9781315693101

LEARNING DESIGN
The new field of Learning Design has the potential to revolutionize not only
technology in education, but the whole field of teaching and learning through
the application of design thinking to education. Learning Design looks inside the
“black box” of pedagogy to understand what teachers and learners do together,
and how the best teaching ideas can be shared on a global scale. Learning Design
supports all pedagogical approaches, content areas and fields of education.
This book opens with a new synthesis of the field of Learning Design and its place
in educational theory and practice, and goes on to explore the implications of
Learning Design for many areas of education—both practical and theoretical—in
a series of chapters by Larnaca Declaration authors and other international experts.
James Dalziel is a Director of the LAMS Foundation Ltd and LAMS Interna-
tional Pty Ltd. He was previously Professor of Learning Technology and Director
of the Macquarie E-Learning Centre of Excellence (MELCOE) at Macquarie
University in Sydney, Australia, and a Lecturer in Psychology at the University of
Sydney.
This page intentionally left blank
LEARNING DESIGN
Conceptualizing a Framework for
Teaching and Learning Online
Edited by James Dalziel

First published 2016
by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
and by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2016 Taylor & Francis
The right of James Dalziel to be identified as the author of the editorial
material of this work, and of the authors for their individual chapters,
has been asserted by them in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or
utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now
known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in
any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing
from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered
trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without
intent to infringe.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
DataNames: Dalziel, James, editor.
Title: Learning design : conceptualizing a framework for teaching and
learning online/edited by James Dalziel.
Description: New York : Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis
Group, an Informa Business, [2016]|Includes bibliographical references
and index.
Subjects: LCSH: Instructional systems—Design.|Internet in education.|
Computer-assisted instruction.
Classification: LCC LB1028.38. L398 2016|DDC 371.3—dc23
LC record available at http://lccn.loc.gov/2015019873
ISBN: 978-1-138-91096-6 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-1-138-91097-3 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-315-69310-1 (ebk)
Typeset in Bembo
by Apex CoVantage, LLC
CONTENTS
Foreword by Diana Laurillard vii

Preface xi
1 The Larnaca Declaration on Learning Design—2013 1

James Dalziel, Gráinne Conole, Sandra Wills, Simon Walker,
Sue Bennett, Eva Dobozy, Leanne Cameron, Emil Badilescu-Buga
and Matt Bower
2 Theoretical Underpinnings of Learning Design 42

Gráinne Conole
3 Reflections on Metaphors for Learning Design 63

James Dalziel and Eva Dobozy
4 Learning Design in the New Digital Age 78

Simon Walker and Mark J. P. Kerrigan
5 The Complementary Nature of Learning Design and TPACK 96

Eva Dobozy and Chris Campbell
6 The 7Cs of Learning Design 117

Gráinne Conole
vi Contents
7 Investigating University Educators’ Design Thinking

and the Implications for Design Support Tools 146
Sue Bennett, Shirley Agostinho and Lori Lockyer
8 A Deeper Understanding of Reuse: Learning Designs,

Activities, Resources and Their Contexts 163
Sandra Wills and Chris Pegler
9 The Use and Usefulness of Transdisciplinary Pedagogical

Templates183
Eva Dobozy and James Dalziel
10 Social Adoption of Learning Design 208

Emil Badilescu-Buga
11 A Framework for Adaptive Learning Design in a

Web-Conferencing Environment 223
Matt Bower
12 Learning Design: Where Do We Go from Here? 256

James Dalziel, Sandra Wills, Gráinne Conole, Simon Walker,
Sue Bennett, Eva Dobozy, Leanne Cameron, Emil Badilescu-Buga,
Matt Bower and Chris Pegler
List of Contributors 263

Index 265
FOREWORD
Teaching is a profession that deserves some attention.We stopped conceptualizing

teaching some time ago when we set out to shift the focus onto students—how
they learn, and what they need from teachers. We stopped referring to “instruc-
tion” and made the axial shift to the opposite perspective to conceptualize the
process as being about “learning”, and what teachers do as “facilitating learning”.
That’s a good way to think about what we as teachers do because the whole point
is to help individual students to develop their full potential.
The opportunities digital technologies afford brought the focus even more
clearly onto what students are doing as they interact with each other online
or with a program. The role of teachers is to design that interaction: they place
themselves within it sometimes, but are also removed from the learning event
itself when the interaction is with a program. This takes some considerable spe-
cialist expertise, which means the teachers can become further removed from
the students, their teaching mediated by teams of specialists of different kinds, by
technological devices and systems, by distance and by time.
This book is about a field that puts teachers back in the driving seat of the
process of learning in formal education. The idea of “Learning Design” is to
acknowledge that “facilitating learning” is a gently restful term that disguises an
immensely complex undertaking. It reconceptualizes teachers as designers of the
process by which students learn.
The researchers in this field set themselves the task of working out what
exactly it is that teachers do when they are most effective, and then working out
what kinds of tools and concepts can be devised to help all teachers to be similarly
effective. In The Varieties of Religious Experience,William James pointed out that the
proper study of psychology in this context is the most religious man in his most
religious moment. In this field we study the most effective teachers in their most
effective moments.
viii Foreword
This work has been going on for some time, and all the chapters here testify
to how difficult it is. The field is called “Learning Design” because it is about
how we design for learning—a subtle point that is often picked up here. Strictly
speaking, we cannot “design learning” as the act of learning is what the learner
undertakes; we can only design the means by which there is a good chance that
learning will take place. And as we think about how to design for learning we dis-
cover how difficult it is to capture that complexity of structures, concepts, layers,
levels, interactions, processes, products . . . every chapter will take you through
some part of this vast domain, and chart what it takes to capture its essence.
This book begins with the idea of capturing music in the form of a written
notation as a good analogy for what Learning Design is trying to do. It is hard
for us now to imagine the conceptual challenge that developing musical notation
must have presented to early musicians—of how to capture the energy in those
varied and delightful sounds as mere marks on static paper. It is so important to
get the notation right.
Other disciplines have faced the same kind of challenge.The history of mathe-
matical notation illuminates the power that good notation conveys—to be able to
express any size of number using just a few characters, or to be able to think about
a number at all, as an abstraction that can apply equally to eggs and tractors—these
are powerful tools for thought. The history also demonstrates the risk of getting
it wrong. Imagine trying to do multiplication with Roman numerals (Ore, 1948).
The task set by Learning Design is just as challenging. How can we capture
and record the complexity of what goes on when a teacher sets out to change
the way a learner is able to think about the world? Students in formal education
are learning to see the world in the way expert thinkers saw it after thinking and
practising for a very long time, and then use and critique those concepts.Teachers
have to explore the many ways of approaching this difficult task, and gradually
develop the ideas that work best.
The value of the notation idea is that a formal representation affords the trans-
mission of good ideas in a way that is more powerful than the written word. The
teaching profession sorely needs to be able to do this now. We struggle to incor-
porate an abundance of new technological possibilities. In the past few decades
teachers have been blessed with the digital equivalent of the inventions of writing,
the slate, the printing press, the book, the newspaper, the pamphlet, the poster, the
penny post, the blackboard, the notebook, the noticeboard, the telephone, radio,
television—all of which education took centuries to absorb—now bundled into
one small object, the networked computer, that changes everything.
A formal representation as a means of sharing effective teaching ideas is impor-
tant. If a teacher works out a good way of using a new technology then that new
knowledge must be communicated and shared for others to adopt, adapt and
improve, and then share again. Learning Design takes on the job of working out
what kind of formal representation would enable the great ideas of teaching to be
shared so we can build that community knowledge.
Foreword ix
What would count as articulating a particular pedagogical idea, that is, a learn-
ing design? Is it instructions to the students? Instructions to the teachers? How far
can you specify what teachers do? It is surely impossible to capture great teachers’
charisma, the agile responsiveness, the way they can make use of student input on
the fly, or come up with the spontaneous anecdote to fit the moment. Is so much
lost in notation that it is scarcely worth the effort? But we could see the learn-
ing design as education’s version of the great score, or play, or recipe, that can be
reinterpreted many different ways. Equally it could be seen as similar to a medical
procedure, or the experimental design that enables other scientists to replicate
similar outcomes.
Teaching is neither creative art (it is not the case that anything goes) nor
scientific enquiry (it does not develop new knowledge of the world); it is about
generating new knowledge in others. It is fundamentally an iterative design pro-
cess, working in a chaotic environment where a principle that works one day
may not work at all well the next day, nor even with the next class. The field of
learning design is the only area of systematic enquiry that is attempting to make
a bridge between an understanding of the complexities of teaching and effective
professional practice.
We may accept the potential value of “capturing pedagogy”, but how is it to
be done?
The great pedagogic idea usually comes from some specific situation that
challenged the teacher to come up with something special. So it is very impor-
tant to maintain that source of inspiration. From the early SOURCE project
(Software Use, Reuse and Customization in Education) mentioned in Chapter 1,
and through the strand of thinking that followed, the dominant approach was to
use the successful specific instance, abstract from that to the generic form, and
reuse the form to customise it for a new specific instance. For example, rather
than trying to develop a generic role-play design, we use the approach in Chap-
ter 4 (Walker and Kerrigan) to adapt a specific successful instance to a generic
form that can be transmitted to others to reuse and customise for many other
discipline areas.
Do we yet have a terminology and format that is adequate for expressing the
follow-through from one activity to another, which is part of the essence of a par-
ticular pedagogy? In collaborative learning students consult resources throughout
the process, whereas for enquiry-based learning they more typically begin with
reviewing existing resources. Is this like the sonata versus the fugue? The learning
sequence is essentially time-based, about activity and about ordering that activity,
and different ordering results in a different learning experience and outcome.The
“predict—observe—explain” sequence (see Chapter 7, Bennett, Agostinho and
Lockyer, and Chapter 11, Bower) affords a very different learning opportunity
from the “teach—practice—feedback” sequence. Can a formal representation of
Learning Design capture and visualize this difference more effectively than just
in text?
x Foreword
These are some of the issues of capturing pedagogy that are explored in these
chapters. Two others form a common bond between them all: planning and
sharing.
The claim is that Learning Design aspires to pedagogical neutrality, and many
different pedagogies can be expressed as learning designs. But Learning Design
does demand a plan. The teacher who prefers to be entirely spontaneous would
have no use for Learning Design. That is probably a boundary of its neutrality.
Branching, options and parallel tracks can all be aspects of a plan. A pedagogy that
has no plan is not exactly excluded. You could still describe that as a design for
learning, but the plan would be a little thin.
So does the importance of “teaching in the moment” weaken the idea of
Learning Design? Not really. It is better to have a plan than not.There is a military
analogy there, certainly a jazz one. Or closer to home, the Japanese approach to
Lesson Study (Fernandez, 2002), which explicitly acknowledges that plans change
in practice, but that reflection and redesign are all part of the process.The consen-
sus is certainly that a plan is better than no plan.
As to sharing, will teachers actually do it? In many ways they do already. The
Web is one extraordinary example. Academic scholarship is another. This is how
we advance knowledge in any domain, so it is surely how we need to do it if we
want to build our community knowledge about teaching—especially given the
added complexities of doing it in a world where the physical, social, intellectual
and virtual spaces are mixed.
The detail in this book demonstrates the extraordinary complexity of the
teaching-learning process, and the sophistication of the professional skill of teach-
ing.The digital world ratchets up the complexity as well as the demand for a new
range of professional skills.
The academic teaching community is in urgent need of help with this
new world of digital affordances. Teachers have had no help with making this
transition—somehow they are expected to do it alongside the day job of teaching
and research and a mass of bureaucracy. They deserve the attention these pioneers
of Learning Design are giving to the problem of building our community knowl-
edge of how to optimize designs for learning in the digital age.This book makes a
fundamental contribution to the great challenge of describing and sharing effec-
tive teaching ideas.
Diana Laurillard
References
Fernandez, C. (2002). Learning from Japanese approaches to professional development:The
case of lesson study. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(5), pp. 393–405.
Ore, O. (1948). Number theory and its history. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
PREFACE
Imagine a world in which music notation was never developed. A world in which
music still existed, and great musical performances occurred, but where attendance
at a musical event was the only way to share in the experience (until recording
technology evolved). A world in which musical ideas could not be conveyed over
time and space separate from individuals who attended a particular performance.
Imagine how slowly such a world would progress in the sharing and develop-
ment of musical ideas; imagine the difficulties of training musicians. And imagine
the cultural loss—perhaps we would have no music at all from the Baroque, Clas-
sical or Romantic periods of the Western tradition, as well as countless examples
from other musical traditions.
Welcome to teaching as it stands today.
We have great teachers, and great teaching experiences, but we struggle to
convey the essence of great teaching ideas from one teacher to another—that
is, we have no “teaching notation”. Textbooks can provide content, but not the
pedagogical approaches teachers actually use in classrooms (and online). Perhaps
lesson plans are a start—but surely we could do more to convey the best teaching
ideas of experts to the wider community of educators in schools, universities and
other training contexts.
This book is about the new field of Learning Design—a field that is develop-
ing new ways to share great teaching ideas. Its foundational goal is a notational
system that is broad enough to describe many teaching and learning activities
from many different pedagogical orientations (“Learning Design Framework”—
see Chapter 1)—just as music notation can convey many different styles of music
(and both beautiful and mediocre music!). Next, the field of Learning Design
recognizes the different ways that wider educational contexts affect the design
xii Preface
decisions of educators (“Learning Design Conceptual Map”). Then it turns to

