Towards Deep Learning in the University through Collaborative

Instructional Design based on Learning Outcomes and Threshold

Concepts

Jack Fernando Bravo-Torres

1,2 a

, Mar

ıa Dolores Fern

andez P

erez

1 b

Cinthya Mar

ıa Cevallos-Lude

3 c

, Wilson Daniel Bravo-Torres

4 d

and Esteban Fernando Ordo

nez-Morales

2 e

Escuela Internacional de Doctorado, Doctorado en Educaci

on, Universidad Nacional de Educaci

on a Distancia,

Madrid, Spain

Grupo de Investigaci

on en Telecomunicaciones y Telem

atica (GITEL), Universidad Polit

ecnica Salesiana del Ecuador,

Cuenca, Ecuador

Facultad de Filosof

ıa, Letras y Ciencias de la Educaci

on, Universidad de Cuenca, Cuenca, Ecuador

Grupo de Investigaci

on en Rehabilitaci

on Oral (GIRO), Universidad de Cuenca, Cuenca, Ecuador

Keywords:

Collaborative Teaching, Learning Outcomes, Threshold Concepts, Teacher Cloisters, Conceptual Structure of

Knowledge.

Abstract:

This article presents a proposal for the development of a collaborative curriculum and instructional design

at the university. It starts from the premise that teaching-learning processes at any level of training must be

designed, managed and implemented in a collaborative way, supported by teacher structures grouped around

their domains of knowledge. Moreover, we consider as central axes of all curricular and instructional design

a correct selection and structuring of the contents to be studied, based on the identiﬁcation of the conceptual

structures of the topics under study (threshold concepts and their interlinkages) together with an appropriate

deﬁnition of the desired learning outcomes and evaluation tools.

1 INTRODUCTION

Today’s society is characterized by the preponderance

that information and knowledge have taken in the gen-

eration of wealth and in the very development of so-

cial and economic life (North et al., 2018). This has

been favored by advances in information and com-

munication technologies, mobile systems, microelec-

tronics, and greater storage capabilities, processing

and access to data almost ubiquitously. This tech-

nological evolution leads us to a potentialization of

the world of work, allowing the execution of more

complex tasks and the automation of routine pro-

cesses. This reality leads people and organizations

to carry out their activities in an environment of

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9994-6063

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5026-8660

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8331-5443

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9431-1808

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2000-5883

high volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambigu-

ity (Bongiorno et al., 2018), which in turn implies a

change in the structure and future of work (Steiner,

2020). Thus, greater competitive advantage is given

to those with the ability to learn (Rimbau, 2013) and

skills for creativity, innovation, imagination and de-

sign (Brown et al., 2017): the so-called knowledge

workers.

As can be seen, this new social situation creates

a series of challenges for workers and for their train-

ing (North et al., 2018). We need professionals with

a deep understanding of the main concepts that struc-

ture their disciplines, enabling them to act on the basis

of that knowledge, moving from knowledge to com-

petence, and from competence to action; with a train-

ing that allows them to be aware of the complexity of

the environment, and of learning as a means to deal

with it. From this perspective, it is clear that contem-

porary society is affecting the university, as a social

organization, in all its organizational structure, pro-

cesses and in the organizational culture itself. On the

Bravo-Torres, J., Fernández Pérez, M., Cevallos-Ludeña, C., Bravo-Torres, W. and Ordoñez-Morales, E.

Towards Deep Learning in the University through Collaborative Instr uctional Design based on Learning Outcomes and Threshold Concepts.

DOI: 10.5220/0011092200003182

In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2022) - Volume 2, pages 543-548

ISBN: 978-989-758-562-3; ISSN: 2184-5026

543

one hand, the training requirements of students and

professionals have changed drastically, but, above all,

they are highly dynamic. For example, in the ﬁeld

of engineering, especially those related to electronics,

telecommunications and computing, the rate of tech-

nological change is such that it is impossible to cover

it completely during a four-year training period (Kay-

nak and Sait, 2020).

In this same environment of uncertainty, univer-

sity teaching must change in order to adjust and an-

ticipate the needs of those who are not just students,

but extend to society as a whole and its institutions.

