Design. A Standards-Based Guide, 2nd Edition. Routledge https://www.routledge.com/products/9781138780163

“Technology alone does nothing to enhance online pedagogy. According to Jacobsen, et al. (2002), the real challenge is to “develop fluency with teaching and learning with technology, not just with technology, itself” (p.44).” – Keengwe, J. & Kidd, T. (2010). Towards Best Practices in Online Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching http://jolt.merlot.org/vol6no2/keengwe_0610.htm


Essentials of Online Course Design https://www.routledge.com/products/9781138780163

Towards Best Practices in Online Learning and Teaching in Higher Education http://jolt.merlot.org/vol6no2/keengwe_0610.htm

EXPLORING FOUR DIMENSIONS OF ONLINE INSTRUCTOR ROLES: A PROGRAM LEVEL CASE STUDY https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAAahUKEwjQ4te54tfIAhUL1GMKHcGSCxA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonlinelearningconsortium.org%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fv9n4_liu_1.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHtnYf76HkFI-YrIcLhxBWoNPXhRw&sig2=RQVCKYoBJvqv-Gtu8oyCdw

(MY) THREE PRINCIPLES OF EFFECTIVE ONLINE PEDAGOGY http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ909855.pdf

Source Effects in Online Education http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/thies/las15-source-effects.pdf

The Five stage Model http://www.gillysalmon.com/five-stage-model.html

From face-to-face teaching to online teaching: Pedagogical transitions http://www.ascilite.org/conferences/hobart11/downloads/papers/Redmond-full.pdf

From On-Ground to Online: Moving Senior Faculty to the Distance Learning Classroom http://er.educause.edu/articles/2017/6/from-onground-to-online-moving-senior-faculty-to-the-distance-learning-classroom

Why some distance education programs fail while others succeed in a global environment http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1096751609000281

Case Study: Challenges and Issues in Teaching Fully Online Mechanical Engineering Courses http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-06764-3_74

TPCK and SAMR – Models for Enhancing Technology Integration (2008) http://www.msad54.org/sahs/TechInteg/mlti/SAMR.pdf

SAMR and TPCK in Action http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/2017/08/28/SAMR_TPCK_In_Action.pdf

SAMR: Beyond the Basics http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/2017/08/26/SAMRBeyondTheBasics.pdf

From the Classroom to the Keyboard: How Seven Teachers Created Their Online Teacher Identities http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/download/1814/3253

A structure equation model among factors of teachers’ technology integration practice and their TPCK http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360131515000949

Examining Technopedagogical Knowledge Competencies of Teachers in Terms of Some Variables http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042815006990/pdf?md5=1d1ccf6d1fb7088d7fda105f66d677c6&pid=1-s2.0-S1877042815006990-main.pdf

The Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge-practical (TPACK-Practical) model: Examination of its validity in the Turkish culture via structural equation modeling http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360131515001189

Using TPCK as a scaffold to self-assess the novice online teaching experience http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01587919.2015.1019964#aHR0cDovL3d3dy50YW5kZm9ubGluZS5jb20vZG9pL3BkZi8xMC4xMDgwLzAxNTg3OTE5LjIwMTUuMTAxOTk2NEBAQDA=

What Is Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge? http://www.editlib.org/p/29544/

The role of TPACK in physics classroom: case studies of preservice physics teachers http://ac.els-cdn.com/S187704281201779X/1-s2.0-S187704281201779X-main.pdf?_tid=cf1faf84-81bf-11e5-8938-00000aacb35f&acdnat=1446509831_08753d5dcf76ed3f790bd4382aae1e31

Handbook of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) for Educators https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=lEbJAwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=tPCK&ots=-p0TWk4RCI&sig=FElDYqBq7xyKcFWehvVRZ91LrNE#v=onepage&q&f=false

When using technology isn׳t enough: A comparison of high school civics teachers׳ TPCK in one-to-one laptop environments http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0885985X14000229

Systematic Planning for ICT Integration in Topic Learning http://ifets.info/journals/10_1/14.pdf

What Is Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge? http://www.citejournal.org/articles/v9i1general1.pdf

Teacher Education Programs and Online Learning Tools: Innovations in Teacher http://www.igi-global.com/gateway/book/63882

A Blended-learning Pedagogical Model for Teaching and Learning EFL Successfully Through an Online Interactive Multimedia Environment https://journals.equinoxpub.com/index.php/CALICO/article/view/23157/19162

Learning Robotics Online: Teaching a blended robotics course for secondary school students http://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10092/10281/thesis_fulltext.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Blended-format professional development and the emergence of communities of practice http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/906/art%253A10.1007%252Fs13394-012-0065-0.pdf?originUrl=http%3A%2F%2Flink.springer.com%2Farticle%2F10.1007%2Fs13394-012-0065-0&token2=exp=1453102375~acl=%2Fstatic%2Fpdf%2F906%2Fart%25253A10.1007%25252Fs13394-012-0065-0.pdf%3ForiginUrl%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Flink.springer.com%252Farticle%252F10.1007%252Fs13394-012-0065-0*~hmac=6d5ccbd94902a88c2a80ff84fab3e4cbdfb3decb34fd54015f9d068638625b02

