Learning Experience Leader

67 // Learning Objectives as Value Exchange with Moritz Philip Recke and Stefano Perna

August 10, 2021 Greg Williams
Learning Experience Leader
67 // Learning Objectives as Value Exchange with Moritz Philip Recke and Stefano Perna
Show Notes Transcript

Today’s guests are Moritz Philip Recke and Stefano Perna. Moritz is a media technology engineer and develops transformative tools for education. He does research in the field of learning design and is co-founder of https://learningdesign.tools.

Stefano is a designer and educator working at the intersections of technology, media, and humanities. He is a learning design researcher and co-founder of https://learningdesign.tools.

Today we talk all about learning objectives, including 

  • The Learning Objective Design Card Deck that this team has been working on
  • An overview of Bloom’s taxonomy and the language of learning objectives
  • The function of objectives and their place in an evolving ecosystem of learning content

Resources

Connect with Moritz and Stafano online 

Learn more about the Learning Objective Design Deck with these resources:

Join the conversation on the LX Leader LinkedIn page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/learning-experience-leader-podcast 

Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/lxleader)
Moritz Philip Recke:

In the end, We are not doing something to you. When you do learning we make an offer for you to have an experience that if you go through it hopefully transforms you in a way that you learn something new. That is, you know, a completely different way of looking at it can in contrast to maybe more traditional ways of saying, Okay, this is what I have you eat or beat it.

Greg Williams:

Frpm the beautiful state of Utah in the United States. Hello and welcome. I'm Greg Williams, and you're listening to the learning experience leader podcast, a project devoted to design leadership and the psychology of learning. This podcast helps you expand your perspective of learning design through conversations with innovative professionals and scholars across the world. Today's guests are Moritz Philip Recke, and Stefano Perna. Moritz is a edia technology engineer and evelops transformative tools or education. He does research n the field of learning design nd is co founder of learning esign dot tools. Stefano is a d signer and educator working at t e intersections of technology, m dia and humanities. He's a l arning design researcher and c founder of learning design t ols. Today, we talk all about l arning objectives, including t e learning objective design c rd deck that this team has b en working on an overview of B oom's Taxonomy and the l nguage of learning objectives. A so the function of objectives a d their place in an evolving e osystem of learning content, b sure to check out the r sources inside the show notes, y u can connect with Morris and S ephano online. And also learn m re about their deck, which you c n download from their website a d access online versions as w ll. If you enjoy the show, you c n support it at patreon.com slas LX leader. With that. Let's ge started. I'm really excited to have you both here on the podcast today. Today, we're talking all about learning objectives, knowledge and associated topics. Now, before we dive in, maybe you could provide a very brief introduction for what got you both really interested in this project? And does it relate to your day job? Or is this just kind of after hours, extra work type of thing? Or what's the context for all of this?

Moritz Philip Recke:

Oh, yeah, I think it's kind of both. So we are both faculty members at the University of Naples, Rico, secondo and Italy, where we work at the apple developer Academy program. And we facilitate the learning experience of a nine month formative training program that is aimed at app development for the apple platform. And for this, we are actually involved in a lot of learning design, practice, let's say, I was an active learning environment and we are using CBl so challenge based learning. And it turned out to be quite a learning design intensive, especially also in the in the last almost two years now with the with the corona pandemic, in particular. So beyond that, we kind of started this side gig with the intention to create toolkits and canvases for educators to create more meaningful and engaging learning experiences and make the process more collaborative. And maybe, you know, even fun. So that is kind of how it came to me. So it started kind of from an impulse from our day job and now became our secret moonlighting. Passion of sorts,

Stefano Perna:

yes, it's it started as a side gig as a as a side project. But anyways, it's fueled by our daily activities. Because we realize that beyond teaching and being educators, we were doing a lot of instructional and learning design tools. We were we were learning design, we were certified, we realized that we were creating methods, and we were enjoying this dimension. Now, let's say these methods they mentioned. And we said Yeah, why don't we put some effort in creating some thing that can be useful for everyone out there?

