Welcome back from what I hope was a restful summer for you. If you haven’t taken time away yet, there’s still (a little) time. Trust me, you’ll be glad you did. I took nearly six weeks away from email, and I’m more rested and ready than any other time I can remember.
 
As we begin a new academic year, it can be tempting to be really ambitious about what we want to accomplish in our teaching, scholarship, service or leadership commitments. A new start is always brimming with opportunities. Unfortunately, focusing on too many of them means that you’re less likely to be effective in any.
 
I’m particularly conscious of this as I’ve just stepped out of a largely administrative position to go back to my full-time faculty role. As you can imagine, I’m really itching to get back to teaching and research. Over the last few months, I’ve identified far more opportunities than I can reasonably take on. Coupled with a desire to “re-calibrate” how I approach my career, I’ve been thinking a great deal about this over the summer.
 
Essentialism offers a different path
The first day I was really on summer break, I cracked open (or downloaded to my Kindle) a book I’ve been wanting to read for several months – Essentialism: The Disciplined Pursuit of Less by Greg McKeown. It’s an excellent book and I highly recommend it. McKeown’s thesis is basically that when we pare down our focus to only those activities where we can make the biggest and most unique contributions to our families, careers, and communities, we are much more effective than when we try to do it all.
 
This sentiment is strangely liberating. Rather than feeling the pressure of trying to do more and more, essentialism offers a different path and challenge. What we really need to do is to figure out what our best contributions can be and try as best we can to eliminate those that divert our attention. The challenge then is to learn to say no and be disciplined with our commitments. One suggestion that McKeown offers to help in this regard is to pick a word for the year.
 
Why you need to pick a personal word for the year
A word for the year is simply a way to direct your energy to what is most important for this year of your life. This one simple word can help you to be disciplined and quickly decide whether taking on a new opportunity is in line with your values and priorities. For my pre-tenure readers, the word might be something like “publish.” With a focus on teaching, your word might be something like, “listen” or “creativity.”  For leaders or administrators, it might be something like “delegate.” Whatever the word, it should capture your core values and priorities in a simple, tangible way.
 
My word for the year is “discernment.” I’m naturally both a people pleaser and an achiever. So, as you can imagine, my inclination is to say yes to any and every new opportunity – particularly if it’s a request from a friend or colleague. With McKeown in my head this year, I’m going to really try to stop and think about what I commit to. I’m going to leverage a simple phrase from Essentialism: “let me think about that and get back to you.” I think just having a little distance between request and response will really help me.
 
The other benefit of this word for me is to encourage me to really reflect on how a particular request or opportunity fits into my priorities and greatest contributions. I know this will be a challenge for me, but I think this word, posted in my office, on the homescreen of my phone and on the background of my desktop, will help me to make the most of my new opportunity as a faculty member.
 
What will your word be for the year?
Please post your comments below.

I wrote this post with a colleague of mine, Adam Barger. Adam is a Senior Academic Technology Specialist at the College of William & Mary and a doctoral candidate in the Curriculum and Educational Technology in the School of Education at William & Mary.

Instructional design models can make planning for teaching seem a bit like assembling a piece of furniture from IKEA – tedious and challenging. Many of the models we’ve come across distill the planning approach to a set of rigid tasks and procedures. In many models it’s hard to see any evidence of what many call the “art” in teaching. It can also be difficult to see any evidence of considering the needs and motivations of the learners as well.
 
Choosing tools and approaches to integrate technology in teaching can be challenging as well. It can be difficult to consider how the technology might add value to the lesson – particularly from the student’s perspective. One way to think about this is in terms of motivation. In what ways can the use of technology encourage students to engage more fully in their learning?

The ARCS model takes an approach to instructional design that can help faculty with both of these challenges. As faculty think through the different steps of the model, they focus on students’ motivation for learning. Motivation is enhanced and sustained by addressing the four aspects of ARCS: Attention, Relevance, Confidence, and Satisfaction. Careful attention to these aspects helps instructors design instruction that motivates students to engage with the content in meaningful ways. In this post, we explore the model as well as ways that technology can enhance and/or support each of these elements in practice.
 