Blended-format professional development and the emergence of communities of practice http://www.researchinlearningtechnology.net/index.php/rlt/article/view/24691/pdf_1

Integrating Online and Face-to-Face Professional Development: A Social Networking Approach http://concord.org/sites/default/files/pdf/itsisu-narst-2013.pdf

Comparing the Impact of Online and Face-to-Face Professional Development in the Context of Curriculum Implementation http://jte.sagepub.com/content/64/5/426.full.pdf+html

Online Interactive Module for Teaching a Computer Programming Course http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/19628/3/OthmanOnlineFrance_ECEL2013.pdf

The Effectiveness of Online and Blended Learning: A Meta-Analysis of the Empirical Literature https://www.sri.com/sites/default/files/publications/effectiveness_of_online_and_blended_learning.pdf

How to Do More with Less: Lessons from Online Learning http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ982835.pdf

Dive into Content Areas: Instructional Review and Redesign of a Blended Technology Integration Course for PK-6 Pre-service Teachers http://www.editlib.org/d/150452

1:1 online tuition: a review of the literature froma pedagogical perspective http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00441.x/epdf

A Blended Professional Development Program to Help a Teacher Learn to Provide One-to-One Scaffolding http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10972-015-9419-2

Build It But Will They Teach?: Strategies for Increasing Faculty Participation & Retention in Online & Blended Education http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/summer172/betts_heaston172.html

Several – student’s perspectives http://ajet.org.au/index.php/AJET

The design and development of an e-guide for a blended mode of delivery in a teacher preparation module http://reference.sabinet.co.za/webx/access/electronic_journals/progress/progress_v36_n2_a6.pdf


Effect of a TPCK-SRL Model on Teachers’ Pedagogical Beliefs, Self-Efficacy, and Technology-Based Lesson Design http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4899-8080-9_5

Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge as a Framework for Integrating Educational Technology in the Teaching of Computer Science http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4899-8080-9_11

Instruction: A Models Approach, Enhanced Pearson http://www.pearsonhighered.com/educator/product/Instruction-A-Models-Approach-Enhanced-Pearson-eText-with-LooseLeaf-Version-Access-Card-Package/9780134046884.page

Lessons from the virtual classroom : the realities of online teaching [2013] https://searchworks.stanford.edu/?q=836557457

Essentials for Blended Learning: A Standards-Based Guide http://www.lybrary.com/essentials-for-blended-learning-a-standardsbased-guide-p-412451.html

Design and development process for blended learning courses http://www.inderscienceonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1504/IJIL.2013.052900



Beyond Bits and Atoms – Week 7 – Class Notes

Based on our reading, class was split into the ‘minimal instruction’ group and the ‘constructionism’ group. We had to come up with a Lesson Plan for teaching fractions to 5th graders… interesting exercise but dichotomy between the two stances were not as clear.

We also did not have the student’s presentations about the readings which made the lesson less engaging.


Second half of class we heard Michelle Wilkerson from Northwestern University talk about here educational simulation softwares – DataSketch very interesting and powerful tools – but as Papert would say – you still need a skilled teacher to be able to engage and scaffold students in the process as well as debrief with meaningful discussions and displays of learning.


During the lab session we showed our redesigns:

Link to the paper, presentation and photos of prototype below:


Finally we looked more at ReactiVision and Processing – how to track fiducial markers.


Beyond Bits and Atoms – Week 7 – Reading Notes

Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational psychologist,41(2), 75-86.

  • We need guidance to learn – unsupervised learning = cognitive overload
    • “Although unguided or minimally guided instructional approaches are very popular and intuitively appealing, the point is made that these approaches ignore both the structures that constitute human cognitive architecture and evidence from empirical studies over the past half-century that consistently indicate that minimally guided instruction is less effective and less efficient than instructional approaches that place a strong emphasis on guidance of the student learning process. The advantage of guidance begins to recede only when learners have sufficiently high prior knowledge to provide “internal” guidance. Recent developments in instructional research and instructional design models that support guidance during instruction are briefly described.” (Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006)
    • “Even for students with considerable prior knowledge, strong guidance while learning is most often found to be equally effective as unguided approaches.”(Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006) 

Papert, S. (1987). Computer criticism vs. technocentric thinking. Educational researcher,16(1), 22-30.

  • Technocentrism – the belief that technology alone will educate.
    • “Do Not Ask What Logo Can Do To People, But What People Can Do With Logo”. (Papert, 1987)
    • “The challenge to school, in its traditional forms, cannot be made by simply dumping computers and computer languages, however well designed, into classrooms.” (Papert, 1987)
  • ExperLOGO – too fast, not geared for learners
    • “At the core of the process of design is the art of trade-off. If you want more speed, you have to take less of something else. Observing what a design team finds worth giving up is a window into its aesthetics and its intellectual values.” (Papert, 1987)

Pea, R. D. (1983). Logo Programming and Problem Solving.[Technical Report No. 12.].