Greg Williams:

Yeah, so I, I've downloaded the card deck and for listeners, we'll talk more about it here in this episode, but you can access everything we're discussing in the show notes, and I want to get into that. But before we do some folks, I think most people listening to this will know what Bloom's Taxonomy is, and like the different types of knowledge that you discuss, but maybe some folks are not. And so I'm wondering, I wanted to start kind of high level to just talk a little bit about that taxonomy and how you're thinking about knowledge and skill as it relates to this tool that you've been working on.

Stefano Perna:

Yeah, maybe I can just start and then Moritz, we can, we can complement each other before talking about the taxonomy. And so the dimension of objectives, outcomes and all these things, I'd say that we look at the design process of learning experiences as a as an artistic process. So we are really interested from everything that goes from the initial vision about an educational experience, defining the goals and objectives through assessment techniques, and then the very granular activity level. And so our, our interest is in the entire in, in the tire workflow, right of designing learning experiences. And of course, our starting point was, okay, let's start from the beginning. And let's think about the objectives they mentioned and what how we can approach this. So it's somehow nature of that we started looking at the one of the most established frameworks around that are pretty established. Even if you go on University's website, you know, the Center for Teaching and Learning of many universities, the reference to the Bloom's taxonomy, and as a, as a main platform with a concept of platform as a starting point to help teachers and educators of different kinds to write and articulate their curriculum and their learning objective the learning objectives for their classes, workshop or any educational intervention. So the Bloom's taxonomy, in short, you know, for the ones that are not really accustomed with that I will try to be super synthetic is its was initially created, you know, in the 5050s, exactly, if I'm not wrong 1956 by bloom, and it's a way to, let's say, categorize, no knowledge processes, in different dimension and learning processes, through different dimensions that are organized as a parameter that goes from low level of thinking to higher level of thinking, and that is organizing six levels. That goes from knowledge to comprehension, application analysis, synthesis, and higher in the highest form is evaluation. And this is was the very first version of it. And then a but right now, if you go around you, and even if you Google it, you will find more likely the revised version of Bloom's Taxonomy that is from 2001, by Anders craftwell, and others, which had two main differences. I would say that the the most important one is that they decided to change what were knowns in the first taxonomy. So knowledge comprehension application were nodes into verbs. And so the revised taxonomy came out with these six verbs that goes from the basic level of Remember to understand apply, analyze, evaluate, and create. And these six dimensions six level of the cognitive dimension are levels that can help teachers to articulate let's see, knowledge behaviors that are expected by the learners at the end of a learning intervention. I don't know how much deep it's useful to go I don't know it's more it's I would like to add something to that.

Moritz Philip Recke:

Yeah, I mean, if you really want to go deeper inside the taxonomy, it also can become even more sophisticated with the revised taxonomy. There's also something that was added which is kind of types of knowledge. So distinguishing between different types of knowledge that you can acquire, which are mainly divided into four types which are factual procedural conceptual and metacognitive knowledge. This might seem abstract on a very first glance, but in reality, it allows a great variety of processes and skills to be described, described when you address the specific types of knowledge by using different types of verbs. So, for articulating learning objectives, it's not intended to use necessarily the verbs from the pyramid. So just remember understanding the ply by the great number of verbs that are more or less suited to the individual layers of the pyramid. And so for Remember, you can have many different verbs that are all suitable to the remember dimension. And they can be aimed at more factual knowledge, or more conceptual knowledge or something like this. So this can help to describe literally any type of cognitive process that a learning intervention could target. I guess that's kind of the most critical part to understand about the Bloom's Taxonomy that, you know, different types of verbs address different dimensions in the taxonomy.