the crucial question of describing and sharing effective teaching and learning ideas
(“Learning Design Practice”).
Taken together, these ideas could revolutionize education through the wider
sharing and adoption of effective teaching and learning ideas. They could help
propagate the essence of great teaching ideas just as music notation helped propa-
gate great musical ideas.
This book opens with “The Larnaca Declaration on Learning Design”—a
new foundational statement of the field arising from a synthesis of ideas from
experts who originally met in Larnaca, Cyprus, in 2012. This chapter provides a
historical and conceptual overview of Learning Design, and clarifies key concepts
and terms for future development of the field.
The following five chapters explore theoretical implications of the field of
Learning Design, particularly as Learning Design relates to technology in edu-
cation. Chapter 2 provides a rich range of conceptual foundations for Learning
Design research and practice. Chapter 3 considers the importance of metaphor in
thinking about Learning Design concepts. Chapter 4 explores a deeper concept
of digital literacy in the lives of today’s students and its relevance for Learning
Design. Chapter 5 investigates important points of connection between Learning
Design theory and “TPACK” theory, while Chapter 6 considers ways of imple-
menting a Learning Design approach with educators.
The next five chapters consider practical research on Learning Design and
educational technology. Chapter 7 provides data from a significant study of the
design thinking of schoolteachers, while Chapter 8 offers similar reflections from
two studies of university lecturers. Chapter 9 explores how different pedagogical
assumptions lead to different kinds of learning designs for a mathematics example,
and how these may be implemented online using a Learning Design software
system (LAMS—Learning Activity Management System). Chapter 10 considers
the wider context of innovation adoption in education, and how it relates to the
adoption of Learning Design practices and software. Chapter 11 provides data on
a study of design decisions for the live implementation of different online tools in
virtual classroom software.
The final chapter synthesizes the ideas of this book from the perspective of
educational leaders and educators—that is, what should we do?
If the promise of Learning Design theories and research can be translated
into new design practices for educators across the world, and the most effective
teaching and learning ideas become widely shared and adopted, then the field of
education may yet see genuine transformation led by educators, for educators.
This would be a welcome development in an age when educational bureaucracy
and managerialism often crush the heart of education.
1
THE LARNACA DECLARATION
ON LEARNING DESIGN—2013
James Dalziel, Gráinne Conole, Sandra Wills,
Simon Walker, Sue Bennett, Eva Dobozy,
Leanne Cameron, Emil Badilescu-Buga and Matt Bower
Introduction
Education faces many challenges in the changing modern world. Learners are
changing in their approaches to education—they use digital technologies, they
multi-task, they collaborate and they are becoming less patient with teacher-
centric styles of education.
Educators1 face many changes—such as expectations of adopting innova-
tive teaching approaches, alignment of teaching to external standards, growing
requirements for professional development and difficulties in balancing a complex
range of demands from different stakeholders.
Government and educational institutions also face many changes, such as the
rise of the knowledge economy and the need for different kinds of graduates,
a shift from knowledge scarcity to abundance, and the impact of technology—
especially the Internet via open sharing of educational resources and massive open
online courses (MOOCs).
In the context of these changes, effective teaching and learning in the class-
room2 (and beyond) remains central. How can educators become more effective
in their preparation and facilitation of teaching and learning activities? How can
educators be exposed to new teaching ideas that take them beyond their tradi-
tional approaches? How can technology assist educators without undermining
them? How can learners be better prepared for the world that awaits them?
This chapter describes how the new field of Learning Design contributes to
the central challenge of improving teaching and learning. Learning Design can
assist educators to describe effective teaching ideas so that they can be shared
with, and adapted by, other educators. While the field has primarily focussed on
2 James Dalziel et al.
higher education and K-12 schools to date, it also has implications for vocational
and professional training. This chapter describes how ongoing work to develop a
descriptive language for teaching and learning activities (often including the use
of technology) is changing the way educators think about planning and facilitat-
ing educational activities.The ultimate goal of Learning Design is to convey great
teaching ideas among educators in order to improve student learning.
This chapter begins with this introduction, followed by an analogy from music
to provide a context for Part 1, which considers the possibility of educational
notation. Part 2 describes how the field of Learning Design is realizing this pos-
sibility, illustrated with an example based on a Role Play. Part 3 considers current
definitional challenges in Learning Design and its provocative aspiration towards
pedagogical neutrality. Part 4 provides a wider conceptual map of education for
exploring the place of Learning Design, including more examples of current
Learning Design approaches, and how the map can be used to analyze peda-
gogical theories. Part 5 returns to the relationship between Learning Design and
pedagogical theories, and the central question of effective teaching and learn-
ing approaches. The conclusion offers a new synthesis of the ideas discussed in
this chapter as a foundation for the future of Learning Design, and the epilogue
returns to the music analogy to reflect on the future prospects of this synthesis.
While the concepts discussed in this chapter have potentially far-reaching
implications for many aspects of education, this chapter is written primarily for
those with an interest in Learning Design and in pedagogical theories. Future
work based on this chapter will explore these ideas in different ways for other
audiences, such as policy makers and typical educators.
An Analogy from Music

Throughout the history of music, some people argued it was impossible to write
down music—music was too special, too ethereal to ever be reduced to written
form.
However, over many years the Western musical tradition slowly developed a
notational system for describing and sharing musical ideas. This standard format
allowed musicians to share great musical ideas without a need for personal contact.
As a result, a musician living hundreds of years later, in a very different context,
can still understand the musical ideas of a composer long ago, and, with appropri-
ate skills, can reproduce those musical ideas.
Music notation does not capture everything about musical ideas—a signifi-
cant role remains for performers to bring their own interpretations to music. But
musical notation contains enough information to convey musical ideas from one
person to another over time and space.
Music notation does not guarantee beautiful music—indeed, mediocre music
can be written down just as precisely as beautiful music. Music notation allows
The Larnaca Declaration 3
for a single notational framework to describe many different styles of music. And
while the Western notational framework is sufficiently broad to describe many
types of music, it contains limitations that make some kinds of music (e.g. quar-
tertone singing) difficult to describe within the standard format.
The purpose of creating musical notation was not simply the abstract concept
of music representation; rather, it was a vehicle for conveying great musical ideas
to others. This sharing helps other musicians to learn the crafts of performance
and composition, as well as enriching countless lives who listen to music that they
would never have heard if it had not been written down many years ago.
Part 1: Educational Notation?

Can we apply the lesson of music notation to education? Could we develop a way
to describe the activities of educators and learners in classrooms (and online) so
that great teaching ideas could be conveyed from one educator to another? Can
we help to make implicit, private teaching ideas into explicit, shared ideas?
In this chapter, we focus on the particular requirements of formal educa-
tion where an educator plays at least some role in structuring learning activities
for learners. Self-study, and learning in groups where there is no educator or
educator-like role, is outside our current scope. This should not be taken to mean
that we focus only on “teacher-centric” education—far from it—but it is simply
to note that our scope is the potential for educators to learn about good teaching
ideas from other educators. These ideas may call for an active role for the educa-
tor3 in directing activities, or the educator’s role may be to facilitate learners as
active managers of their learning.
In one sense, we have made progress already. The “content” dimension of
education is captured in books, websites, recorded lectures, videos and other
resources. But content transmission is not the only dimension of education—
otherwise educational institutions would need only libraries, rather than libraries
and classrooms.
Describing teaching and learning activities—what educators and learners
actually do in classrooms and online—is less developed. In many school contexts
there is a tradition of written lesson plans, and individual educators in universities
and vocational training may write down activity plans for tutorials and practical
workshops. But there is no generally agreed notational system for educational
activities that has the expressiveness or widespread adoption of music notation.
If one stops to reflect for a moment, this is a surprising situation. Many
educators could benefit from learning about their colleagues’ great teaching
ideas, yet our ability to convey a great teaching idea from one educator to
another is hampered by our lack of a common language for what we do in
classrooms and online. We struggle to describe even something as simple as how
different activities are conducted over time in a classroom (e.g. lecturing, small
group debate, whole-class discussion, individual reading, practical tasks etc.) or

its online equivalents.
Many very bright people have been educators, so the lack of a descrip-
tive framework for education could be interpreted as follows: it is a very hard
problem—if it wasn’t, some bright person would have solved it already.
By comparison with music notation, a descriptive framework for teaching and
learning activities would not describe everything that occurs—rather, it would
seek to convey enough information so that one educator could benefit from the
great ideas of another educator. These educational ideas could be of many differ-
ent kinds, based on different underlying pedagogical theories, in a manner similar
to different styles of music.
Just as with beautiful or mediocre music, an educational notation system would
not guarantee that the ideas written down would be educationally e ffective—rather,
it is simply a way of conveying an educational idea using a common framework.
And as with the problem of representing quartertone singing in Western music
notation, any system of educational notation will have weaknesses in describing
some types of education, even where it is strong at describing others. Given the
hard nature of the problem and the immaturity of this field, it is likely that early
educational notation systems will have many weaknesses and few strengths, but in
the same way that music notation has improved over time, the same may occur for
educational notation.
One important difference between music performances and teaching is that it
is typical for musicians to faithfully reproduce the written musical idea. In educa-
tion, however, there is an important role for educators to be able to adapt their
teaching in response to their learners’ unique needs. This adaptation could take
the form of reflecting on a great teaching idea from a colleague, then reworking
the idea for a future class based on the educator’s insights into his/her learners’
needs. Another kind of adaptation is where an educator decides to change his/
her approach in the middle of a class—perhaps because the original plan is not
working out as expected, or interesting new ideas have arisen in class that are
worth pursuing.
Interestingly, the analogy with music does not break down completely at this
point. There are traditions of improvisation in music (e.g. jazz) that take into
account the immediate evolving music experience (often due to the musical
interactions between performers). But even improvisation often uses some pre-
determined basic musical structures, such as the chord progressions in the 12-bar
blues.
Another point of comparison with music is whether the notation is for use by
the creator of the musical experience, or for use by others. If a musician composes
a piece of music for his/her own performance, he/she may not write it down
using musical notation (or may only write down a brief summary, such as guitar
chords), as the musician remembers the details for performance. But when the
musician wishes to convey the musical idea to another musician, musical nota-
tion becomes important. As many educators “compose” their teaching ideas for
their own use, the need for notation may not be pressing in these cases; and yet
when educators wish to convey a great teaching idea to other educators, they
lack an agreed format for communication. An agreed notation format would also
assist with other facets of education, such as documentation, quality assurance and
enhancement of teaching and learning activities.
There are two compelling reasons for developing a system of educational nota-
tion. First, teaching is sometimes called the loneliest profession (Hooker, 1949) as
individual educators often have little exposure to each other’s teaching. In many
ways, the craft of teaching is still at a relatively amateur stage, and lacks the profes-
sionalization that would come from a richer language for describing the essence
of teaching and learning activities.While there are examples of team teaching and
teacher observation in some contexts, much more could be done to share good
teaching practice, and a common notational format could assist this sharing.
Second, modern society and business expect more of graduates than just con-
tent knowledge. Skills such as problem solving, teamwork, effective communi-
cation, creativity, intercultural understanding, critical thinking and others are
required for success in the “knowledge economy”. These skills have been called
graduate attributes, soft skills, generic skills or 21st-century skills. These skills are
difficult to learn in the abstract—instead, they need to be learned by working
with content knowledge. Given this, transforming education for the 21st century
means redesigning the core teaching and learning activities used with content
knowledge, rather than simply adding extra courses on these broader skills, and
leaving content teaching practices untouched.
As many educators find it challenging to combine content knowledge and the
development of these broader skills in day-to-day teaching and learning activities,
there is a need for professional development about innovative teaching structures
that address this challenge (such as Problem-Based Learning, Role Plays, Web-
Quests and similar teaching strategies). While this professional development has
many aspects, educators could gain significant benefits from a common language
for describing great teaching ideas, just as an important part of learning a musical
instrument is understanding and playing great music.
While the primary focus of this chapter is the implications of educational
notation for pedagogical theory and practice, such notation also has productiv-
ity implications. If educators can easily reuse and adapt their colleagues’ good
ideas, then the preparation time for teaching may decrease (consider the many
educators across the world re-inventing similar teaching plans each day). That
is, successful sharing of good teaching ideas can lead not only to more effective
teaching, but also to more efficient preparation for teaching. These productivity
benefits may lead to increased cost-effectiveness in some contexts, but for many
educators, the benefit is more likely to be increased “time effectiveness”—that is,
time savings in one area of teaching (e.g. preparation) that allow for more time on
other areas (e.g. more individual feedback to learners).
In summary, we take inspiration from the history and uses of music notation
to try to imagine a descriptive framework for teaching and learning activities that
is broad enough to describe many different pedagogical approaches. A framework
of this kind could help to propagate great teaching ideas in order to enhance
the effectiveness of educators, leading to richer learning experiences for learn-
ers. We could consider other examples of descriptive frameworks—patterns and
plans in architecture, recipes, the Unified Modelling Language (UML) in software
development, dance notation etc. We leave it to other experts to draw out les-
sons for education from other descriptive frameworks—in this chapter, we use
music notation as an extended analogy for imagining education notation. In the
next section, we describe work on educational notation in the field of Learning
Design, followed by a new conceptual map for Learning Design and the broader
education landscape.
Part 2: Learning Design

The new field of Learning Design seeks to develop a descriptive framework for
teaching and learning activities (“educational notation”), and to explore how this
framework can assist educators to share and adopt great teaching ideas.
While there has been work on standardized lesson plan formats and reusable
educational software over several decades, the field of Learning Design has its ori-
gins in four somewhat distinct projects around the turn of the millennium. While
the concept of a descriptive framework is applicable to all kinds of e ducation—
including online education and face-to-face activities—early work in this field
focussed heavily on technological implementation.
The first foundational project was the development of the Educational Model-
ling Language (EML) by Rob Koper and colleagues at the Open University of
the Netherlands (Koper, 2001), which subsequently was adopted as the basis for
the IMS Learning Design technical specification in 2003 (IMS GLC, 2003). The
second was a diverse body of research on technology in higher education in the
UK, particularly the SoURCE project (e.g. Laurillard & McAndrew, 2002) and
the work of Diana Laurillard, Gráinne Conole, Helen Beetham and others. The
third project was the Australian Universities Teaching Council (AUTC) Learning
Design project based at Wollongong University, led by Ron Oliver, Barry Harper,
John Hedberg and Sandra Wills (this project had explicit links to the second proj-
ect). The fourth project was the Learning Activity Management System (LAMS)
project led by James Dalziel at Macquarie University, Australia (Dalziel, 2003).
All four projects had a similar underlying vision of improvement of teach-
ing and learning through the development and implementation of a descriptive
framework. For EML and LAMS, this led to a technical language for describing
and sharing sequences of online learning activities (IMS LD and LAMS LD,
respectively) and software systems for teacher authoring and learner implemen-
tation of activities (ReLoad/CopperCore/SLeD and LAMS). To continue the
music notation analogy, the technical language for implementation by an educa-
tional software system could be compared to using a piano roll with a mechanical
player piano (or MIDI in modern electronic instruments). These projects also
developed online communities for sharing of sequences (Unfold and the LAMS
Community).
The SoURCE and AUTC Learning Design projects both developed exemplars
of software systems, but not to the same level of implementation as the other two
projects. However, these two projects included a strong focus on describing and
sharing pedagogically effective sequences of activities—particularly the third proj-
ect through an online library of examples (see www.learningdesigns.uow.edu.au).
From these origins, a wide range of related projects, conferences and research
activities arose, with a growing breadth of interests that incorporated not only
technological issues but also support for educators in adopting innovative teach-
ing methods—see Table 1.1 for a sample of areas and early examples.
By 2012, the body of work on Learning Design was beyond easy summary
within the constraints of this chapter, so as an aid to those interested in under-
standing the field to date, we have developed a timeline of Learning Design–
related initiatives/projects, communities, software tools, conferences and other
key events and publications. This is provided in Figure 1.1, with more detailed
TABLE 1.1 A sample of different areas of the growing field of Learning Design, including
early examples
Areas of Application of Learning Design Early Examples
Foundation projects EML/IMS Learning Design, SoURCE,

