Newlane University Principles of Learning
On the surface, Newlane may look like a simple online university, like many others. And in terms of providing learning resources and assessments to pass courses and complete degrees, it does function like a simple online university. But there’s a lot under the hood of Newlane University that may not be immediately obvious.
The philosophy of learning on Newlane draws from several sources that range from basic principles of learning to philosophical approaches to education. Key among these sources include Backward Design, Bloom’s taxonomy, Universal Design for Learning, Moore’s theory of transactional distance, and Competency-based learning. More on the influence of each of these below. To say our approach draws on these different influences does not mean that we routinely defer to these, or that we pick and choose different sources for different curricular or platform design decisions. Instead, we view our platform as a culmination of many diverse approaches to education, that together can make more than the sum of their parts to increase the quality and accessibility of education better than any single influence could.
Backward Design: (see here for a brief introduction to Backward Design)
Newlane aligns with Backward Design theory as articulated by Wiggins and McTighe: “One starts with the end – the desired results (goals or standards) – and then derives the curriculum from the evidence of learning (performances) called for by the standard and the teaching needed to equip students to perform” (quote from here) Accordingly, Newlane is designed around learning objectives, or intended learning outcomes, that specify what the learner outcomes look like (‘the end–the desired results’). Assessments are directly tied to these outcomes so that passing a course is the same thing as demonstrating mastery of the course goals and objectives. The curriculum is flexible (see below under Universal Design for Learning), and always evolving, but when a course is published, the advisory council for that course signs off that the provided instruction is suitable and sufficient for students to master the course goals and objectives.
Bloom’s Taxonomy: Benjamin Bloom, editor of the era-shaping text: Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals is the namesake of “Bloom’s taxonomy”–a taxonomy that sought to standardize different levels, or aspects of learning. In 2001, this taxonomy was revised by a group of educators with the title A Taxonomy for Teaching, Learning, and Assessment.” (quote from here). Though the revision expands on, rather than contradicts the ideas of the original publication, Newlane more closely aligns with the revised version. This taxonomy organizes learning into different levels that describe what the student is able to do. The basic levels in this taxonomy are: Remember, Understand, Apply, Analyze, Evaluate, Create. In each of these levels, specific terms further articulate what is, or should be happening at each level. For example, under Remember would fall terms like: recognize, and recall. Under Understand would fall terms like: classify, explain, summarize. Under Analyze would fall terms like: organize, categorize, etc.
Newlane embraces Bloom’s taxonomy as a primary influence as we articulate Degree Aims, Course Goals, and Lesson Objectives. How we articulate our objectives reflects terms associated with different levels of Bloom’s taxonomy. In a given course, and moving from the lesson to the course to the degree level, our learning objectives cover appropriate levels of this taxonomy, and also sequence the objectives to build on each other toward higher levels on the taxonomy.
For example, in the level 100 course: “Introduction to Philosophy” early objectives include:
List The Broadest Traditional Subfields In Philosophy, As Articulated By The American Philosophy Association.
And
Identify Conventional Aims And Approaches Of Philosophical Inquiry.
These would both fall under the Remember level (there are also objectives in this course that would fit in different categories).
In the advanced course, Kant, one of the course goals reads:
Contextualize Kant and his appearance in the history of philosophy, and why he is considered a central figure in Modern Western philosophy.
Another lesson objective from the Kant course reads:
Explain The Meaning And Significance Of Kant’s ‘Synthetic A Priori’ Knowledge.
These would both fall under the Evaluate level (there are also objectives in this course that would fit in different categories as well).
Universal Design for Learning (see here for a brief introduction to UDL)
Newlane embraces Universal Design for Learning (UDL) by providing clear learning objectives, within which we also typically provide several different instructional resources for students to reference in order to master the objectives (e.g., an instructional youtube video–plus all of the instructional videos can be played at different speeds, and many include subtitles–, an article from an academic journal or an entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, a website created by a Philosophy professor, etc.). We also let students use other resources they find, or can access if the provided resources aren’t sufficient. The clear guidance of our objectives makes it straightforward what the student needs to learn.
On assessments, we often provide more than one option for projects. For example, a student can write a paper, or create a video or other presentation. Students self-assess mastery of each objective, they also complete a computer-scored test and an oral exam.
Moore’s Theory of Transactional Distance (see here for a brief introduction to Moore’s Theory of transactional distance)
Newlane incorporates Moore’s theory of Transactional Distance. Since we don’t have live teachers for each lesson, so can’t lean on dialogue between the live expert and the student, we have designed the courses to put a premium on clearly articulated learning objectives, with supporting instructional resources, and activities. While we agree that “as the level of interaction between teacher and learner decreases, learner autonomy must increase” (from here) we also believe that learning platform and curriculum designers can do a lot to help learners approach their learning tasks effectively and efficiently. While we have fairly rigid learning objectives, we have a lot of flexibility for the ways learners master them, and a lot of resources and activities to help clarify the intent of different aims, goals, or objectives. So we start with very clearly articulated learning objectives. Supposing students don’t understand just what the objective means (and to be clear, we work to avoid this in the first place when we articulate the objective). We also include many different instructional resources directly tied to the learning objective (e.g., an instructional video, a helpful website, an article from an academic journal, a blog post by a professor, etc.). Supposing students still don’t understand what is the intended learning outcome (again, to be clear, we work to avoid this in the previous actions we take). We also include exercises or activities directly tied to the learning objective(s).
Our assessment process also puts the burden on students to assess their mastery of the objectives before moving to the other assessment steps. So students must verify that they have mastered the objectives before taking the course exam. Students learn about the basic structure of the platform, and process for passing a course when they register. So they know that beyond their self-assessed mastery, they will need to pass a computer-scored course exam, and also pass a course hearing where an expert will ask open-ended questions and spot check on different objectives, and in order for the student to pass the course, they must satisfy the expert that they have mastered all the course goals and objectives. We have designed our course structure and assessment process to minimize the ambiguity and transactional distance between students and mastery of the aims, goals, and objectives.
Competency-based Education (see here for a brief introduction to CBE)
Newlane incorporates the philosophy of competency-based education. Passing a course means demonstrating mastery of the course goals and objectives. The curriculum or coursework at Newlane University is organized around discrete learning objectives that detail the intended learning outcomes, such as: “Explain the process of photosynthesis.” or “Retell the Allegory of the Cave from Plato’s Republic.”, etc. Passing a course means satisfactorily completing a course project, and demonstrating mastery of all the course goals and objectives.
Influential Texts
While the Newlane platform has been influenced by numerous prominent trends, frameworks, and texts in educational design, theory and practice, some of the core texts that have had a direct, practical influence on our curricular or platform design, or learning philosophy include Ralph Tyler’s Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction, Jerome Bruner’s The Process of Education and Toward a Theory of Instruction, and John Biggs and Catherine Tang’s Teaching for Quality Learning at University. Jay David Bolter and Richard Grusin’s Remediation: Understanding New Media, and Lev Manovich’s The Language of New Media.
So, when people suggest that Newlane University is simply an online university, like many other online universities, we agree, but also note that there is a lot of power under the hood.