Greg Williams:

Yeah, no, I appreciate that. The overviews is helpful. The context is great, too, because I remember when talking earlier with you, that this deck, and this framework, it can apply to a lot of different kinds of learning environments. And there, there is quite a big difference. If you're teaching a, you know, an entry level writing class on, you know, just how to, you know, how to write properly versus maybe a corporate training on how to land a sale, you have lots of different types of knowledge and skill and tasks at hand. And using this taxonomy is one great way to kind of frame you know, what, what are we trying to do here in this situation? And so if I remember, correctly, your goal in creating this deck now that is essentially helping folks craft learning objectives? Your hope is that it can be utilized in a lot of different kinds of environments, not purely higher education, or, or k 12? Maybe is that where you started? Or you could talk a little bit about the DEC projects now that we have this framework in mind and how that's evolved?

Moritz Philip Recke:

Yeah, I think, in general, we, we strongly believe that articulating learning objectives is a good thing to start with, right, it helps articulating learning outcomes, it's beneficial for the learner and the educator alike, it helps to align on what to expect from a learning intervention, you know, kind of what you read is what you get, or something like this creates transparency, it might help to manage expectation, also to align on, you know, what content to explore, it might even promote ownership and stuff like this. But let's say on a less theoretical level, in practice, even though bloom is quite established, in reality, the process is not so straightforward. And it's actually not so easy to create compelling learning objectives for many. And since we did a lot of workshops with educators and faculties, we think that in terms of really changing your mind towards thinking in learning outcomes is not so easy, especially when this has to happen in a written form. And this is kind of how we got inspired and using this card deck, you know, like having a tangible interface, some elements that you can shuffle around and you can recompose, and you can take them apart, and you are less, you know, bound by the pyramid structure. So let's say the mechanics of the the the theory, they are embedded in the card deck, but you have a much more versatile way of discussing and collaborating on these things. And in doing so will actually notice that this is great because this will actually work for anyone that creates any type of learning content, right? So especially in recent years, with content creators emergent emerging everywhere, we can kind of say that access to knowledge is becoming ubiquitous. So you know, traditional education providers are not the the owner of knowledge or anything. So a lot of people can create learning content. And they might benefit from having a toolset that can guide them in articulating what they want to share and teach in a meaningful way so participants know what they're getting into. So this can be great for organizational learning. For knowledge management inside companies, it can be great for, you know, people doing YouTube tutorials on how to develop amazing apps, or how to create your next blockbuster indie movie is at the same time, it provides a very solid foundation to be used in schools or universities for workshops or courses, they can be traditional courses that may be really start from the bottom of the pyramid going all the way up or being more active, learning centered, maybe flipping the pyramid, which is a very common discussion nowadays, in academia, whether in more progressive learning environments, the pyramid is kind of flipped around the car tech is holistic in that sense, and will allow you to also start from there more action oriented approaches. So I think this is a tool that has great potential to be used by a lot of people, maybe many that are not in a very traditional educational environment.

Stefano Perna:

I may be another just another note is that the way we we approach these and so the cards that we created is also let's say using something that might be become a buzzword, but let's say is a learner centered approach. So we also try to, to nudge this kind of thinking in, in, in educators, or experienced educators or perspective educators in starting since the beginning with this approach, so that the learning intervention that you are designing is not something that you are doing to the learners, by bath is something that you're creating to make the learners achieve certain outcomes. So the I mean, I just wanted to highlight these so that we also believe that, let's say promoting this approach in, in many environments and different contexts is something important to do. And because, you know, if you arrive, as Maurice was saying, you know, that this will be quantization. Let me say use, let me use this word of teaching, you know, with people that can just create a course, a course or an application integration from scratch, might have very traditional references on how teaching is structured, because it comes from their experience at school, or university. I think that this kind of new approaches into the average Indian education that might be very close to professionals, and in just gatekeepers know that this knowledge can be shared, the wider audience,