AUTC Learning Design, LAMS
Advice to educators on adopting new DialogPlus, LearningMapR
teaching ideas
Description and sharing of particular EnRoLE (Role Plays), COLLAGE
teaching methods (e.g. Jigsaws)
Adaptation of existing technologies to MOT+, Grail (adaptation of LRN)
implement Learning Design
Technology to support reflection on the London Planner/Learning Designer,
design of teaching and learning Phoebe, LAMS Activity Planner
Communities and/or repositories for Unfold, LAMS Community, Cloudworks
Learning Design
Major Learning Design–related funding JISC Design for Learning, EU
programs TenCompetence
Learning Design Conferences LAMS Conferences, CETIS DesignBash,
TenCompetence Conferences
FIGURE 1.1 Timeline of developments in the field of Learning Design. Dates are approximate.
information about the elements of this figure (as well as the projects noted in
Table 1.1) available at http://learningdesigntimeline.wordpress.com/.
Part 2.1: Example of a Learning Design

Given the range of projects and software systems noted earlier, there are many
ways to describe a particular learning design, but for the sake of clarity we provide
one example later in this chapter to provide a concrete illustration.
An innovative, potentially effective teaching strategy is a “Role Play”. In this
strategy, learners are presented with a scenario in which they take on different
roles and then “play out” the scenario based on their allocated roles, with the
educator facilitating as required. Role Plays have been prominent in many dis-
cussions of Learning Design, such as the Versailles Use Case in IMS Learning
Design, the six Role Plays in the AUTC Learning Design project, the EnRoLE
Project, the Role Play Pattern in the COLLAGE project and others.
Narrow types of Role Plays are used in specific disciplines, such as practicing
conversation in language learning or practising a business interaction (e.g. a call
centre conversation). However, the more general kind of Role Play typically
involves a complex scenario in which learners take on a role that is unfamiliar to
their normal life, and hence they need to try to see the world from someone else’s
perspective. This “walking in the shoes of another” is the most powerful quality
of Role Plays as a teaching strategy as it can assist development of self-reflective/
meta-cognitive skills. While Role Plays may not be suitable in some disciplines
(e.g. mathematics), they can be used in many disciplines where understanding of
different perspectives is relevant.
Putting aside the rationale for choosing a Role Play as a teaching strategy (the
“why”), a Learning Design approach would seek to describe the sequence of
teaching and learning activities that make up the Role Play experience (the “what
and how”). The goal of this description is to provide educators with enough
information that they could replicate this teaching and learning experience. In
broad terms, a Role Play typically involves four main “phases”:
1) A description of the scenario and the roles within it.

2) Allocation of learners to roles, then learners prepare for the Role Play proper
by seeking to better understand their allocated roles. As multiple learners are
often allocated to each role, this can involve each role group discussing its
ideas about their roles (privately).
3) The “Role Play proper”, in which all learners come together to play out
their roles in the given scenario.
4) After conclusion of the Role Play proper, learners debrief on the experience
of playing their roles and reflect on what they have learned from “walking in
the shoes of another”.
To give a concrete example of a Role Play in a school-based teacher training

course:
1) The scenario is about the adoption of interactive whiteboards in a typi-

cal school. There are four roles in the imaginary school (teachers in favour
of interactive whiteboards, teachers with concerns about interactive white-
boards, school management and school students).
2) Each participant in the Role Play is allocated to a role, and then each role group
gets together privately to discuss its role and ideas about the scenario, and how it
could respond to the other role groups. The groups may also conduct research
on the scenario as it relates to their roles and discuss this within their role groups.
3) All role groups come together to discuss/debate the merits of adopting inter-
active whiteboards in the imaginary school. Participants in each role group
make their case, and interact with other roles as they play their own roles
while debating the merits of adopting interactive whiteboards.
4) After concluding the Role Play, the trainee teachers debrief as they
“return to being themselves” and reflect on the discussion in the Role
Play proper, and on how their personal views compare to those expressed
in their role.
We still need to consider many practical issues in implementing this Role

Play—such as the timing of each activity, any particular resources required within
each phase, the learners’ readiness to participate in this Role Play in the expected
way, the educator’s role as facilitator/umpire etc. An experienced educator may be
able to make judgements on these issues from existing experience without requir-
ing detailed descriptive information, whereas a novice educator may need more
comprehensive advice on these details prior to implementation (just as an experi-
enced musician can read music notation and infer how to interpret the music for
a performance, but a novice musician may need more advice on interpretation).
One way of implementing this Role Play is in an online environment where
discussion is conducted through an online forum (or similar tool). Figure 1.2 pro-
vides an example of the interactive whiteboards Role Play as represented in the
Authoring environment of the LAMS Learning Design system. In this example,
the first phase corresponds to a number of instruction pages about the scenario,
then learners split into role groups, and within the “branching” area learners con-
duct a number of reflection and discussion activities about their roles (activity
detail not shown). Later, the educator/facilitator opens the “stop” gate so that
learners enter the Role Play proper in a discussion forum. After concluding the
Role Play proper, the educator/facilitator opens the second “stop” gate to provide
learners with a series of reflective activities for debriefing.
For those familiar with LAMS, the colour and icons of each activity (i.e. each
box) provide information about the type of online tool being used at each stage
After concluding the Role Play proper, the educator / facilitator opens the second “stop”
gate to provide learners with a series of reflective activities for debriefing.
Phase 1
Role play overview Scenario Task structure Role groups
Phase 2
Grouping for roles
Branching
STOP
Phase 3
Forum – Everyone
STOP
? ?
Phase 4
Voting Journal Q & A Worked Well? Q & A Improvement?
FIGURE 1.2 LAMS Authoring view of interactive whiteboards adoption Role Play,

with phases added (right side)
(e.g. information page, discussion forum, voting tool, shared question and answer).
This means that the visualization provided in Figure 1.2 conveys information
about the structure and sequence of this learning design and the nature of indi-
vidual activities within it. Double clicking on a box provides information about
the content of the relevant activity and the settings for the tool.
Hence, Figure 1.2, together with other supporting advice, provides a descrip-
tion of the teaching and learning activities for this Role Play. It contains infor-
mation at three levels of description—a visual representation for the sequence of
learning activities (shown), a second, more detailed level of instructions/content
and settings within each individual tool (accessed by double clicking) and a third
underlying technical description (in XML) that provides all the relevant informa-
tion that a Learning Design software system needs to implement this learning
design as a set of “live” activities for a group of learners (e.g. it provides the techni-
cal information about how to configure the forum for phase 3).
All of this information is contained in a single file that can be given to other
educators who could then run this set of activities with their learners (given
access to the appropriate Learning Design software system). This particular file is
available at www.lamscommunity.org/lamscentral/sequence?seq_id=690433.
Even if the file is not run with another group of learners, it provides informa-
tion to other educators to help them understand the structure of teaching and
learning activities in the Role Play, which could assist them to implement varia-
tions of this approach (whether online or face to face).
In this example, the LAMS Authoring environment provides a framework/
descriptive language for notating this learning design. There are other attempts at
a descriptive framework within Learning Design research (four further examples
are given in the “Conceptual Map” section later in this chapter). At a techni-
cal level, there have been several XML-based approaches (IMS LD, LAMS LD,
Learning Design Language). At a written level, there are many types of lesson
plan formats, as well as explicit Learning Design written formats such as LD_Lite
(Littlejohn & Pegler, 2007). From another perspective, educational patterns can
be viewed as a type of written Learning Design (McAndrew, Goodyear & Dalziel,
2006). There are also various visualization approaches, particularly the Learning
Design flow diagram from the AUTC Learning Design project. Finally, there
are software systems that provide an integrated technical, “written” and visual
approach, such as LAMS and COLLAGE (Hernández-Leo et al., 2006). An exam-
ple of an explicit overlap of the ideas of a Learning Design system and music nota-
tion is the “Learning Score” software developed by John Davitt and colleagues,
which uses a musical score-like approach to arranging lesson activities over time.
While this example is a more literal interpretation of the musical notation meta-
phor than is intended here, it nonetheless illustrates the power of this idea.
Each of the examples in the previous paragraph is an attempt at devising a
descriptive framework for teaching and learning activities that is analogous to
a system for music notation. More precisely, each example is like one of the
attempts at music notation prior to the development of the standard Western
music notation approach—that is, it captures some aspects of the teaching and
learning process, but it is not yet sufficiently comprehensive or widely adopted to
become a standard for “educational notation”. Figure 1.3 gives two examples of
music notation—the example on the left predates the standard Western approach
but gives glimpses of what the future will be (and hence may be analogous to
Figure 1.2), while the example on the right is based on the standard approach
that has been central to Western music notation for hundreds of years (there is no
analogy to this in education—not yet).
Part 3: Definition Problems

Many in the field of Learning Design currently feel that the foundational ideas
and definitions are not sufficiently clear and that there is a need to create clearer
conceptual foundations in order to foster the next generation of research and
development. A number of meetings of experts held over several years have wres-
tled with these problems without clear solutions until recently (see acknowledge-
ments for details).
For example, the term “Learning Design” itself has a variety of meanings. In
the early days of the field there was debate over whether IMS Learning Design
was “the” Learning Design or just one example of these concepts. One early
attempt to resolve this difficulty was to use a capitalized “Learning Design” to
refer to IMS Learning Design and a non-capitalized “learning design” to refer to
the wider concept (Britain, 2004). While this idea may have been useful in the
early years, it is less useful today when many researchers wish to use the capitalized
format (i.e. “Learning Design”) to refer to the field as a whole, and then use “IMS
Learning Design” to refer only to IMS Learning Design. We have followed this
usage in this chapter and recommend it for the future to avoid confusion.
A related problem is that a particular sequence of teaching and learning
activities that has been constructed using the ideas of Learning Design is often
called “a learning design” or “a design”. While this reuse of the same words to
refer to both a whole field of study and a specific instance of work can be con-
fusing, it has become sufficiently common practice that we would recommend
the phrase “a learning design” or “a design” (un-capitalized and singular) for
future use. We recommend avoiding the term “learning design” (un-capitalized)
for the whole field—we recommend “Learning Design” for the whole field and
“a learning design” for an instance. In some contexts, the words “a sequence”
are used instead of “a learning design”, although “a sequence” has the limita-
tion that it may be taken to imply only a simple linear sequence. Nonetheless,
“a sequence” is sufficiently common in some areas of Learning Design (espe-
cially those associated with LAMS) that it is worth noting as an alternative to
“a learning design”.
One of the core innovations of Learning Design software systems is that
a sequence of teaching and learning activities is created independent of its
implementation context (i.e. independent of a class of learners), and hence it
is automatically shareable and can be used in other learner contexts. It is this
characteristic that most clearly illustrates how a learning design implemented
in a Learning Design software system is different from a collection of learning
activities inside a class/course within a Learning Management System (LMS4).
The learning design is created from the ground up as shareable and reusable
and then later applied to a particular class; whereas the activities in the LMS are
locked to a specific class of learners, and often difficult or impossible to extract
in a shareable format.
In practice, this feature of Learning Design software systems means that a learn-
ing design must be applied to a particular class of learners (which may require
related tasks such as setting up learner accounts or assigning learners to a sequence;
assigning specific learners to groups used within a sequence etc.). Hence, there
is a need to identify the difference between a learning design as an abstract set
of activities (independent of a class of learners) and a learning design that has
been implemented with a specific group of learners. While less discussion of this
issue has taken place to date, the most common phrasing for a learning design
implemented with learners is “a running learning design”, or, alternatively, “a
running sequence”—these phrases are recommended for the future. To continue
FIGURE 1.3 Examples of music notation from before the development of the standard
Western notation tradition (top) and after its development (bottom).Top image: cour-
tesy of Asiir, English Wikipedia
the musical analogy, a running learning design is equivalent to the performance of

a piece of (notated) music. Another word used to describe the implementation of
learning designs is “orchestration” (Prieto-Santos, Dimitriadis & Villagrá-Sobrino,
2011). In the context of LAMS, a running sequence is also called a “lesson”, but
given the other connotations of this word, it is not an ideal term here.
From an educator’s perspective, the creation/authoring of a learning design is
different from the task of monitoring learner progress through a running learning
design. From this distinction we can note that “evaluating” a learning design can
have two (complementary) meanings. The first is that an educator could evalu-
ate a learning design authored by another educator (e.g. acquired via a learning
design repository).This evaluation would be based on assessing the way the activi-
ties have been constructed and the educator’s opinion of their coherence and
potential effectiveness—but the key issue to note is that this evaluation can be
conducted independently of any data about actual learner behaviour. The second
kind of evaluation is to look at learner activity data from a running version of
the same learning design (or across multiple running versions of the same design
where available), as this may provide additional insights into the potential effec-
tiveness of a learning design based on learner behaviour.
This discussion offers clarification of some existing definitional challenges
within the field. At the end of this chapter, we will return to some broader defi-
nitional issues for the future.
Part 3.1: Pedagogical Neutrality and Learning Design