Overview of the ARCS model

• Attention: arousing perception and/or a sense of inquiry.
  -This aspect of ARCS is often addressed first as teachers seek to grab learners’ attention and pique curiosity. Examples include novelty or humor in the form of a story or real-life application of the topic. Other options include using multiple forms of content representation and active learner participation early in the lesson.
• Relevance: establishing the importance or usefulness of the content knowledge or skill.
  -A clear sense of value for newly formed knowledge and a clear connection to prior knowledge is an essential aspect for motivating learners to engage in new or potentially difficult tasks. For example, an illustration of how the new knowledge will serve the learner in the future will reinforce worth. Other strategies include modeling relevant skills and providing students choice in their learning.
• Confidence: providing an established path to success with teacher feedback and learner input along the way.
  -Learners benefit from incremental success as they work towards a clearly defined goal. Well-stated learning objectives and achievement goals shape the likelihood of success and help learners stay motivated. Success that is scaffolded and earned through practice motivates students as they enjoy some control of their learning.
• Satisfaction: attaining a meaningful sense of achievement.
  -Opportunities for using new knowledge, receiving constructive feedback, and rewarding rigor and achievement are all strategies for enhancing motivation through satisfaction. As learners find satisfaction in their learning experiences, they will more fully appreciate their efforts going forward.

 
Leveraging technology to support ARCS
The ARCS model can provide a helpful frame within which to consider how technologies can contribute to student learning. Below we offer a sampling of technology tools and resources that can support each component of the ARCS model.
 
Attention – Many different uses of technology can help to capture and maintain students’ attention. For example, targeted video clips, which can be created by the professor, can present content in a rich way that often complements course readings or presentations. Similarly, digital simulations, animations or demonstrations provide multiple means of representing the content that can support the needs of diverse learners in the classroom. 
 
Relevance – Authenticity and relevance of learning can be enhanced through the use of technology. Engaging students in problem-based learning and inquiry using real data and sources available online promotes deeper learning. Similarly, when students are able to create products of the learning and share them with a wide and authentic audience, as in this example of student-created TED talks, they work harder, complete more revisions and have a greater sense of ownership in their learning.
 
Confidence – When students can learn about and practice important skills and processes from their courses using technology, they develop their confidence. Video-based tutorials and short courses can help break down complex tasks and procedures and allow students to review them as much as needed. When students can practice procedures using online tools and supports, they can practice in a “safe” environment prior to class. By learning and practicing in an online environment, students can develop increased confidence in their own learning and capacity.
 
Satisfaction – Students gain a sense of reward and positive feedback through digital tools that facilitate discourse, community, and real-world applications. Learning management systems such as Edmodo have built-in rewards that provide positive feedback through badges. Also, teachers can provide specific written praise by posting comments on a student’s wall or sending a file with written feedback. Other examples include built-in assessments or self-checks in video module builders such as NearPod or Microsoft Mix. These strategies provide more immediate satisfaction by equipping the learner with immediate feedback and opportunities to apply their knowledge.

How do you try to encourage motivation for learning through the use of technology in your planning?
Please post your comments below.

Of all of the 21st century skills being actively promoted these days, perhaps none are both as important and difficult to develop as collaboration. It’s hard to imagine any career or scholarly study that doesn’t require, or at least, benefit from collaboration. Even a career like teaching, which is often viewed as a rather solitary endeavor, increasingly requires team-based planning, assessment, and coordination. Fortunately, considerable scholarship on teaching and learning explores strategies to encourage collaboration in our courses.
 
Recently, I read an article on Faculty Focus by Brigitte Vittrup on how to improve group work. In the article, she argues that typically college students resist group work primarily because of uneven contributions by group members (or, “social loafing”). Despite this resistance, research suggests a number of benefits for this kind of work. She concludes by encouraging faculty to explain the benefits for students to buy in to the process. While certainly important, I would add that there are certain elements we can consider in our planning that can maximize the benefits and help to minimize some legitimate student concerns.
 
How can we gauge and increase the level of collaboration in our courses?
As I’ve written previously, the 21st Century Learning Design framework from ITL Research offers great insight into effectively integrating 21st century skills in the classroom. The 21CLD framework not only offers six skills to consider (including collaboration), they also offer insight into different levels of their integration into learning activity design in the form of rubrics. When we look at the four levels of collaboration in the 21CLD rubric, we can gain some insight into how to increase the quality of collaboration in our courses.
 