Teachers are committed to developing skills for in-

teraction and knowledge generation in a distributed

way, based on networking, and with local and global

collaborative groups; which, in turn, involves extend-

ing their skills to manage diversity; and, ﬁnally, the

capacity for constant learning and innovation (North

et al., 2018). Similarly, as teachers, we face, from

the educational point of view, generations of stu-

dents with characteristics not seen in previous peri-

ods (Moore et al., 2017) and that lead to teaching and

learning being rethought. We are facing students ac-

customed to immediacy in information and results;

with technology as an environment of natural interac-

tion, and without the ability to approach information

in depth (Beamish, 2016).

Thus, in recent years, there has been a great inter-

est in the academic community for a series of method-

ological strategies to enrich teaching processes in the

ﬁeld of science and engineering to stimulate students’

deep learning (Graham, 2018; Finelli and Froyd,

2019). Within this background of research, based on

the recommendations made by the American Society

of Engineering Education, in conjunction with other

organizations, three critical areas are proposed that

should be addressed (Finelli and Froyd, 2019): (i) im-

prove student learning in undergraduate engineering

education, (ii) improve and diversify the paths of en-

gineering students to increase retention, and (iii) use

technology to improve learning, and participation and

commitment in engineering.

Our interest is mainly focused on generating con-

tributions in the ﬁrst critical area. So, starting from the

question, who and what should we change in our work

to improve learning in undergraduate engineering ed-

ucation?, (Finelli and Froyd, 2019) propose four di-

rections for action: (i) change of organizational cul-

ture, (ii) research into effective evaluation practices,

(iii) promote the adoption of research-based teach-

ing practices, and (iv) characterize the development

of successful faculties. In this sense, these authors

show that in the literature there is a large set of re-

search (Umbach, 2007; Elrod and Kezar, 2017) that

relates the decisions and practices of instruction and

evaluation with aspects of the organization (depart-

ments, faculties, association of teachers): teachers

tend to generate a common practice. This aspect is

shown as an important point, and even a barrier to

overcome, when generating changes in higher educa-

tion. Thus, in accordance with this vision, this work,

in the ﬁrst instance, seeks to analyze a new form of

organizational structure, the so-called ”teacher clois-

ter”, as a central axis in the deployment of strategies

for the promotion of students’ deep learning.

Regarding research on effective evaluation prac-

tices, several studies show the importance of for-

mative evaluation (Irons, 2007; McTighe and Wig-

gins, 2012; Qadir et al., 2020), feedback (Limniou

and Smith, 2014; McConlogue, 2020) and remedi-

ation (Karpicke, 2017) as strategies to improve stu-

dent learning. However, it is clear that the desired

learning outcomes need to be articulated so that they

are clearly known by students (Finelli and Froyd,

2019) and that, in addition, those outcomes to guide

the entire learning process (Biggs and Collis, 2014).

This step is fundamental and must be supported by

a wide range of professionals who deﬁne these out-

comes (Finelli and Froyd, 2019). In line with the

above, appropriate tasks and assessment tools should

be designed so that students can demonstrate the ex-

tent of the proposed outcomes. In this sense, our pro-

posal shares the criteria of (Biggs and Collis, 2014)

and (McTighe and Wiggins, 2012) regarding the cen-

trality of evaluation to improve the performance and

learning of students; but, we consider it transcendent

that, in addition to the evaluation criteria and instru-

ments, the instructional design must be based on a

structuring of knowledge, based on the threshold con-

cepts of each discipline and its relationships.

In this context, the organizational structure of the

university, in particular the organisation of teaching

staff, and instructional design for the training of fu-

ture professionals should be rethought to provide an

education that enables students to achieve deep learn-

ing and the skills needed to manage complexity and

uncertainty; while implementing a collaborative and

transdisciplinary teaching and learning process. That

is, the teaching process cannot be seen as an indi-

vidual activity of each teacher, disconnected from the

activity of the other teachers of the degree; but must

be assumed as a collective action. From our point of

view, an instructional design based on results-based

pedagogical actions (Biggs, 2011; Biggs and Collis,

2014) and on threshold concepts (Stern et al., 2017),

and supported by a teaching structure that stimulates

joint instructional design and collaborative teaching

can enhance deep learning (Biggs and Collis, 2014)

of university students.