While the definitional discussion may help to clarify the meaning of key terms
within the field of Learning Design, a deeper conceptual problem remains—the
idea of Learning Design as a “pedagogical meta-model” (Koper, 2001), or, more
provocatively, that Learning Design is “pedagogically neutral”.
Learning Design is not a traditional pedagogical theory like, say, constructivism.
Learning Design can be viewed as a layer of abstraction above traditional pedagogi-
cal theories in that it is trying to develop a general descriptive framework that could
describe many different types of teaching and learning activities (which themselves
may have been based on different underlying pedagogical theories). For example, a
class taught using direct instruction methods would have a different activity structure
to a class taught using constructivist methods, but Learning Design seeks to provide
a single notational framework that could describe both sets of activities.
It is crucial to note at this point that unlike constructivism or instructionism,
Learning Design does not put forward a theory about how learners learn, and
hence how teachers should teach. There is no “should” in Learning Design as a
descriptive framework—merely a description of what activities happened in the
classroom or online.
By comparison, music notation provides a single framework for describ-
ing many different styles of music (Classical, Romantic, Modern etc.). A given
instance of any one of these styles could be a beautiful or mediocre example of

this style. Hence, Learning Design as a “pedagogical meta-model” is attempting
a similar goal as music notation—a general framework for describing many dif-
ferent styles/pedagogies, and any given instance of a style/pedagogy could be
assessed as beautiful/effective for learning or mediocre/ineffective for learning.
In this sense, the descriptive aim of Learning Design is pluralism rather than
neutrality.
Going further with the music notation example, no descriptive framework
is absolutely neutral—even a successful, widely used framework (such as the
Western music notation tradition) will have weaknesses in certain contexts
(e.g. quartertone singing), and other music notation traditions have different
strengths and weaknesses in describing musical ideas. While a widely adopted
system of notation will have many strengths in representing the music of its
community of origin, its success as a framework is a complex mixture of accu-
racy and expressiveness of representation, ease of understanding and historical
factors. Hence, Learning Design could never be pedagogically neutral in an
absolute sense—any system of description will have certain biases in its descrip-
tive framework.
However, we believe that given these caveats, it is possible to conceive of a
framework for describing many different types of teaching and learning activities,
and that this framework could appropriately aspire towards pedagogical neutrality,
even if this goal is unachievable in an absolute sense.The practical goal is a frame-
work of sufficient accuracy and expressiveness that it can describe many different
examples of teaching and learning activities (which are themselves based on dif-
ferent pedagogical theories). Any given instance may be an excellent or mediocre
expression of a particular underlying pedagogical theory, and hence more or less
effective for student learning.
While we believe that the phrase “pedagogical neutrality” can be useful as
a debating point for illustrating how Learning Design is different to traditional
pedagogical theories, in practice we prefer phrasing such as “Learning Design
frameworks can describe a broad range of teaching and learning activities” so as
to avoid unnecessary consternation among colleagues who experience visceral
reactions to “pedagogical neutrality”. Hence, we recommend the less provocative
formulations for future general purpose discussion of Learning Design, while
acknowledging the occasional use of the more provocative form in the narrow
case of debates that compare Learning Design to traditional pedagogical theories.
Part 4: A Learning Design Conceptual Map

Descriptive frameworks for teaching and learning activities are one of the core
innovations of Learning Design, but there are many related issues. Any particular
representation of a learning design can also include advice about the design,
advice about how the design was created (and hence how it could be changed)
and advice about implementing the design with learners. Another central ele-
ment is that of sharing—as the reason for describing good teaching ideas is
to propagate these ideas among educators to ultimately improve teaching and
learning widely.
But even these core concepts are only a small part of the wider field of Learn-
ing Design. In Figure 1.4, we have tried to capture the broader education land-
scape and how it relates to the core concepts of Learning Design. We have called
this a Learning Design Conceptual Map (LD-CM). For the sake of clarity, we
refer to a box in the LD-CM as a “component” and an item within a box as an
“element”.
The arrows provide one view of how the different elements interact in the
process of designing and implementing teaching and learning activities, but other
interactions occur both within and between the elements of the LD-CM—
however, to attempt to note all possible arrows would make the Map unwieldy.
But this is not to discount the importance of other connections between parts of
the Map, for example, an arrow from Learner Responses to Educational Philoso-
phy could indicate the ways learner responses to learning experiences can shape
an educator’s educational philosophy, and how this could change how an educator
designs future learning experiences.
Challenge
Creating learning experiences aligned to particular pedagogical approaches and learning objectives
Educational Philosophy Teaching Cycle
All pedagogical approaches Level of Granularity

Engage
All disciplines Design
with
and Plan Program
Theories & Methodologies
students
A range based on assumptions Module
about the Learning Environment
Session
Learning Environment:
Professional
Characteristics & Values
Development
Reflecon Learning Activities
External Agencies Institution
Educator Learner
Core Concepts of Learning Design
Guidance Representation Sharing
Implementation
Tools Resources
Learner Responses
Feedback Assessment Learner Analytics Evaluation
FIGURE 1.4 A Learning Design Conceptual Map

Challenge
Our overall statement of the challenge is “creating learning experiences aligned
to particular pedagogical approaches and learning objectives”. Just as the Learn-
ing Design descriptive framework seeks to support many different pedagogical
approaches, we have similarly tried to phrase our vision of the general educational
challenge in a way that is applicable to many different contexts regardless of the
particular pedagogical approaches of that context.
In practice, the actual pedagogical approaches and learning objectives will
be determined by the characteristics and values of institutions, external agen-
cies and educators (and indirectly, learners), together with the relevant edu-
cational philosophy and theories and methodology that are appropriate for a
given educational context. Hence the top left section of the LD-CM provides
a structure for analyzing the broader educational context and how it impacts
representations of teaching and learning activities—these three components
are discussed later.
We note that some approaches to education sector transformation start with
an assumption that educators need to be “fixed” or even in some technology
discussions, “removed”. By comparison, the field of Learning Design focuses on
educators creating great teaching ideas and sharing these with their colleagues,
who in turn adapt these ideas to suit their local teaching contexts, and potentially
share back adapted or improved versions of the original idea. While a shared
learning design might be used “as is” if it is a perfect fit for the local context, the
usual expectation is that an educator who adopts a learning design will still need
to adapt it to suit his/her learners’ particular needs. Hence the reuse of learning
design is not a mechanical implementation process, but rather a creative process
where educators use professional judgement to align a good teaching idea from
elsewhere with the unique needs of their context. Going further, this implies
that Learning Design software should empower a typical educator to easily edit a
learning design, rather than requiring specialist technical skills or assistance from
technical staff.
Educators are central to Learning Design as creators, sharers, adapters and
improvisers, working together in professional communities of practice. As a
model of education sector transformation, it is a model led by educators for
educators.
Educational Philosophy
This component of the Learning Design Conceptual Map is to note the explicit
or implicit pedagogical theories that underlie decisions about teaching and learn-
ing. This most often has an impact via the choices of educators, but policy deci-
sions at higher levels (such as educational institutions and external agencies such
as government education departments or professional bodies) can also affect edu-

cational philosophy. For example, university degree validation documents often
require statements regarding the educational approach taken to the design and
delivery of courses, and these may be influenced by policy and strategy.
Examples of pedagogical theories include constructivist approaches, cog-
nitive and developmental approaches, instructionism/drill and practice-style
approaches, connectivist approaches and others. More detailed discussion of
pedagogical theories, effective teaching and Learning Design is provided at the
end of this chapter.
This component also notes that Learning Design is applicable to all discipline
areas. While the structure of particular learning designs may vary from discipline
to discipline, the underlying concepts of Learning Design are relevant to all con-
tent domains.
Theories and Methodologies

A wide range of theories and research methods is used to guide decisions about
teaching and learning activities, as well as to evaluate the impact of those deci-
sions. This includes theories about how people interact, about how institutions
affect people’s behaviour, theories of motivation and incentives etc. These include
theories such as Cultural-Historical Activity Theory, Communities of Practice,
Actor-Network Theory and Cybernetics and Systems Thinking (see Conole,
2013, for a review of these theories in relation to Learning Design).
Most important, many different types of research methods are used in educa-
tion, including quantitative and qualitative research, action research, design-based
research, experimental control studies, case studies, ethnography etc. Differences
in research methods lead to different kinds of evidence for educational effective-
ness, which in turn is used to support different kinds of pedagogical approaches,
which ultimately affects the day-to-day decision-making of educators, and the
policy directions of educational institutions.
Learning Environment: Characteristics and Values

This component of the Learning Design Conceptual Map can be used to describe
how the context for learning affects the design of teaching and learning activities.
The title draws attention to how both the characteristics and values of external
agencies (such as government and professional bodies), institutions, educators and
learners are relevant to understanding an educational context.
An educational institution can have formal education structures and accredita-
tion (e.g. a university degree), or it may have more informal structures (e.g. a com-
munity learning group such as computer skills for older people). For example, a
university’s focus on knowledge testing in formal exams in order to pass courses for
a degree differs from a focus on practical abilities/competencies, such as the ability

to use a computer where there is no external assessment/certification. Explicit and
implicit moral, political and spiritual values can have an impact on a given learning
environment via educational institutions, as well as via educators and learners. In
addition, institutional characteristics include the physical and virtual environments
available for teaching and learning. Institutions’ characteristics and values typically
impact teaching and learning through affordances and constraints on educators and
learners’ behaviour.
Educational institutions rarely have complete freedom to allow educators to
teach as they wish—it is more common for institutions to be affected by external
agencies that constrain and direct their teaching, be they government education
departments or industry and professional bodies. It is not unusual for institutions
to be affected by many different external agencies, and the complexity of over-
lapping constraints and directions from multiple agencies is one of the growing
modern pressures on institutions and educators.
Educators bring different characteristics and values to their decision-making
about teaching and learning activities. These include the quantity and style of
teacher training received, past experiences as a learner, the classroom/online
teaching experience of an educator, the role of other educators as peers and men-
tors, the self-perception of the educator’s role as expert/facilitator/provocateur,
the educator’s values about the kind of learning that is important (and unimport-
ant) for his/her learners etc.
Learner characteristics and values include responses to teaching and learning
activities (e.g. whether learners are comfortable with debate, or questioning the
ideas of their teachers), their past learning experiences and how they shape current
behaviour, their own values about what matters (and what doesn’t) in their edu-
cation, their levels of motivation and engagement, their goals for their future etc.
These characteristics operate not only at the individual level, but also in larger clus-
ters, such as the “student culture” of a particular class or a whole educational insti-
tution, and also wider cultural approaches to education, such as national attitudes.
Of particular importance to recent educational reforms are the learner char-
acteristics of developing graduate attributes/21st-century skills, such as critical
thinking, teamwork, communication, intercultural understanding and creativity.
A related skill is the development of critical reflection on life and work with
digital technologies—often referred to as digital literacies—and the wider range
of digital responses that learners can produce in today’s world, such as creating
a presentation, a website or a movie, rather than simply writing text for an essay.
Many complex interactions take place among external agencies, institutions,
educators and learners in terms of characteristics and values. For our current pur-
poses, it is simply worth noting that different assumptions within this part of the
LD-CM will have different impacts on how teaching and learning activities are
planned and delivered, and how learners respond to these activities.
Teaching Cycle
This component of the LD-CM acknowledges how different stages in the Teach-
ing Cycle can impact the design of teaching and learning activities. Obviously,
how an educator designs and plans a set of activities is crucially important, and
this is a central focus of Learning Design. But the LD-CM also draws attention
to how educators engage with learners, such as adapting their teaching “in the
moment” to the changing dynamics of the classroom, or responding asynchro-
nously to learners in an online discussion forum. Indeed, one of the most frequent
concerns about online education is the loss of non-verbal cues about learner reac-
tions to teaching that otherwise inform adaptation in the moment. This example
draws attention to the more general issue of how the act of teaching sometimes
plays out differently to how it was planned beforehand.
The dimension of adaptation or improvisation of teaching in the moment has
been weak in Learning Design to date, particularly where Learning Design soft-
ware systems struggle to change a sequence once it is running. However, any cur-
rent technical difficulties in coping with this requirement should be of secondary
importance—the skills and techniques that educators bring to adaptation in the
moment are of great importance to teaching and learning. It is worth drawing
attention to this historical weakness in Learning Design, as the ability to adapt
teaching in the moment is central to the self-image of many educators, and hence
a perceived lack of emphasis on this aspect of teaching and learning has led some
educators to dismiss Learning Design in the past.
Reflection on teaching during and after the event is also of significant impor-
tance to future design decisions—understanding what went wrong in an unsuc-
cessful class can change planning in the future. A more long-term view of this
process of reflecting on teaching is captured in the “Professional Development”
element, also sometimes called “Professional Learning”, which would contain
formal professional development courses as well as the long, personal journey of
gaining experience as an educator, and how this influences subsequent Teaching
Cycles of designing and engaging with learners.
Level of Granularity
This component of the LD-CM illustrates different levels of granularity in the
design of teaching and learning activities, such as how individual Learning Activi-
ties build up to sequences or Sessions. Collections of Sessions over time make up
larger Modules (like courses), and Modules often combine to larger Programs of
learning, such as a degree or a year (or set of years) of school education.
These distinctions will at times have fuzzy boundaries and different termi-
nology (particularly across different education sectors—e.g. universities versus
schools), but the important issue for this Map is that different kinds of decisions
are typically made at each level. Individual Learning Activities involve decisions
such as the phrasing of a reflective question (e.g. open or closed), the layout of
an online resource and the structure of quiz items. Sessions tend to be collec-
tions of activities (be they sequential or other non-linear structures), with the
key focus being the learning objectives(s) of a set of activities, and the rationale
for the choice and arrangement of Learning Activities to achieve this objective.
Many innovative teaching strategies, such as Role Plays, Problem-Based Learning,
Predict-Observe-Explain,WebQuests etc., are sets of Learning Activities that have
a particular sequential structure.
Decisions at the Module level relate to how Sessions relate to a larger unit—
such as how the weekly Sessions of lectures and tutorials are structured to cover
the content of a course in a typical university setting, or how a set of different
sequences of Learning Activities contributes to a larger unit of work over a num-
ber of weeks/months in a school. Program-level decisions often include high-
level progression concepts, such as course pathways within degrees (and their
prerequisites), or the structure of Modules over a year in a school. It is also worth
noting that broad learning objectives at Program and Module levels (such as 21st-
century skills) may cascade down into particular learning objectives at the level of
Sessions and Learning Activities.
Core Concepts
At the heart of the LD-CM are the core concepts of Learning Design—most
centrally the idea of a descriptive framework for representation and visualiza-
tion of teaching and learning activities—“educational notation”. This element is
complemented by guidance and sharing.
Guidance
Guidance covers the many ways that educators can be assisted to think through
their teaching and learning decision-making, in particular, how they can under-
stand and adopt new, effective teaching methods. In some cases guidance is incor-
porated into the representation (e.g. patterns), whereas in others it is a complement
to the representation, for example:
• websites with information on teaching ideas and tools (e.g. the Phoebe Peda-
gogic Planner, Masterman & Manton, 2011),
• software systems that seek to guide educators through a reflective process
about their teaching (e.g. the London Planner/Learning Designer), poten-
tially including artificial intelligence to offer suggestions during the process,
• collections of templates of effective teaching strategies and accompanying
advice (e.g. LAMS Activity Planner),
• workshop processes for guiding groups of educators in reflective planning of

future teaching (e.g. Viewpoints project, Open University Learning Design
Initiative) and
• formal teacher training/professional development.
Given Learning Design’s focus on sharing and reuse, an important aspect of

guidance is information to accompany any shared learning design about its con-
text of use, and how it might be adapted for another context. This may include
metadata about the learning design, covering issues such as the educational con-
text of its original use (e.g. discipline, age group, timeframe, country etc.), its
learning objectives and pedagogical rationale, past implementation experiences
with learners, suggestions for adaptation and so on. The point is to provide suffi-
cient guidance to aid in local implementation when an educator considers using/
adapting a learning design from another context. Further details about processes
of sharing are given in the Sharing section.
Representation
As noted earlier in relation to Figure 1.3, the field of Learning Design is yet to
develop a widely accepted framework for representation of teaching and learning
activities. However, aspects of a number of projects provide indications of how
this framework might be conceptualized. Figure 1.2 provides an example from the
LAMS Authoring environment that draws attention to the flow of different kinds
of learning activities over time in a visual format. Another example of a visual
format for illustrating the flow of activities over time is the flow diagram from the
AUTC Learning Design project—Figure 1.5 provides an example of this diagram
for describing a “Predict-Observe-Explain” teaching method (AUTC Learning
Design, 2002).
Another kind of representation is educational patterns, drawing on research on
patterns in disciplines such as architecture and software development. Patterns use
a particular form of structured text, and may also include a visualization, such as
the example in Figure 1.6 for a jigsaw teaching method (from Dimitriadis, 2012).
A fourth kind of representation is the timeline and pie chart views in the
Learning Designer (previously named the London Planner). In this representa-
tion, the learning activities are analyzed in terms of the type of learning that
occurs in each activity (including the potential for multiple types of learning
to occur in one activity). This approach is based on a conceptual classification
of types of learning into six categories (also known as pedagogic descriptors):
Acquisition, Discussion, Enquiry, Practice, Collaboration and Production. This
approach allows for computational analysis of the types of learning occurring
across learning activities (as opposed to analysis of simply the type of digital
tools selected, as with LAMS). This is a promising area for future Learning
Explanation of POE strategy
(face-to-face lecture)
Interactive Multimedia Setup: Students are introduced
CD-ROM to POE strategy and form pairs
(16 scenarios)
Tutorial about use
of CD-ROM
Pairs discuss and predict outcome