  • Logo is cool but needs to be implemented carefully
    • “The pedagogical fantasy (e.g., Byte, August 1982; Papert, 1980)–that Logo can serve as a stand-alone center in classrooms for learning programming and thinking skills does not work. Teacher training will be necessary for programming skills to develop very far, and problem-solving skills may need to be taught directly rather than assumed to emerge spontaneously from learning Logo.” (Pea, 1983)
  • Did not show increase in planning skills (planning skills = wrong measure!?)
    • “After a year’s experience of programming in Logo, following the discovery-learning pedagogy advocated for Logo, two classes of 25 children (8- to 9-year-olds, 11- to 12-year-olds), each with six computers, did not display greater planning skills than a matched group who did not do Logo programming.” (Pea, 1983)
  • Children had a hard time explaining lines of code they copy/pasted – little transfer
    • “A second was the fact that some children did not understand conditional test statements in these programs even though they had written programs that contained them. This is a robust finding, as other studies with these children have shown; the children’s programs often displayed production without comprehension, in that programming constructs such as variables, test statements, or even simple commands like “repeat” may have been used in one program, but not understood in another.” (Pea, 1983)
  • Was the research wrong or the learning objectives wrong?
    • “But we have deep doubts, based on a series of empirical studies over an 18-month period, that the Logo ideal is attainable with its discovery-learning pedagogy.” (Pea, 1983)


Beyond Bits & Atoms – Week 7 – Educational software/hardware/toolkit review

Educational software/hardware/toolkit review: Hummingbird Robotics Kit
BB&A 2016 Winter Week 7 – Camila Pereira & Lucas Longo

Design review

The Hummingbird Robotics Kit is a comprehensive package which includes a microcontroller, sensors, motors, and LEDs on the hardware side along with software and plugins for third party software that allows for controlling and programming of the hardware. Blikstein (2015) would categorize this kit as a third generation kit in so far as it is “specifically designed to target new classes of users, such as very young children, non-technical designers, and children in the developing world.” The website specifically states: “Our focus is on bringing robotics (and programming, engineering, and making) to as many kids possible.” (hummingbird.com, 2016) To achieve this, they offer a series of online tutorials, guides, curriculum/lesson plans, worksheets, and even how these activities match to Common Core (CC) and Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). Teacher professional development workshops are also offered along with publicizing related conferences and maker fairs they participate in.

The microcontroller itself is very similar to the ‘industry standard’ Arduino board with the main difference of having color coded plastic connectors instead of exposed pins to facilitate connecting with the sensors, motors, and LEDs. Some of these ‘appendages’ come pre-wired to these connectors allowing for easy assembly as we can see on the image below:

2320-02.jpgHummingbird Robotics Kit

On the software side, you must download a driver software that handles the USB-microcontroller communication and the programming software. On top of that, you can use an array of programming packages starting with their own storyboard programming software called “CMU Create Lab”. You can also use third party tile-based programming software for beginners such as “Scratch” and “Snap!” as well as an intermediate level package called “Ardublock”. For more advanced users who are ready to use full programming languages, they offer integration to “Arduino Coding” and specific programming languages/frameworks: Python, Java, and Processing.

The educational philosophy of the Hummingbird Kit and its resources draw from Papert’s Constructionist approach where children learn by actively engaging the process of making and showing their results to an audience.

“Constructionism—the N word as opposed to the V word— shares constructivism’s view of learning as “building knowledge structures” through progressive internalization of actions… It then adds the idea that this happens especially felicitously in a context where the learner is consciously engaged in constructing a public entity, whether it’s a sand castle on the beach or a theory of the universe” ( Papert, 1991, p.1)

A common theme across the proposed curriculum, lesson plans, and tutorials is one of building a robot or device that performs actions (outputs) based on sensor readings and/or instructions created in the programing environment (inputs). The several project examples offered on the site provide ideas that teachers can readily deploy as challenges or suggestion for their students.

An important affordance of this approach where students are building their own artifacts is that they must engage deeply with the content. One good example project is the “Measuring the Hypotenuse”. It consists of a distance sensor mounted on a servo motor along with a program that controls the motor to point the sensor towards a first barrier, take a distance measurement, rotate 90 degrees to point to a second barrier where another distance is measured and finally output the result on the screen with the distance between the two barriers. To do so, the student will learn about creating the correct sequence of commands, gathering the data collected, and finally program a mathematical formula (hypotenuse) to display the result.

Screen Shot 2016-02-17 at 11.36.30 AM.png

The Hummingbird kit, software tools, tutorials, and curriculum attend to several ages having a low threshold for entry yet offering very high ceilings. The board can be attached to a Raspberry Pi and programmed with Processing for example, making it limited only by the creator’s imagination, expertise, and budget. You can use the board and its sensors safely in a classroom environment since there is no soldering required. It also comes with manuals and instructions so that you can unpack and literally start building your project.

Following Blikstein’s framework for analysis of such platforms we find that in terms of “Selective Exposure”, the microcontroller has abstraction layers such as labels and color-coded connectors used to lower the exposure. Separate connectors are offered for motors, step-motors, LEDs, TriColor LEDs, and even vibrating motors. Direct access to microcontroller is also possible as is adding other breakout boards and a Raspberry Pi for example. As far as the embedded electronics go, they come pre-wired and ready to be used – no need for adding resistors or perform any soldering, for example. Again, higher level of exposure can be achieved if desired by adding external or non-kit components.

