# data[].attributes.body
I have been working as a teacher for 6 years now. The questions this reading raised have been going in my mind for a few years now. I was wondering how I could, as a teacher, keep the balance between the "form" and the "content" of the educational process. By "form" here I mean the state standards and the administrative work, and by "content" I mean, the learning objectives and assessments. Keeping this balance always seemed to me as a "theoretical" thing only that cannot be done in reality (unless you have been teaching the same class for a few years).

This reading has helped me make this distinction between both. In addition, it has not only shown me the way of "how" to keep this balance, but also convinced me that incorporating "Deep Design" is not actually any extra work. I have always wanted to help my students learn and grow, but the amount of work and time spent in planning was always the barrier. However, I now do agree that it is the same, if not less, amount of work. It helps you have meaningful activities in the classroom in lieu of time fillers. It is basically giving you the structure of your class (objectives) before you fill in the bricks (activities) in stead of building with bricks (activities) without having a structure (objectives).

I really liked how the reading pointed out the differences between activity-centered approach and student-centered approach. I also liked the series of steps in the learning process:
1. What will students learn (i.e. objectives).
2. How will they learn it (i.e. activities).
3. How deep and wide will they learn it (i.e. practice).
4. How will they show they've learned it (i.e. application / assessment).

I am sure the next time I am developing a course I will take these steps in mind and make sure to have it a student-centered class!

# data[].attributes.body
After reading the material and watching, the video I agree that there is a lot more needed from a teacher than the physical aspects of a teacher's (instructing, assigning, organizing, and assessing). It is true that these visual elements are important in learning but it should not end there. Most young teachers mainly focus on how to conduct themselves in classroom, be punctual, complete the syllabus on time, and overlook the need to help students integrate what they are learning and develop skills. I concur with the reading that teachers should take time to make teaching plans (have meetings with colleagues, pen in hand, laptop open, surrounded by textbooks, journals, magazines, and other teaching materials, including copies of state academic standards and the district's curriculum) and come up with the instruction design which a long term plan. Deep design requires ‘deep work' because it doesn't only concentrate on how to deliver information but also focus on best the learners can assimilate the information and develop long term skills. Without a deep instruction design, learning will not be complete since the students will not be adequately acquainted in terms of information and skills. Instruction design should be more students learning centered and this can only be achieved by collaborating with seniors colleagues to help formulate the teachings plans.  In conclusion, I agree on need for instruction design and lesson plans that are student focused that will enhance the true purpose of teaching. With instructional design, I will be a better teacher.

# data[].attributes.body
When comparing my initial attempt to define instructional design against the provided explanation of it, I caught myself not emphasizing the “what students will learn” and “how students will learn” dynamic enough.  I must confess, as a third-year high school instructor, my curriculum is still more activity-oriented than I would like.  Ideally, we would be learning against the backdrop of some specific narrative/theme we could refer every concept back to throughout the unit.  For example, I could build the unit often titled “The Chemistry of Life” around the theme of nutrition.  Everything from the periodic table to macromolecules (carbohydrates, lipids, proteins, and nucleic acids) could, in some way, be directly applied to the foods we eat - something the student is familiar with and not intimidated by.  The unfortunate truth is that this approach does demand an incredible amount of time to plan such a unit – something I often do not have.  So many ideas, so little time…

The portion of the reading that summarized the primary strength of deep design - which I agree with - is as follows: “The benefit of shifting the planning focus to deep design is that looking at the bigger picture of what you and your students are doing—and why you are doing it—prepares you to explain to students, colleagues, and other stakeholders how your instruction will lead to lasting student learning.”  As an intro biology teacher, one of the greatest compliments I’ve received from a former student was something along the lines of “Biology wasn’t my favorite class, but I did learn to appreciate science and still continue to learn about it.”