Shared responsibility
To make sure that each member contributes to the group effort, faculty can ensure that group members have shared responsibility in their work together. This can often take the form of clearly defined roles in the group. These individual roles distribute the tasks and provide each member with a unique contribution with the larger group effort. For example, one student might have the task of summarizing multiple data sources, while another’s job might be to identify themes across sources. The group can then only be successful when each member contributes. These individual roles also enable the instructor to assess the work collectively and individually.
 
Make substantive decisions together
If we were to stop at ensuring that students have shared responsibility, we may have achieved cooperative learning. In this model students essentially divide the workload. To me at least, this is different than students working closely together in a collaborative way. To move to a more collaborative experience, we can amplify the group dynamic when we require group members to make substantive decisions together. Rather than providing all the parameters of a task or project for the students, we can leave some choices up to the group. These decisions can take the form of deciding on their own process, developing a group contract, or determining how they might present their work. Not only does this increase personalization and student engagement, it also requires the group to come together to create and execute a shared vision of the work. 
 
Student work is interdependent
Even with encouraging individual responsibility and making substantive decisions together, some students may still be less engaged than their peers. To minimize this “social loafing,” faculty can make sure that group members’ contributions are interdependent. This can be accomplished by ensuring that member roles each contribute a unique perspective or point of view on the project. For example, if a portion of the project would encourage them to explore multiple perspectives on an issue or to consider multiple possible solutions to a problem, the instructor could build in an experience where students review and comment on each other’s work to create a group consensus. Drawing on a design thinking experience I recently wrote about, group members could engage in a process of ranking and developing themes in their work. When students must thoughtfully bring their own ideas to the table and simultaneously draw on the work of their peers, their contributions become interdependent.
 
Parting thoughts
Not every group project or task would need to include all of these elements. Particularly with a short-term experience, it may not be practical to do so. What we can say, though, is that the more of these elements are present, the greater the level of collaboration is involved. If substantive collaboration is one of our key learning goals for an experience, it can be helpful to consider these different elements in the design.
 
In assessing collaborative work, I think it’s important to include some mix of group and individual metrics. I think it is important to have some portion of the grade be based on each individual’s contribution to the group. This increases personal responsibility and accountability that may also promote group cohesion. A wiki is a great tool for the instructor to track individual contributions to a group document (I describe this here). This can also be augmented by a brief questionnaire in which each group member anonymously rates the contributions of each member.
 
I’m also a believer, however, in assigning a portion of the grade to the cumulative efforts of the group. After all, the end product should provide at least some measure of how well the group worked together.  This provides a reward structure for those groups that make the effort and put the time in to generate work that is greater than the sum of its parts.
 
Collaborative work in the classroom is not easy. However, when we mindfully design the experience to require students to share responsibility, make substantive decisions together, and work interdependently, we can take comfort in the fact that we are engaging them in the kinds of work that allow them to contribute to their careers, community and world beyond the classroom.

How do you encourage and structure collaboration in your courses?
Please post your comments below.   

Recently, there has been a great deal of discussion about re-imagining the American high school. There is widespread agreement that the current model for secondary education does not serve students well in terms of engagement, authenticity, and preparation for college or careers. This growing focus was most recently in the spotlight with the White House Summit on Next Generation High Schools. It is quite a challenge, however, to navigate the myriad contextual, policy and political challenges in significantly shifting the focus of a century-old institution like high school. The documentary Most Likely to Succeed provides one vision for how we might reconceptualize schools to provide greater personalization of learning, problem- and project-based learning opportunities, and models for creative and innovative thinking. 

For several months, a group of us has engaged in this “grand challenge” with a local high school. Faculty members from William & Mary and administrators, faculty and staff from the local school and division have been working together to form a clear vision and pathway to making this shift. We had a number of productive meetings to discuss the issues, but we realized that we needed a process to help move from conversation to action. With this in mind, we recently took part in a design thinking boot camp under the leadership of William & Mary Mason School of Business professor Graham Henshaw in the Jim and Bobbie Ukrop Innovation and Design Studio. In the past, I interviewed Michael Luchs from the business school on design thinking. I thought that describing the boot camp process might provide an interesting view of this process in action as a strategy to help a diverse group solve a complex and ill-defined problem. 
 
