Version 1 – NEESacademy Instructional Design
Brophy – May 24, 2011
Frameworks for Designing Effective Learning Environments
Sean Brophy
School of Engineering Education, Purdue University
Co-Leader Education, Outreach and Training
George E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES)
Abstract
This white paper provides an overview of fundamental principles for designing effective
challenge-based learning experiences and is the first in a series aimed at providing
insights into designing learning modules deployed in the NEESacademy. The paper is
organized around three major frameworks that can be used to guide the instructional
design and implementation of an effective learning environment. The first is the
Understanding by Design Model to describe the planning and implementation of
instruction. The second is the How People Learn (HPL) framework that describes the
interaction between four central dimensions of any effective learning environment. The
final is the STAR.Legacy Learning Cycle, which can organize a sequence of learning
activities together based on the principles of the HPL framework.
Introduction
As educators we want learners leaving our experiences knowing and doing more than when they entered.
In short amounts of time we can familiarize them with new facts and ideas that spark their interest to learn
more on their own. This knowledge might be about how things work in nature or about something
engineers and scientists help define, design, and build. Or we may be working with learners for a long
time and want them to know how to adapt their knowledge and skills to solve new challenges they will
face. This second outcome of learning requires “learning with understanding.” Where “understanding”
involves knowing that something exists, knowing how it works, and knowing with it to solve novel
challenges [Broudy, 1977; Bransford and Schwartz, 1999]. Achieving this level of understanding
requires learning experiences where learners spend time trying to make sense of new concepts and use
that knowledge to construct something they have never constructed before. Showing and demonstrating
something to the learners will make them familiar with this new knowledge. Engaging learners in
activities where they generate their knowledge will result in learning with understanding.
Version 1 – NEESacademy Instructional Design
Brophy – May 24, 2011
Learning with understanding occurs when learners are challenged to act on what they know and to refine
their understanding through sustained inquiry with the concepts. This pedagogical philosophy is
fundamental to how people learn using an instructional framework called STAR.Legacy Learning Cycle
(Schwartz et al., 1999). The STAR (Software Technology for Action and Reflection) Learning Cycle is
similar to common models of problem solving and inquiry used by professional engineers, scientists and
educators. It can engage learners in acquiring knowledge that motivates them toward goals they want to
achieve. Further, the process increases the potential for learning fundamental knowledge associated with
science, mathematics, engineering and technology.
The goal of this white paper is to provide an overview of fundamental principles for designing effective
challenge-based learning experiences1. These principles have been used to design a wide range of
learning environments (e.g. classrooms, workshops, after school programs, engineering camps) to engage
students in authentic problem solving experiences like design, inquiry to explain, trouble shooting to
repair, and synthesizing information/data to make decisions and generate new knowledge. The paper is
organized around three major frameworks that can be used to guide the instructional design and
implementation of an effective learning environment. The first is the Understanding by Design Model
provided by Wiggins and McTighe (1998) to describe the planning and implementation of instruction.
The second is the How People Learn (HPL) framework that describes the interaction between four
central dimensions of any effective learning environment. The final is the STAR.Legacy Learning
Cycle, which can organize a sequence of learning activities together based on the principles of the HPL
framework.
The successful designer and educator should understand the fundamentals of these
frameworks as part of their successful adoption and adaptation of learning materials others have
constructed. The final section provides links to sites with examples and additional examples. This paper
is the first in a series that provides insights into designing learning modules deployed in the
NEESacademy.
1.0 Understanding by Design: Working Backwards
Planning and implementing effective instruction requires careful consideration of the knowledge, skills
and attitudes to be developed by the learners. With a clear picture of these goals we can define
assessments to measure successful achievement of the goals and instructional methods to achieve these
goals. This “working backwards” approach is based on the Wiggins and McTighe’s Understanding by
Design (1999) and involves a sequence of design tasks. Also, like all design activities, the process is
iterative and reflective, that is, we may return to any of the earlier tasks to refine them. We describe each
of these tasks organized according to the model shown in Figure 1. The next discussion explains how to
adopt learning materials previously implemented by others and integrate them into your own learning
environment (e.g. classroom instruction).
1
Much of the material for the report comes from materials developed by the author for workshops with
undergraduate and graduate educators in engineering. These workshops were hosted by the VaNTH ERC.
Version 1 – NEESacademy Instructional Design
Brophy – May 24, 2011
Planning
Objectives
Model of
Knowledge
Implementing
Evidence
Materials
Delivery
Figure 1- Adaptation of the Working Backwards Framework
1.1 Defining Objectives: The first design task involves clearly defining the course and unit level
objectives/outcomes. Objectives are defined in explicit terms. Course objectives target global outcomes
for a course that require cumulative knowledge of the course (and prior courses). Sub-objectives (unit)
are smaller outcomes necessary to succeed in the global course objectives. Below are several examples of
some high level goals for a course:









Students will be able to recall or recognize facts about vocabulary or concepts associated with
fundamental concepts defining domain knowledge.
Students will be able to analyze forces applied to a civil structure system in both static and
dynamic conditions. (mechanics, physics biomechanics)
Students will be able to analyze basic structures and explain how they function in terms of
fundamental principles (introduction to statics)
Students will be able to explain the impact of various soil conditions on ground motion and its
ability to transfer energy
Students will be able to identify characteristics of a force versus displacement graph
Students will be able to design and test scale models of various earthquake engineering
innovations.
Students will be able to describe quantitatively the pros and cons of various design options for
making a structure resistant to earthquakes
Students will be able to quantify effects of energy transfer through a structure using mathematical
models, basic and physical concepts (e.g. force and motion)
Students will be able to troubleshoot amplifier circuits that measure low voltage low frequency
signals (e.g. strain gauge measurements of compression and tension of a steel structure)
Such objectives typically use action verbs like recall, analyze, explain, quantify, compute, troubleshoot,
and design to identify what students should be able to demonstrate. These kinds of objectives can map
well onto the refined version of Bloom’s Taxonomy (Krathwohl, 2002). Note that this makes them
natural descriptors of the kind of assessment methods to provide evidence that students meet these
objectives.
A simple outline for thinking about this step could include reflecting on these sentence starters:
COURSE OBJECTIVES REVIEWED: By the end of this course (unit) students will be able to…
SUB OBJECTIVES (performance measures): Accomplishing these objectives will require that
students be able to…
Version 1 – NEESacademy Instructional Design
Brophy – May 24, 2011
POTENTIAL DIFFICULTIES: Typical instructional difficulties that I predict will occur…
The completion of these items will be an evolving process. You may find yourself continually returning
to these items and refining them as you think more and more about the instructional plan and what you
learn after implementing the materials time and time again.
1.2 Prioritize the knowledge, skills and attitudes to be developed. The second design task (NEES
adaptation) requires creating a model of how the various course concepts articulate and inform one
another. Table 1 can be used to prioritize the concepts and skills related to achieving the learning
outcomes for the class you are considering revising/designing.
Enduring Understanding concepts are fundamental to achieving the course objectives
and fundamental to the domain in general.
Important To Know and Do ideas and skills are necessary for achieving the objectives,
but do not necessarily need to be mastered by the end of the course.
Concepts Worth Being Familiar With are things not critical to performing a desired
outcome of the course, but students should be aware of their association with the course
objectives.
[Note: These objectives align well with what can be accomplished in various learning settings. For
example, short term outreach activities present concepts for each of these priorities, but will =mainly
focus on familiarizing learners with a range of concepts. Achieving the enduring understanding requires a
more sustained inquiry.]
Version 1 – NEESacademy Instructional Design
Brophy – May 24, 2011
TABLE 1 - Establishing Curricular Priorities (Wiggins and McTighe format)
PRIORITIZING COURSE KNOWLEDGE
Enduring Understanding:
Important To Know and Do:
Worth Being Familiar with:
1.2.1 Knowledge map of the course content: Table 1 could result in a list of facts and concepts targeted
for learning. This list should provide additional detail to learning objectives stated earlier. However, it
may not provide a structure of the knowledge needed to support how students learn. An organizing
structure can help make sense of the knowledge in a way that readies us as educators to anticipate how we
want learners to think about the knowledge. Further, it can help articulate where concepts are difficult to
learn. A concept map can be used to identify the major pieces of knowledge to be learned and the
relationship between these items. This map can then be used to align clusters of knowledge concepts with
specific context when that knowledge is used.
For example, challenge-based instruction involves
presenting challenges that require students to make connections between what they know and problems
they need to solve. A method for how to construct detailed knowledge maps will be explored in another
paper in this series.
1.3 Defining appropriate assessment of learning: The third design task is deciding what evidence you
will accept as proof that students have mastered the objectives. What assessment methods you will use –
tests, papers, homework problems, one-on-one conversations, projects, etc.?
Wiggins & McTighe
delineate the following categories for assessment:
Method: Performance Tasks/Projects - authentic tasks mirroring
actual issues/problems requiring production and/or performance.
They differ from prompts in several ways:

Feature real/simulated setting involving realistic constraints


Typically require addressing an identified audience
Based on a specific purpose relating to the audience
Worth being familiar with
Important to know and do
Enduring
Understanding
Version 1 – NEESacademy Instructional Design
Brophy – May 24, 2011

Allow greater opportunity to personalize the task

Task, criteria, and standards are known in advance
Method: Academic Prompts - open-ended questions and/or
problems requiring first critical thinking and then a response,
product, or performance.

Require constructed response under exam condition


No single best answer or strategy (open)
Involve analysis, synthesis, or evaluation

Require explanation/defense of answer/method given
Worth being familiar with
Important to know and do
Enduring
understanding
Understanding
Method: Quiz and Test Items - simple, content-focused questions

Assess factual information/concepts/discrete skill
Worth being familiar with


Use selected-response or short-answer formats
Typically have a single, best answer (convergent)
Important to know and do

Are easily scored
Enduring
Understanding
Method: Observation/Dialogue

Evaluate students techniques and methods for performing tasks

Ask questions as they engage in task.
Method: Informal Checks for Understanding

Short, simple, formative assessment technique to elicit students’ current understanding
 Use similar methods as above, but use less rigorous and less time consuming scoring methods to evaluate
performance.
1.4 Materials selection and design: The fourth design task is selecting and/or developing learning
materials that will help students master the objectives – lecture, problems, simulation, text, article, video,
experiment, etc. The effective use of these will occur when the first design tasks are well understood and
integrated into a plan of action. Many online resources are available for use. This document is based on
materials developed for bioengineering (vanth.org) and earthquake engineering (nees.org). Other digital
libraries are listed at the end of this document.
1.5 Interactions with the students (Delivery does not always mean transmitting information). The final
design task is determining how these materials should be delivered (e.g., listening to a live lecture,
reviewing a taped lecture, discussing/questioning concepts with instructor and peers, independently
working homework problems, collaboratively problem-solving in the classroom, observing a simulation,
conducting inquiry tasks with a simulation, reading an assigned text, reading a journal article, researching a
topic, reading and reporting on reserve articles, reading and writing a critique of reserve articles, viewing a
video, conducting a lab experimentation, etc.). There are wide ranges of learning experiences, many
mediated with technology, that provide excellent opportunities for learning. The learning potential from
these activities will depend on the level students take action with the material and how they reflect on what
they know about these materials to best perform a desired goal. These are explored in the following
sections and more explicit methods articulated in a future paper in the series.
Version 1 – NEESacademy Instructional Design
Brophy – May 24, 2011
2.0 Considering Current Learning Theory
Current learning theory is laid out in the National Research Council publication How People Learn:
Brain, Mind, Experience, and School (Bransford, Brown & Cocking, 1999). The report synthesizes
current theories of how people know and evaluated effective learning environments to determine the
critical dimensions that make them successful (see Chapter 6). They took what was learned from these
effective practices to generate the HPL framework as a tool to design and/or critically evaluate learning
materials/environments.
Figure 2 - How People Learn Framework diagram and cover of the NAS report
The HPL framework posits that the greatest learning occurs with the balancing and alignment of four
dimensions or “centerednesses.” Optimal learning occurs from instruction that is knowledge-, learner-,
assessment-, and community-centered as shown in Figure 2.
Knowledge-centered learning environments offer well-organized content instruction, with an emphasis
on sense-making and knowledge construction. The knowledge map discussed in section 1.2.1 can help to
organize and evaluate the knowledge to be learned and how it could be learned. Knowledge involves
facts, concepts, principles, skills, and values (epistemologies and practice of the discipline) needed to
perform the various tasks associated with the learning objectives.
Learner-centered lessons pay careful attention to the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and beliefs that
students bring to the learning environment (e.g. classroom, workshop, outreach activity). Learnercentered instruction helps students make connections between their previous knowledge and the current
academic task. Learner-centered lessons involve real-life examples that provide a meaningful and
familiar context for the students.
Assessment-centered instruction focuses primarily on formative assessment – that is, assessment that
informs the educator about how well students understand what is being taught and informs students of
their own level of understanding. The idea is for students to act on what they know by performing
Version 1 – NEESacademy Instructional Design
Brophy – May 24, 2011
meaningful tasks, evaluating their performance, revising it, and improving the quality of their thinking
and learning. The idea is that you as the instructor need opportunities to assess students’ learning so that
you may evaluate, revise, and improve the quality of your instruction. Assessments are also summative
and used to evaluate how well students have achieved the learning objectives.
Community-centered instruction involves opportunity for connections with peers, the instructor, and the
professional community. These opportunities occur both in and out of the classroom – e.g., collaborating
