Navigating the "Alphabet Soup" of Educational Frameworks in Curriculum Design:
A Learning Sciences Approach
Curriculum designers face the challenging task of deciphering a complex "alphabet soup" of acronyms. Designers are tasked with:
Using a UDL¹ framework, supporting ELLs/ESLs/MLLs², employing CRE/CRSE³, and sometimes providing explicit SEL⁴ support, but other times “disguising” SEL support because SEL has been banned!
And all this should be done while leveraging what is known from the Learning Sciences and Learning Engineering!
These acronyms represent crucial concepts in educational design, but their sheer number can be daunting. And if approached the wrong way, in a one-at-a-time fashion, one can be quickly overwhelmed.
There is an obvious way in which the one-at-a-time approach is problematic–there is a severe inefficiency in revisiting the same learning activities many times, each time with a slightly different lens. There is also the issue of framework fatigue: there are only so many frameworks one can learn, and only so many times one can revisit the same activity, before fatigue sets in and one loses sight of the original educational goals
However, the most serious issue is that when you are solely focused on one framework, you may unintentionally undo previous efforts. This is not because the frameworks are in conflict–they are not! However, when focusing on one framework you are, by definition, not focusing on the others. So, in an attempt to support CRSE you may provide a wide range of contexts for your math problems, accidentally burdening MLLs with understanding an overwhelming amount of contextual vocabulary not related to the mathematics. Or, in an attempt to support SEL, you may unintentionally decrease rigor by removing some of the “struggle” in an activity designed for productive struggle.
There is a more effective approach.
Find the commonalities among these different frameworks, anchored in the learning sciences. I suggest the following as your starting place:
Define instructional intent. Determine the primary goal of each activity, whether it's learning a new concept, building vocabulary, fostering motivation, or eliciting students' pre-existing knowledge The instructional intent of your activity is your North Star, and should drive your design.
Choose appropriate instructional activities for your instructional intent, opting for an asset-based approach over traditional explanation and drill practice. Design activities that are rooted in sound learning sciences principles, and explore how technology can enhance student expression and collaboration.
Embrace inclusivity and flexibility. Consider your full diversity of students: for example, while a competitive game may be fun for some students, it may exclude others for whom cooperation may be more appropriate. Remember to consider the wide range of activities that technology can support!
Use languages and cultures as a bridge, not a barrier. Language is a tool for learning for all students, including your MLLs. Integrate language development strategies throughout the curriculum to foster rich academic discourse among all students.
Create relatable contexts, either real-world or fictional, that resonate with your student population. These contexts should be relevant and avoid stereotypes, offering students choices where appropriate.
Allow multiple forms of access and expression. This is not the same as falling prey to the myth of learning styles: instead, it is taking an asset-based approach in allowing students to access materials and express themselves in the way they feel is best suited to the activity. Digital tools and media are instrumental in offering diverse options.
Foster social and emotional growth by cultivating an environment that celebrates differences, treats mistakes as learning opportunities, fosters empathy, and nurtures genuine relationships.
Be data driven and human centric. Continuously use data to inform design decisions and revisions, focusing on learner experiences and outcomes, particularly for traditionally underserved students—always while keeping an eye on your North Star.
Of course, no short set of guidelines can guarantee results, and expert input on these frameworks is still essential. However, by embracing these unifying ideas, you will find that expert contributions are more about fine-tuning rather than overhauling designs. The result will be educational materials that are inclusive, culturally responsive, linguistically supportive, emotionally intelligent, and scientifically robust.
Let's move forward together in creating learning experiences that reflect the diversity and dynamism of the learners we serve.
Footnotes:
UDL: Universal Design for Learning, extensively described by CAST.
ELL/ESL/MLL: English Language Learnings, English as a Second Language, and Multilingual Learners. While these have slightly different connotations, the field is generally moving toward MLL, as the term is inclusive of a wide range of students and recognizes the value of multilingualism.
CRE/CRSE: Culturally Responsive Education and Culturally Responsive and Sustaining Education. These frameworks emphasize learning relevance and responsiveness to student needs while preserving their identities.
SEL: Social Emotional Learning, with CASEL providing an often used framework.
We would love to see your comments (below). All comments should be relevant and professional, and those that are not will be removed.
#LearningSciences #AppliedLearningScience #LearningEngineering #EdTech #EducationalDesign #EdTechDesign #Education #CurriculumDesign #EducationalFrameworks #InclusiveEducation
