The path of learning requires that students demonstrate the mastery of both skills and concepts in any class. In the traditional model of mastery in higher education, both formative and summative assessments are conducted via a rigid set of assignments, activities, and tests that require all students to perform the same set of skills for each concept mastery demonstration. The idea of choice in the classroom is a concept of Universal Design for Learning (UDL), and while choice can be easily produced for content delivery (text, audio, video, interactive materials), assessment of both skills and concept mastery is not addressed in most classrooms. This leads to the development of homogenous courses and assignments where many students show objective mastery via exams and subjective mastery via writing. Students can be given choice on their demonstration of mastery without undue burden on the faculty member while also creating increased mastery of skills important to their respective fields. In business, a fungible asset is one that is mutually interchangeable. In this case, I am applying the concept of fungibility to learning assessment. Faculty can give students choice; but, in order to create fungible assignments that do not, faculty must ensure that proper design of instruction and assessment is used. In order to facilitate the assessment of fungible assignments, faculty must be able to create clear and concise criteria for assessment that tie directly to objectives for learning. Allowing students to choose how they show their knowledge of concepts and mastery of skills gives them control over their learning and ultimately improving educational outcomes.

1. Fungible Assignments in Higher
Education:
Demonstrating Mastery Via Choice
Steven McGahan, M.S.Ed., Associate Director
University of Nebraska at Kearney eCampus

2. Notes on This Presentation:
 The concepts within are a work in progress.
 The term “fungible” will be applied to:
 Assignments
 Learning
 Assessment

3. Fungibililty
Economics Working in Education

4. Fungibility - Defined
 Fungible commodity or good.
 Economic term meaning interchangeable
asset.
 Or when an asset is fundamentally equivalent
to other assets of the same type.
 Money is the most common type of fungible
asset.
 The next step is applying this concept to
learning.

5. Fungibility as Defined for Learning
 Applying the concept to learning allows for
students to demonstrate skills in different
ways.
 Most learning is demonstrated via:
 Objective exams
 Subjective writing
 The concept of fungible learning requires
that the faculty separate skills from concepts
for mastery purposes.

6. Universal Design for Learning/
Special Education Principles
 Fungible learning is born out of two areas.
 Universal Design for Learning (UDL)
 Special Education Principles
 Both of these disciplines look for
demonstration of learning via alternative
methods.
 If a student can demonstrate mastery of
skills/concepts in a different way, does the
original assessment method matter?

7. Universal Design for Learning/
Special Education Principles…Cont.
 Ties education for autism spectrum children.
 Challenging students to demonstrate their
knowledge with processes that engage them.
 Instead of forcing them to work in the same
space as everyone else.

8. Choose Your Own Education
Pedagogy Improvement by Choice

9. Personalized Learning
 Some issues with the current system.
 Grouping multiple skill checks in singular
assignments.
 Spreading skill checks across multiple
assignments.
 Allow students to make learning connections
on their own.
 Individualized learning or personalized
learning.
 Increase involvement and engagement.

10. Advantages of Fungible Learning
 A greater sense of ownership in their
education.
 Breaking of the teacher/student model from
the student side.
 Increasing critical thinking skills as a side
effect of the process.
 Allowing students to perform in their chosen
areas (general studies/non-major courses)

11. Disadvantages of Fungible Learning
 As the shift from instructor-focused to
student-focused learning changes, issues
may arise.
 Student buy-in is critical for the concept to
work.
 Many students will still revert to their
conditioned response.
 Students may initially have problems
understanding the concept/process.

12. Adding Fungible Assignments
How the Process Works

13. Process of Fungible Assignments
 The process of changing to a fungible
assignment requires the application of a few
key principles.
 Planning
 Focus
 Guidance
 Assessment

14. Planning
 A fixed curriculum is still important.
 Replace specific assessments with fungible
assignments.
 Isolating skills can be easier for initial
implementation.
 Review course/unit competencies and
objectives to determine candidates.
 Group work should also be considered.
 Start small.