Interactive Multimedia for supplied scenario. Peer collaboration
CD-ROM Prediction and accompanying (POE task performed in pairs)
(16 scenarios) rationale recorded
1 learning session
Predictions saved
on computer Pairs observe scenario outcome
(video based)
Groups of pairs explain any

differences between their
Facilitated small group
prediction and observations.
discussion about task
Explanation is recorded
Explanations saved
on computer POE task sequence repeats
based on number of POE scenarios
Teacher facilitated class

Class debrief discussion of student
predications and explanations
FIGURE 1.5 A “Predict-Observe-Explain” teaching method described using the AUTC

Learning Design project flow diagram. Image appears courtesy of Sue Bennett.
Individual or initial group

Teacher (general representation)
Introductory individual
(or initial group) activity
Individual
Collaborative activity
around the sub-problem
Expert Group
Collaborative activity
around the problem and
solution proposal
Jigsaw Group
FIGURE 1.6 Partof a jigsaw teaching method described using an educational pattern
(NB: not shown are sections at the end of this pattern for “Patterns that complement
this pattern” and “Patterns that complete this pattern”). Image appears courtesy of
Yannis Dimitriadis.
Design research if agreement on a set of pedagogical descriptors can be achieved.

Figure 1.7 is based on an example of a lesson plan that prepares students for a
visit to the National Portrait Gallery where they carry out a WebQuest using
the collection. Other examples are in Bower, Craft, Laurillard and Masterman
(2011).
A final, different example of a representational approach is the Open Uni-
versity Learning Design Initiative (OULDI) “Course Map” view (see Conole,
2012), which is a representation primarily at the “Module” Level of Granularity
(as compared to the previous four examples, which were primarily at the Learn-
ing Activities and Session levels). This representation draws attention to the com-
ponents of an overall university course/unit, and how tools/resources and roles/
relationships relate to the different course aspects of Guidance and Support, Con-
tent and Experience, Reflection and Demonstration and Communication and
Collaboration. It does not describe sequences of activities like earlier examples
(activities are described elsewhere in the OULDI approach, including some simi-
lar ideas to Figure 1.7)—instead, it provides a more holistic view of different types
of activities across the whole unit/course—see Figure 1.8.
Before leaving this section, two additional points are worth making. First, an
interesting difference between patterns and a software-based learning design (such
FIGURE 1.7 Timeline and pie chart analysis of the learning activities designed for a
sequence on interpreting the meaning of portraiture, showing the aggregated time
for each learning activity, using the Learning Designer (http://learningdesigner.org).
Image appears courtesy of Diana Laurillard.
Guidance and Support Content and Experience
Peer-
Student-choice Innovative-
Active- support for-participants
discovery
Individualized Chaos and serendipity
Authentic Research based
Student-autonomy
Accessible
Guided Scaffolded Theory based
Applied concepts
Reused and found Linked
Reflection and Demonstration Communication and Collaboration
Student-generated-content Social
reflective-log Collaborative
portfolio
Debate
Professional-
peer-assessment
self-assessment
community
FIGURE 1.8 Course Map template from the Open University Learning Design Initia-
tive. Appears courtesy of Gráinne Conole.
as a LAMS sequence) is that a pattern provides ideas/guidance for a teaching

method, but how these ideas are used in practice still requires a “creative leap” by
the educator; whereas a LAMS sequence (if it contains relevant content) could
potentially be used “as is”—no creative leap may be needed. There are poten-
tial benefits and challenges in each case—a pattern requires significant additional
work for implementation, but this work should help to ensure the pattern is
appropriate to the immediate learner context; a LAMS sequence with relevant
content could rapidly be used as is, but if it is used without sufficient regard for
the immediate context, a pre-built sequence from another context may not be a
good match for local learner needs. The normal expectation would be that any
reuse of a learning design requires careful professional judgement by an educator
to determine how best to adapt and then implement a teaching idea to suit the
local context.
Second, there is a tension between the extent to which a descriptive frame-
work rapidly conveys the essential teaching idea(s) of a learning design compared
to conveying the detailed teaching and technical information needed for imple-
mentation (“orchestration”). This can be described as a tension between “beauty
and precision” (Derntl, Parrish & Botturi, 2010).
In summary, Learning Design projects have developed a number of different

ways to represent/visualize teaching and learning activities that hopefully provide
a glimpse of a future widely adopted framework for educational notation. It may
be that a single dominant representation will be widely adopted in the future (as in
Western music notation) or it may be that multiple diagram types will be needed
(such in the Unified Modelling Language in software development). It may even
be that new technologies, such as animations, will provide new approaches to
representation that do not have a simple written analogue. For a promising early
example of this idea, which uses animations to represent assessment information
across a semester at the Module and Program level, see the “Map My Programme”
project (Walker & Kerrigan-Holt, 2012).
Sharing
The “Sharing” element draws attention to the driver behind representation—
the propagation of good teaching ideas from one educator to another. Learning
Design has a strong history of sharing, including the use of online repositories of
learning designs (e.g. the LAMS Community) and communities for discussion
of teaching ideas among peers (e.g. Cloudworks). Sharing in Learning Design is
often under open educational licences (such as Creative Commons licences), and
hence is part of the wider movement of Open Education, and related movements
in open source software and open content.
Indeed, a case can be made that Learning Design is “open source teaching”,
in the sense that the open sharing of descriptions of teaching activities is like
sharing the “source code” of teaching, and where these ideas are developed and
improved over time by communities of educators, then there is genuine argument
for the phrase “open source teaching”. And this idea supports one of the striking
possibilities of Learning Design—the potential to take teaching strategies from
one discipline (e.g. PBL in medicine) and propagate them to other disciplines by
capturing the underlying pedagogic essence of the teaching strategy in a learning
design (separate from any discipline content) in order to explore the potential use
of this teaching strategy in a different discipline context.
An agreed representation is only one part of the complex phenomenon of
sharing—many social forces are at work that foster and inhibit sharing. By com-
parison, the adoption of music notation was driven not only by its conceptual
elegance and usefulness, but also through social practices of music teaching using
the notation, as well as informal networks among musicians who propagated this
notational approach when it first appeared. Similarly, any widespread acceptance
of an educational notation system will arise from a complex mixture of usefulness,
social propagation and serendipity. More research is needed on the factors that
foster, and inhibit, practical sharing of learning designs.
Implementation
This component of the Learning Design Conceptual Map draws attention to dif-
ferent Tools and Resources required during teaching. This could include physical
tools for classroom activities (whiteboard, flipchart, pens) as well as educational
resources such as articles and videos. In online contexts, activities may require
tools such as discussion forums, wikis, quiz systems etc., and resources such as
websites and online videos.
In the case of Learning Design software systems, activity tools are a part of the
overall software. A special feature of activity tools in Learning Design software sys-
tems is that they need to be capable of being configured by a learning design.That
is, when an educator obtains a learning design file, and implements it in a local
course, the file contains technical instructions to the Learning Design software
system about how to configure the various tools required (e.g. at step 3, provide a
discussion forum with two threads, with the discussion topic for thread 1 as “How
is X similar to Y?” and thread 2 as “How is X different from Y?”).
This requirement for Tools to be capable of receiving an “injection” of exter-
nal content and configurations from a learning design file has proved a far more
demanding technical requirement for Learning Design software systems than was
initially anticipated, and is one of the reasons for difficulties in creating fully func-
tional Learning Design software systems.
A related requirement is the need for a sequencing engine to facilitate the
progress of learners through a suite of activities, and for activity tools to be
“sequencing aware”—that is, to be able to designate completion of an activity to
a sequencing engine in order to allow for learner progress through a sequence.
As noted earlier, this should not be taken to mean only simple linear sequences—
systems such as LAMS provide features for multiple pathways and sets of activities
which can be completed in any order and which can be revisited multiple times.
These demanding technical capabilities are absent from most (if not all) current
Learning Management Systems, which helps explain the need for separate Learn-
ing Design software systems (which can then be integrated into LMSs).
Learner Responses
We have chosen the title “Learner Responses” to capture many different types
of information about student learning, such as learning outcomes, competen-
cies, skills and understanding. While formative and summative Assessments are
typical in many educational contexts (and the wider literature on these topics is
all relevant here), Learning Design draws attention to a wider view of responses
from learners. This includes Feedback, such as the real-time learner reactions to
teaching that an educator may use to change teaching in the moment (see Teach-
ing Cycle section). It also includes more structured Evaluation of teaching, such
as course surveys, which may play an important role in future improvements to

teaching practice.
But Learning Design software systems provide an opportunity for deeper track-
ing of learner activity, as every step for every learner is recorded as a by-product
of the use of technology to manage the sequence of activities. This includes not
just learner responses to activities but also time taken on each activity. This allows
for a richer analysis of learner behaviour at all stages of the teaching and learning
process, rather than just at points of assessment, or simply counting the number of
mouse clicks of a learner within an LMS course. It also allows richer comparisons
within a group of learners (e.g. what are the final quiz scores of learners who
spent above average time in the discussion forum?). This dimension of Learning
Design allows for rich Learner Analytics based on a new kind of “big data”, and
this illustrates how big data about collaborative learning could be used to extend
the current approaches to massive open online courses (MOOCs). It could also
help to avoid one of the current pitfalls of Learner Analytics research where the
outcome of data analysis is simply the “discovery” of the pattern of activities that
constituted the educator’s lesson plan in the first place. In Learning Design soft-
ware systems, the structure of activities is embedded with the learner analytics
data, allowing for more profitable uses of this data for educational research.
As with Assessment, the wide literature on formative and summative Evaluation
is relevant to Learning Design. A perspective on evaluation of special relevance to
Learning Design is that learners are increasingly interested in the teaching meth-
ods used in their courses, and some will intentionally choose courses and institu-
tions that use (or do not use) certain teaching methods (such as Problem-Based
Learning in medicine). The willingness of learners to make choices about their
future study based on their evaluation of different learning designs across courses
or institutions illustrates that it is not only the evaluation of learning designs by
educators that will affect future decision-making—learner evaluations of learning
designs will increasingly affect the decision-making of institutions and educators.
Part 4.1: Applying the Learning Design Conceptual

Map to Educational Theory and Practice
The Learning Design Conceptual Map provides a wider educational context for
Learning Design representations, but it can also be used to explore how other
educational theories/practices relate to Learning Design and to each other.While
a thorough discussion of any one of the following examples would require more
space than is available here, we provide some initial indications of how different
theories/practices can be conceived of as “overlays” onto the LD-CM.
For example, Diana Laurillard’s “Conversational Framework” (Laurillard, 2002) is a
model for understanding how educators and learners interact in terms of understand-
ing a discipline’s theory as well as practical tasks. The model focuses on interactions
between educators and learners at both theory and practice levels, and also how
learners reflect on theory and practice internally, as well as how educators reflect on
their teaching of theory and practice as a result of their interactions with learners.
In the context of the LD-CM, a given instance of teaching using Laurillard’s
Conversational Framework could be notated using a Learning Design representa-
tion. This could be accompanied by guidance for educators on using the Con-
versational Framework in this instance of teaching, and sharing of this instance
with others. More broadly, the Conversational Framework has a particular focus
on several elements of the LD-CM: Sessions and Learning Activities within Level
of Application; Reactions to teaching and potentially Assessment in Learner
Responses; and particularly the Teaching Cycle where Engaging with Learners
and Reflection are affected by interactions with learners (in both theory and
practical areas of the relevant discipline). Many more comments could be made
about the Conversational Framework and the Learning Design Conceptual Map,
but for current purposes, the point is to draw out how particular parts of the Map
are significant for the Conversational Framework.
A different example is the “TPACK” Framework (Koehler & Mishra, 2009)
about the technological, pedagogical and content knowledge educators use
when they design learning activities.Teaching based on the TPACK Framework
could be described using the LD-CM e.g. the level of application would be pri-
marily at the Module and Learning Activity levels, and while the whole Teach-
ing Cycle is relevant, there would be a greater focus on a longer-term process of
professional development in understanding the TPACK Framework. As TPACK
places a particular emphasis on technology, it would also focus on the way that
Tools are used within the Implementation component, and differences in how
educators use technological tools according to their technological knowledge.
A more challenging example to consider is the broad field of Instruc-
tional Design. Some examples of instructional design tend to focus mostly at
the Learning Activity level, together with a focus on Sessions in terms of the
sequencing of Learning Activities. But the underlying meaning of teaching and
learning here can be quite different to the previous two examples, as some
Instructional Design approaches only address single-learner contexts where no
peers or educators are present (e.g. the Shareable Content Object Reference
Model—SCORM—technical standard that is the basis of much e-learning
courseware). SCORM constrains the type of activities that are possible (e.g.
no collaborative activities), which would affect the nature of the representa-
tion as well as the choice of tools. The Teaching Cycle looks quite different for
SCORM courseware, as no educator is present in the teaching step, so all deci-
sions are made during preparation. Changes for the future are possible based on
Learner Responses, but these are typically limited to assessment such as quiz
scores, and in some cases more advanced learner analytics such as time on task
and cursor movements on screen.
Perhaps most significant for a single-learner Instructional Design approach

such as SCORM, it tends to have a different set of pedagogical assumptions,
together with a focus on different kinds of research data to support these peda-
gogical assumptions. There is a need for a deeper exploration of how Learning
Design relates to Instructional Design, and we hope that research on descrip-
tive frameworks together with the LD-CM can assist in describing connections
and differences between Learning Design and Instructional Design—much work
remains to do. Ultimately, we believe that Instructional Design is one subset of
the possibilities covered by Learning Design, although it is also worth noting that
Instructional Design has a more developed set of theory and practices than Learn-
ing Design at the current time.
There are many other educational theories and practices that could be ana-
lyzed using the Learning Design Conceptual Map, and it may be that some of
these will draw attention to significant omissions from the LD-CM, leading to
an evolution of the LD-CM in the future. For our present purposes, though, we
seek to illustrate how a given theory or practice can be analyzed as an “overlay”
onto the LD-CM, and how different overlays can be compared to each other
to better understand their similarities and differences. This approach of visual-
izing overlays to the LD-CM is illustrated in Figure 1.9 by highlighting areas of
Challenge