The process described below uses Luch’s model of design thinking. There are many other approaches as well. The d.school at Stanford, IDEO and the Nueva School all offer models that share some steps but approach the process differently. I’d encourage you to compare and contrast the different models.
 
The Boot camp
Design thinking is a process that can be used in a variety of ways, from short-duration problem solving sessions to long-term, multi-phase projects. The example I describe here was a “boot camp” or intensive approach designed to both build familiarity with design thinking and to begin the process for developing a vision for a new kind of high school. The boot camp included approximately 30 participants (high school and college faculty, administrators, counselors, and a school board member) and lasted about five hours. We began with a fun challenge designed to illustrate all the steps of the design thinking process and also served to help the participants get to know each other and get the creative juices flowing. Then, we shifted to the primary focus of developing a vision for high school.
 
Discover
One of the key tenets of design thinking is to develop empathy for the stakeholders of the challenge, problem or opportunity you hope to address. We began this process of discovery by conducting focus group interviews with our primary stakeholders - current high school students. We conducted these interviews and summarized the themes as a way to understand the perspective of high school students. This was just the beginning of this phase, however, as we will systematically widen the circle of stakeholders in search of feedback and ideas as the process unfolds.
 
Define
Informed with the students’ perspectives, we next shifted to defining the problem. We wanted to frame the problem around the needs of our stakeholders and also to identify why the problem was important. The key at this step is to be as specific and concrete as possible. Through an iterative process of working individually, then in small groups, we honed in on a problem statement that would frame our work for the remainder of the boot camp. In this case, we identified the problem in this way: "How might we create opportunities for students to solve real problems, engage with knowledge that matters in the world, and learn from each other and people in their community?"
 
Create
In the Create phase, our goal was to generate as many possible solutions to the problem as possible. The goal was for volume rather than focusing on the most practical or realistic approaches. In our small groups, we each announced ideas one at a time and posted them on a large group white board with sticky notes. In some cases the ideas were framed as single words, phrases, or even pictures/diagrams. After a period of time, we looked for themes, patterns and connections among the ideas, rearranging the sticky notes as needed. We jotted notes on the white board to make the connections or relationships between ideas clear. At the end of this process, each group voted on the most promising potential solution. The groups then shared these ideas and began to discuss common themes among the approaches.
 
At this point, we concluded the boot camp, but the design thinking work will continue. We are currently involved in the development of one or more prototype designs grounded in the solutions we identified in the boot camp. These are not meant to be fully fleshed-out concepts, but rather just enough of a vision to elicit feedback from the stakeholders. We will then circle back to the Discover phase with different stakeholders to get feedback on these prototypes. This may cause us to revisit and revise the problem statement as we better understand the challenge. We will engage in multiple rounds of this process until we have a well-developed prototype. At that point, we will shift to the final phase.

Evaluate
In this phase, we will develop a more formal, multi-faceted vision and plan for redesigning the high school experience. Again, we will elicit feedback from a range of stakeholders (students, parents, teachers, community members, etc.). We will identify strengths of the approach, possible challenges, questions and suggestions. Drawing on the iterative process of design thinking, we will then go back through the stages as necessary to fully develop our vision and plan. We anticipate this process taking several months. While time consuming, we’re confident that this approach is critical for devising a robust solution to a wicked problem.
 
Parting Thoughts
We left the design thinking boot camp very different than we began. We came together as diverse individuals with different concerns, ideas, and constraints. We left energized, excited, and more cohesive as a group. While engaging in the design thinking process takes time and can feel a bit like “two steps forward, one step back,” I would argue that this kind of problem-solving experience is productive and encourages innovative approaches. Now, I just need to figure out how to embed this kind of experience in the courses I teach.
 
How might (or do) you use design thinking in your teaching?
Please post your comments below.   

Last week, I launched a three-week, asynchronous online module in my educational technology course for our teacher education program. In this course, I use a number of blended learning activities, and even occasional online class sessions. This module, however, was different for a couple of reasons. First, it was a three-week experience during which I would only communicate with my students through the learning management system (BlackBoard in this case). Second, it was a major course component, so there is a lot at stake.
 
