This is a very informative article. When students are studying in the colleges and universities so their have no basic skills who should have to every student. Well, this article is very helpful for every student and I hope they must get the important points in this post. Thanks for sharing the nice information.I appreciated over read your blog entry. It is very useful for all peoples there are all possibilities to provide for this blog.And please provide some more information please visit our website you get more information regarding writing works.Refer https://www.essayguardian.com/

- charliejulien

I like this idea, Hongxin. It is taking project-based learning to a whole new level—every course is a series of related assessments, and each assessment is a project that includes the necessary background information, opportunities to learn skills that will be tested, and other activities designed to meet course outcomes. I think it's important to provide the opportunity for exploration also, but that is up to the learner. I'd love to see some examples of how this could be or has been done in courses that would not usually be set up as projects.

Thought-provoking, thanks Hongxin! From my perspective, it's exactly those instrumental attitudes to learning that are by far the biggest problem we have to solve. I'm not totally convinced that playing to them is the best way to stop them, though I do admire the cunning way your method strongly channels those who are deeply instrumental to learn something useful in the process.

There are a few variations on this theme in the literature that might be worth exploring to help address some of Mary's concerns, and mine, and that are not dissimilar in process: performance-based learning, inquiry-based learning  and problem-based learning, for example, are driven by assessment up front, but are normally more open-ended in process, though I have seen more tightly scaffolded versions of PBL and IBL, especially in schools, that are quite similar to your suggestion. Another theme well worth exploring is constructive alignment, which is often used much as you propose (e.g. see Using_Biggs'_Model_of_Constructive_Alignment_in_Curriculum_Design/Introduction for a useful process model that I think is an abstraction of what you suggest). The general principle behind constructive alignment is that all assessment should materially and directly contribute to the intended learning outcomes and learning activities should be designed with that assessment in mind. Consequently, at least if it is done properly, the assessment must be an integral part of the learning design and is usually the starting point for scaffolding how teaching occurs: your model seems like a good operationalization of that principle.

One important caveat: see http://donaldclarkplanb.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/7-reasons-why-we-need-to-kill-boring.html for a very good summary of reasons to avoid objectives/outcomes/terminal competences up front. On the whole (there are always exceptions because it ain't what you do, it's the way that you do it!) I find that learning outcomes are more useful to learning designers than to students. It is normally useful to students to know, at least in brief, what a course is about, and perhaps to prepare them a little for what they are about to learn, but that doesn't mean we have to throw the objectives or outcomes or terminal competences at them right away. In fact, sometimes it is a bad idea: some very useful pedagogies begin with mystery and challenge. And, even if we do tell them such things, it is more important to prepare them for the process, rather than the product.  Plus, I would really like to work harder on ways to acknowledge outcomes beyond those specified. I often have students - especially the best and most passionate - that do amazing things I cannot (even in my most open courses) recognize with marks. My next courses/revisions will have a few negotiable outcomes and/or more open ones that the students can weight for themselves that will attempt to accommodate that.

Thanks Mary and Jon for your deep thoughts on this. I like your input very much and would like to explore more on this (thanks Jon for the resource URLs, will check out).

I agree on Mary's suggestion of giving learners more exploration opportunities, which should be  accommodated in any model.

Jon, I really like the idea of opening the door for students to negotiate on learning outcomes. I am doing some research on the personalized learning (I know you don't like the word -- personalized). I think personalizing for individual's talents and interests would be the most ideal focus, hence offering negotiating opportunities for learners on learning outcomes would be an efficient step. I look forward to seeing your new revision. I guess it is a graduate level course? If there are just a few students, that can be manageable, but I am also intersted to see how to do that in a relatively big enrollment courses.

A more progressive thought is that in one course we could employ different course models. Based on different student's learning needs, we offer the flexibilities. But, that would be far ahead of our current learning system's practices ...

Most of Udacity's options are self-paced as well as a growing number from Coursera and EdX, and lots from smaller providers

See, for instance:

https://www.mooc-list.com/length/self-paced?static=true or https://www.class-central.com/courses/selfpaced

Being self-paced doesn't improve their completion rates at all :-) I have written on various occasions about some of the reasons this is to be expected, eg. https://landing.athabascau.ca/blog/view/294755/unintelligent-design-and-the-modern-mooc and https://landing.athabascau.ca/blog/view/496760/cargo-cult-courses. In brief, don't blame yourself for laziness. It's not you - it's them!

thank you Jon for the URLs and your thoughts on MOOC design. Now I have an excuse for my laziness. :)

It is a sad thing to arbitrarily set 13 weeks for courses for convenience. For courses that require longer time, say 33 weeks, we have to work around out of the bureaucratic timeframe. For example, dividing Python Programming into I, II, III, so that each has roughly 13 weeks. For courses that reqire shorter time, say 4 weeks, the only thing we can do is to bring something extra or even irrelevent into the course to fill out the 13 weeks. :)