Reflections
Inclusive Design
The plain reading of this topic might indicate that design is a front-end, one-time process possibly enhanced with annual reviews. However, this lesson illustrated that inclusive design in education must be an on-going process. Educators need to observe their students and the outcomes realized from instruction. Not only does this mean reflecting on assessments but it also means observing individuals and developing insight that feeds back into pedagogy.
A great example of this was discussed by Dr Li when illustrating the important positive difference possible if assumptions are replaced by curiosities. It would not be surprising for an educator to assume that a student wearing headphones in class must be listening to music. This is in contrast to – “I wonder why that student is wearing headphones?” The latter leads to an understanding about that student’s sensitivity to noise and how wearing headphones reduces the negative effects of noise on cognitive efforts. This understanding then leads to design modifications to support that student.
The efforts for inclusive design can be seen in the Diffit integration where multi-modal learning opportunities are provided with visual, interactive and rotating group paradigms.
In this and other examples, it becomes apparent that educators benefit themselves and their students by embracing curiosity as a support vector for inclusive design.
Assessing Student Learning
Assessments provide not only ongoing design support but also summative evaluation of learning outcomes while providing justification for pathway ascension. However, not only do the assessment challenges of old still exist today, but efforts at accurate assessment are both undermined and supported by technology overlays. This new reality means even well-intentioned educational technology integrations must be pursued with intentional and well-informed designs. A key component of this process involves assessment paradigms which evaluate both targeted learning outcomes and the informed, ethical and critical use of digital overlays.
This generates strong support for educator assessments. The rapid advent of AI means that some educators may not be fully aware of the potential harm that can be done through improper technology integrations.
The Diffit integration utilizes pre- and post- implementation assessments to better clarify the risk reward in terms of targetted learning outcomes. Processes that support critical analysis of technology integrations are crucial to avoid continuing down unintentionally destructive paths.
If tools like AI are to be properly integrated supporting functional skills, they must be introduced by qualified educators who understand the risks associated with them. This will help ensure we effectively assess students developing skillsets with these tools in addition to the learning outcomes they are meant to support.
Engaging Students
The last 25 years have seen a concerted effort at improving student engagement through a variety of methods like SDT and No Student Left Behind. Some efforts have been successful depending on the context of their deployment but the overall decline in student learning outcomes has raised serious questions as to what qualifies as constructive engagement.
Administrators, politicians and educators anxious to create active classrooms with engaged students appear to have been promoting these goals at the expense of traditional learning activities which better support cognitive pathways.
The pursuit of engaged students is important and can be achieved with intelligent design integrating not only engagement objectives but also honoring what we know about how people develop functional knowledge. The challenge is balancing the tension between the business of education striving for the optics of philosophy implementation and their responsible support of requisite cognition frameworks.