Greg Williams:

there has been a lot of content creation, you know, the last 10 years, 20 years as platforms like YouTube, or and now Udemy. And other things, or anyone can create a course on anything, doesn't necessarily mean it's a great course, or it's designed well. But sometimes they are really popular. And it's been interesting, as an instructional designer. Sometimes I felt this weird, strange, like, I don't know if envy is the right word. But it's like, I'll see a course advertised online or something, a learning experience. And it's created by some subject matter expert, right. And it doesn't seem to follow any kind of regular design principles I learned about in school. But it's hugely successful and transformative for people in their lives. And sometimes it feels like wow, you know, I learned all this theory, but how come they can still do that? Right? And sometimes if it seems like, you know, if I hold too closely, these theories that if not practiced, and like you were saying at the beginning, you know, these theories are great in theory, but if they're not showing up in the real world, then they they actually aren't very valuable at all. And so that's something I really think is cool about this card deck that you have is it's a really significant attempt to try to bring these theories into the real world in a way that allows people to Practice utilizing these things for a specific need. It's not that they have to use theory to do it. But it's based on some really solid ideas. And I know that you've been testing it out with lots of people, and you've presented at a conference. I'm curious now, as you've been doing that, what kind of feedback have you been getting? And how are you thinking about either changing the deck or, or evolving it based on the feedback that you're hearing?

Moritz Philip Recke:

Yeah, before I get into that, I just something comes to my mind, that also caters to what you just said, which is basically, I think the approach we we took is also trying to make this more natural in a way of, in the way of actually doing it by using language, in a way, you know, like, or narrative form or something. So the idea for us was to create this card deck, having the verb cards, and then other cards that we call operator cards, which are kind of truncated sentences. So like a puzzle, you can construct a stem statement, like a sentence, which would be something that the learner would go through. So by the end of this learning, intervention, this workshop or whatever, he will be able to do this and this. And, to us, this is a very powerful mechanism, because it is not just learner centric, but it's also even immediately usable, you know, I could imagine if I create a Udemy course on app development, for whatever platform and I have a specific structure in mind, I still have to convey this also to the to the user, you know, what will you get by doing this in this lesson, you will learn this and that. And maybe this provides a very easy mechanism for them to do this to create the conceptually comprehensive statement that is basic, basically good enough to be used in the video description as a concrete representation of what is actually going to happen. And at the same time, they can rest assured, let's say that it is using a, you know, solid mechanism that also makes sense from a more theoretical standpoint, if that is important to, to some content creators. And I know where we know that, that is actually the case, there are a lot of, you know, content creators that basically quit their day jobs in quotes to become full time, content creators are creating learning content on how to skill up on very specific practice oriented fields, that also spend a lot of time on structuring their content, trying to make it better and solid from a practical but also from a very educational perspective. So So I talked a lot, maybe Stefan wants to talk about the Yeah, the feedback stuff.

Stefano Perna:

Yeah, okay. Sure. Yeah, there are many, many, many things that we learned. I mean, we have this strong design background. So for us, everything we do is based on continuous iterations. So we come up with a concept called concert prototype. And we try to test it as fast as possible, with many different types of users. And so we in different contexts, so we presented in academic context, so in conferences and more practice oriented faculty development context and the likes. And so yeah, what we learned, I mean, as we mentioned, already, when we start with the very first thing that we the very first version, we were thinking about was the physical back. Since we are also bit, let's say, fetishes, about this is about this card decks, you know, there isn't there's beyond beyond what we're talking there is an entire world of card decks, to design things, whatever, you know, there is also a sort of a movement of creators, and it's really interesting, and about what we learned. the hard way was okay, we put a lot of effort on this tangible, very embodied type of experience that was initially thought for workshops, you know, with large tables and sticky notes and that kind of design, thinking type of scenario that you can have in mind. But in then we were, we realized that we had to translate it in a in a brief progression to make that will make sense and will not be just, let's say it playing transposition of the physical one. And so we We learned a lot about how to, to better craft a beef to our experience for that. So when it became too complex, so, just to mention few details, you know, what, what is the right number of cards to have on a booth or become the thing becomes too messy to handle. You know, if we have 24 verbs or 30 seats or 12, you know, what is too much or too low and this kind of fine tuning pretty much as you do when in a different context, like in the in game design, you know, when you say, the tuning of the game, you're so you, there are some details that you really get right when you test with people. And that's especially true for the for the for the beach collection. And beyond that other things that we we the main two things that we also in somehow somehow oriented our next steps. So the next actions that we did after the first deck was released, is that we, we got a lot of people interest in what comes after the objectives, you know, the other dimension when so in the learning explain, okay, now that I got the objectives, if I want to go further, and I want to think about assessments, if What if I want to think about activities? So now that I have this wonderful set of objectives, how do I go? How do I proceed? How do I proceed to you know, to be faithful, faithful to what I would have been claimed in the in the, in the objectives. And this is something that maybe we can, we can, we can talk a bit more in depth later. And on the other side, we also receive very specific, let's say, request or not request, that's a suggestion by by teachers. So there are indicators that were already used to the, to the most known part of the Bloom's taxonomy, which is the cognitive level, the one that we are discussing since the beginning. But you know, that there are other dimensions in the Bloom's taxonomy, which are the affective dimension, that talks about emotional and social skills, type of skills, and even the psychomotor dimension, that are very true in many different areas that goes from art practices, to, you know, sports, and other or other other areas where these dimensions are really important. So we, we took this as as important feedback, and we started realizing additional, you know, like extension packs for the deck, to enlarge, you know, the, the possible users for the for the, for the neck. Yeah, this is bit an order at least of feedback that we received, and that were useful to us.

Greg Williams:

Yeah, yeah, it makes sense with, of course, the pandemic to realize, okay, we got to have a virtual version. So yeah, that feedback makes a lot of sense. And that last piece about at the effective or more emotional is interesting to me, because it brings up a question that I'm wondering if either of you have thought about or, or what you make of it is, in the world of learning objectives, a lot of it feels quite, you know, systematic, rigorous, strategic, which is, which are all good things, right. Especially in my line of work I, I work in the corporate sector in technology, and the kind of things that I'm designing should result in concrete actions that are different, you know, people should be able to do something different, not just know something different after a learning experience has taken place. But my undergraduate degree was Media Arts, it was a film program. I'm here in Utah, Brigham Young University, and oftentimes thinking about a learning objective for I don't know appreciating a great film or a piece of artwork. Creating a learning objective for that feels strange, like, like, Can everything be turned into a learning objective? Or is there kind of a limit of scope that you see this taxonomy reaching and your deck or do you feel like it could all be broken down into you know, something, you present to someone they do it and you assess, and the performance is complete? It's kind of a philosophical bent, but something I'm curious what your take on that?

Moritz Philip Recke:

Yeah, I mean, we spend a lot of time especially in recent months to reconnect conceptualize, also assessment in this aspect. And I would say, to some degree, I think more or less anything can be articulated as an learning outcome of sorts. how precise it can be isn't is another question. But, you know, we are in an active learning environment. So it's, you know, revolving around projects and everything. So in reality, a lot of learning happens in the affective domain, even though in a traditional University, probably everything would be more or less articulated through the cognitive dimension. But a large portion of the learning is actually the affective dimension, you know, collaboration, how to deal with conflicts in the team, empathy, all these type of things are incremental, they're also like the so called, you know, 21st century skills of sorts. So you can articulate that, how to assess it, however, it's much more complicated, because for, you know, many of these things, there might not be very direct ways to assess these, right. So, for psychomotor, it's a bit more easy, because you can have maybe direct observation, for example, as something that could be an assessment mechanisms with which there can be many. For some of the cognitive dimension, you can have tests, but then you enter this realm of fuzziness, where basically, you can only very indirectly assess things through maybe through projects or through looking at outcomes of collaboration over time, and stuff like that. So I don't think it's a question of, can you can you articulate it as a learning objective, but how do you go from there? So, what types of means do you have to actually provide understanding also to learners? To know if they are progressing in this area or not? And how do you align these two conceptually make makes sense, you know, and then the next level would be to even design the actual learning intervention itself in a way that actually provides what the learning outcome should and what the the mechanism of assessment or evaluation suggests. So, arguably, this is much easier in the cognitive dimension, and probably most challenging in the effective one. But at least on the objective level, I think you can particularly a lot, systematic testing is probably not feasible.