15. Focus (Limitation of Scope)
 Focus is a key aspect of this process.
 Students cannot be presented with unlimited
choices (Buridan’s Donkey)
 Focus must be placed to improve decision
making.
 Generally speaking, 2-4 choices are ideal for
modality considerations.
 Create a “menu” of assignments.

16. Guidance
 Guidance is still important to the process.
 Students must still must be challenged on
their weaknesses.
 The process can be similar to a
mentor/mentee relationship.
 Faculty are still the experts.
 Facilitation is more important than

17. When not to Involve Fungible Assignments
 This does not mean that all of the structure
would be removed from the course.
 Key assignments that require demonstration
of specific skills.
 Some structure would be supplanted by
open learning opportunities.
 Google 20% model.

18. Assessment
 Assessment is a critical component.
 It will be important to assess specifically
based on the merits of the content.
 Then assess on the basis of modality
 Rubrics will be useful in both:
 Communicating expectations, and…
 Assessing student work equally.
 General criteria can be set for multiple
modalities.

19. Badging – Extended Assessment Option
 The concepts related to badging can also be
used to extend the usefulness of the
concept.
 Mastery learning via micro-credentialing.
 Determining skill prowess vs. concept
mastery.
 Badging allows the students to achieve skills
on their own time.

20. Finally…What Does It Mean For Learning?
 This process is an attempt to draw on
individualized learning without encumbering
faculty time.
 Planning time will increase.
 Grading time shouldn’t increase.
 Learning should increase.
 More effective as the newer generations of
students begin (choice matters).

21. References
 Basham, J. D., Israel, M., Graden, J., Poth, R., & Winston, M. (2010). A COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH TO RTI: EMBEDDING UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR LEARNING AND TECHNOLOGY. Learning
Disability Quarterly, 33(4), 243-255.
 Blas, E. A. (2016). Using a Murder Mystery to Teach Evaluation Skills: A Case Study. Internet Reference Services Quarterly, 21(3/4), 93-100. doi:10.1080/10875301.2016.1169468
 Bondie, R. (2015). A Digital Teaching Platform to Further and Assess Use of Evidence-based Practices. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 34(1), 23-29.
 Caballero-Hernández, J. A., Palomo-Duarte, M., & Dodero, J. M. (2017). Skill assessment in learning experiences based on serious games: A Systematic Mapping Study. Computers & Education,
113, 42-60. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2017.05.008
 Lieberman, L. J., Lytle, R. K., & Clarcq, J. A. (2008). Getting it Right from the Start: Employing the Universal Design for Learning Approach to Your Curriculum. JOPERD: The Journal of Physical
Education, Recreation & Dance, 79(2), 32-39.
 Narkon, D. E., & Wells, J. C. (2013). Improving Reading Comprehension for Elementary Students With Learning Disabilities: UDL Enhanced Story Mapping. Preventing School Failure, 57(4), 231-239.
doi:10.1080/1045988X.2012.726286
 Rao, K., Edelen-Smith, P., & Wailehua, C.-U. (2015). Universal design for online courses: applying principles to pedagogy. Open Learning, 30(1), 35-52. doi:10.1080/02680513.2014.991300
 Rao, K., Ok, M. W., & Bryant, B. R. (2014). A Review of Research on Universal Design Educational Models. Remedial & Special Education, 35(3), 153-166. doi:10.1177/0741932513518980
 Rao, K., Smith, S. J., & Lowrey, K. A. (2017). UDL and Intellectual Disability: What Do We Know and Where Do We Go? DUA y Discapacidad Intelectual: ¿Qué Sabemos y a Dónde Vamos?, 55(1), 37-
47. doi:10.1352/1934-9556-55.1.37
 Robinson, D. E., & Wizer, D. R. (2016). Universal Design for Learning and the Quality Matters Guidelines for the Design and Implementation of Online Learning Events. International Journal of
Technology in Teaching & Learning, 12(1).
 Shaver, D. (2017). The Added Value of Conducting Learning Design Meeting to the Online Course Development Process. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 61(5), 438-
443. doi:10.1007/s11528-017-0205-1

22. THANKS!Any questions?
You can find me at
mcgahansj@unk.edu or 308.865.8341
University of Nebraska at Kearney eCampus
ecampus.unk.edu