This article is organized as follows. In Section II,

CSEDU 2022 - 14th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

544

we present the main foundations that support our pro-

posal of instructional design and collaborative teach-

ing, focusing on the conceptualization of ”teacher

cloisters” and pedagogical proposals based on learn-

ing outcomes and threshold concepts. Then, in Sec-

tion III, we brieﬂy describe the interactions that are

presented in curriculum design between teachers and

students. Finally, Section IV concludes the paper and

points out some lines of future work.

2 BACKGROUND

As discussed in the previous section, our instructional

design proposal is based on two key aspects: (i) a col-

laborative teaching process through the organization

of teachers’ work in the so-called ”teacher cloisters”

and (ii) the structuring of knowledge and the design

of the teaching and learning process based on learning

outcomes and threshold concepts. In this section, we

will address the main features of these two aspects.

2.1 Areas of Knowledge and Teacher

Cloisters

In general, areas of knowledge can be seen as a way to

organize the university’s teaching staff. For example,

in the case of the Salesian Polytechnic University of

Ecuador (UPS), where this vision was implemented,

previously, teaching staff gathered around careers and

faculties, but this distribution generated a partial view

of knowledge; In addition, it was intended to gener-

ate rivalries between faculties, a sense of belonging

to the faculty and not to the university, as well as an

underutilization of teaching resources and capacities.

In this context, the idea of areas of knowledge is the

grouping of teachers not by faculties but by the area of

science in which they specialize. In this way, the hu-

man capital of the university can serve all the careers

and/or projects that are generated (research, curric-

ula, postgraduate, etc.). It should also be noted that

the multidisciplinary and transdisciplinary nature is

directly present in the project under implementation,

which does not represent a faculty but the university,

and in which the professors will intervene from the

multiple areas.

Within these macro structures of educational or-

ganization, teachers are subdivided into teacher clois-

ters, made up of those teachers who belong to a spe-

ciﬁc domain of knowledge within the broad ﬁeld of

the area. In turn, these cloisters incorporate research

groups and/or educational innovation groups. For ex-

ample, again, with regard to UPS, the Teacher Clois-

ter of Telecommunications brings together the Re-

search Group on Telecommunications and Telemat-

ics (GITEL), with its lines of research: telemedicine,

e-learning, e-agriculture, optical communications,

wireless communications; and the Group on Edu-

cational Innovation in Telecommunications (GIET),

with its lines of innovation and action: design of

learning methodologies, generation of teaching mate-

rials, shared evaluation methodologies, evaluation of

teaching actions, coordination of subjects associated

with their ﬁeld of study (this allows the cloisters to

relate to the undergraduate and postgraduate careers

that require their services).

Note at this point that the management of teaching

and learning supported by the cloisters allows teach-

ers to ﬁnd a natural space for their research activi-

ties within research groups and for innovation in their

teaching, through educational innovation groups. Of

course, for this to make sense, there is a coordina-

tion structure between the faculty and the directors of

the innovation and research groups. This allows di-

rect interrelationships between innovative educational

and research processes to be generated, and students

can be involved in the research carried out by these

groups, since they are invited to participate in ad hoc

research projects, with which research and teaching

are interrelated and support the learning of students.

2.2 Learning Outcomes and Threshold

Concepts in Instructional Design

In the development of university teaching, and in gen-

eral of any of the levels of formation, one of the fun-

damental tasks corresponds to the instructional de-

sign of the courses to be imparted. This activity is

key to student learning because it clearly deﬁnes the

learning objectives and the processes, tools and ma-

terials that will be applied to achieve them. More-

over, our choices in design will be the result of the

different conceptions, conscious or unconscious, that

we possess about what teaching means. This also ap-

plies to our and the students’ understanding of learn-

ing (Biggs, 2011). For example, from a superﬁcial

view of learning students intend to execute their tasks

with minimal effort, with the apparent view that they

meet the requirements of the course. This also leads

to students using low-level cognitive abilities, rather

than high-level ones when they are required. How-

ever, this way of conceiving learning is closely linked

to the teaching process. From a superﬁcial perspec-

tive, teaching is seen as the delivery of content in the

form of lists, without showing an intrinsic structure

of the topics; with evaluations focused, in the same

way, on independent facts. On the contrary, a deep

approach to learning presents students who seek to

Towards Deep Learning in the University through Collaborative Instructional Design based on Learning Outcomes and Threshold Concepts

545

meaningfully appropriate tasks, with a conceptual, re-

lational and structural approach to the topics under

study. This action is stimulated by the teaching work

that develops an approach to knowledge from a struc-

tural vision, with the purpose of an active learning,

with evaluation as a form of positive stimulation of

that learning (Biggs, 2011; Biggs, 2014; Biggs and

Collis, 2014).