The “Selective Exposure” of the software will depend on the package you choose to use. Scratch will offer you block-based programming where you can easily identify the function of each of them. On the other end of the spectrum Java will require you to configure serial ports and write setup code just to get started for example. Here’s the list of software packages offered, ordered from low to high exposure levels: Scratch, Snap!, CMU Create Lab, Ardublock, Arduino Coding, Processing, Python, and Java.

In terms of “Selective Exposure for Usability: Embedded error correction”, even though the board has color-coded connectors, it seems to be possible to physically connect an LED on the Motor port for example. Yet compared to microcontrollers from previous generations, it attempts to provide some level of orientation for the user, but it is certainly intimidating at first for a novice we imagine. There is room for wrong connections or even failure if wires are stuck directly into it causing a short-circuit.

If we look at the “Selective exposure for power: Tangibility mapping” the kit offers little other than the connectors that have snap-on capabilities. There are no physical traits or affordances that help the user with learning or figuring out how the kit works. In this sense, the hardware is still more of adults’ technology for children than a children’s technology for children. On the other hand, the entry level software packages such as Scratch were designed specifically for children, and the Hummingbird add-on blocks make it simple enough to be integrated. We also classified the product according to additional dimensions, charted on the following link: https://goo.gl/1aS0mY

The Hummingbird Robotics Kit is extremely similar to other products such as the Gogo board but distinguishes itself by having a well organized and content-rich website that includes curricula, tutorials, data sheets, example projects, FAQs, and a store, among other things. Their integration with several software packages is also very attractive since it gives it a very high-ceiling for those who desire to explore deeper and a very low barrier to start. This progression does not require any upgrades to the hardware kits sold, it is only a matter of learning and transitioning to next software – which are all free, as is all the content on their website.

The cost of the kits is on par with other similar packages, which are still relatively high if you consider that you have some ‘hidden’ or ‘implementation’ costs. One must still purchase material to build whatever these electronics are going to be embedded in, even if it is simply cardboard, glue, and scissors. Teachers must learn the basics themselves, become comfortable, and prepare lessons to use these kits. Furthermore, the classroom must be equipped with computers and in the Hummingbird’s kit case specifically, power outlets for the motors. This is one of the main disappointments with this kit – the motors require external power. Understandably this allows for a higher powered motor yet why not use lower powered motors, which are cheaper and has the same educational function.

Finally, the kit as a whole package of the microcontroller, the input and output hardware, content, curricula, and software offers a solid base for schools to use. It allows for starters to quickly engage with the electronics and program their own sequences. It also allows for students to reach advanced levels and create much more complex projects and code using it as a base. That said, it does not offer any compelling innovation at this point in time, other than than the richness and organization of the content of their web-site. Yet one can argue that this is a wide enough base platform that is actually encouraging the students to be innovative using it, instead of it being what is innovative.


We addressed two dimensions of the tool to be redesigned: software and hardware. Our goal is to avoid errors and make it less intimidating for novices, or even teachers who don’t have electronics knowledge.


  • Hardware

We designed a case for the the Hummingbird board, where all the ports  are connected to entries that allow only one kind of connector. The shape also only allows for the correct configuration of entries for “+”, “-” and “s” (signal).  Besides avoiding errors, it reduces the initial time required to start using the kit to build projects, focusing in the problem-solving. Avoiding errors also makes the process less frustrating.

Screen Shot 2016-02-18 at 8.16.38 AM.png

Another aspect of the Hummingbird kit is the purpose of being integrated in craft projects, being attractive for publics that are usualLy not interested in robotics. Therefore, we designed the case in a way that it would allow to be integrated in craft projects more easily: it has appendages that can be used to sew or stick in the project, given more freedom to use the board.    

We also recommend to add to the kit items for mounting projects: velcro; double-sided tape; sewing kit; stickers for decoration. It would make it easier for the users to understand the purposes

  1. Software: plugin for Scratch

Our second recommendation is a plugin that simulates the reactions on the board for scratch program, like the input and output effects on the ports. It will have a format that simulates the actual board – applying the UI principle of matching the system and the real world.

Screen Shot 2016-02-18 at 8.16.48 AM.png

A monitor also is displayed in the screen, showing the quantitative effects of the program on the system, like the voltage being applied to an output. It could be manipulated to test the results of different values, besides simulate the code without the physical devices. It would make prototyping easier, reducing the cost of errors and allowing the students to be more creative.


Blikstein, P. (2013, June). Gears of our childhood: constructionist toolkits, robotics, and physical computing, past and future. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 173-182). ACM.

Blikstein, P. (2015). Computationally Enhanced Toolkits for Children: Historical Review and a Framework for Future Design, Stanford University, USA

Curriculum Construction – Week 7 – Reading Notes

Martin, D. S., Saif, P. S., & Thiel, L. (1987). Curriculum development: Who is involved and how. Educational Leadership, 44, 40–48.