in small groups during class, make reference to students’ belonging to a special “engineering culture, ”
belonging to a professional society, engaging in an out-of-class study group, etc. This dimension
emphasizes the value of learning with others. That includes learning to communicate with others so
teams can collectively build knowledge together. Know about what is, how to use it, and knowing with it.
So, how can these “centerednesses” be blended and balanced into a lesson? The Legacy Cycle provides
an organizational structure with many opportunities to include each of these dimensions into the learning
process. The next section outlines this general framework.
3.0 Legacy Learning Cycle
The STAR.Legacy Learning Cycles can balance
the four dimensions of the HPL framework by
engaging students in a series of experiences that
require them to interact with what they know and
refine their thinking as they observe their own
limits of understanding. The cycle consists of six
phases that can be implemented in a wide variety
of ways. Figure 3 illustrates a Learning Cycle
designed for Earthquake Engineering.
The cycle starts with posing learners with a
Challenge they have some familiarity with, but
need to research more to better comprehend the
problem, identify potential solutions, and then
generate and execute a plan to solve it. Support
for this process comes through the other phases.
Students Generate Ideas about how they might
solve the challenge along with questions they
need answered to solve the challenge. Next they
can compare their ideas with Multiple Figure 3 - STAR.Legacy Learning Cycle (for earthquake
engineering)
Perspectives provided by others. A compare and
contrast activity can help to identify potential
factors or questions they did not consider in their initial idea generation. The combination of these three
phases provide students with the conditions so that they can apply their knowledge, generate questions
they would like answered and provides an opportunity to self assess what they know compared with
others. These activities have prepared students to learn through activities of inquiry, testing and
refinement. The next phase of Research and Revise consists of learning activities that help students gain
new knowledge and skills to answer the questions they have generated and to learn more about how to
better solve the initial challenge. As part of their research they will need to Test Their Mettle with what
they’ve learned. This could be as simple as answering questions on a quiz, or running an experiment and
analyzing the results. With what they’ve learned they will need to revise their thinking and then act on
Version 1 – NEESacademy Instructional Design
Brophy – May 24, 2011
this new knowledge to test their understanding. These two phases are the heart of the instructional
process of acquiring new knowledge and will take the most time and instructional guidance by the
instructional team. This may include didactic teaching and uses the major challenge as a way to ground
the content of the lesson in an authentic experience. The sequence of lessons must include opportunities
for students to generate their own knowledge and use it productively in various assessment tasks that
demonstrate their progress toward the desired learning objectives.
Eventually, learners will take what they have learned to Go Public. This final phase requires the learners
to synthesize what they have learned to either provide a solution to the initial challenge, or to a similar
challenge but in a different context, or both.
Each phase provides opportunities to engage learners in the skills to solve engineering problems like
design, troubleshooting, experimentation and analysis.
A template can be used to help plan and organize a Legacy Cycle. Appendix A provides a sample of this
template used in a bioengineering context.
4.0 Links to Examples of STAR.Legacy Modules and Resources
The Legacy cycle has been used with a range of learners. VaNTH was an Engineering Research Center
that used this approach to enhance bioengineering education and was enhanced with technology. Some
of the modules and research associated with VaNTH are listed below along with some other application
of the Legacy Cycle for other domains.
NEES – NEES.org – Single Story Analysis Module 1
 Learning Objectives and Theory
http://nees.org/resources/941/download/SSAnalysis_M1_LearningObjectives_v1.pdf
 Learning series embedded in the HUB –
http://nees.org/resources/885/about
 Interactive pdf version of Legacy Cycle –
http://nees.org/resources/886/download/Structures_Learning_Module.pdf
UTAustin – Dr. Petrosino has teachers developing Legacy Cycles as part of their training.
 The site provides a summary of the original version of the Legacy cycle defined by its originators
and links to works in progress by teachers
http://www.edb.utexas.edu/visionawards/petrosino/
VaNTH Engineering Research Center (VaNTH) – http://vanth.org – original implementers of using
STAR.Legacy for Engineering Education
VaNTH Portal - https://repo.vanth.org/portal - This site provides a library of resources related to the HPL
Framework and how it was used in biomedical engineering education.
How People Learn summary - https://repo.vanth.org/portal/public-content/how-peoplelearn/how-people-learn
STAR.Legacy Summary - https://repo.vanth.org/portal/public-content/star-legacy-cycle/starlegacy-cycle
Courseware List of Learning Modules - https://repo.vanth.org/portal/matrix
Version 1 – NEESacademy Instructional Design
Brophy – May 24, 2011
VIBES – a spin off of VaNTH for K-12 Teacher Training in using bioengineering to teach science
instruction. http://www.vanth.org/vibes/
IRIS Center (http://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/index.html) – This site is for pre-service teacher education
in special education. Their description HPL and Legacy cycles are at
http://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/hpl/chalcycle.htm.
Some Research Results from the VaNTH Effort