From the perspective of students’ deep learning,

one of the proposals in the literature is the so-called

aligned constructivism (Biggs, 2014) that mixes a

constructivist approach—with the idea that the ap-

prentice builds his knowledge from the interpreta-

tions he develops from his pre-existing schemes—

and alignment—as a principle of curriculum theory

that states that assessment tasks are aligned with what

is intended to be learned—. In this proposal, the

expected results specify the activity that the student

must develop if he or she wishes to achieve the desired

result together with the content to which that activity

refers, how it should be learned and under what stan-

dard it will be evaluated. The underlying idea is that

if the student knows how he or she will be evaluated

and with what quality he or she is expected to develop

that activity, the students will tend to reach that level,

which can be profound, depending on the teacher’s

perspectives (Biggs, 2011). An idea similar to that

of aligned constructivism, although with variations in

how to conceive of evaluation as a tool to test learning

rather than as part of the teaching and learning pro-

cess, is the backward design (Wiggins et al., 2005).

Here, the ﬁrst step of the design is the identiﬁcation

of the desired results, followed by the determination

of acceptable evidence (evaluation) to ﬁnish with the

learning and instructional experiences. As we can see,

in both cases, the learning results and the evaluation

are the key points of the instructional design on which

the other instances of planning are articulated.

A different conceptualization of the instructional

design process is that in which the contents are fun-

damental when designing the teaching and learning

process. From this perspective, for example, concept-

based curriculum design (Stern et al., 2017) tells us

that abstraction at the conceptual level is fundamen-

tal to understanding problems and creating solutions.

That is, independent facts do not allow a proper trans-

fer to other contexts. In this sense, traditional curricu-

lum models based on content coverage rarely produce

deep and transferable learning (Stern et al., 2017;

Burch et al., 2015). And this is even more dramatic

when we focus on the area of engineering, especially

communication technologies, where the rate of tech-

nological change is extremely high. In this context,

it is necessary to promote formative processes that

allow the development of synergistic thinking where

there is a cognitive interrelation between low and con-

ceptual levels according to the needs of individuals.

Therefore, it is essential to establish the contents to

be taught, but from a structuring of knowledge based

on concepts and their relationships, not simply as lists

of topics to be addressed. From this same perspec-

tive, the determination of threshold concepts (Meyer

and Land, 2006; Burch et al., 2015)—deﬁned as those

concepts that allow students to open their thinking to a

new and broader form of understanding of some topic,

which could not be accessible without their study—

together with the identiﬁcation of those troublesome

concepts—concepts of wide complexity for students

due to their level of abstraction or their requirements

of mastery of previous knowledge— are fundamental

to the time of establish such a conceptual structure to

enable the approach, deep understanding and subse-

quent transfer to new contexts.

In general, our view is that, in instructional design,

learning outcomes and assessment processes along

with the knowledge structure based on threshold con-

cepts are central to pursuing deep learning, allowing

the harmonisation of all elements of the teaching and

learning process. However, it is necessary to change

the vision of teaching as an individual action of teach-

ers towards a new structure of design, planning and

execution of a collaborative teaching, supported by

the formation of academic cloisters. In the next sec-

tion, we present a ﬁrst proposal that allows us to ap-

proach this type of collaborative design.