  • Research questions on national survey
    • What curriculum changes are needed at the district level?
    • Who at the district level should make decisions about curriculum development?
    • Who should be actively involved in curriculum development?
    • What are the advantages and disadvantages of having teachers participate in curriculum development?
    • What roles should administrators and parents play in curriculum development?
  • Curriculum Development Process Model
    • Aimed at maximizing teacher involvement in curriculum development – 2 to 3 years and 10 steps:
      • Teacher committee – rationale and objectives – peer review
      • Revise rationale and objectives – form subcommittees if necessary
      • Materials and evaluation methods – peer review
      • Train selected pilot teachers and test the curriculum
      • New teacher committee collects and evaluate the pilot-test data
      • Revise committee based on pilot-test results
      • Present curriculum to administration and school board for final adoption
      • Pilot teachers become the trainers
      • Third committee revises curriculum and monitors the implementation
      • Higher-level training
  • Findings
    • Teacher involvement is high
    • Do your own curriculum redesign is preferred method – followed by ‘hire a consultant’ and ‘use another district’s’
    • Little parental involvement – must be actively supported by the school
    • Use little use of research to implement curricular change

Brodhagen, B., Weilbacher, G., & Beane, J.  (1998). What We’ve Learned from “Living in the Future.”  In L. Beyer & M. Apple (Eds.) The Curriculum:  Problems, Politics, and Possibilities.  (2nd Edition).  Albany:  State University of New York Press.  pp. 117-133.

  • Curriculum integration – definition
    • “… curriculum integration as something more than simply an instructional method. Rather we see it as a possibility for creating democratic classrooms in terms of both collaborative precesses and use of knowledge.” (Brodhagen, Weilbacher, & Beane, 1998, p.118)
    • “… curriculum be organized around themes found at the intersection of self/personal concerns of young people and issues affecting the “common good” in the larger world.” (Brodhagen, Weilbacher, & Beane, 1998, p.118)
    • “… planned and carried out based on questions and concerns of the your people and without regard for subject area lines.” (Brodhagen, Weilbacher, & Beane, 1998, p.118)
    • “… teachers must be careful not to cross the lines between this kind of authentic planning and that of illusory participation in which three is “engineered consent” toward acceptance of preconceived teacher ideas. Instead, the intent is to play a facilitative role with regard to concerns of young people, to help the see connections between their concerns and the larger world, and thus to bring the most powerful kind of meaning to the curriculum.” (Brodhagen, Weilbacher, & Beane, 1998, p.119)
  • Planning the unit
    • Make a list of words or phrases you would use if asked to tell about yourself.
    • What questions or concerns do you have about yourself?
    • What questions or concerns do you have about the world you live in?
    • Find and group common questions and concerns.
    • Suggested activities that would inform about these questions and concerns.
    • What knowledge and skill are needed to answer these questions and concerns?
  • Lessons learned
    • What are the problems when doing this kind of curriculum work?
      • A lot of work and time required + exhausting for teachers and students
      • Teachers need to give up a certain degree of controlled
      • “The teacher-controlled ‘empty-vessel’ analogy appears to be alive and well in the minds of many educators.(Brodhagen, Weilbacher, & Beane, 1998, p.127)
      • Lack of appropriate resources to support an integrative curriculum – they are always organized into separate subjects
    • What are the politics of doing this kind of curriculum?
      • Parents may think children are missing out
      • Lack of support from other teachers and administrators
    • What are the possibilities of this kind of curriculum?
      • Validation of self and experiences
      • Sense of control and ownership
      • Democracy in practice
    • “We believe they, like us, have had a profound experience forever changing the way they teach, rejecting how we were taught to teach, or the we were teaching as a result of the kind of texts being used or the teaching observed going around us.” (Brodhagen, Weilbacher, & Beane, 1998, p.132)

Darling-Hammond, L., Pecheone, R., Jaquith, A., Schultz, S., Walker, L., & Wei, R. C. (2010). Developing an internationally comparable balanced assessment system that supports high-quality learning. In National Conference on Next Generation K–12 Assessment Systems, Center for K–12 Assessment & Performance Management with the Education Commission of the States (ECS) and the Council of Great City Schools (CGCS), Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://k-12center.com/rsc/pdf/Darling-HammondPechoneSystemModel.pdf (Links to an external site.) (Please read to the end of p. 26)

