Signature Assignment
Addressing Knowledge Gaps through a Micro-course
Development of a micro-course to address the gaps in knowledge, targeting the common misconception that calorie counting alone is sufficient for a healthy diet would be beneficial to learners wanting to know more about the subject. Many individuals struggle to differentiate between foods based on their nutritional value beyond caloric content (Drewnowski & Fulgoni, 2014). The course would introduce the concept of nutrient density, which refers to the amount of beneficial nutrients in a food relative to its energy content or weight (Drewnowski, 2005).
- The course may cover the following topics:
- Definition and importance of nutrient density
- Identification of high nutrient-dense foods
- How to compare foods using nutrient density scores
- Practical strategies for incorporating nutrient-dense foods into daily meals
- Balancing nutrient density with other dietary considerations (e.g., personal preferences, cultural factors)
2024 | Photo by Marisol Benitez | Unsplash
This knowledge is crucial as research indicates that diets rich in nutrient-dense foods are associated with better health outcomes and reduced risk of chronic diseases (Mozaffarian et al., 2018). By understanding and applying the concept of nutrient density, learners can make more informed food choices that support their overall health and nutritional needs.
Learning Theories to Apply Relation to Design
2024 | Photo by Robina Weermeijer | Unsplash
Cognitivism focuses on how information is processed, stored, and retrieved. This theory can be applied to help learners develop mental models of nutrient density and effective strategies for evaluating and selecting foods (Mayer, 2002; Ertmer & Newby, 2013). From the previous modules we learned that educators should offer tailored assistance and direction to support students in tackling challenging assignments, gradually fostering their autonomy, a technique referred to as scaffolding (Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976). To enhance cognitive processing and memory retention, content should be divided into digestible segments and structured in a logical manner (Miller, 1956). Learning can be improved by utilizing diverse presentation methods, such as combining verbal and visual elements, which engages multiple cognitive processing pathways (Paivio, 1979). Promoting metacognition, where students contemplate their own thought processes and learning approaches, can aid in the development of more efficient learning techniques (Flavell, 1979). For more, refer to the Cognitivism page.
Relative strengths and limitations of the cognitivism learning theory below:
| Cognitivism Strengths | Cognitivism Limitations |
|---|---|
| Emphasizes the importance of prior knowledge in learning about human nutrition and nutrition density. | May overemphasize theoretical knowledge at the expense of practical application. |
| Focuses on information processing, which is crucial for understanding complex physiological concepts. | Could lead to an overly structured approach that doesn't account for individual variations in learning styles. |
| Promotes the development of mental models for understanding nutritionmechanisms. | Might not fully address the emotional and motivational aspects of adopting proper nutrition practices. |
| Encourages the use of memory strategies for retaining key nutrition principles. |
The second learning theory that may be applied is problem-based learning (PBL): I prefer PBL because it can be utilized to engage learners in real-world scenarios where they must apply their understanding of nutrient density to solve dietary challenges. This approach encourages critical thinking and practical application of knowledge (Hmelo-Silver, 2004). It is acknowledged that it may be challenging to incorporate PBL into a micro-course. However, presenting learners with active participation and deeper engagement with the course material can lead to better retention and understanding of nutrient density concepts (Dolmans et al., 2005) In addition, PBL challenges learners to analyze situations, evaluate information and make decisions about food choices based on nutrient density. This process enhances critical thinking skills, which are crucial for making informed dietary decisions for daily life (Savery, 2006). For more on PBL, refer to the Assessments & Learning Models page.