Stefano Perna:

Yeah, if I can build a bit on this. This goes on the, let's say, philosophical path that you you said, Greg, in beginning, let's say that, I, at the same time, I recognize that some somehow this division between cognitive and affective and psychomotor is a bit artificial, right, you know, we know from this point, years, you know, from neuroscience and psychology, etc, that in reality, all these levels are really linked, right. So that connect cognitions are pretty much affected by the affective and, and and vice versa, etc. So it's clear that when it comes to analysis or design or planning, you operate some divisions, that might not be really I mean, in practice in reality, so so divided, right? So what what awaking is, especially for the affective dimension, and, you know, just to make a connection to the deck, etc. But it's not important that could this this point is more of general discussions, that as much as possible, I think that when you think about the cognitive dimension, and you're trying to articulate objectives on that side, the affective dimension could be thought as a sort of a meta dimension that is everywhere, right? So while you're just even just think about the remember level, that is the lowest level of, of the of the cognitive dimension loom, we know for sure that the remember level is deeply affected by the emotional charge of an experience right. So So I think that somehow the two dimension should work together. Even at design at the design stage, and there's an end, I think there's a year, there's a lot that can be explored in terms of inter, the say interdisciplinarity, you know, because design is work, experience design, or yours. user experience designer stuff, like their ears that are working on these type of things. And I think that instructional designers and learning designer can borrow a lot from, from the experience of these other fields, in, in the practical in their practical job in the practical dimension.

Greg Williams:

Yeah, hearing both your thoughts about that is, this is really interesting for me, because I've thought a lot about this over the last many years. You know, you're just describing there about other disciplines in design, and otherwise, as the importance of remembering that learning and experiences in general are, require a participant to engage to, you know, to really participate in the act of that experience, or of learning, it's not, like you described at the beginning, where it's, it's not something we can do to somebody else, right, it's something that we invite them in to participate. And that seems to be the real value of a solid learning objective, is it provides a compelling hook that look, here's some value for you, you know, if there's value aligned with the value that you want, come participate in this experience. And then that assessment at the end, not only we should provide the designer or the teacher, the confidence that the learner can do the thing, but it should provide the confidence to the learner that they've obtained that value they felt was promised at the beginning of the experience, they can now do the thing, they either came to wanting to be able to do like a YouTube tutorial, or they have now finished off a course to be certified to know, you know, accomplish something in their job. But that value exchange between the learner and the designer, facilitated either through technology or through a person, I think makes up in my mind, really the bulk value of, of doing learning objectives in the first place. Because if we go to something really effective, like, essentially, marketing or advertising, you know, that's different in my mind and a learning objective, if it's, we want people to feel something, so they act in a certain way, right? We want them to buy this product, or to click on this button in the UI. But they do share some things in common, right, like, you're providing them content in hopes that they take some kind of action. I don't know, maybe that's heresy for me to draw that connection. But I'm curious, in our last few minutes here, what what you make of that, and any other final thoughts as we wrap up about these topics?

Moritz Philip Recke:

