Top-Down Course Design Interface for Objective Mapping

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Current course design methods are bottom-up, leading to overemphasis on readily available materials, loss of overall objectives, and manual propagation of changes, making it difficult for educators to keep courses fresh and current, especially as the number of users and complexity increase.

Innovation Solution

A top-down method for electronically creating educational courses, where course objectives and outcomes are mapped to create a course model, with prepopulated interface pages for syllabus, lesson plans, and course outlines, allowing for efficient updates and organization.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Ease of manufacture

If bottom-up course design is used where content is gathered before design, then readily available materials can be utilized, but the overall objectives and outcomes of the course are lost

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveease of course content gatheringVSAvoidloss of overall objectives

Core Design Contradiction:

Ease of manufactureVSLoss of information

Solution Approach 1:

The patent inverts the traditional bottom-up course design approach by implementing a top-down methodology where course objectives and outcomes are established first, then content is selected and organized to align with these predetermined goals. This reversal ensures that readily available materials are used purposefully to achieve specific learning outcomes rather than allowing materials to dictate the course structure.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #13The other way round (Inversion)

2Adaptability or versatility

If manual processes are used to propagate changes to syllabus, course outline, and lesson plan, then flexibility in modification is maintained, but educators spend countless hours on course design

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveflexibility in course modificationVSAvoidtime spent on manual updates

Core Design Contradiction:

Adaptability or versatilityVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The patent merges previously separate course components (syllabus, course outline, lesson plans) into an integrated system where changes to one component automatically propagate to all related components. This consolidation maintains flexibility for modification while eliminating the manual effort previously required to update multiple documents independently.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #5Merging (Combining)

Solution Approach 2:

The system implements automatic feedback mechanisms where modifications to course objectives or outcomes trigger cascading updates through the entire course structure. This feedback loop ensures consistency across all course materials while reducing the time educators spend on manual propagation of changes.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #23Feedback

3Adaptability or versatility

If multiple users contribute to course development independently, then diverse content can be gathered, but edits to one component may not be incorporated into other components

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvediverse content contributionVSAvoidconsistency across course components

Core Design Contradiction:

Adaptability or versatilityVSStability of the object's composition

Solution Approach 1:

The patent creates a universal course management system that serves multiple functions: it allows diverse user contributions while simultaneously maintaining consistency across all course components. The system handles syllabus, course outline, and lesson plans within a single integrated framework that automatically coordinates changes across all components regardless of which user makes the modification.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #6Universality (Multi-functionality)

4Manufacturing precision

If bottom-up design focuses on specific aspects of the course, then detailed content can be developed, but the course overall and its objectives receive insufficient attention

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvedetail in course contentVSAvoidcomplexity of course structure

Core Design Contradiction:

Manufacturing precisionVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent segments the course development process into hierarchical levels, with course objectives and outcomes at the top level providing overall guidance, and detailed content development at lower levels. This segmentation allows educators to focus on specific aspects with detailed precision while maintaining alignment with the broader course goals, reducing the perceived complexity through structured organization.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #1Segmentation

Data Source

PatentUS11727517B2Instructional design and development interface

Publication Date: 2023.08.15 PEARSON EDUCATION INC

AI summary

Methods and systems are disclosed for interactively developing an educational course and the materials for it using a backward design, or top-down, approach based on course objectives and course outcomes in one embodiment. Educators or other course creators are able to implement this design approach through an Integrated Design and Development Interface (IDDI). The IDDI guides course development by organizing course content in a relational database. The IDDI maps a plurality of course objectives to a plurality of course outcomes to create a course model. The IDDI uses the course model to generate and/or automatically user interfaces used by a course creator to input lower-level course information.