Engage
with
and Plan Program
students
Session
Professional
Development
Reflecon Learning Activities
Educator Learner
Implementation
Tools Resources
Learner Responses
FIGURE 1.9 Example of LD-CM overlay for significant areas of interest in Laurillard’s
Conversational Framework (for comparison with Figure 1.10)
Challenge

Engage
with
and Plan Program
students
Session
Professional
Development
Reflection Learning Activities
Educator Learner
Implementation
Tools Resources
Learner Responses
FIGURE 1.10 Example of LD-CM overlay for significant areas of interest for a SCORM
single-learner courseware approach (for comparison with Figure 1.9).
particular significance within the LD-CM for Laurillard’s Conversational Frame-

work compared to areas of significance for SCORM in Figure 1.10. Where two
overlays regard the same area as significant (e.g. Education Philosophy and Tools
in Figures 1.9 and 1.10), it is important to investigate similarities and differences
in how this area is interpreted in each approach.
We believe these comparisons will also benefit from using a Learning Design
representation of one or more concrete instances of teaching and learning activi-
ties (based on the given theory/practice) in order to better explicate similarities
and differences in classroom practices arising from theoretical differences. The
combination of broad analysis of pedagogical approaches (using LD-CM overlays)
combined with detailed analysis of concrete examples of teaching and learning
(using a Learning Design framework) will foster clearer understanding of differ-
ences in theory and practice in education.
Part 5: Learning Design and Pedagogical Theories

Having earlier dealt with the narrow question of pedagogical neutrality, and then
provided a conceptual map of the broader landscape for Learning Design, it is
worth returning to the thorny question of pedagogical theories and Learning
Design. A notational framework for describing examples of many different peda-

gogical approaches may be of interest to a small audience of theoreticians who are
fascinated by the challenge of abstract representation. However, the great majority
of educators would be interested in a descriptive framework in order to help them
teach more effectively.
By comparison, it would be possible to notate almost any musical performance
(no matter how unpleasant), but few people would be interested in this notation
purely as a challenge to the capabilities of the notation system. Rather, writing
down musical ideas is a way to convey great music from one person to another
over time and space. An abstract framework for notation is itself of little inter-
est to most musicians—what matters is what it conveys, not how it does it. We
remember the names of great composers, not the names of those who developed
music notation.
The ultimate rationale for Learning Design is that it can convey great teaching
ideas among educators so that learners may learn more effectively. This improved
learning arises from their educators adopting new, effective teaching strategies for
designing learning experiences.
The conceptual difficulty is that the Learning Design framework tries to avoid
privileging any particular pedagogical theory over another in its notational sys-
tem, and yet almost all educators who could use Learning Design would wish
to use it to improve learning, and improving learning requires a theory of how
students learn.
We propose two ways to approach this problem. In the first approach, we have
provided a Learning Design Conceptual Map to help explore the relationships
among the “moving parts” of how an educator comes to teach in a particular way
at a particular moment. The LD-CM provides a way for approaching this ques-
tion that focuses on the core Learning Design concepts (guidance, representation
and sharing) but also draws attention to the many related issues that affect the
decision-making of educators.
Given a particular instance of teaching and learning, the LD-CM can be used
to investigate how assumptions about theory and the learning environment relate
to teaching plans, classroom activities and learner responses. In broad terms, it is
a question of the internal coherence of actions within a given set of pedagogical
(and other) assumptions. As everyday teaching is littered with examples that lack
this kind of coherence, it is not an insignificant issue.
However, this first approach is, in part, a fudge. A thoroughgoing relativist
interpretation might say that internal coherence is the only question that could
be asked, as there is no “reality” by which to externally judge questions of teach-
ing and learning effectiveness. However, the vast majority of educators believe
there are more and less effective ways of teaching, arising from their observations
of learner responses and the findings of educational research. In addition, most
pedagogical theories ultimately contain ideas about how an educator “should”
and “should not” go about teaching, which belies a view about reality (otherwise
there would be no “should”).
Our second approach starts by using the Learning Design Conceptual Map,
where a chosen pedagogical approach can be described in the Educational Phi-
losophy box. This choice is, ultimately, informed by evidence from the Theories
and Methodologies box immediately below it, which deals with evidence from
educational research. Different kinds of research evidence frequently provide sup-
port for different pedagogical theories—for example, quantitative analysis of small
activities might be used to support particular types of direct instruction theories,
whereas broad qualitative analyses of the skills of learners on reaching the end of
their education might be used to support constructivist theories.
This is not the place for a debate over the validity of different pedagogical the-
ories and their underlying evidence. Rather, we seek to use the LD-CM to draw
attention to the way that different kinds of research evidence inform different
pedagogical theories that in turn inform different teaching and learning activities
which can be represented using a Learning Design notational system. At the level
of individual educators, the explication of these connections can help to clarify
decision-making about teaching and how these decisions connect pedagogical
theory, research evidence, learner characteristics and context in order to promote
effective student learning. At a macro level, the same Map can be used to help
structure academic debate about types of research evidence (including whether
particular evidence is conflicting or rather about different facets of education),
and the links between research evidence and types of teaching and types of stu-
dent learning, in order to facilitate judgements about effective learning.
For everyday practice, the question of teaching and learning effectiveness
depends not simply on the chosen pedagogical theory or the research evidence
in favour of this theory. It depends on the wider mix of issues identified in the
LD-CM such as: the characteristics and values of institutions, educators and learn-
ers; the nature of the teaching cycle (and the granularity of teaching design); the
use of descriptive frameworks for teaching and learning activities, together with
guidance and sharing; the use of tools and resources to support implementation of
teaching and learning; and the various responses of learners (e.g. reactions, assess-
ment, evaluation).
The “best” pedagogical theory may be highly ineffective for student learning
in a particular context if other parts of the LD-CM are not considered or imple-
mented appropriately. Equally, a set of very difficult educational circumstances
(e.g. education in a poor country) may still lead to highly effective learning where
certain elements (e.g. a gifted teacher) overcome difficulties. Any thorough inves-
tigation of the effectiveness of a teaching and learning approach needs to examine
the full set of interactions within the Learning Design Conceptual Map, includ-
ing the potential for positive aspects of one part of the Map to override negative
aspects in another part.
Part 5.1: Is Effective Teaching and Learning Always “Learner Centred”?

There is one final issue in pedagogical theory that is relevant to this discussion of
Learning Design. Many educators, particularly in the past, have tended to teach
using methods that focus heavily on content transmission, and less on active
learning activities for learners (such as student-led analysis, research and discus-
sion as used in Problem-Based Learning). A preference for content transmission
approaches is rarely due to a sophisticated understanding of the evidence to support
this approach; rather, it is often simply a replication of the experience of past teach-
ing practices—that is, educators often teach the way they themselves were taught.
This issue takes several forms. One has been a desire to shift education from
being “teacher centred” to “learner centred”, or “teaching centred” to “learning
centred”, or from the “sage on the stage” to the “guide on the side”. This general
view seeks to focus attention primarily on how the learner learns (and hence how
all other aspects of education should revolve around this) rather than simply how
the teacher teaches. Another way to view this is a shift from an “input” model of
education (what the educator imparts to learners) to an “output” model of educa-
tion (what learners know and can do following teaching and learning activities).
A focus on what learners actually learn is essential to an understanding of effective
teaching and learning, and so to the extent that “learner-centred” means “what
works for student learning”, then being “learner-centred” is the foundation of
effective teaching and learning.
But learner-centred is sometimes taken to mean that all learning must be led
by the learner, and that teaching, particularly any type of direct instruction or drill
and practice-style teaching, should be avoided. Given the many examples of inef-
fective content transmission-style teaching, based on unreflective past experiences
of teaching, it is understandable that in some contexts there is a reaction against
“teacher-centric” methods. In some circles, “teaching” is almost a dirty word.
However, this reaction against teaching can go too far. Even in teaching con-
texts with a strong focus on the learner, the educator usually has an important role
in structuring the opportunities for learning, and scaffolding the learning process
to assist learners to learn. These structuring and facilitation decisions can still be
described and shared using a Learning Design descriptive framework.
Going further, different teaching approaches may be used for different subjects,
and at different stages in learning. Certain kinds of learning may benefit more
from direct instruction approaches (e.g. language learning, basic mathematics),
whereas other kinds of learning may benefit from collaborative or constructivism
approaches (e.g. 21st-century skills). Hence, lecturing has a place among the suite
of teaching methods that can assist a learner to learn. So, to the extent that “learner
centred” means little or no role for educators, we see many contexts in which
this will not result in the most effective learning for students. Ill-informed and
unguided discussion can be as ineffective for learning as poor content transmission.
This is not the place for a debate on the relative merits of different teach-
ing and learning approaches for different subjects or stages of education, but we
simply make the point that educators can use all the components of the Learn-
ing Design Conceptual Map to assist with designing and implementing effective
teaching and learning activities, where the effectiveness is ultimately measured
in terms of learning outcomes rather than teaching inputs. For most educators,
this means using a wide range of teaching and learning approaches depending on
what is most effective in their context. And to the extent that sharing learning
designs helps educators to adopt new, effective teaching and learning methods,
then ultimately student learning will improve.
Conclusion: Revisiting Learning Design Definitions

Many educators already use the phrase “Learning Design” in a much more gen-
eral sense than an abstract framework for describing teaching and learning activi-
ties or a conceptual map. Educators often use “Learning Design” to talk about
their everyday decisions about how they teach, in the sense of “how do I design
activities to help my learners to learn?” This is Learning Design as a practice—a
verb—rather than as a static concept—a noun to describe a field of study. It is
Learning Design as “designing for learning”.
At this point we are conscious of Peter Goodyear’s caution that learning takes
place inside the learner, and so there is nothing an educator can do to ensure that
learning takes place (Goodyear & Retalis, 2010). However, an educator can care-
fully design teaching and learning activities that encourage learning—this is what
we mean by “designing for learning”.
Given the conceptual foundations we have laid in this chapter and our discus-
sion of effective teaching and learning approaches, we now offer a new synthesis
for the field of Learning Design. The concept of a framework for describing
teaching and learning activities (based on many different pedagogical approaches)
that we have earlier defined as “Learning Design” can now be given a more pre-
cise phrasing as a “Learning Design Framework” (LD-F). The Learning Design
Conceptual Map (LD-CM) provides the link between the core concept of the
LD-F (together with guidance and sharing) and the wider educational landscape.
The day-to-day practices of educators as they design for learning, and increas-
ingly use the evolving Learning Design Frameworks and the Learning Design
Conceptual Map to guide them, can be called Learning Design Practice (LD-P).
Taken together, these three ideas provide a foundation for the future of the field of
Learning Design—see Figure 1.11. A summary of the central ideas of the whole
Larnaca Declaration on Learning Design is provided in the Appendix.
Given the breadth of this new definition of Learning Design, it is reason-
able to ask whether the scope of Learning Design has become so broad as to
be synonymous with “good pedagogy”. While the rich pedagogical literature
Learning Design
Learning Learning Learning

Design Design Design
Conceptual Framework Practice
Map (LD–F) (LD–P)
(LD–CM)
FIGURE 1.11 Components of the field of Learning Design
on effective teaching and learning is all relevant to Learning Design, a distinc-

tion can be drawn between the core Learning Design concepts of Repre-
sentation, Guidance and Sharing—and how these are implemented primarily
in the “design and plan” step in the Teaching Cycle—and the wider goal of
good pedagogy. One example of where the line can be drawn is the skill of
adapting in the moment while teaching—we believe this is an essential skill of
educators, but it is not the same as Learning Design; and a training course for
educators that taught both Learning Design and adaptation would be teach-
ing quite different types of skills. Future research can be expected to further
delimit the core of Learning Design (LD-F and LD-P), the factors that affect
it (LD-CM) and the wider context of all relevant skills and understanding for
effective teaching.
Epilogue
The development of music notation was crucial to the widespread propagation of
beautiful music. While education is yet to develop a comparable system of nota-
tion, research on Learning Design Frameworks gives us hints of what this might
look like in the future, informed by the wider Learning Design Conceptual Map.
If a notation system (or systems) for describing teaching and learning activities is
developed and widely adopted, its success will be due to a complex mixture of its
accuracy, expressiveness and historical contingencies. Its ultimate goal, though, is
not just representation for representation’s sake; it is to help educators to describe,
share and adapt effective teaching and learning activities—that is, designing for
learning, or Learning Design Practice.
It may be that the analogy of music notation will take us a considerable dis-
tance, but later be found to be missing some elements of education. The need
for educators to adapt or “improvise” in the act of teaching in response to their
interactions with learners seems one significant issue for deeper consideration.
Perhaps jazz music will provide an enriched music analogy—it is an example
of music that can be retrospectively notated like other music, and yet the act of
performance is often based on a combination of professional skill together with
just the essence of some musical idea (as opposed to performance of a complete,
static musical score).
In this chapter, we have used the success of Western music notation to help
us imagine a similar system of educational notation. In practice, we already
have a range of proto-notational examples, and it may be that several differ-
ent education notation systems will arise in the future, each with different
descriptive strengths and weaknesses. Within any given system, multiple dia-
grams may be needed to convey the richness of teaching and learning activi-
ties (like the multiple diagrams of UML in software development). So while
the analogy of music notation can take us far, we believe a unique solution
for education will be needed that is unlike anything else. The challenge now
is to create it.
If education fails to develop a general system of notation, it is hoped that even
the attempt to do so will teach us deep truths about the fundamental nature
of education, and that these truths themselves will contribute to more effective
teaching and learning approaches in the future.
Appendix
Acknowledgements
Support for this publication has been provided by the Australian Government
Office for Learning and Teaching. The views expressed in this publication do not
necessarily reflect the views of the Australian Government Office for Learning
and Teaching.
This chapter was based on ideas arising from a meeting of Learning Design
experts in Larnaca, Cyprus, on Tuesday 25th September 2012 and subsequent
discussions (hence the name “Larnaca Declaration on Learning Design”).
Before and after the Larnaca meeting, participants have discussed similar issues
at a number of other meetings, and these discussions have contributed to the
current ideas. Participants in these other meetings have included: Diana Lauril-
lard, Spyros Papadakis, Chris Alexander, Liz Masterman, Sheila MacNeill, Scott
Wilson,Yannis Dimitriadis, Peter Goodyear, John Hedberg, Gregor Kennedy, Paul
Gagnon, Debbie Evans, Kumiko Aoki, Carlos Alario, Chris Campbell, Matthew
Kearney, Ron Oliver, Shirley Agostinho, Lori Lockyer and others. We are grateful
to all our colleagues for their insights.
Summary of Larnaca Declaration on Learning Design