  • US lagging behind in curriculum design and implementation
    • “European and Asian nations that have steeply improved student learning have focused explicitly on creating curriculum guidance and assessments that focus on teaching central concepts in the disciplines in a thoughtfully organized way, as well explicitly higher‐order cognitive skills: the abilities to find and organize information to solve problems, frame and conduct investigations, analyze and synthesize data, apply learning to new situations, self‐monitor and improve one’s own learning and performance, communicate well in multiple forms, work in teams, and learn independently.” (Darling-Hammond, Pecheone, Jaquith, Schultz, Walker, & Wei, 2010, p.4)
  • US mass testing hurts curriculum design
    • “Whereas U.S. tests rely primarily on multiple‐choice items that evaluate recall and recognition of discrete facts, examinations in most high‐ achieving countries use primarily open‐ended items that require students to analyze, apply knowledge, and write extensively.”  (Darling-Hammond, Pecheone, Jaquith, Schultz, Walker, & Wei, 2010, p.4)
    • “Because these assessments are embedded in the curriculum, they influence the day‐to‐day work of teaching and learning, focusing it on the use of knowledge to solve problems.” (Darling-Hammond, Pecheone, Jaquith, Schultz, Walker, & Wei, 2010, p.4)
  • An Assessment System that Promotes High-Quality Learning
    • Priorities for Assessment
      • Assessments are grounded in a thoughtful, standards‐based curriculum and are managed as part of a tightly integrated system
      • Assessments include evidence of actual student performance on challenging tasks that evaluate standards of 21st century learning.
      • Teachers are integrally involved in the development of curriculum and the development and scoring of assessments
        • Assessments are structured to continuously improve teaching and learning.
        • Assessment systems are designed to emphasize the validity and quality of external assessment
        • Assessment and accountability systems use multiple measures to evaluate students and schools.
        • Assessment and accountability systems are used primarily for information and improvement.
  • How to do it?
    • Curriculum must be explicit on what kind of learning is sought: usable knowledge
    • Learning that supports transfer
      • “Learning that supports transfer involves organizing facts around general principles and understanding their reach, understanding why things happen as they do, drawing explicit connections among ideas, evaluating ideas in ways that draw distinctions as well as identifying commonalities, having multiple opportunities to apply learning in deliberate practice under increasingly complex conditions, and receiving feedback around both thinking and performance that helps students develop metacognitive abilities (self‐regulated planning, learning and problem solving strategies, and reflection) that can drive further independent learning.” (Darling-Hammond, Pecheone, Jaquith, Schultz, Walker, & Wei, 2010, p.9)
    • Learning progression – roadmap for teaching
  • Theory of Action
    • “Tests worth teaching to” (Resnick, 1987)
    • System must include
      • Summative tests that assess student progress and mastery of core concepts and critical transferable skills using a range of formats: selected‐response and constructed‐response items, and performance tasks, designed together to assess the full range of standards.
      • Formative assessment tools and supports, shaped around curriculum guidance that includes learning progressions.
      • Focused professional development around curriculum and lesson development as well as scoring and examination of student work
      • Reporting systems that provide first‐hand evidence of student performance (beyond scores), as well as aggregated scores by dimensions of learning, types of students, schools, and districts.
  • Governmental Roles
    • Federal – general guidance and support for research
    • State – create standards and curriculum frameworks + assessments that compare initiatives
    • Districts and Schools – formative assessment + professional development
  • Assessment System Operation
    • Develop curriculum frameworks
    • Create a digital curriculum and assessment library
    • Develop state and local assessments
    • Incorporate principles of universal design
    • Emphasis on evaluating student growth over time
  • High-school level options for assessment
    • Course‐ or syllabus‐based systems
    • Standards‐driven systems
    • A mixed model
    • Develop moderation and auditing systems for teacher‐scored work
    • Provide time and training for teachers and school leaders
    • Develop technology to support the system
    • AI for scoring/assessing
  • Multiple choice questions can be designed to assess much deeper knowledge
    • Who was president of the United States at the beginning of the Korean War?
      • a) John F. Kennedy
      • b) Franklin D. Roosevelt
      • c) Dwight Eisenhower
      • d) Harry Truman e) Don’t know
    • A feature common to the Korean War and the Vietnam War was that in both conflicts:
      • a) Soviet soldiers and equipment were tested against American soldiers and equipment.
      • b) The United States became militarily involved because of a foreign policy of containment. c) The final result was a stalemate; neither side gained or lost significant territory.
      • d) Communist forces successfully unified a divided nation.

McLaughlin, M., Glaab, L., & Carrasco, I. H. (2014). Implementing Common Core state standards in California: A report from the field. Palo Alto, CA: Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE). Retrieved from the PACE Website: Http://edpolicyinca. Org/publications/implementing-Common-Core-State-Standardscalifornia-Report-Field. Retrieved from http://www.edpolicyinca.org/sites/default/files/PACE%20CCSS%20McLaughlin.pdf

  • Common Core State Standards (CCSS) – August of 2010
    • “The adoption and implementation of the CCSS coincides with the implementation of the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF), which shifts responsibility and ac- countability in California’s education system from the state to local schools and school districts.” (McLaughlin, Glaab, & Carrasco, 2014, p.1)
  • CCSS increased teacher collaboration
    • “For instance, practitioners across the state point to enhanced teacher collaboration as an immediate, constructive consequence of CCSS implementation, and under- score the many benefits of teachers working together to develop strategies and materials consistent with the CCSS.” (McLaughlin, Glaab, & Carrasco, 2014, p.4)
  • Lack of time to implement CCSS & shortfalls in materials, capacity and preparation.
    • “As former state superintendent Bill Honig wrote, “The Common Core State Standards state what students should master, but they are not a curriculum. Jumping from the standards to create lesson plans misses a crucial middle step of developing a coherent curriculum…the complex work of creating a local curricular framework for the district.” (McLaughlin, Glaab, & Carrasco, 2014, p.5)
    • “I would like to see the state un- dertake a major teacher education initiative—that may be the most important component of Com- mon Core implementation in the long run.” (McLaughlin, Glaab, & Carrasco, 2014, p.8)
  • Insufficient Professional Development
    • “At one professional development session, for example, teachers were asked if they knew what “project based learning” was. In a room of about 80 teachers, three raised their hands, and all three had been teaching for more than 15 years.” (McLaughlin, Glaab, & Carrasco, 2014, p.11)
  • Implications for state and local action
    • Curation of CCSS compatible materials.
    • Quality professional development for Teachers and Administrators
    • More and better communication with parents and the public.
    • Increased financial and political support for COEs.
    • Review and strengthen pre-service teacher education programs.