Relative strengths and limitations of the PBL model below:
2024 | Photo by Edge2Edge Media | Unsplash
| Problem-based Learning Strengths | Problem-based Learning Limitations |
|---|---|
| Encourages critical thinking about nutrition selection and application in real-life scenarios | May be challenging for learners with limited background knowledge in nutrition |
| Promotes active engagement with the material | Time-intensive, which could be constraining in a minicourse format |
| Allows for exploration of individual differences in nutritional choices and responses | Might not cover all necessary foundational knowledge if solely focused on problems |
| Facilitates the development of problem-solving skills in nutrition planning |
Cognitivism Design Choices, Engagement Strategies, and Assessment Example
| Design Choices | Engagement Strategies |
|---|---|
| Concept Maps: Use interactive concept maps to illustrate nutrition density. | Retrieval Practice: Regular, spaced quizzes on key concepts to reinforce learning and identify knowledge gaps. |
| Elaborative Rehearsal: Incorporate quizzes and flashcards that require learners to explain concepts in their own words. | Scaffolding: Provide supportive resources and gradually increase the complexity of IF concepts as the course progresses. |
| Chunking Information: Break down complex topics into manageable, logical segments for easier processing and retention. | |
| Analogies and Metaphors: Use relatable analogies to explain physiological processes involved in nutrition density. |
| Assessment Example |
|---|
| Multiple-choice questions that require learners to apply their understanding of nutrition density novel situations. |
PBL Design Choices and Assessment Example
| Design Choices |
|---|
| Case Studies: Present real-life scenarios of individuals applying dietary, nutrient dense selections, with various health conditions, goals, and lifestyles. Learners analyze these cases and propose appropriate strategies. |
| Group Projects: Assign small groups to design an dietary plan for a fictional client, considering factors like age, health status, and daily routines. |
| Discussion Forums: Pose questions about a new dietary plan implementation and encourage learners to debate and collaboratively solve problems. |
| Interactive Simulations: Create virtual scenarios where learners must adjust protocols based on changing client circumstances. |
| Assessment Example |
|---|
| Provide a detailed case study and ask learners to develop a comprehensive diet plan, justifying their choices based on the course content. |
Conclusion
By combining these approaches, the micro-course can provide a comprehensive learning experience that balances theoretical understanding with practical application, catering to different learning styles and promoting deep engagement with the material on human nutrition - nutrition density. These approaches will influence content organization, requiring information to be structured around real-world problems and presented in logical, manageable chunks to facilitate processing and retention (Hung et al., 2008; Miller, 1956). Learning objectives will need to emphasize problem-solving skills and practical application, aligning with PBL principles (Savery, 2006). Instructional materials will need to include authentic case studies, simulations, and visual aids that support both PBL and cognitive processing (Paivio, 1979). Learner engagement strategies will focus on collaborative activities and metacognitive reflections (Dolmans et al., 2005; Flavell, 1979). Technology integration will prioritize tools that support interactive simulations and collaborative workspaces (Hung et al., 2008). The teacher/instructor's role will be redefined as a facilitator rather than a traditional lecturer (Hmelo-Silver, 2004). Course pacing and structure will need to allow time for engagement with problems and incorporate opportunities for reflection and consolidation of learning (Ertmer & Newby, 2013). These considerations will shape every aspect of the course creation process, from content development to delivery methods, ensuring that the course effectively supports learners in developing a practical, applicable understanding of nutrient density.
References:
Dolmans, D. H., De Grave, W., Wolfhagen, I. H., & Van Der Vleuten, C. P. (2005). Problem‐based learning: Future challenges for educational practice and research. Medical Education, 39(7), 732-741.
Drewnowski, A. (2005). Concept of a nutritious food: toward a nutrient density score. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 82(4), 721-732.
Drewnowski, A., & Fulgoni, V. L. (2014). Nutrient density: principles and evaluation tools. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 99(5), 1223S-1228S.
Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (2013). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26(2), 43-71.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906-911.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235-266.
Hung, W., Jonassen, D. H., & Liu, R. (2008). Problem-based learning. Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology, 3(1), 485-506.
Loyens, S. M., Magda, J., & Rikers, R. M. (2008). Self-directed learning in problem-based learning and its relationships with self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 20(4), 411-427.
Mayer, R. E. (2002). Rote versus meaningful learning. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 226-232.
Mozaffarian, D., Rosenberg, I., & Uauy, R. (2018). History of modern nutrition science—implications for current research, dietary guidelines, and food policy. BMJ, 361, k2392.
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81-97.
Paivio, A. (1979). Imagery and verbal processes. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Savery, J. R. (2006). Overview of problem-based learning: Definitions and distinctions. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 1(1), 9-20.
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89-100.