Week 5 Research Blog Post

 In Chapter five of Rigor by Design, Not Chance by Karin Hess, Hess focuses on designing complex tasks. Hess begins this chapter by discussing performance-based assessments (PBAs) and how creating them as an educator is something that is done successfully with collaboration of other colleagues. Using this strategy allows equitable learning opportunities for every student. “Teachers form professional learning communities to build a common understanding of what “good enough” looks like in student work across classrooms and schools” (Hess, p. 94). Hess spends the majority of this chapter discussing how to design PBAs, the tasks and their complexity within them. Hess states, “complex performance assessments not only apply multiple skills, concepts, and strategies but also provide opportunities for disciplined inquiry and critical and creative thinking” (p. 96). These complex tasks can be outside of academic skills and can apply to interpersonal and intrapersonal skills as well. PBAs have seven common characteristics, the first four focusing on deep, authentic learning while the other three are more focused on pushing students out of their comfort zone. Hess explains that some tasks or assessments can be more challenging for students than others. The reason behind this is due to the DOK (cognitive engagement) which is only one part of task complexity. Tasks can be broken up into four types and fall into different DOK levels. The less complex tasks being type A (DOK 1 & 2) and type B (DOK 3 & 4). The more complex tasks being type D (DOK 1 & 2) and type C (DOK 3 & 4). Hess goes in depth about her three-part process, which includes an eight-step plan of designing PBAs, using the outline of her STARS (Scenario, Tasks, Audience, potential Roles & Resources available, and the Self-Assessment Success criteria) framework (Hess, p. 103). Educators can take these steps and align them with the Actionable Assessment Cycle: “Teachers use feedback and scaffolding with multiple PBAs of increasing complexity to advance learning” (Hess, p. 113).

After reading chapter five of Rigor by Design, Not Chance, I started searching for an article that relates to designing complex tasks. I found an article titled, The Four-Component Instructional Design Model by Jeroen J. G. van Merriënboer. This article focuses on the Four-Component Instructional Design Model (4C/ID), giving a concise description of the main characteristics of the 4C/ID model. Jeroen J. G. van Merriënboer shares how this design has become popular in education, “the four-component instructional design model (4C/ID) receives a lot of attention because it nicely fits current trends in education: (a) a focus on the development of complex skills or professional competencies, (b) increasing transfer of what is learned in school to new situations including the workplace, and (c) the development of 21st century skills that are important for lifelong learning” (p. 3). The 4C/ID model consists of four components: (1) learning tasks, (2) supportive information, (3) procedural information, and (4) part-task practice. The four components can be further explained by the design below: 

Component One: Inductive learning will only be possible to achieve when there is variability within the learning tasks (shown in the image; the triangles represent this). There are levels of complexity in the 4C/ID model, Jeroen J. G. van Merriënboer states, “to prevent cognitive overload, students will typically begin to work on relatively simple learning tasks and, as their expertise increases, work on more and more complex tasks” (p. 5). These are represented in the image as the green circles, students working on these tasks will often receiving support and guidance. 

Component two: During non-routine and routine skills, learning tasks can make an appearance. Supportive information (represented as the blue L-shaped forms) is where students are completing non-routine tasks such as, problem solving, reasoning and/or decision making. “Supportive information provides the link between what students already know (i.e., their prior knowledge) and what they need to know in order to perform the non-routine aspects of learning tasks” (van Merriënboer, p. 6).

Component three: Is the compared to the ‘step-by-step’ instructions telling how to perform a task given to the learner by a teacher (this is represented as the orange beams pointing up). “Instructional methods for the presentation of procedural information aim at a learning process that is known as rule formation: Learners use how-to instructions to form cognitive rules that couple particular – cognitive – actions to particular conditions” (van Merriënboer, p. 7). Once practiced extensively, these become automated schemas that allow learners routine tasks to be completed quickly, and errorless without conscious control. 

Component four: Part-task instructional methods (small yellow circles) are seen as things we do to strengthening of cognitive rules by extensive repetitive practice. Strengthening skills is a basic learning process that will lead to automated cognitive schemas. This skill is practiced daily by learners and improves their performance on whole tasks.

These four components are aligned with four basic learning processes:  (1) Learning tasks facilitate inductive learning, (2) supportive information facilitates elaboration, (3) procedural information facilitates rule formation, and (4) part-task practice facilitates strengthening of those rules (van Merriënboer, p. 7). The goal is to reach the transfer of learning, learners are able to apply the things they have learned to new situations inside and outside an educational setting. Meaningful learning tasks work toward the development of of skills, knowledge, and attitudes helping knowledge be found when facing new situations. By ordering tasks from simple to complex, lessening the amount of support and guidance they get, allows students to coordinate different aspects of performance in new situations. Learners have more cognitive resources available to them when they encounter new problem situations when they can complete routine complex skills fast and effortlessly.

Overall, both texts display how designing complex tasks are important to a student’s learning path. van Merriënboer and Hess make connections with how designed instruction can lend its hand in a learner's path to rigor. By learners taking strategic control and working through the different processes van Merriënboer and Hess created they can actively construct meaning or new cognitive schemas that allow for deep understanding and complex task performance.

References:

Hess, K. (2023). Rigor by design not change deeper thinking through actionable instruction and assessment. ARLINGTON VA. 

TheFour-Component Instructionaldesignmodel. (n.d.). https://www.4cid.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/vanmerrienboer-4cid-overview-of-main-design-principles-2021.pdf