R. J. Roselli and S. P. Brophy, “Effectiveness of challenge-based instruction in biomechanics,” J. Eng.
Educ., vol. 93, no. 4, pp. 311–324, Oct. 2006.
http://www.jee.org/2006/october/8.pdf
Martin, Taylor, Anthony J. Petrosino, Stephanie Rivale, and Kenneth R. Diller. 2006. The development of
adaptive expertise in biotransport. New Directions for Teaching & Learning (108): 35–47.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tl.254/pdf
Martin, T, Rivale, SD, and Diller, KR. Comparison of Student Learning in Challenge-based and
Traditional Instruction in Biomedical Engineering. Annals of Biomedical Engineering, Vol. 35, No. 8,
August 2007
http://www.bme.utexas.edu/docs/kd/AnnBME.35.2007.1312-1323.AdaptExprts.pdf
5.0 Implications for Learning and Instruction
The goal of the white paper is to provide a quick entry into the theories and principles associated
with designing effective learning experiences. These factors must be considered whether the
goal is to make learners familiar with facts or if the goal is preparing learners to transform their
ideas into innovations. The design process centers on the needs of the learners, the goals of the
knowledge to be learned and the assessments needed to track progress of the learners toward the
goals. By considering the setting for learning and the community they want to join, the
successful designer will identify ways that motivate their learners to seek new interests and
knowledge they can use productively. Therefore, the designer could use these frameworks as
prompts, or heuristics, for identifying issues and opportunities they need to consider. They can
use them to generate questions about what more they need to investigate that will make their
learning environment more effective. The Understanding By Design model provide heuristics
and strategies for identify and organizing learning goals and align them with assessments
methods before jumping into the activity design. The How People Learn Framework provides
important links into theories of learning and knowing that can stimulate ideas about the kinds of
experiences learners engage in. The STAR.Legacy cycle provide an instructional model for
organize learning experiences that that naturally engage learners in a process of active learning
associated with the HPL framework.
The ideas in this white paper will are explored in more detail in future white papers on
knowledge mapping, assessments of and for learning and the designing challenge based learning
experiences for STEM education. These papers will provide additional context for using these
frameworks at effective design tools.
Version 1 – NEESacademy Instructional Design
Brophy – May 24, 2011
Acknowledgements
This white paper is made possible by a grant from the National Science Foundation as part of the
George E. Brown Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation. (NSF Award #0927178 from
the Civil, Mechanical and Manufacturing Innovation (CMMI) Division).
References
Bransford, J., A. Brown, and R. Cocking, (Commission on Behavioral and Social Science and
Education, National Research Council), “How People Learn: Body, Mind, Experience and
School,” National Academy Press, Washington D.C., 2000. Available online at
http://www.nap.edu/html/howpeople1/.
Bransford, J. D. & Schwartz, D. L. (1999). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple
implications. In A. Iran-Nejad and P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Review of Research in Education, 24,
61-100. Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research Association
Broady, H. S. (1977), Types of knowledge and purposes of Education. In R. C. Anderson, R. J.
Spiro, and W. E. Montague (Eds), Schooling and the acquisitions of knowledge (pp. 1-17),
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Krathwohl, D.R. 2002. A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into practice 41
(4):212-218.
Joeng, H., Biswas, G., Johnson, J. & Howard, L. Analysis of productive learning behaviors in a
structured inquiry cycle using hidden Markov models. Accepted to The 3nd Int. Conf. on
Educational Data Mining (EDM 2010).
Schwartz, D. L, Brophy, S., Lin, X. & Bransford, J. D. (1999) Software for managing complex
learning: Examples from an educational psychology course. Educational Technology Research
and Development. 47(2). p 39-60
Wiggins, G., and J. McTighe, “Understanding by Design,” Merrill Education/ASCD College
Textbook Series, ASCD, Alexandria,Virginia, 1998.
Version 1 – NEESacademy Instructional Design
Brophy – May 24, 2011
APPENDIX A – Worksheet table for planning a lesson
CHALLENGE QUESTION:
A question that frames the module and engages students in authentic activities like design, troubleshooting, analysis, planning, decision making with data.
Examples:
 If you are recovering from a broken left hip, in which hand should you hold a cane as you regain walking skills?
 As a bio engineer you are trying to maximize the longevity of cells in a bioreactor. What things will influence/determine how long the cells will live?
What question could you pose that would frame the content you wish to teach, relate to real life/student interest/future goals, and be something that students
know enough about to get started?
GENERATE IDEAS
MULTIPLE PERSPECTIVES
An activity that causes students to display
their current knowledge/ideas/perceptions.
Note that this can also be done in the form
of two questions: (1) What things do you
know that could help you answer this
question? (2) What things would you
need to know to answer this question?
Two or more outside resources
that provide information related to
the topic of the challenge.
Possible activities (all should include
some type of written record):
 Individually writing a narrative
 Whole-group brainstorming
 Small group brainstorming with
public sharing
 Think-write-pair-share
 Think-write-pair-shared-squared with
public sharing.
A.
B.
How will you have
students brainstorm?
What do you predict (and
hope) students will say?
Possible sources:
 Outside expert (live)
 Outside expert (on video)

