Plan And Describe A Single Learning Activity To Support One ✓ Solved

Plan and describe a single learning activity to support one

Plan and describe a single learning activity to support one learning objective from Week 5. Integrate the instructor’s feedback on the learning goal, outcome, and objectives, and describe the intended learning activity in detail. The activity should focus on a single objective, be narrow in scope, and short in duration.

Your submission should address: state the revised learning objective; describe the learning activity (type, content, and what learners will do); define alignment and justify how the activity supports the objective, including how engagement with the activity relates to an assessment in Week 6; define scaffolding and explain necessary scaffolding before, during, and after the activity, including what learners need to know or be able to do and what support they require, and how this scaffolding supports diversity, equity, inclusion, and ethical, legal, and political considerations. Include considerations for accessibility and feedback. If you have questions, contact your instructor and peers in the NCU ID-CoP. Length: 3–5 pages, excluding title and references. Include a minimum of 3 scholarly resources in APA format. Ensure the paper demonstrates scholarly writing and adherence to the Northcentral University Academic Integrity Policy.

Paper For Above Instructions

Learning Objective (Revised)

Learning Objective (revised): Students will analyze a real-world scenario and justify a recommended action using evidence-based and ethically grounded reasoning. This objective targets higher-order thinking by requiring analysis, evaluation, and justification, in alignment with established taxonomies and guidance for instruction (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001; Bloom, 1956).

Activity Description

The proposed activity is a 60-minute online, case-based learning task implemented within the course LMS. Students will encounter a realistic, discipline-relevant case, examine a concise set of data or evidence, identify key variables, and propose a course of action accompanied by a short, evidence-based justification. The activity includes an embedded rubric for the final written justification and a brief post-activity reflection. This design follows backward-design principles, guiding learners from an outcome to the activities and assessments (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005), and engages learners in analysis and evaluation as described by Anderson and Krathwohl (2001).

Content and learner actions: The case presents a problem scenario, a set of stakeholder perspectives, and supportive data (e.g., artifacts, statements, or evidence). Learners will (a) identify relevant factors, (b) apply domain-specific criteria to assess options, and (c) justify a recommended action with a concise rationale grounded in evidence and ethical considerations. A short, structured template will guide the justification to ensure consistency across learners (Shulman, 1986; Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000).

Alignment

The activity aligns with the revised objective by placing learners in a real-world scenario that requires analysis of evidence and justification of action. This supports higher-order thinking as described in Bloom’s taxonomy and its revision (Bloom, 1956; Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). The case-based format mirrors authentic professional practice and connects to assessment in Week 6 by providing a concrete artifact (the written justification) that can be evaluated against criteria aligned with the objective (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005). The alignment is further supported by the idea that learning should be structured to move learners from understanding to application and evaluation, as discussed in foundational instructional design literature (Gagné, 1985; Bransford et al., 2000).

Rationale for assessment alignment: A well-scaffolded case with explicit criteria enables instructors to measure whether students can apply concepts to a real context, justify decisions with evidence, and reflect on potential ethical implications. This mirrors performance-based assessment approaches highlighted in design-based and outcome-oriented frameworks (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001; Wiggins & McTighe, 2005).

Scaffolding

Pre-activity prerequisites: Students should possess foundational knowledge of the core concept underlying the objective and be familiar with how to interpret and cite evidence. Prior readings and a brief primer on evaluating evidence based on established standards provide necessary background (Vygotsky, 1978; Bransford et al., 2000).

During the activity: The LMS presents tiered prompts, a case narrative, and a structured justification template. Scaffolds include checklists, exemplars, and a rubric that explicitly links each criterion to the objective. Learners receive guided prompts that gradually reduce support as competence increases (zone of proximal development concept; Vygotsky, 1978). Rubrics and feedback loops support immediate metacognition and adjustment (Shulman, 1986; Shulman’s notion of pedagogical content knowledge informs explicit alignment between content and how it’s taught).

Post-activity support: A brief debrief and reflection prompts help students consolidate learning and transfer skills to related contexts. Optional supplemental resources provide further practice for learners who require additional exposure (Biggs & Tang, 2011; Tomlinson, 2014).

Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Ethics

Design choices reflect universal design for learning (UDL) principles to ensure access, representation, and engagement for diverse learners (CAST, 2018; Meyer, Rose, & Gordon, 2014). Material presentation (text, visuals, and data) is accessible and culturally responsive, with alternative formats where needed and explicit guidance on equitable participation (CAST, 2018; Shulman, 1986).

Ethical and legal considerations are integrated into the justification: learners must consider confidentiality, data handling, and professional ethics in the scenario. Inclusivity is promoted by requiring justification that accounts for multiple stakeholder perspectives and potential biases, aligning with inclusive pedagogy and professional practice frameworks (Tomlinson, 2014; Harper & Quaye, 2009).

Accessibility and Feedback

The activity is designed with accessibility in mind, incorporating multiple representation modes, adjustable pacing, and alternative formats for evidence presentation in accordance with universal design principles (Meyer, Rose, & Gordon, 2014; CAST, 2018). Feedback is formative and targeted, with rubrics providing explicit criteria for success and opportunities for revision, which supports improved performance on Week 6 assessments (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001).

Implementation and Evaluation

Implementation steps include: (1) distributing the case and objectives, (2) guiding learners through the evidence review, (3) having learners submit a structured justification, (4) providing rubric-based feedback, and (5) concluding with a brief reflection. Evaluation of effectiveness will consider alignment with the objective, the quality of justification, and student perceptions of accessibility and inclusivity. This approach aligns with established instructional-design principles that emphasize purposeful alignment and evidence-based practice (Biggs & Tang, 2011; Wiggins & McTighe, 2005).

Conclusion

By designing a focused, time-bounded activity with explicit alignment to a revised objective and robust scaffolding, educators can foster higher-order thinking, ethical reasoning, and evidence-based decision making. The incorporation of inclusive, accessible design and reflective feedback further strengthens learning outcomes and supports diverse learners while preparing them for subsequent Week 6 assessments.

References

1. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy. Longman.
2. Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, Handbook I: The cognitive domain. David McKay Co.
3. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. National Academy Press.
4. CAST. (2018). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines version 2.2. CAST.
5. Meyer, A., Rose, D. H., & Gordon, D. (2014). Universal Design for Learning: Theory and Practice. CAST.
6. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
7. Tomlinson, C. A. (2014). The Differentiated Classroom: Responding to the Needs of All Learners. ASCD.
8. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press.
9. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by Design. ASCD.
10. Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for Quality Learning at University. McGraw-Hill Education.