3 TOWARDS A

COLLABORATIVE

INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN

FOCUSED on CONCEPTUAL

STRUCTURE AND LEARNING

OUTCOMES

As mentioned in the preceding sections, this proposal

is based on a principle of collaborative teaching, sup-

ported by teacher cloisters. Figure 1 shows the differ-

ent stages of the teaching and learning process, and

interrelations that are generated between the teachers

of the cloister. The design phase corresponds to the

instructional design of the subject, which is an activ-

ity that is executed among the teachers belonging to

the domain in which this subject is inserted. That is,

this whole process is not developed individually by

the teacher who dictates this subject, but he coordi-

nates a working group that is responsible for the en-

tire design process, which includes the structuring of

CSEDU 2022 - 14th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

546

contents, the desired learning standards, the evalua-

tion tools and the experiences and learning resources

needed to achieve the desired results. In a second

phase, the proposed design is put into effect; this ac-

tivity is individual (or group, according to the teach-

ing modality of the university) and is implemented

by the professor in charge of the subject and/or his

collaborators. A third stage, which develops as the

proposal is implemented, corresponds to the control

and feedback stage. In it, again, the teacher cloister,

speciﬁcally the teachers of the corresponding domain,

analyze the preliminary and/or ﬁnal data, as appropri-

ate, of the evaluation and assessment processes de-

signed, in order to take the necessary corrective mea-

sures during implementation and to improve the ini-

tial design.

Control and

feedback

(Teacher Cloisters)

Design

(Teacher Cloisters)

Implementation

(Teacher)

Figure 1: Phases of the teaching and learning process, and

its relationship with the teacher cloisters.

With respect to instructional design it rests on a

fully interactive multilayer architecture, which im-

plies a cross-layer structure, so that the information

provided from the various layers can be used by the

others in the design process. Conceptually, this archi-

tecture has ﬁve layers or levels (see Figure 2) that will

be described in the following subsections.

Level of Conceptual Structure

This level of the instructional design process will

identify the different threshold concepts and problem

concepts associated with the topic of study, as well

as the relationships that are generated between them

and with the previous knowledge that students must

possess to be able to face them. The expected result

is the conceptual structure of the knowledge that will

be addressed throughout the course, and prioritizing a

structure based on threshold concepts. For the devel-

opment of this level is expected the joint work of the

teachers of the domain, experts in these topics, and, if

possible, the participation of students who have stud-

ied this subject, to detect the problematic concepts

Learning Experiences

and

Instruction

Evaluation and Assessment

Desired Learning Outcomes

Conceptual Structure

Figure 2: Architecture of the instructional design process

focused on a conceptual structure and learning outcomes.

and their motivations.

Level of Desired Learning Outcomes

Following the proposal of (Biggs and Collis, 2014), at

this level, our intention is that both teachers and stu-

dents be aware of the different levels of understanding

required in the course, for each of the aspects stud-

ied. To this end, at this level, the teaching team will

propose the desired learning results, which must be

achieved after the teaching process and must clearly

specify what to do and under what standards the stu-

dent will demonstrate these achievements.

Level of Evaluation and Assessment

At this point, following the perspective of the back-

ward design proposed by (Wiggins et al., 2005), it is

necessary to determine how we will recognize that the

student has achieved the desired result? That is, at this

level, teachers will design assessment and evaluation

activities and instruments that will allow feedback

on the student’s learning process and the teacher’s

teaching process and also, generate the correspond-

ing scores for your accreditation. The design perspec-

tive that is prioritized is that the evaluation activities

are part of the teaching process and therefore must be

structured so that the student can deepen his learning

from them, more than obtain a score and the accredi-

tation of the achievement of the desired results.

Level of Learning and Instructional Experiences

Finally, with all the information obtained at the pre-

vious levels, it corresponds to this point the design of

different learning experiences and instruction so that

Towards Deep Learning in the University through Collaborative Instructional Design based on Learning Outcomes and Threshold Concepts

547

students reach the desired levels of understanding. At

this level of design, according to the proposed degrees

of comprehension, the established knowledge struc-

ture, the area of knowledge and the evaluation instru-

ments developed, teachers will establish methodolo-

gies, activities and teaching resources needed to sys-

tematically provide students with experiences that en-

able them to achieve the desired level of performance.

As can be seen, this instructional design proposal

is based on the conceptual structure of knowledge and

evaluation as essential aspects in the harmonization of

the teaching and learning process, for the achievement

of deep learning in university students.