The central ideas about Learning Design in the Larnaca Declaration can be sum-
marized as:
• Representing learning designs in formal ways (LD-F)

• Sharing and reusing learning designs
• Encouraging localization of learning designs for the needs of learners, and
adaptation to different disciplines
• Focusing on pedagogy in all its forms across all sectors and disciplines
(LD-CM)
• Applying the teaching cycle to implementing and improving learning designs
• Emphasizing how learners learn, and hence how educators can teach effec-
tively (LD-P)
• Building software to implement and share learning designs
Glossary
Learning Design (capitalized): The field of Learning Design
learning design (un-capitalized): An individual example of a sequence of teaching and
learning activities, also called a “design” or “sequence”. A learning design is a plan for
potential activities with learners, which is to be distinguished from a particular implemen-
tation of this plan with a particular group of learners (see “a running learning design”)
running learning design: The implementation of a learning design with a particular
group of learners, also called “a running sequence”.
IMS Learning Design: An example of a technical language for implementing the con-
cepts of Learning Design in software
Learning Design Conceptual Map (LD-CM): A map of the wider educational land-
scape as it relates to core Learning Design concepts—see Figure 1.4
Learning Design Framework (LD-F): A descriptive language/notational format/
visualization for describing teaching and learning activities based on many different
pedagogical approaches
Learning Design Practice (LD-P): The action of applying Learning Design concepts
to the creation and implementation of effective teaching and learning activities, also
called “designing for learning”
teaching strategy: An approach to teaching that proposes a particular sequence of teach-
ing and learning activities based on certain pedagogical assumptions. Examples of teaching
strategies are capitalized in this chapter; for example, Problem-Based Learning, Predict-
Observe-Explain, Role Plays and WebQuests. A teaching strategy can provide a pedagogi-
cal rationale as well as a suggested structure of activities for a learning design.
Notes
1 We have chosen “educator” rather than “teacher” to provide a more inclusive term that
applies not only to K-12 teachers, but also to university lecturers and vocational/profes-
sional trainers.
2 We mean classrooms in the broadest sense—including lecture halls, seminar/tutorial

rooms, laboratories, fieldwork contexts and online.
3 Educators can play many different roles in the overall education lifecycle, such as: pre-
paring educational content, preparing teaching and learning activities, implementing
activities with learners in classrooms and online, facilitating discussion among learners,
conducting and marking assessment, using evaluation to improve future education and
others. In some cases, a single educator plays all of these roles for a group of learners;
in others, a different educator may play each role. In this chapter, we use “educator” to
mean anyone who plays any of these roles, and hence could benefit from examples of
good practices and advice on adopting these practices.
4 Learning Management Systems (LMSs) are sometimes called Virtual Learning Environ-
ments (VLEs).
References
AUTC Learning Design (2002). Predict-Observe-Explain: Designer’s voice—context.
www.learningdesigns.uow.edu.au/exemplars/info/LD44/more/03Context.html.
Bower, M., Craft, B., Laurillard, D., & Masterman, L. (2011). Using the Learning Designer
to develop a conceptual framework for linking learning design tools and system. In
L. Cameron & J. Dalziel (Eds.) Proceedings of the 6th International LAMS & Learning
Design Conference 2011: Learning design for a changing world (pp. 61–71). 8–9 December.
Sydney: LAMS Foundation. http://lams2011sydney.lamsfoundation.org/docs/RP/
Bower_Matt.pdf.
Britain, S. (2004) A review of learning design: Concept, specifications and tools: A report
for the JISC E-learning Pedagogy Programme. www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/
ACF1ABB.doc.
Conole, G. (2012). OULDI Course Map. http://jiscdesignstudio.pbworks.com/w/page/
33031185/OULDI%20-%20Course%20Map.
Conole, G. (2013). Designing for learning in an open world. New York: Springer.
Dalziel, J. (2003). Implementing Learning Design: The Learning Activity Management
System (LAMS). In G. Crisp, D. Thiele, I. Scholten, S. Barker & J. Baron (Eds.), Interact,
Integrate, Impact: Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for
Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education. Adelaide, 7–10 December. http://ascilite.org.
au/conferences/adelaide03/docs/pdf/593.pdf.
Derntl, M., Parrish, P., & Botturi, L. (2010). Beauty and precision: Weaving complex edu-
cational technology projects with visual instructional design languages. International
Journal on E-Learning, 9, pp. 185–202.
Dimitriadis,Y. (2012). Collaborative learning flow patterns. www.gsic.uva.es/wikis/yannis/
images/c/cc/Collaborative_learning_flow_patterns.pdf.
Goodyear, P., & Retalis, S. (2010). Technology-enhanced Learning: Design patterns and pattern
languages. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Hernández-Leo, D., Villasclaras-Fernández, E. D., Asensio-Perez, J. I., Dimitriadis, Y.,
Jarrín-Abellán, I. M., Ruiz-Requies, I. & Rubia-Avi, B. (2006). COLLAGE: A col-
laborative Learning Design editor based on patterns. Educational Technology and Society,
9, pp. 58–71.
Hooker, K. W. (1949). College teaching: The loneliest profession. Bulletin of the American
Association of University Professors (1915–1955), 35, pp. 643–650.
IMS GLC (2003). Learning Design specification. www.imsglobal.org/learningdesign/.

Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge
(TPACK)? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9, pp. 60–70.
Koper, E.J.R. (2001). Modelling units of study from a pedagogical perspective: The peda-
gogical metamodel behind EML. Heerlen: Open Universiteit Nederland. http://eml.
ou.nl/introduction/docs/ped-metamodel.pdf.
Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching: A conversational framework for the
effective use of learning technologies (2nd ed.). London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Laurillard, D., Charlton, P., Craft, B., Dimakopoulos, D., Ljubojevic, D., Magoulas, G., …
Whittlestone, K. (2013). A constructionist learning environment for teachers to model
learning designs. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(1), pp. 15–30.
Laurillard, D., & McAndrew, P. (2002). Virtual teaching tools: Bringing academics closer to the
design of e-learning. http://kn.open.ac.uk/public/getfile.cfm?documentfileid=7517.
Littlejohn, A., & Pegler, C. (2007). Preparing for Blended E-Learning. London: Routledge.
Masterman, E., & Manton, M. (2011). Teachers’ perspectives on digital tools for pedagogic
planning and design. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 20, pp. 227–246.
McAndrew, P., Goodyear, P. & Dalziel, J. (2006). Patterns, designs and activities: Unify-
ing descriptions of learning structures. International Journal of Learning Technology, 2,
pp. 216–242.
Prieto-Santos, L. P., Dimitriadis, Y. & Villagrá-Sobrino, S. L. (2011). Representing learn-
ing design and classroom orchestration through atomic patterns. Proceedings of the Art
and Science of Learning Design International Workshop, ASLD 2011, London, UK, Octo-
ber. www.gsic.uva.es/uploaded_files/36400_20110811_UVa_RepresentingClassroom
Practice.pdf.
Walker, S., & Kerrigan-Holt, M. (2012). Map My Programme. www.mapmyprogramme.
com/.
2
THEORETICAL UNDERPINNINGS
OF LEARNING DESIGN
Gráinne Conole
Introduction
This chapter provides an overview of some theoretical underpinnings of Learn-
ing Design and describes how Learning Design is distinct from, but related to, the
more established field of Instructional Design. Essentially Learning Design draws
on two theoretical perspectives: sociocultural thinking and an ecological perspec-
tive. This chapter will describe the origins of these perspectives and consider how
they are being used in a Learning Design context.The focus of this chapter relates
mostly to the Learning Design Conceptual Map of the Larnaca Declaration on
Learning Design, particularly the “Theories and Methodologies” box.
It is important to understand the theoretical underpinnings to make sense
of the approach adopted in the development of Learning Design research. The
sociocultural perspective emphasizes that design is context based and shaped
by the environment and the designers’ background and preferences. The con-
cept of Mediating Artefacts emphasizes that design is dialogic and mediated by
tools. The ecological perspective draws on the concept of affordances; i.e. that
technologies have affordances or characteristics, which will shape how they are
used. It also emphasizes that design occurs in a constantly changing dynamic
environment.
Sociocultural Perspectives
A sociocultural perspective emphasises the social and contextual nature of cogni-
tion and meaning (Barab, Evans et al., 2004, p. 199). This is in contrast to a cogni-
tive perspective, which is based on the belief that knowledge exists solely in the
Theoretical Underpinnings 43
head and instruction involves finding the most efficient means for facilitating the
“acquisition” of knowledge. Sfard (1998) described the shift in cognitive science
and educational theory as a move away from the “acquisition” metaphor towards
a “participation” metaphor, where knowledge, reconceived as “knowing about”,
is considered a fundamentally situated activity.
The concept of Mediating Artefacts can be traced back to the work of Vygotsky
(1962, 1978). Central to Vygotsky’s work were the following three questions:
i) What is the relationship between human beings and their environment (both
physical and social)? ii) What new forms of activity were responsible for establish-
ing labour as a fundamental means of relating humans to nature and what are the
psychological consequences of these forms of activity? iii) What is the nature of
the relationship between the use of tools and the development of speech?
A central feature of a sociocultural perspective is the triadic relationship
between the object of cognition, the active subject and the tool or instrument
that mediates the interaction.Vygotsky stated:
The use of artificial means (tools and symbolic artifacts), the transition
to mediated activity, fundamentally changes all psychological operations
just as the use of tools limitlessly broadens the range of activities within
which the new psychological functions may operate. In this context, we
can use the term higher psychological function, or higher (truly human)
behavior as referring to the combination of tool and sign in psychologi-
cal activity.
(Vygotsky, 1978, p. 55)
In other words,Vygotsky contended that all psychological activity is mediated by

a third element, which he referred to as a tool or an instrument. There are two
types: material tools (such as hammers or pencils) and psychological tools (such
as signs and symbols).
Central to Vygotsky’s ideas is the notion that social interactions play a fun-
damental role in the process of cognitive development. Vygotsky (1978) argued
that what distinguishes humans from other animals is their use of speech in rela-
tion to practical activity and that words can shape an activity into structure. He
described the analogy of signs as tools. Signs can be used as a means of solving
a given psychological problem (to remember, compare, report, choose etc.) and,
he claimed, this is analogous to the use of tools. Therefore, signs act as an instru-
ment of psychological activity in a manner analogous to the role of a tool in
labour. He referred to this as subcategories of Mediating Artefacts (Figure 2.1).
He argued that a tool’s function is to serve as a conductor of human influence on
the object of activity; i.e. it is externally orientated. Whereas a sign changes noth-
ing in the object of psychological operation, it is internally orientated. Therefore
humans use tools that are developed from a culture, such as speech and writing,
44 Gráinne Conole
Mediating Artefacts
Signs Tools
FIGURE 2.1 Mediating Artefacts
to mediate their social environment. Minick quotes the follow important facet of
Vygotsky’s ideas:
[H]igher mental functions are based on the mediation of behaviour by sign

systems, especially speech. Signs are represented as a special form of stimuli
which functions as psychological tools, tools that are directed toward the
mastery or control of behavioural processes in the same sense that ordinary
tools are directed toward the control of nature.
(1997, p. 120)
Figure 2.1 shows the two types of Mediating Artefacts, namely tools and signs.
A fundamental premise of Vygotsky’s theory is that tools and signs are first and
foremost shared between individuals in society and only then can they be inter-
nalized by individuals.
Every function in the child’s cultural development appears twice: first,

on the social level, and later, on the individual level; first, between people
(interpsychological) and then inside the child (intrapsychological). This
applies equally to voluntary attention, to logical memory, and to the forma-
tion of concepts. All the higher functions originate as actual relationships
between individuals.
(Vygotsky, 1978, p. 57)
In other words, everything we do in terms of developing understanding or

creating something new is mediated in some way. If we are involved in a discus-
sion with someone, the Mediating Artefacts are the words and language we use
to communicate with each other. If we are being guided to learn something new,
the Mediating Artefacts are the learning resources we use and the dialogue we
have with peers and teachers.
Figure 2.2 represents Vygotsky’s concept of mediated activity. The subject
refers to the individual whose agency is selected as the analytical point of view.
The object refers to the goals to which the activity is directed. Mediating Arte-
facts include artefacts, signs, language symbols and interaction with others.
Tool
Subject Object
FIGURE 2.2 Vygotsky’s concept of mediated activity
Learning Design Mediating Artefacts

