[text art by labnol] 

Outcomes based curriculum development? Fuggedaboutit says George “The Godfather” Siemens. I’m not so sure. George’s point– that adherence to a structure or sequence can become rigid and counterproductive– is well taken. But at what point (and for whom) is this straitjacket a problem?

I think the primary issue really is organization– which has a bearing on effectiveness of course– not directly being more “effective” in the sense that “outcomes-based inherently education makes better learning.” The more important question about outcomes-based development (or any other model) is “for who?” and “at what level?”

Let me draw a parallel: when first learning how to write in a particular mode, writing with models and structures is usually good– jumping right into intuitive approaches to the overall production is effective for only a very small number of people. Which is why there’s nothing wrong with things like 5-paragraph essays and news articles structured using the inverted pyramid. Most will benefit from having that structure… those who could easily leap ahead are unlikely to be damaged (though they might get frustrated, as George’s point could be extended to). But, of course, that approach isn’t intended to last forever, or directly inform all instances of that kind of writing. Ultimately the framework either becomes one tool among many or– as is often the case with the particular development model we use with faculty– becomes a tool for introducing the concept of having some approach and a way to expose areas that may not be considered with other models or having no model at all. 

To further the parallel: the above is discussing form… what of the important matter of form and content that is intermixed, intertwingled, and symbiotic? People who have learned to write poems in forms will almost unanimously share the apparently paradoxical experience that at some point writing in a form with all the attendant rules leads to the experience of being able to express with a freedom never felt with free verse. I say “apparently” because we also have the concept that simple rules allow for complex, emergent behaviors, something that is far less often true of complex rules or no rules at all. Of course “mastering” a form then allows a writer, artist, or educator to tweak that very form into new and interesting “forms” of his or her own!

In general I’d rather err on the side of some initial confinement and less reliance on intuition than the muddle of haphazard activities that characterize much of the learning design we see coming in– particularly when it comes to technologically enhanced teaching when the temptation to use bright shiny tools is ever present. In the end, when working with groups or writing generally, we have to adopt approaches that we think will do good for the most people (or do the least harm), which makes a structured approach desirable. In the individual case that framework will usually give way– sometimes sooner, sometimes later– to an amenable compromise or an approach of informed and enlightened intuition.