Yeah, I think it's interesting, you know, even though I, you know, I don't, I wouldn't call it advertising per se, but in in a sense, the articulation of the learning outcome is kind of like the pitch of the learning intervention that you're about to take, right. So, if I read the learner centric statement, that will tell me what will happen in this course or in this workshop, when this tutorial, this is kind of the value proposition, the pitch, you know, by the end of this you will be able to use this that to do this thing by doing whatever, okay, so my gauge will be after doing this, is this actually what I can do now? So is it aligned, like conceptually aligned that what I was promised is what is what I actually did in the intervention. So now I learned it and do I have a matching mechanism to self identify whether this is real. So this is kind of the package that I'm that I'm buying. So, in that sense, this kind of having great learning objectives that are aligned to the assessment into the activity is kind of like the SEO, the marketing, the marketing, sales pitch of the, the learning content that you offer, in many ways, you have to deliver though, so Otherwise, it will be you know, treated unfairly, you know, unfavorably by the by the participants, which is actually maybe the experience that many people have with a lot of learning content today that it's promising. You know, you know, we all know this YouTube videos that promise a lot of things and in the end the interview Here's about something else. So it's not really aligned. And I feel frustrated, even though it might be good content, it was not what I was what I signed up for. So in that sense, I don't think these concepts are completely at odds. I think it makes sense to look at it that way. Maybe it's also healthy to look at it that way. In the end, I'm not doing like we said, right, we are not doing something to you, when you do learning, we make an offer for you to have an experience that if you go through, it hopefully transforms you in a way that you learn something new. That is, you know, a completely different way of looking at it Khan, in contrast to maybe more traditional ways of saying, Okay, this is what I have to do to beat it. This, I think this has very much changed in the in the last years. And we also have to catch up with practical demand from, from anywhere, you know, industry from young people, what they want to learn what they need to learn. So I think a more user centric approach, same as you would do in product development, or in advertising makes sense?

Stefano Perna:

Yeah, to a degree, and no, it just came to my mind, one, one, the title of a book that we really like, and that is by Diana, Laurie yar, which is the title of the book is teaching as a design science, where basically she she advocates for for the for educators, and teachers, so very over every kind of resource, every department to look closer at design practices and design science as a way to shape you know, experiences and learning experiences for people for a group of people. So I really look forward to that might sound a bit heretical to someone, but I think that it's something that we, I think that we, we believe that we are working on.

Greg Williams:

I really enjoyed hearing a little bit more about this resource, this deck of cards. And as mentioned at the beginning of this episode, listeners can check that out, you can print them off, I've printed mine off, I just took it to my local UPS store here in United States is pretty cheap to just print it off on cardstock color and cut them up. And I'm excited to start testing them out and use that. But you can check that out, as well as some additional resources that these gentlemen have put there. before we sign off, is there anything I haven't asked you about either related to the deck or to learning objectives and assessments in general, that you think it's important for people to, to hear?

Moritz Philip Recke:

I mean, what comes to mind is I we touched it briefly is to realize that the learning objective, or the articulation of the learning outcome is just the beginning of a process. And something that is really crucial. And also, a lot of the feedback that we're gathering is reinforcing that is actual, on the conceptual coherence of what you're doing. So there's this approach of what's called constructive alignment, which is basically emphasizing that the learning objective and the cognitive dimension that you're addressing, and your objective should be aligned to an appropriate assessment mechanism that actually targets also this cognitive dimension, and is then also aligned to the activity that you're creating itself. So that all together it is coherently addressing the the the appropriate level inside the Bloom's taxonomy, let's say, and I think this is very important to, to understand to not end up with learning outcomes, and then having activities that somehow do not align to the, to the cognitive dimensions. So starting with learning objectives is a great entry way to start exploring this, and I think our tool can help you do that. But then the journey just starts, you know, really thinking through all the things that you want to create. So they are, you know, aligned so that they will also be perceived well, and can be engaging and motivating learning experiences to go through.

Greg Williams:

Well, I appreciate the time you've taken to explain some of these things here with me, and I'm excited to see how the deck evolves. So thank you both for sharing your perspective here on the podcast, and I hope you have a wonderful rest of your day. Thank you, Greg, for having us. Thank you. Thank you very much. I've created show notes for links to resources and more. So check that out. And you can influence the direction of the podcast and keep it going by lending your support at patreon.com slash LX leader. There are so many things to process apply test out and debate in these conversations. But I feel like I'm only scratching the surface. social learning is real folks. And so let's learn together. I invite you to join the conversation by following the learning experience leader LinkedIn page, which is linked in the show notes. I hope to see you there soon. Until next time, keep learning