Differentiating Instruction by Level

Instruction at Newlane University is differentiated appropriately by degree level, most directly within Guided Courses, where faculty engage with students through structured instruction, discussion, and feedback. In differentiating instruction and assessment, Newlane references Bloom’s taxonomy as a useful model for understanding the progression of cognitive complexity as students advance from lower-division to upper-division coursework. While Newlane does not apply Bloom’s taxonomy rigidly—and recognizes that higher-order cognitive tasks may appropriately appear in associate-level courses and that foundational skills may continue to be reinforced in bachelor-level courses—the taxonomy provides a shared framework for calibrating expectations over time.

In associate-level Guided Courses, such as Introduction to Psychology, instruction emphasizes foundational understanding and guided application of key concepts, often aligning with Bloom’s lower-to-mid levels (such as remembering, understanding, and applying). For example, when introducing Piaget’s theory of cognitive development, a faculty member may walk students through the stages of development using concrete examples, model how to identify defining features of each stage, and lead a structured discussion in which students apply the theory to short case scenarios (such as identifying which stage best explains a child’s observed behavior). Students may also complete brief reflective or applied activities connecting Piaget’s stages to everyday experiences or developmental milestones. These activities support introductory analysis while remaining appropriately scaffolded for students developing college-level academic skills.

In bachelor-level Guided Courses, such as History of Ancient Western Philosophy, instruction places greater emphasis on analytical depth, synthesis, and evaluation, generally aligning with Bloom’s higher-order levels while still reinforcing foundational skills as needed. For example, when examining Aristotle’s account of primary substances, a faculty member may prompt students to analyze passages from the Categories or Metaphysics, compare Aristotle’s account of substance to Platonic conceptions, and evaluate the implications of primary substances for Aristotle’s broader metaphysical framework. Guided Course activities may include structured discussion or short analytical exercises in which students articulate and defend an interpretation of Aristotle’s position, respond to counter-interpretations raised by peers, or synthesize Aristotle’s concept of substance with other elements of his philosophy. Faculty feedback focuses on refining conceptual precision, strengthening argumentation, and advancing disciplinary thinking. Across both degree levels, instructional approaches remain aligned to the stated course goals and objectives while scaling in rigor, complexity, and independence appropriate to the level of study. Learn more about Bloom’s taxonomy in the Faculty Resource Center.

Differentiating Assessment by Level

Course projects and Course Hearings are key components of Newlane University’s mastery-based assessment model. In both cases, faculty evaluate student performance by explicitly referencing the stated course goals and learning objectives and by adhering to the standards and procedures defined in Newlane’s assessment frameworks. While expectations appropriately scale by degree level, with associate-level courses emphasizing foundational college-level mastery and bachelor-level courses emphasizing increased analytical depth and independence, the underlying standards for evaluating mastery remain consistent across programs. These guidelines support clear, fair, and level-appropriate evaluation of student learning aligned with the scope of Newlane’s educational offerings.

Reviewing Projects at the Associate (AA) Level

(Introductory college-level coursework)

When reviewing student projects in associate-level (100-level) courses, faculty evaluate student work in relation to the stated project goals and project description, using the following guidelines to ensure expectations are appropriate to introductory college-level study.

At the AA level, project review emphasizes whether the student has demonstrated foundational understanding of course concepts and the ability to apply those concepts in a clear, structured manner. Faculty consider whether the project:

• Meets the project goals as described and responds appropriately to the project prompt
• Demonstrates accurate comprehension of key ideas, terms, and frameworks introduced in the course
• Is organized and communicated clearly, using the structure, guidance, and scope outlined in the project description
• Reflects developing academic skills, including basic analysis, appropriate use of sources, and introductory citation practices
• Is appropriately scoped and focused for students building foundational college-level competencies

Faculty feedback at the associate level is intended to be instructive and supportive, reinforcing the project goals and helping students strengthen core academic skills in preparation for more advanced undergraduate coursework.

Reviewing Projects at the Bachelor’s (BA) Level

(Intermediate to upper-level undergraduate coursework)

When reviewing student projects in bachelor-level (200- and 300-level) courses, faculty evaluate student work in relation to the stated project goals and project description, using the following guidelines to ensure expectations align with intermediate to upper-level undergraduate study.

At the BA level, project review emphasizes whether the student has demonstrated analytical depth, independent engagement, and synthesis of ideas consistent with bachelor’s-level expectations. Faculty consider whether the project:

• Meets or exceeds the project goals as described and addresses the project prompt with appropriate depth and complexity
• Demonstrates substantive analysis of course material, including the ability to evaluate, compare, and synthesize concepts
• Engages independently with sources, reflecting more advanced research practices and consistent academic citation
• Presents a clear, well-supported argument or interpretation that goes beyond summary or description
• Reflects increased originality, depth, and complexity in scope, structure, and execution, consistent with the project description

Faculty feedback at the bachelor’s level focuses on refining analytical rigor, strengthening argumentation, and advancing disciplinary thinking, while remaining anchored to the stated project goals and expectations.

Conducting Course Hearings at the Associate (AA) Level

(Introductory college-level coursework)

When conducting Course Hearings in associate-level (100-level) courses, faculty evaluate student mastery by explicitly referencing the stated course goals and learning objectives and by adhering to the standards and procedures defined within Newlane’s Course Hearing framework.

At the AA level, Course Hearings are designed to confirm whether the student has achieved foundational, introductory college-level mastery of the course material. During the Course Hearing, faculty assess whether the student can:

• Demonstrate understanding of the course goals and objectives using appropriate terminology and concepts introduced in the course
• Explain key ideas, methods, or frameworks in a clear and structured manner
• Respond to guided questions that assess comprehension, application, and emerging critical thinking skills
• Communicate their understanding effectively, with support and clarification when appropriate

Faculty decisions during associate-level Course Hearings are grounded in the course goals and objectives, not relative performance or comparison to other students. The Course Hearing follows the established framework to determine whether mastery has been achieved or whether additional learning is needed.

At this level, the Course Hearing also serves a developmental function, reinforcing academic expectations and supporting students as they build confidence and readiness for more advanced undergraduate coursework.

Conducting Course Hearings at the Bachelor’s (BA) Level

(Intermediate to upper-level undergraduate coursework)

When conducting Course Hearings in bachelor-level (200- and 300-level) courses, faculty evaluate student mastery by explicitly referencing the stated course goals and learning objectives and by adhering to the standards and procedures defined within Newlane’s Course Hearing framework.

At the BA level, Course Hearings are designed to confirm whether the student has achieved deeper, more advanced undergraduate mastery of the course material. During the Course Hearing, faculty assess whether the student can:

• Demonstrate clear understanding of the course goals and objectives and articulate how key concepts relate to one another
• Engage analytically with course material, including the ability to explain reasoning, evaluate ideas, and synthesize perspectives
• Respond independently to questions that assess depth of understanding rather than recall alone
• Communicate arguments or interpretations clearly, with appropriate justification and conceptual precision

Faculty decisions during bachelor-level Course Hearings are anchored in the course goals and objectives and apply the same mastery-based standards defined in the Course Hearing framework, while recognizing the increased rigor and independence expected at the bachelor’s level.

At this level, the Course Hearing emphasizes analytical rigor, conceptual integration, and independent thinking, consistent with intermediate to upper-level undergraduate study.