This issue includes articles on many aspects of educational design, from the design of hands-on lessons suitable for huge classes in open-air classrooms in Africa, to university courses and school assessment using sophisticated technology tools.
The first article is by Charles Lovitt, the winner of the 2021 ISDDE Prize, drawing on his early experiences as a teacher. He recounts how he taught powerful numerical methods to early algebra students, which fostered confidence and success but seem to be ignored in decades of subsequent curriculum revisions. Brian Gane, Diksha Gaur, Samuel Arnold & Daniel Damelin present a framework for designing assessment of multiple dimensions of science learning, and illustrate challenges and successes with examples such as the distribution of water on earth. Dominika Majewska, Rachael Horsman and Janine Angove report on a collaboration to guide the redevelopment of lessons from Australia to meet US curriculum standards by mapping features such as the flow of ideas and whether all key concepts were well covered. Ian Lowe reports on his personal mission to use his expertise to help reduce educational inequality and enhance mathematics learning in Malawi. He designed hands-on lessons using very simple materials to improve learning in very large classes. Katie Stripe outlines how a short not-for-credit course designed for post-graduate students in one faculty has been able to be efficiently adapted to meet the needs of students from many different parts of the university by combining generic and bespoke faculty-specific skills, and incorporating digital personae for the interactive and reflective components. Leah Rosenbaum, Paul Reimer, Alik Palatnik and Dor Abrahamson describe their popular ‘Embodied Icosahedron’ activity, which is designed around body-scale movement, authentic embedding of disciplinary content within an activity, and constructionist pedagogy.
This journal depends on the hard work of volunteers - the editorial team and anonymous reviewers and especially to Daniel Pead our design editor who maintains the journal website and creates each issue and to the new associate editor Róisín Neururer. As this is my last issue as Editor in Chief, I thank the members of all the editorial teams since 2016 for their promptness, their sound advice and their insights into how excellence in educational design can be promoted by this journal. I also thank all the authors who have shared their innovative ideas and made editing this journal such a pleasure for me.
The editorial team hopes that readers will benefit from seeing the many possibilities for educational design showcased in this issue,
Editor in Chief
A note from the design editor: First, I would like to offer my own thanks and best wishes to Kaye, who, as well as being a meticulous editor – helping to make my part of the job a pleasure – has played a vital role in encouraging and supporting authors.
Sadly, as this issue was in the last stages of production, I received the news that Hugh Burkhardt – who was a driving force behind the creation of both the ISDDE and this journal – had died suddenly at the age of 88. He was a persistent campaigner in the drive to improve mathematics education and assessment, both through his own work and his efforts in finding and nurturing new designers. Hugh, Susan McKenney and myself assembled and edited the first issue of Educational Designer in 2008 with the aim of raising the academic profile of the “research & development” of teaching materials and practices. He will be greatly missed.
This opinion paper explores and questions why numerical (iterative) methods, so widely used in business and scientific endeavours, are largely underrepresented in school mathematics curricula. Mathematics topics such as solving quadratic equations by using the quadratic formula or using algebraic procedures to solve problems in measurement, geometry or probability are deeply entrenched in the teaching strategies employed by teachers and in the resources developed to support those behaviours. Iterative approaches to the same topics offer an alternative, and in many instances more efficient, approach. They are often more suited to struggling students and can lead to greater success and deeper understanding of the underlying mathematical concepts. Classroom examples are offered, the potential advantages discussed, and finally some thoughts are given on why in this digital STEM age numerical approaches have not penetrated school curricula to the extent they could or should.
Numerical Methods – A Curriculum Mystery.
Educational Designer, 4(16). ISSN 1759-1325
Contemporary views on what students should learn increasingly emphasize that students need to acquire more than a base of knowledge; they need to acquire the skills and abilities to use such knowledge in dynamic and flexible ways. To be most effective, learning environments need assessments that are aligned to these perspectives. Using a principled design framework can help guide assessment development toward such targets. Even when using a framework, however, thorny design challenges may arise. Technology-enhanced assessments offer opportunities to overcome such challenges but are not a solution in and of themselves and can also introduce new challenges. In this paper, we describe three challenges (conflict between multiple dimensions of science proficiency, authentic data, and grade-appropriate graphing tools) that we faced when designing for a specific Next Generation Science Standard, and the theoretical and design principles that guided us as we ideated design solutions. Through these designs we maintained alignment to our multidimensional assessment targets, a critical component of our larger assessment validity argument.
Gane, B.D., Gaur, D., Arnold, S., Damelin, D. (2024).
Multidimensional science assessment: Design challenges and technology affordances.
Educational Designer, 4(16). ISSN 1759-1325
Retrieved from: http://www.educationaldesigner.org/ed/volume4/issue16/article62/