Screen Shot 2016-02-16 at 5.44.38 PM.png

Article from EdWeed: “Two Districts, Two Approaches to Common Core Curriculum: To meet common core, one opts for publisher, other writes own materials” By Catherine Gewertz

  • One bought available material, the other designed their own curriculum for CCSS
  • No real conclusion presented – benefit on both ends


Wei, R. C., Pecheone, R. L., & Wilczak, K. L. (2015). Measuring what really matters. Phi Delta Kappan, 97, 8–13.

  • Performance assessment vs large-scale assessments
    • “We continue to see political contexts as the biggest obstacle for including performance assessment in large-scale assessments today.” Wei, Pecheone & Wilczak, 2015, p.11)


  • The standards are:
    • Research- and evidence-based
    • Clear, understandable, and consistent
    • Aligned with college and career expectations
    • Based on rigorous content and application of knowledge through higher-order thinking skills
    • Built upon the strengths and lessons of current state standards
    • Informed by other top performing countries in order to prepare all students for success in our global economy and society

Brazilian Education – Week 7 – Class Notes

David Planck

  • economist to politics
  • Anisio Teixeira – his hero
  • Published his book in 1992
  • education boils down to two unattainable goals: more and better

Bob Verhine 

  • 1995 started big changes
  • FUNDEF was a great move by the Ministry of Education
  • It was a move to redistribute the resources more fairly between State and Municipalities
  • FUNDEB now puts them on the same side
  • Teacher salaries are now part of the law with a minimum set


  • Bolsa Familia made a big impact in education by tying school attendance to receiving this benefit
  • What happens outside of school is as important as to what happens within the school systems
  • Nowadays you have ‘concursos’ to hire teachers but now they are ‘punished’ each time who is in power changes


Curriculum Construction – Week 7 – Class Notes

Denise wasn’t there so the CAs Molly and Stephanie led the class very well.

We did a Jigsaw exercise where the class was divided into their preassigned roles/lenses we did the readings with. The roles were:

  • Expert teacher
  • Novice teacher
  • Parent with a high performing student
  • Parent with a low performing student
  • School principle (my role)
  • School board member

After feeding off of each other about the issues, stances, and solutions we went into the simulation or role playing group, where one of each role was present.



During the second half of the class we split into our Project Groups do have some time to get organized and define the next steps for the Curriculum Redesign Final Project.

We split the work like this:

(Lucas) – Rationale / Context
TODO: Review feedback and update

(Lucas) – Goals
TODO: Review feedback and update

(Lisa & Mohamad) Learning Activities
TODO: Do the “filtering process” → Updated Syllabus
TODO: Come up with the key learning activities

(Celine) Assessment
TODO: Figure out assessment at every level

(All) Process Log (Why)
TODO: Take photos and sum up notes


Some useful handouts:

Lesson Plan Template:

Assessment activities – Ways to Show What I KnowIMG_2024.JPG

Pedagogical Moves Used in Class

Curriculum Construction – Week 7 – Curriculum Critique Assignment

Curriculum Critique – tynker.com – Programming 100

Screen Shot 2016-05-11 at 3.36.29 PM

Curriculum Construction – Winter 2016 – Lucas Longo

Tynker is an online platform that aims to teach programming to children from 7 to 14 years of age or grades 1 through 8, through interactive tutorials in creating the logic for video games. Virtual characters guide the student through each challenge, showing step by step what has to be done. These challenges increase in complexity and gradually introduces new concepts and commands available in the environment. The tool is extremely attractive in term of design and flexible enough to attend to the various age groups it is intended to. An interface for teachers is also available to create lessons, register students, and assign the several lessons they offer in their course catalog. Finally, the teachers can track the student’s progress and response to quizzes presented during the challenges.

I analyzed in more detail their first programming course that introduces the basic mechanics of controlling the game such as moving a character on the screen, verifying if a character is touching another object and react accordingly, and the concept of repetition or loops. The student must drag and connect instruction ‘bubbles’ that will create a chain of commands the character will perform once the ‘play’ button is pressed. If the commands are correctly positioned, the goal is reached and the student progresses to the next challenge. At the end of each lesson a short multiple-choice quiz is presented to the student to ensure that some basic concepts and terminology were understood.

Nowhere in the website there is an explicit declaration of what particular curriculum ideology they based their design. The nature of the interactions and affordances provided by the tool show that there is very little presentation of underlying concepts, but the immediate engagement with acting upon, using, and testing their instructions. One might argue that several ideologies are present in the curriculum – which includes the technological tools, the nature of the challenges, and ways of engaging with the concepts. “If you are going to teach a kid to swim, put them in a swimming pool” – Dewey’s constructivist concepts and the project based learning methodology is evident. The challenges also move on a clear learning progression offering the students a very scaffolded continuity of experiences that build upon each other and provide the basic concept that the student will need in subsequent ones.

“From this point of view, the principle of continuity of experience means that every experience both takes up something from those which have gone before and modifies in some way the quality of those which come after.” (Dewey, 1938, p.35)

Cognitive Pluralists would argue that the subject matter itself, programming, taps into one of our innate abilities. “As a conception of knowledge, Cognitive Pluralism argues that one of the human being’s distinctive features is the capacity to create and manipulate symbols.” (Eisner, 1994, p.79) It is also a very practical activity where you learn by doing.

