Part I
From the beginning of my teaching career, I have heard the exact same quote so many times: "When will we ever need to use this in the real world?" Many students struggle to stay engaged with a curriculum that is not meaningful. This is not always the case, though. In 2007, the AIW framework was created. AIW, authentic intellectual work, is the model of students completing tasks that actually mean something. These tasks are heavily based in the real world so that students are not guessing as to 'why are we even learning this?" This framework is very different than the traditional model, which is mostly centered around memorization of facts. To see the difference between the traditional and AIW model, a math assignment aligned to each framework will be compared and contrasted. A traditional math assignment that you will see in many classrooms across the country will be a 20-question assignment about solving percentages, such as 'What is 20% of 93?'. Now, let's put this same assignment into the AIW framework. This would now look like this: 'You are planning a school event with a $500 budget. Stores are offering discounts and sales tax rates. Find the best purchasing options while also staying under budget.' This type of assignment would then allow students to apply percentage work to a real scenario, rather than solving a cookie-cutter problem.
According to the AIW framework, there are three components: construction of knowledge, disciplined inquiry, and value beyond school.
Construction of Knowledge is exactly how it sounds. Students under this framework must actually hunt down and find the information that is needed to analyze, instead of repeating memorized facts.
Disciplined Inquiry requires students to apply background knowledge to thoroughly grasp a concept rather than memorization. Students must also be able to communicate their understanding in a plethora of ways, such as verbally, visually, etc.
Value Beyond School is, in my opinion, the most important part of the AIW framework. As stated at the start of this blog, students are not checked into material that feels disconnected from real life. A curriculum that feels forced and irrelevant will not stick in their head. Under AIW, the work is purposefully made to be relevant to real life, increasing student engagement.
To be more specific, we see this in the study, 'Chicago-46 school study'. For this study, 46 schools in Chicago were used as the sample in grades 3, 6, and 8. The students were given two assignments that were aligned with AIW and 4 that were traditionally created. After the study was completed, students who received AIW work had approximately a 40% increase in basic skills compared to other students who did not receive AIW material. This shows that having material that is relevant and relatable to students results in them performing better academically.
This past year in my classroom, I actually gave material that aligned with AIW in my chemistry class. In one of our modules, we were learning about the pH scale. One of the labs included the students testing the pH levels of everyday substances such as orange juice, toothpaste, sports drinks, and water from the school's water fountain. At first, the students were bored with testing items that remained green, blue, or slightly orange. That was until they tested the school's drinking water. The drinking water at my school tested as red as a stop sign. This unexpected result sent the students into a flurry, wanting to know what else was acidic in the school. The next day, we went around campus and parts of the town in a bus, collecting pH samples from various water sources. After the lesson was done, I do not believe any of the students drank water from the school anymore, sorry, not sorry! Rather than simply memorizing a chart of colors and numbers, this activity allowed students to apply chemistry concepts to a real-world item we encounter daily, which is water!
Part II
While NETP is not 100% connected to the AIW framework, there are large similarities in the 'Digital Use Divide' section. More specifically, I feel that technology is the bridge between the two that makes them similar. In both, technology is used to allow students to research information to create 'critically thoughtful experiences' (NETP). Under both of these frameworks, students actively research knowledge utilizing technology, instead of simply recalling facts.
For example, inside the NETP document, it mentioned an activity called 'EcoExplorers' (NETP). For this activity, students investigated various ecosystems through immersive simulations, podcasts, and many more. The students did not just 'sit and get', they used various methods and activities to learn about the many different ecosystems in our world, which aligned with the Universal Design for Learning.
Part III
After comparing Kolb's Triple E Framework and AIW, the largest and most obvious connection I see is the idea of making learning meaningful. Kolb mentions allowing students to learn 'outside of school', which means the material is relevant and useful to everyday life. Both frameworks view learning as a lifelong skill, not just something you get for 8 hours every day as a child. Learning is more than just something you get in school. In my opinion, I don't think you actually start to LEARN until you are out of school. I believe true learning often happens when students leave school and begin applying their knowledge to real-life situations. School is not purely about memorizing information, but developing skills that will be necessary as an adult.
In conclusion, both Kolb's and the AIW framework put a spotlight on learning experiences being engaging and genuine, not a copy-cat of other curricula. Students apply knowledge in meaningful ways, rather than memorize information for a good grade.
Resources
Office of Educational Technology. (2024). A Call to Action to Close the Technology Access, Design, and Use Divides: National Educational Technology Plan. Department of Education. NETP2024.pdfDownload NETP2024.pd
Triple E framework. Triple E Framework. (n.d.-b). https://www.tripleeframework.com/
I really enjoyed your post, and I agree with what you said. The way you contrasted the “20 problems on percentages” with the budgeting scenario captures the heart of Authentic Intellectual Work so clearly. It’s amazing how simply shifting the context from abstract numbers to a real decision-making situation can flip a switch for students. They stop asking why they’re learning something and start realizing they’re actually using it.
ReplyDeleteYour pH lab story was my favorite part. That moment when the school’s water turned the indicator bright red, those are the kinds of experiences students remember for years. It’s such a perfect example of value beyond school: suddenly, chemistry wasn’t a chart or a worksheet, it was their lived environment. And the fact that it sparked curiosity, investigation, and even a little chaos makes it even better.
I also appreciate how you tied NETP and Kolb’s Triple E back to the same core idea: learning should matter. Your point about real learning happening when students step outside the classroom feels so true. Both frameworks push us to design experiences that prepare students for that moment, not with memorized facts, but with thinking, questioning, and applying.
Your reflections make a strong case for why meaningful, relevant work isn’t just more engaging, it’s more effective, more equitable, and more human.
-Paige Smith
How might you apply UDL to the pH lesson you described? It sounds like students learned something so important that they changed their behavior.... Good discusson of the Triple E connections.
ReplyDeleteEwwww to school water! The only water fountain I will use at school comes from the cafeteria's filter.
ReplyDeleteUsing true, real-life problems like you described is a great way to answer the "when are we going to use this" question that I feel all teachers get at least once a day!