I tell my students on day one that intro biology is going to be one of the hardest classes they will take over the course of their entire freshman year.  However, my ultimate goal for them is to develop/discover lifelong learning habits that work for them; they need to learn how to learn.  I constantly try to place my students in Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development.  This is the learning principle which places learners in a position where they must acquire outside aid in order to answer a question, respond to a prompt, solve a problem, etc.  In short, their knowledge on the topic alone will not be enough for the task at hand.  Aid may be in the form of their textbook, having to ask me a question (Gasp! What an inhumane thing to ask of a high school student!), internet research outside of class, etc.  From a CIMT class I took at ISU a few years ago, I was taught the expression “It takes a village to raise a child.” was loosely inspired by this learning approach.

# data[].attributes.body
The point I absolutely agree with is in regards to how most new teachers are not necessarily concerned with the deep design discussed in the readings in their first year...and maybe even first couple of years!  I can remember being a first year teacher thinking that I was only about five minutes ahead of the class at all times and even day to day design was a challenge.  For new teachers, it is imperative to rely on the leadership in the department to do they heavy lifting of the deep design until the new teachers are ready to assume a larger role in this important process.
After I had taught Pre-calculus for two years, I finally approached the AP Calculus teacher and said, "What do you want the students to know when they enter your classroom?"  This conversation sparked my first experience with deep design as we began meeting on a regular basis (binders, pens, and standards in hand as described in the reading!) to map out our students' learning experiences over a much longer term than anything I had ever planned on my own.  And as mentioned, deep design can be done by an individual teacher but I have found it much more meaningful, helpful, and effective when it is done with other teachers in the same content area.
The last thing I will say about instructional design is that doing instructional design is when I feel like a TRUE teacher. Yes, leading a classroom is great, but the instructional design work that goes on behind the scenes to make the class a meaningful learning experience is when I feel like a professional educator.

# data[].attributes.body
With instructional design focusing more on student learning than the typical day- by-day lesson plans, instructors can more easily focus on students’ needs, rather than minute-by-minute planning. In an ideal setting, all instructors would keep students’ needs in mind when developing the course work and assessments; unfortunately, that goal is often overshadowed due to requirements of a department – or school district. However, while the rationale behind student-centered teaching seems obvious – and critically important for student success – meeting those standards can result in more work for instructors. It’s certainly easy to get caught up in the details, to focus on homework assignments and pre-made assessments.

Therefore, I would agree that thinking of students first, rather than established assignments, can result in instructors needing more time to plan and create both assessments and activities. By taking into consideration what the students should learn, rather how to do it, instructors can work on developing coursework that meets those goals, which often results in better student interaction and focus. However, with the focus on what the students should learn, I wonder how this is integrated with different learning styles. With some being visual learners while others learning through examples or reading, I wonder how best to incorporate the student-centered approach in instructional design when dealing with an entire class.

Creating activities and assessments oriented for students’ needs can be challenging, and I wonder how instructors organize their time and focus to both meet those needs and create their own, authentic materials.

# data[].attributes.body
These were some very thought-provoking points regarding instructional design and the differences between the teacher-centered classroom and the student-learning centered classroom. I feel that often times, a beginning teacher is so overwhelmed with the whole process of teaching that their approach is more teacher-centered. However, with solid mentoring and experience, they can transform into more of a student-learning centered approach. This was certainly the case for me when I started teaching.
I feel it is essential to understand your students and provide them opportunities to think critically and analyze information at a deeper level, with long-term skill acquisition being the goal.
Although I do not think that approaching instruction from a student-learning center approach takes more time, time constraints on the teacher are often a factor in how instruction is done.

# data[].attributes.body
After reading the statements above, there are multiple points in which I agree, but none that I can say I disagree with.

I believe it's important to continually examine the instructional design set in place to make sure it is geared toward the specific students and goals, which may change over time.

I believe instruction design allows for more effective time management which leads to a deeper knowledge and understanding for students. Since it's not planned out minute by minute this facilitates more student-learning by allowing students the time to fully understand rather than being pushed through to meet a time constraint each class period, or having to fill time because assignments or lessons are finished early.

