# data[].attributes.body
On the Mesa website, assessments are not designed until step five. This is the fourth and final step on the Florida State website.

# data[].attributes.body
Leaning objectives are not designed until step 3 on the Mesa website. On the Florida State website step three, practice and homework activities are being developed.

# data[].attributes.body
Step one on the Mesa website differs from the Florida State one because it starts to map out the content before creating objectives.

# data[].attributes.body
Step 5 of the Mesa article is slightly different than the FSU article. Even though they both talk about assessments, the Mesa article is really detailed about the different assessments, and evening talks about rubrics to use to help students focus.

# data[].attributes.body
Step 2 of the Mesa article talks about mapping out the modules/learning unit and goes into detail on what materials should be used, activities to do, assignments to include, and what assessments to create to go with the unit. The FSU article does not go into much detail of what should be in each module.

# data[].attributes.body
The first step in FSU discusses the creation of objectives. In the Mesa article step one discusses creating a map to outline where you as the instructor want the course to go. It discusses what and where you want the unit to go

# data[].attributes.body
The FSU Design Plan (Step 4) and the MCC Design Plan (Step 5) both address assessment.  FSU’s plan talks about the different kinds of assessments such as tests, quizzes, papers, projects, and portfolios.  MCC’s Plan, on the other hand, defines the two types of assessment, formative and summative, after which it discusses the highly effective formative assessment known as C.A.T.s (Classroom Assessment Techniques).

# data[].attributes.body
FSU’s Step 2, entitled Developing Course Content, is different from MCC’s Step 4, which basically discusses the same topic- content.  FSU’s plan talks in generalities: Determine the content then consider the delivery.  MCC’s plan, in contrast, emphasizes using a detailed Conceptual Framework for developing content.

# data[].attributes.body
One step that is different between the Florida State University Design Plan and the Mesa Community College Design Plan is the step having to do with establishing/determining the learning objectives. The FSU Plan (in Step 1) mainly discusses the benefits of writing clear objectives.  The MCC Plan (in Step 3), in contrast, is much more specific.  It details how to use measurable verbs like those found in Blooms Taxonomy, and it references an easy framework, the ABCD Method, for creating learning objectives.

# data[].attributes.body
The two articles also differ on where the meat and potatoes tend to come. The Mesa article wants everything mapped out before course content is really tackled, whereas the FSU article has that as step 2. This is interesting because it alters where in the process assessment determination is stressed. The Mesa article reads as more of a "Teach what you are going to test" and the FSU article is a bit more "See what you taught and then assess it". There certainly is enough room for back and forth in both systems, it would seem.

# data[].attributes.body
The FSU discusses the benefits of homework and practice in Step 3, whereas the Mesa article lumps together practice with assessment in its Step 5; practice is treated rather cursorily and they instead spend their time delineating summative and formative assessments.

# data[].attributes.body
Step 1 in the mesa article is different in that it really takes you from the very beginning, almost back to "teaching 101" where they want you to block out goals that are big picture waystations. Step 1 of the FSU article already assumes this is completed.

# data[].attributes.body
In step four, this model has instructors organize content, then align to objectives… and change the things that don’t “fit” the objectives. Whereas, the previous model had instructors begin with the objectives and fit the content to meet the objectives.

# data[].attributes.body
In steps one and two we see that this model is much more outline structured. First instructors organize the content into large chunks, then into units, then further into the lessons. This is very like how textbooks are organized.

# data[].attributes.body
While not actually one of the five steps listed, this model emphasizes preparation before designing the unit. Instructors are to gather all the materials and resources involved to help make an organized map for course progression. I also appreciate that the authors advise instructors to consider the time frame for units. I think, also, that the model of blended learning (flipped, rotation, lab, etc) is an important factor, as instructors will need to decide what will be done online and what will be done in class.