1 e L E A f?

N I N G judith v, boettcher

The Rise of Student

Performance Content
Move over textbooks: Spontaneous, coursegmerated
content may be edging you out.
HOW MUCH CONTENT,and what type of content do we ILevl Vygotsky, [Jean] Piaget and other "active learning'
need for a course? Will content generated spontaneous- movements. Prepared bodies of content, as epitomized in
ly in the process of teaching and learning reduce the role the textbook, have traditionally supported the faculty-to-
of the textbook? Just as we have recently redefined our student communication flow. This is the same philosophy
concepts of a course, a physical classroom, and books, it that was rooted in the belief that learning happens when
is probably time to think more deeply about the role of students are 'told" concepts while sitting in a lecture hall
content in a course.
Predictions of the death of textbooks (John W. Moore, learning philosophiesposit that learners learn
-
or reading a textbook. Constructivist and social &-

"Are Textbooks Dis~ensable?"Journalof Chem- content when thev construct and build their

sortium proposals to develop actively dialoging with other st~dents.

open source educational software actlvely working with realistic and
(Freo M. Besnears, 'Tne Econom- complex problems. and gencratlng
ic Case for Creative Commons and bring~ngcontent to the course.
Textbooks: CTs eLearnlng Dla- Younger students, in particular,
logue eletter, Oct. 5. 2005) are ~ n - want to be 'doing,' and so are cre-
creas ngly the f o c ~ sof d:sc,sslons ating more of 1he.r own content ,n
on selecting and paying for content re- the process of learning. Thus, prs-
sources. Still, with~nthis quietlygrow- pared bodies of content will be
;ng whirlwind of commentary, he text- ~omp~emented oy co.lect~onsof
book as a substantive, vetted collection content freely available on the
of scholarlv content is still on its ~edestal Internet. combined with con-
as the primary source of course content. tent that is generated sponta-
r
Yet, to ward off concerns, publishers are neously in the process of stu-
responding with digital content initiatives K e n t learning.
and adding rich media content that is readily
and easily loaded into course management How Much Content Do We Need?
systems. These strategic moves mean that the 'textbook" Two closely related questions are: Just how much content
will likely remain a significant source of course content for do we need fora course? And, how do we achieve a clos-
some timeproviding significant convenience for the fac- er fit of content to any group of particular students?
-
ultv and for learners, as well as significant revenue for Vygotsky's concept of the "zoneof proximal development"
+------------
But other forces-separate from the issues of tecTi;-
suggests that more content choices need to be available
t o e n s mm c o m e n t~ . s i l n M - #
nologies, costs, and multiplying formats-may cause the concept of the "optimal mematch" of student and content
textbook to move over and share its pedestal. Simply stat- suggests that a textbook used In a linear approach and
ed, the role of content in a course is shifting, and that shift bounded by the physlcal constraints of a book might be
is linked to the influence of the teaching philosophies of less than optimal for many students. The goal of any

20 CAMPUS TECHNOLOGY i March 2W6

 course is for all the learners to achieve the specified per-
formance goals. We need flexibility and choice in the type
of content and availability of content to design learning
experiences that fit where students are in their learning.
Let's look at the three types of content in most online
courses today.
1-Prepackaged authoritative content. Prepackaged
authoritative content generally consists of materials collect-
ed into a textbook, representing vetted scholarship.
Prepackaged content is generally developed with the disci-
pline and content perspective as the primary driver; the spe-
cific learner and the learning context is abstract and
assumed. Prepackaged content often contributes about 3 0
to 40 percent of the content of a course and serves to pro-
vide content containing the core conceptsand principles of
the course. This content might also include problems, tests,
and auizzes forthe core concepts and principles. As for for-
mat, ;he textbook is slowly shifting from a physical bookand
Younger students want to be 'doing,' and are creating
more of their own content in the process Aearnina.
a CD, to a Web site and digital book. The textbooks of the
future may well be digital and portable. Recent product
announcements illustrate two possible formats. One format
by Findaway (www.findawav.org) combines an audiobook
with its own portable player; another new format by Sony
(www.sonv.com) provides a larger text-display screen that
is close to the size of a paperback book.
2-Guidediearning materials. Guided learning materi-
als are produced specifically for a course by a faculty mem-
ber. They include the content written by faculty prior to and
during a course, such as the syllabus, projects, assign-
ments, discussion reviews, and feedback to questions. The
content generated by the faculty includes the lecture con-
tent. In online learning, much of this content is developed
ahead of time, and used for two to three cycles of a course.
As this content is continually being massaged to fit particu-
lar sets of students, it is dynamic and customized. It is cre-
ated ahead of time, but not by much. This guided learning
material accounts for about 3 0 percent of a course, as well.
3-Interactive a n d spontaneous 'performance' con-
tent. The third type of content is created and identified by
students in the process of learning. Interactive and sponta-
neous content is "what happens during learningN-or "per-
formance" content. It is the content generated in discus-
sion-board postings and analyses, reflections, summaries,
and reviews. It is content created by individuals and teams
for projects and other assignments, including test prepara-
tion. It is the content generated in the solving of problems;
it is the drafts of problems, and even the wrong alleys of
22 R CAMPUS TECHNOLOGY 1 March 2006
learning. This course content might be "found" content,
including that of current news events, etc. that students
bring to the course experience. The purpose of most of this
spontaneous performance content is to stimulate and gen-
erate the lasting, more-permanent knowledge growth with-
in the individual students.
This learner-generatedcontent has always been a part of
learning, but it has been much less visible. The learner-cen-
tered trends-combined with reasonably easy access to
sophisticated audio, video capture and editing tools-are
now bringing this content type into focus. The fact of the
matter is, when using their newly developed skills to solve
new problems, students are often generating new content.
This "performance" content is the growing segment of
course content, and will probably increase to represent
about 3 0 to 3 5 percent of a course, and in graduate edu-
cation, possibly even more.
Value of Student Performance Content
Should we have svstems to sumort , , the use and recvclino
, u of
any of this spontaneous performance content? Though we
think of portfolio systems primarily as a tool for supporting
student assessment, perhaps some version of portfolios
might be useful for capturing and archiving significant stu-
dent-generated content. Perhaps we need a feedback loop
for student-created content to the open-source consortium
being proposed.
Yet, content is not king in learning. Content is one of the
tools to help students develop useful knowledge and skills.
A small portion of student performance content-if it is
new knowledge-will be useful to keep. Most of the stu-
dent performance content will be generated, then used,
and will become stored in places that will never again see
the light of day. Yet, having said that, it is still important to
understand that the role of this student content in learnino
is critical. The textbook content is the external body of
-
knowledge; the student performance content is the content
that shapes and molds the learner's unique knowledge
structures. [Ed. Note: For related reading on this topic,
don't miss the Faculty Guide for Moving Teaching and
Learning to the Web, by Judith V. Boettcher and Rita Marie
Conrad (League for Innovation, 2004).1 CT
Judith V. Boettcher is principal and founder of Designing
for Learning (www.desi~ninpforlearnina.infoi, offering
consulting and advising in feachingllearning technologies
for higher education.