The three-week module walks students through a technology integration planning process, leading to a complete draft of the major project in the class – a technology-enhanced instructional plan. We’ve had in-class experience building towards instructional planning, but this is a module that contains all the content and scaffolds that will help the students through the process. This was an alpha effort (i.e., not even a beta test) for a project that I’m working on with my colleague, Judi Harris. We’re planning a more sophisticated version to release as an open educational resource (OER) that any teacher preparation program would be free to use and customize for use in their courses. It’s been an interesting experience, to say the least.
 
Why move this content online?
We didn’t take on this project just for the sake of putting content online. I had found in teaching this class over the years that the in-class version of the project didn’t work as well as I’d like. Students moved at dramatically different paces, they didn’t have easy access to their field supervisors for formative feedback, and they didn’t have time to let their ideas percolate. In other words, it felt constrained by the face-to-face, time-bound nature of a course.
 
The online version of the course affords students to ability to work at their own pace, consult not only their field supervisor but also their other professors, students from other sections of the course, and sometimes even their former teachers as they go through the planning process. This experience is also more authentic, given that this is how most teachers plan in practice. It was for these reasons that we decided to design a fully online experience. Along the way, I’ve learned three lessons about creating a robust, rigorous online learning experience for my students.

1. Designing a self-sufficient learning experience is hard
   This may be obvious to you wise readers, but I really underestimated the time and effort it would take to create a multi-stage learning process that my students could work through without me. It surprised me how often I would clarify a question in class, provide an additional example, or adjust something for greater clarity. In a sense, my class session plans could be outlines that I fill in during the session itself. When you’re designing a self-paced asynchronous course, you have to anticipate challenges and build all the supports from the outset. Everything – examples, alternatives, help sheets, and resources all have to be baked in. I’m sure I’ve left some things out (which I’ll discover on the module evaluation form), but I certainly spent hours trying to be as prepared as I could.
2. It’s challenging to make online content interesting
   As Judi and I brainstormed and storyboarded the modules, we tried hard to mix up the content and provide as much interaction and variety as we could. Unfortunately, with our learning management system we were a little limited in what we could do. We essentially relied on a few short videos and screencast recordings of slide presentations in terms of presenting information. We built in a number of opportunities for students to analyze materials supported by graphic organizers and thinking tools that students would work with during the course. I feel fairly certain that the materials we provided are substantive, complete, and rigorous enough to help students design a good project. What I’m less sure about, though, is the degree to which students will find them interesting and appealing for different learning styles and preferences. We build the modules with UDL principles firmly in mind, but it was much more challenging than I’d bargained for. 
3. It’s lonelier teaching online
   Recently, I wrote about building connections with students in our courses. This is much more challenging in an asynchronous online environment, and I’m certain that I could have built more personality into the modules. This module spans two sections of the course, only one of which I teach. I’ve found that it’s more challenging to interact with and build any sort of rapport with the students from the other section of the course. And because I don’t feel particularly connected with these students, it’s a far lonelier process for me.

My impressions so far
The students are now a little more than halfway through the modules at this point. While I don’t know for sure, the students seem to be moving through pretty well. They seem to be “getting” the material in a more complete way than in the face-to-face version I’ve used in the past. I know for sure that the quality of the discussion in the online forums is more substantive and inclusive than what I was able to generate in class. Of course, we’ll have to see how the final projects turn out, but I think they’ll create high quality work. With that said, I’m seeing (and documenting) several lessons that I’ll discuss with Judi as we revise the content for the beta test in the spring.
 
If you’re considering taking on a similar project and are up for a challenge, I’d encourage you to take the plunge. It’s a stimulating creative challenge to design an engaging and intellectually challenging online learning experience. Select a relatively focused concept or skill that you’re very comfortable with and that won’t be too overwhelming for your students. Be sure to partner or consult with colleagues who have some experience in this kind of work. Ask a more advanced student in your program to work through a prototype of the module and provide feedback, and be sure to take notes on what you learn. As I’ve written recently, it can be really energizing to take a risk in your teaching. Creating online learning modules may be an interesting challenge for you.
 
What have you learned teaching online?
Please post your comments below.