4 CONCLUSIONS

In this article we have presented the conceptual de-

scription of a proposal of instructional design at uni-

versity level that, unlike other proposals present in

the literature, is based on the collaborative action of

teachers belonging to a domain of knowledge within

a teacher cloister. To this end, the conceptual struc-

ture of knowledge to be taught is deﬁned as central

and harmonizing aspects of the teaching and learn-

ing process (threshold and troublesome concepts) and

the clear deﬁnition of the desired learning outcomes

together with the tools for assessing and evaluating

those outcomes. Our intention is to test this proposal

through the Teacher Cloisters of Telecommunications

of the Salesian Polytechnic University of Ecuador, in

the area of mobile and wireless communications, in

the Career of Telecommunications Engineering.

REFERENCES

Beamish, R. (2016). The Promise of Sociology: Classical

Approaches to Contemporary Society. University of

Toronto Press.

Biggs, J. (2014). Constructive alignment. HERDSA Review

of Higher Education, 1:25.

Biggs, J. B. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at univer-

sity: What the student does. McGraw-hill education

(UK).

Biggs, J. B. and Collis, K. F. (2014). Evaluating the qual-

ity of learning: The SOLO taxonomy (Structure of the

Observed Learning Outcome). Academic Press.

Bongiorno, G., Rizzo, D., and Vaia, G. (2018). Cios and the

digital transformation: a new leadership role. In CIOs

and the digital transformation, pages 1–9. Springer.

Brown, J., Gosling, T., Sethi, B., Sheppard, B., Stubbings,

C., Sviokla, J., and Zarubina, D. (2017). Workforce of

the future: The competing forces shaping 2030. Lon-

don: PWC.

Burch, G. F., Burch, J. J., Bradley, T. P., and Heller,

N. A. (2015). Identifying and overcoming threshold

concepts and conceptions: Introducing a conception-

focused curriculum to course design. Journal of Man-

agement Education, 39(4):476–496.

Elrod, S. and Kezar, A. (2017). Increasing student success

in stem: Summary of a guide to systemic institutional

change. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning,

49(4):26–34.

Finelli, C. J. and Froyd, J. E. (2019). Improving student

learning in undergraduate engineering education by

improving teaching and assessment. Advances in En-

gineering Education.

Graham, R. (2018). The global state of the art in engineer-

ing education. Massachusetts Institute of Technology

(MIT) Report, Massachusetts, USA.

Irons, A. (2007). Enhancing learning through formative

assessment and feedback. Routledge.

Karpicke, J. D. (2017). Retrieval-based learning: A decade

of progress. Grantee Submission.

Kaynak, O. and Sait, S. M. (2020). Engineering education

at the age of digital transformation.

Limniou, M. and Smith, M. (2014). The role of feedback in

e-assessments for engineering education. Education

and Information Technologies, 19(1):209–225.

McConlogue, T. (2020). Assessment and feedback in higher

education: A guide for teachers.

McTighe, J. and Wiggins, G. (2012). Understanding by de-

sign framework. Alexandria, VA: Association for Su-

pervision and Curriculum Development.

Meyer, J. H. and Land, R. (2006). Threshold concepts and

troublesome knowledge: An introduction. In Over-

coming barriers to student understanding, pages 27–

42. Routledge.

Moore, K., Frazier, R. S., et al. (2017). Engineering educa-

tion for generation z. American Journal of Engineer-

ing Education (AJEE), 8(2):111–126.

North, K., Maier, R., and Haas, O. (2018). Value cre-

ation in the digitally enabled knowledge economy. In

Knowledge Management in Digital Change, pages 1–

29. Springer.

Qadir, J., Taha, A.-E. M., Yau, K.-L. A., Ponciano, J., Hus-

sain, S., Al-Fuqaha, A., and Imran, M. A. (2020).

Leveraging the force of formative assessment & feed-

back for effective engineering education.

Rimbau, G., E. (2013). La direcci

on de persones en la so-

ciedad del conocimiento. Technical report, Universi-

dad Oberta de Catalu

na.

Steiner, O. (2020). Social work in the digital era: Theoret-

ical, ethical and practical considerations. The British

Journal of Social Work.

Stern, J., Ferraro, K., and Mohnkern, J. (2017). Tools for

teaching conceptual understanding, secondary: De-

signing lessons and assessments for deep learning.

Corwin Press.

Umbach, P. D. (2007). Faculty Cultures and College Teach-

ing, pages 263–317. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht.

Wiggins, G. P., Wiggins, G., and McTighe, J. (2005). Un-

derstanding by design. Ascd.

CSEDU 2022 - 14th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

548