Outside expert (transcripted
paragraph[s])
 Web site(s)
 Textbook excerpt
 Magazine article,
 Clip from video
 CD
What are two or more initial
perspectives or sources of
information you might have
students experience? Consider
video clips, journal articles,
newspaper articles, textbooks,
maps, scripted personal
interviews, specialists, etc. that
you might present.
RESEARCH & REVISE
Students are provided and seek additional
information. This may be in the form of
lecture, readings, websites, experiments
(physical and analytical) etc. Students
revise their original ideas based on new
information
Possible venues:
 In-class lectures
 Textbook and other readings
 All others listed in Multiple
Perspectives
 Interactive simulation
(Note that the majority of the “teaching
time” is in this section.)
Where some places and/or what are are
some sources you might send students to
gather more information? Consider the
internet, people (phone interviews), other
texts beyond the textbook, etc. Include
your own lecture presentations to the
class.
TEST YOUR METTLE
Students try out their ideas. Note that this is a
formative feedback activity; if the “test
results” are not positive, students may return
to the Research & Revise step again.
Possible venues:
 Seek feedback from other students on
product*
 Seek feedback from the teacher on
product*
*poster, essay, game, practice test, role
play, etc.
GO PUBLIC
Students display final conclusions
Possible venues:
 Test
 Oral presentation
 Poster/Project Report
 Role play
 Video documentary
(Note that depending on the success of Test
Your Mettle, students may again cycle back to
Research and Revise – multiple times.)
What ways can students get formative
assessment on their thinking? How can
they try out their ideas? Consider
academic games, projects, student
presentations with peer review, etc.
What test or completed projected
could students submitted for a
grade; what presentation could
they give? What other ideas do
you have?