“Its meaning has shifted from a noun to a verb; intelligence for more than a few cognitive psychologists is not merely something you have, but something you do.” (Eisner, 1994, p.81).

Another powerful concept the curriculum exhibits with its video-game based interface and activities, Nodding’s (1992) care framework describes why students might engage with the content.

“We need a scheme that speaks to the existential heart of life – one that draws attention to our passions, attitudes, connections, concerns, and experienced responsibilities.” (Noddings, 1992, p.47).

I believe that we can make a generalization nowadays that children are fascinated by video-games and thus might find it relevant and interesting to design their own games. In the process, they are exposed to the concepts of programming, video game creation, and even design, once they start customizing their characters and game environments.

The implicit assumption of this curriculum is that programming is an important skill to learn for the future. Explicitly, the curriculum matches several Common Core Mathematics, Common Core ELA, and CSTA Computer Science standards that students develop in each lesson. Clear charts map lessons to Common Core standards by grade. Through their lessons/activities, students are able to learn and explore several Math and English Language concepts. The company has several courses beyond the Programing one I explored that include English, Science, and Social Studies projects. Each course contains several lessons, exercises, and activities the students can complete.

The design of the lessons are such that teachers do not have to a deep knowledge of programming to use it. As their website (tinker.com, 2016) puts it, “Built for Educators. No Experience Required.”  since their “Comprehensive Curriculum” has “Ready-to-use lesson plans and STEM project templates for grades K-8.”  The requirement for using this curriculum is one computer or tablet per child and an internet connection. Even though this might not be a reality in all schools, I believe it is a matter of time that the “1 laptop per child” dream to come true. In any case, the site also provides challenges for students to complete on their own computer or tablet, in the case the school might not provide adequate access. In other words, parents could use this site/curriculum to encourage their children to engage with programming.

The lessons provided are all geared clearly towards and support the intended goals and learning activities. For example, to introduce concepts of angles, the student has to program a spaceship to trace the lines of a star by giving it commands to go forward, turn at a certain angle, and repeat the process again until the star is complete. I felt that an explanation on how to figure out how many degrees each turn should be depending on how many points a star has was missing. The aim of the activity was to introduce the concept of loops and was intended for a second grader, therefore it might have been by design that they left out this explanation. I would have to pay and get access to the more advanced lessons to find out how they introduced such derivations – which apparently are present in the organized course catalog.

The assessment tool presents in a clear manner how students are progressing through the activities. A chart indicates the learning outcomes per student with icons indicating their speed and accuracy in completing each task. I was not able to have access to actual assessment tool which made me curious about how detailed these assessment results are. I would like to know if the teacher could see which exact questions the students got wrong. My guess is that it does provide it simply because of how carefully and throughly thought through the tool is implemented.

One unintended consequence I foresee in implementing this tool in the classroom is that younger students might get distracted with the character customization capabilities the tool offers. I’ve seen this happen firsthand when teaching using Scratch, a similar tool which this one bases it’s block programing style. Students end up spending a significant time playing with the color of the hair, clothes, and other such customizations instead of attending to the task at hand. The tool though, cleverly limits what the student can do in each exercise and establishing a time limit when customizing the characters. Only in more advanced lessons can the students more freely engage with all the features the tool offers.

If we apply Wiggins & McTighe’s (2005) WHERETO evaluation of learning activities, one could say that the tool attends to them all:

W = help the students know Where the unit is going and What is expected.

The lessons have clear goals and measures of success.

H = Hook all students and Hold the interests

I was actually entertained by the challenges presented and attracted by the design of the scenarios and characters.

E = Equip students, help them Experience the key ideas and Explore the issues

The interactive nature of the challenges do provide a rich tool to attend to these criteria.

R = Provide opportunities to Rethink and Revise the understandings and work

The challenges themselves provide opportunities to redo and revise their programs in order to achieve their goals.

E = Allow students to Evaluate their work and its implications

The evaluation of the work comes directly from attaining the goals therefore the feedback is immediate. The quizzes also provide an opportunity for the students to evaluate what they have learned and reflect upon them, even if on their own.

T = Be Tailored (personalized) to the different needs, interests, and abilities of learners

The different lessons attend to different levels and abilities the students might have and the tool is flexible enough to allow students to go as far as they wish with their programming explorations.

In conclusion, I was very impressed with the quantity, quality, and breadth of the tool. The introductory lessons are easy enough and scaffolded enough for the ages it is intended to. There is a high ceiling as well in the sense that you can move from block-based programming to actual programing in Java and connecting to robots to enhance the tangibility of the learning experience.

“The artistry in pedagogy is partly one of placement – finding the place within the child’s experience that will enable her to stretch intellectually while avoiding tasks so difficult that failure is assured.” (Eisner, 1994, p.70)


Dewey, J. (1938/1997). Experience and Education. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Eisner, E. (1994). The Educational Imagination: On the Design and Evaluation of School Programs. (3rd. Edition). New York: MacMillan. pp. 47-86.

Noddings, N. (1992). The Challenge to Care in Schools. New York: Teachers College Press.

Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding By Design. (Expanded 2nd edition) Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.