Instructional design preparing students for their futures should be at the heart of the work because that's why we teach. We teach for the students to learn and gain a deep knowledge and understanding.

Knowing where the instruction is headed in the long term is essential to understanding what to do in the short term. I agree with this because by knowing the game plan, is what is going to allow the short term goals to be successful and ultimately make the long term goals successful which is the goal in helping our students be successful in their future, which we do by making sure they are fully prepared by each lesson we teach to them.

Which leads me to the last point that I agree with: any lesson plan that does not focus on student learning is incomplete. All lessons should be geared toward student learning, because what is the point of our job if the students are not learning? Student-learning should always be the focal point of each and every lesson, assignment, and activity.

My impression about instructional design now is more in-depth than it was before. Now I see that so much more goes into instructional design. Instructional design is focused on student-learning, which I always felt should be the focus but now I have a better understanding of what goes into making that happen, such as planning what to teach (designing instruction) and how the students will learn it (deep design). Instructional design is a vital aspect of learning and with all the technology and resources at our fingertips when used properly can really be taken to new heights for students to learn.

# data[].attributes.body
After reading I agree that the lesson plans and instructional design are for the students. And not only are they for the students, but they are for the long-term retention and knowledge base of the students.
This reading raised an interesting point that I hadn't really thought about until after reading. The idea that how the students think and what they need to learn in the bigger picture as a way to decide on more specific things is fascinating. I don't have much experience in this field but I can see how the "deep design" aspect of instructional design can be daunting and distract from the tasks at hand.
After reading this my impression of instructional design has changed. Before I thought the main focus of teachers would be what activities they would need to perform and what tasks to assign the students. But, after reading I can see how short-sighted this notion was. "Deep design"  is less concerned with things like teacher performance and classroom events and more concerned with the development of student's intellectual skills.
The part that I agree with most is in the last paragraph. The fact that instruction design is for teachers, administrators, and most of all students. While the lesson plans, activities, and events are all planned around materials and time management and state-required curriculum the overarching goal is to establish a yearning for knowledge in the students and to address the long-term outcomes for students by focusing on the kinds of thinking they do.
Instructional design excites me because it is all about helping people reach their full potential by paying attention to specific needs for learning. I feel as though instructional design paves the way for a brighter future.

# data[].attributes.body
I do not know if I have an adequate knowledge base to agree or disagree with the above concepts of instructional design or deep design. I do have some practical issues or questions that have emerged while reading this first section. As a side note before I list them, I would also mention that I completed a curriculum course this summer that had me thinking how to re-design the college psychology courses I am teaching this fall. I am applying a similar line of thinking by looking at the learning objectives, content, and then developing learning activities and assessments (formal and informal) around those objectives. By the way, the students loved the 1st day of class. Here are some challenges/issues I see in this type of learning program:

At a college level, course learning objectives and content are already pre-determined.

Time constraints: Even the 1st day of class, I am seeing how time constraints are going to be an issue.

Especially in introductory courses, the breadth of material is so wide this becomes a challenge with instructional design learning.  This semester, I am attempting to address this challenge by having a topic that fits several chapters. For example (in Introduction to Psychology), growth mindset learning will encompass the chapter on the brain, life span development, memory, and thinking. We shall see how this works.

For this type of learning to be most beneficial, students must come prepared to class. That is usually not the case. Why? The students, not the teacher, write the essential question(s). There's seems to be little difference between a traditional PBL experience and a deep design thinking experience if the educator is giving a brief: design thinking merely adds some structure. Is this correct?

At the elementary to high school level, it maybe less the approach that becomes a challenge as it is the practice that ends up occurring as people find themselves pushed back into the status quo of assessment accountability and content coverage.

How is this different from the traditional Montessori schools and other systems that have been developed?