a “Fred” by any other name is a “Template”

Written by CEN-PICKETAL on April 29, 2024. Posted in inspiration, Instructional Design, reflection, resources.

Close to 30 years ago, I designed the first SUNY Learning Network online course template.We called it a “template” because, as I explained to new online faculty at the time, calling it “Fred,” just didn’t have enough contextual detail to make sense. 🙂

screen shot of the SLN template 2004 — SLN Online Course Template circa Fall 2004 *(If you are interested see the SLN Course Developer Handbook!)*

“Template” is a term that really turns most faculty off… it evokes images of “cookie cutter” courses that are all the same, and provokes concerns about infringements up academic freedom… and wrankles some with assumptions that as a template, they will, or are intended to impose, or diminish control…

I use the term to refer to evidence-based online course wrappers that have been lovingly designed by online instructional design experts for online faculty into which they can freely design their online course content, activities, and assessments, as a way to quick-start online faculty into effective research-based online course designs and practices, that are optimized to maximize the technical features and options, and minimize the limitations of the digital learning environment (whatever LMS is being used).

I’ve tried to find a better word than template. It is not a guide, plan, or blueprint …. exactly… it is not a “master,” which has way other issues associated with it… “shell,” doesn’t really work either, as they are typically empty…

Some alternatives from social media platforms where I have posed this question could be “scaffold”, “skeleton”, “wireframe”, “mold”, “framework”, “foundation”, “blueprint”, “plan”, “path”, “boiler plate”, “components”, or the previously mention problematic “master”…

Scouring Github & Reddit for alternatives to “master” I found references to “push”, “tree”, “trunk”, “branch”, “root”, “parent”, “seed”, “drone”, and “main” … N. B. – These are coders also looking for alternatives to problems perceived with “master” terminology…

Additional suggestions have included: “Kit”, “starter kit”, “resource course”, “Course layout vs. Course fitout”, “well-crafted experience”, “Design Pattern”, “common content”, “a place to begin…”, and the more creative options of “gift basket”, “Pedagogically Modified Organisms (PMO)”, which can refer to the course, or the learners after ingesting said course, and the delightful…

“Here is your course _______ and here is your nice instructional designer’s phone number and you have a meeting with them right down the hall in ten minutes. Oh, look, here they come now… ” or, the experience formerly known as “Template.” 🙂

. . . my personal favorite is still “Fred.“

Regardless of what you call it, the best approach to getting your faculty to adopt and use your “Fred,” is not to insist on a one size fits all. But to develop and provide a one size fits most. And then, for those for whom it does not fit, to see if what they say they need, or want, in terms of design, can be designed in a way that will be best for learners and their learning…a compromise… that can be agreed upon and used consistently – as a modified template. – see what I did there? 🙂

I always try to approach this without ego and with heaps and heaps of flexibility. It sounds contradictory, but flexibility in the design of the online course content part of an online Fred is essential – as there are as many ways to design a course in any modality as there are faculty – flexibility can be accommodated based on the instructor, style, discipline, etc., and still follow best practices and standards. I have learned pretty much everything I know about online course design by assisting, guiding and observing how thousands of faculty design their online instruction and teach online, and have seen how 10s of thousands of online learners respond to those designs.

So, when challenged with resistance to your well-designed, well-intentioned, lovingly-crafted, evidence-based, quality standards-informed “Freds”, it is not at all about forcing compliance, and more about figuring out what is not working in the “Fred” design for them, and coming up with a “Fred” that will work for them.

Start with these questions:

What is it that you want to do, and can the online course be designed by adapting an existing “Fred” , or aspect of one, to meets your needs to your satisfaction?
Can the online course be designed well from the learner/learning perspective?
Once adapted to respond to concerns, can you agree to use it consistently in your courses, department, program, school, across sections, etc.?

Put your energy into getting your reluctant “Fred” user to help come up with a design that meets their needs, follows best practices, and that they can agree to use consistently.

This doesn’t mean the wild west with out regard to effective practices and the learner user-experience. It means that the instructor would articulate what they want and need, and collaborate on a solution that meets their needs, is in-line with evidence-based practices, standards, or rubrics, and above all supports the online learner and their learning, best. We know, for example, that 35 modules is not an a good practice. But, 7 modules with sub sections in each, perhaps can achieve the same objective. Blinking text yellow is not a good practice. But, perhaps an icon paired with a CSS heading can perhaps achieve the same goal and still be accessible and mobile friendly. ☺

SUNY Online has developed a set of course templates for 8 distinct use cases and instructional modalities that have been optimized specifically for the SUNY DLE Brightspace environment. They are also optimized for accessibility and mobile devices. Our Freds are freely available and openly licensed regardless of affiliation with SUNY, and are available as common cartridges, for use by anyone in any LMS platform.

The SUNY DLE templates are research-informed, and aligned with OSCQR rubric online course quality standards in a task-based, linear modular pedagogical design. But, as mentioned there are lots of ways to design courses that meet evidence-based standards, or are well designed, but are organized in other ways… we use that model because it is a pedagogically sound design that works for most… and they have been intentionally designed to accommodate adaptation to meet specific instructional and disciplinary needs and use cases.

If you would like discuss further, or share some of your Fred experiences, I would be happy to. ☺

consistency, course design, effective practices, findability, Fred, learner success, OSCQR, systematic course design, template