The concept of Mediating Artefacts in relation to Learning Design, then, is in
terms of the things we use to guide the design process. Learning Design research
is interested in establishing what Learning Design Mediating Artefacts practitio-
ners use and what new ones can be created to help guide the design process. The
design process guides the creation of learning activities (which are what the learn-
ers will engage with in order to achieve the intended learning outcomes). Learn-
ing activities can be codified in a number of different representations (Conole,
2013):
• Text-based narrative case studies, describing the key features of the learning
activity, and perhaps barriers and enablers to implementation.
• More formal narratives, against a specified formal methodology such as
the concept of pedagogical patterns, which provide a structured mecha-
nism for representing good practice (Goodyear, 2005; Goodyear & Retalis,
2010).
• Visual representations, such as a mind map or formalized UML1 use case
diagram.
• Vocabularies (Currier, Campbell et al., 2005), such as taxonomies, ontologies
or folksonomies.
• Models (Conole 2010; Mayes & de Freitas, 2004), foregrounding a particular
pedagogical approach (such as instructivism, Problem-Based Learning or an
emphasis on a dialogic or reflective approach).
Each of these is useful in different contexts, and each provides a different

level of abstraction/detail about the learning activity. Figure 2.3 shows the role a
Mediating Artefact has in the design process. On the left-hand side of the figure
is the designer, on the right-hand side the outcome of the design process, and this
process is guided by Mediating Artefacts.
46 Gráinne Conole
Mediating
Artefacts
achieves goal
FIGURE 2.3 The role of a Mediating Artefact in the design process
Barab, Evans et al. (2004, p. 205) list the following design guidelines that arise
from taking a sociocultural perspective:
1. The instructor’s role is to support learners in becoming active participants in

the learning process.
2. Instructional materials should be structured to promote student collaboration.
3. Instruction should be designed to reach a developmental level that is just
above the students’ current developmental level.
4. The use of a wide variety of tools, such as raw materials and interactive tech-
nology (for example computers), should be encouraged, in order to provide
a meaningful learning context.
5. The student evaluation should focus on the students’ understanding based on
application and performance.
Activity Theory
Activity Theory (Cole, Engeström et al., 1997; Daniels, Cole et al., 2007;
Engestrom, 2001; Engeström, Punamäki-Gitai et al., 1999) built on and expanded
Vygotsky’s work; of particular interest is the well-known Activity Theory triangle,
which helps situate and contextualize the Learning Design process. Figure 2.4
shows an Activity Theory representation of the Learning Design process. In the
centre of the diagram is the subject or designer who is intent on achieving a
particular goal, namely the design of a learning activity. This is guided by Mediat-
ing Artefacts, which could be case studies of good practice, pedagogical patterns,
visual representation, models etc. This design process occurs within a context;
it is governed by rules, in this instance—institutional constraints and any disci-
pline-specific professional requirements.These will have an impact on the way the
learning activity is designed and what can be achieved. It occurs within a com-
munity, for example the community of peer practitioners and other institutional
stakeholders. Finally, there will be a division of labour; it may be that the design
Mediating Artefacts
Case studies, patterns,
iconic representations,
models
Outcome
LA
Subject Object
Designer Create a LA
Rules Community Division of labour

Institutional & Subject discipline Roles involved in
Professional constraints Peer dialogue the design process
Networks
FIGURE 2.4 An Activity Theory representation of the Learning Design process
process is carried out solely by the practitioner, or they may be working in a team,
or alongside a learning technologist.
Symbolic Languages
We develop understanding and communicate with others through a variety of
“languages”. The most common, of course, is speech, the utterances which relate
to particular objects and actions; over time we have come to a consensus on the
meaning of words. So for an English speaker “apple” refers to a particular edible
fruit, whereas the same object is referred to as “manzana” by Spanish speakers.
Written languages evolve over time and there are a number of different represen-
tations, such as Roman, Cyrillic, Chinese etc. Another language is mathematical
notation, a means of understanding concepts through numbers and symbolic rep-
resentations. Mathematics describes the world in a different way than the written
word and can explain concepts that cannot be understood through words. For
example, when describing the world at a subatomic level, Newtonian concepts
make no sense and quantum mechanisms must be used instead. The fact that
an electron can be both a particle and a wave makes no sense, but can be easily
represented and described through quantum mechanics, which is based on prob-
abilities. Mathematics, like the written word, has evolved over time. For example
48 Gráinne Conole
in early mathematical languages, algebraic manipulation was not possible.The way

music is represented through musical notation is yet another language. Today’s
musical notation is relatively new; before it was developed, music was passed from
person to person aurally, with the consequential loss of fidelity. Today’s musical
representation not only perfectly represents music written hundreds of years ago,
but can convey not just the sounds, but the emotion and beat of the music. Each
representation has a meaning which can be shared with others. The question is,
can learning designs be codified and shared? Can we develop a learning design
language?
An Ecological Perspective—the Concept of Affordances

In addition to the sociocultural perspective, it is useful to consider Learning
Design from an ecological perspective, where the emphasis is on designing in a
constantly changing, dynamic environment, where the designers and the design
process change and adapt over time. In particular the term “affordances” is use-
ful. The term originated in an ecological context, in relation to visual perception
(Gibson, 1977, 1979). Gibson argued that affordances in an environment always
lead to some course of action. Affordances are perceived by an individual and are
culturally based. He defined affordances as:
The affordances of the environment are what it offers the animal, what it pro-
vides or furnished, either for good or ill. … something that refers to both the
environment and the animal in a way that no existing term does. It implies
the complementarity of the animal and the environment.
(Gibson, 1979, p. 127)
All “action possibilities” latent in the environment, objectively measurable

and independent of the individual’s ability to recognize them, but always
in relation to the actor and therefore dependent on their capabilities. For
instance, a set of steps which rises four feet high does not afford the act of
climbing if the actor is a crawling infant.
(Gibson, 1977, pp. 67–82)
For example, a tall tree has the affordance of food for a giraffe because it has a
long neck, but not for a sheep, or a set of stairs has the affordance of climbing for
a walking adult, but not for a crawling infant. Therefore affordances are always in
relation to individuals and their capabilities; this includes individuals’ past experi-
ences, values, beliefs, skills and perceptions. Therefore a button may not have the
affordance of pushing if an individual has no cultural context or understanding of
the notion of buttons or related objects and what they are for.
The affordances of the environment are what it offers the animal, what it
provides or furnishes, either for good or ill.
(Gibson, 1979, p. 127)
Gibson goes on to argue that it implies a complementarity between the ani-

mal and the environment. Salomon describes Gibson’s concept of affordances as
follows:
“Affordance” refers to the perceived and actual properties of a thing, pri-

marily those functional properties that determine just how the thing could
possibly be used.
(Salomon, 1993, p. 51)
Therefore affordances are properties of the world that are compatible with
and relevant for people’s actions (Gaver, 1991). He argues when affordances are
perceptible, they offer a direct link between perception and action. Furthermore,
he suggests that hidden and false affordances can lead to mistakes.Wijekumar et al.
(2006) state that affordances describe the interaction supported by the tool for
each individual and are affected by the individual’s prior experiences. They add
that technologies prompt, guide or constrain users depending on their previous
experiences. In other words, affordances describe the possible uses individuals may
make of particular technologies.
Conole and Dyke (2004) argued that digital technologies have affordances.
For example, they may have affordances to foster communication and collabo-
ration or to encourage reflection. However, the inherent affordances associated
with a particular technology will only be realized in relation to an individual.
Each person approaches the use of a technology with a set of personal prefer-
ences and competences and these determine whether a particular affordance is
realized. Conole and Dyke described 10 types of affordances: accessibility, speed
of change, diversity, communication and collaboration, reflection, multi-model
and nonlinear, risk, fragility and uncertainty, immediacy, monopolization and
surveillance. They argued that this affordance taxonomy has a number of uses.
Firstly, that establishing a clearer understanding of the affordances should help to
inform practitioners in their use of technologies to achieve particular goals. Sec-
ondly, that it can also help to identify potential limitations and inappropriate uses
of the technologies. Thirdly, by making the inherent affordances of technolo-
gies explicit, the taxonomy can act as a discussion point for critique and further
refinement. Fourthly, it can be used as a checklist to help practitioners understand
the advantages and disadvantages of different technologies. Fifthly, it can be used
as a mechanism for staff development and improving practice—for example by
50 Gráinne Conole
providing a checklist of potential benefits and drawbacks of different technolo-

gies, which can be used to inform choice and the ways that practitioners might
choose to use them. Fewster (n.d.) argues that the benefit of articulating tech-
nological affordances is that it enables practitioners to unpack the different attri-
butes of a learning technology so that they can determine its suitability for use
in a particular learning context to achieve a set of intended learning outcomes.
Similarly, Gaver (1991) argues that affordances can be used as a way of focus-
ing on the strengths and weaknesses of technologies with respect to the possibili-
ties they offer the people who might use them. Conole (2013) developed a more
up-to-date list of positive affordances and potential constraints. She cited the
following as positive affordances: collaboration, reflection, interaction, dialogue,
creativity, organization, inquiry and authenticity. The constraints included: that
a technology was time-consuming (in terms of development), time-consuming
(in terms of support), difficult to use, costly to produce, had associated assessment
issues, suffered from a lack of interactivity or that it was difficult to navigate.
Numerous classification schemes have been developed for affordances.
One of the most useful is the one developed by Kirschner, Strijbos et al.
(2004), consisting of three types of affordances: technological, educational and
social:
• Technological affordances: the characteristics of a particular digital technol-

ogy and what it enables the user to do in terms of interaction, communica-
tion, collaboration, reflection etc.
• Educational affordances: characteristics of an education resource that indicate
if and how a particular learning behaviour could possibly be enacted within
a particular learning context.
• Social affordances: aspects of the online learning environment that provide
social-contextual facilitation relevant to the learner’s social interaction.
Bower (2008) suggests 11 types of affordances:
• Media affordances: i.e. the characteristics associated with text, images, audio
and video.
• Spatial affordances: the ability to resize elements within an interface and
move and place elements within an interface.
• Temporal affordances: access anytime, anywhere, the ability to record and play
back, synchronous versus asynchronous.
• Navigational affordances: i.e. the capacity to browse to other sections of a
resource.
• Emphasis affordances: the capacity to highlight aspects of a resource.
• Synthesis affordance: the capacity to combine multiple tools to create a
mixed-media learning environment.
• Access-control affordances: the capacity to allow or deny who can read/edit/

upload/broadcast/view/administer.
• Technical affordances: the capacity to be used on a variety of platforms.
• Usability: the intuitiveness of the tool, the ease with which the user can
manipulate the tool.
• Aesthetics: the appeal of the design and the appearance of the interface, and
how it relates to user satisfaction and the ability to hold attention.
• Reliability: the robustness of the platform.
The concept of affordances is contested and has different meanings. Conole

and Dyke (2004) describe a set of 10 affordances associated with technologies.
Cook and Boyle contest their description, which Conole and Dyke respond to
(Conole et al., 2004). Despite these different views, this chapter has argued that
the concept of affordances is useful because it highlights the interrelationship
between technologies (and their associated characteristics) and individuals (and
their preferences). This interplay has an important influence on the way design is
carried out.
Pedagogical Approaches and Technologies

The HoTEL project provides a useful visualization of learning theories and links
them to different theoretical perspectives; these are listed as: theology, psychology,
linguistics, cybernetics, design science, philosophy, education and organizational
theory.2 The key concepts that emerge from these different perspectives include:
educational objectives, scaffolding, the zone of proximal development, genetic
epistemology, scientific pedagogy, interpersonal relations, double-loop learning,
text and conversational theory and communities of practice. In addition is a range
of learning paradigms or world views, namely: radical behaviourism, mastery
learning, multiple intelligences, meaningful learning, discovery learning, expan-
sive learning, connectivism, social constructivism, constructionism, constructivism,
radical constructivism, expressive constructivism, experiential learning, Montessori
education, critical pedagogy, home schooling/unschooling, de-schooling society,
learning styles, experiential learning, organizational learning and situated learning.
Conole (2010) draws on Mayes and de Freitas’ (2004) review of pedagogical
approaches. Mayes and de Freitas characterize learning theories into three types:
• Associative: where the focus is on the individual, learning as activity through

structured tasks and learning through association and reinforcement
• Cognitive/Constructivist: where the focus is on learning through under-
standing and learning building on prior knowledge; the learning is task
orientated
• Situative: where the learning is through social interaction and dialogue, in a
context and as social practice.
52 Gráinne Conole
Conole (2013) added a fourth, connectivist, which is based on learning in a

networked context. Although the term is contested, it is useful in terms of learn-
ing in a distributed network of others through social and participatory media and
may be particularly useful in terms of describing learning through massive open
online courses (MOOCs).
Each of these has associated with it a number of pedagogical approaches, which
emphasize different aspects of learning. The associative category includes behav-
iourist and didactic approaches, such as learning through drill and practice. The
cognitivist/constructivist approach includes constructivism (building on prior
knowledge) and constructionism (learning by doing).This includes inquiry-based
learning and resource-based learning. The situative category includes social con-
structivism and situated learning, through, for example, experiential learning,
Problem-Based Learning and role play. Connectivist learning includes reflective
and dialogic learning and personalized learning. Technologies can be used to fos-
ter these different pedagogical approaches. For example, drill and practice can
be achieved through use of interactive materials and e-assessment. Inquiry-based
learning and resource-based learning can be achieved by effective use of search
tools to find relevant learning materials, through media sharing repositories and
by user-generated content. Experiential, Problem-Based Learning and role play
can be achieved through use of location-aware devices, virtual worlds and games.
Finally reflection, dialogic learning and personalized learning can be achieved
through the use of blogs, e-portfolios, wikis and social media.
Table 2.1 maps the different pedagogical approaches along with their key char-
acteristics and which aspects of learning and teaching they foreground. The ways
technologies can facilitate each of these is then described, along with salient theo-
retical models and frameworks. The table lists the four pedagogical approaches
(associative, cognitive/constructivist, situative and connectivist), along with a gen-
eral category on assessment approaches. For each of these the key characteristics
of the approach are listed, along with the ways these can be facilitated through the
use of digital technologies. Finally, key models and frameworks associated with
each pedagogical approach are listed.
The Associative Perspective

The associative perspective focuses on behaviour modification via stimulator-
response pairs, trial-and-error learning, learning through association and rein-
forcement and observable outcomes. This relates to instructional design, based
on Gagné’s deconstruction of learning into components designed to build up
knowledge and skills through a series of steps (Gagné et al., 1988). Merrill (2002)
reviewed instructional design theories and models and abstracted a set of inter-
related prescriptive instructional design principles:
TABLE 2.1 Pedagogical approaches’ key characteristics and learning/teaching applications
Perspective Approach Characteristics E-learning Application Models and Frameworks
Associative Behaviourism Focuses on behaviour Content delivery plus 1. Merrill’s instructional design
Instructional design modification, via interactivity linked directly principles
Intelligent tutoring stimulus-response pairs; to assessment and feedback 2. A general model of direct
Didactic Controlled and adaptive instruction
E-training response and observable
outcomes;
Learning through association and
reinforcement
Cognitive/ Constructivism Learning as transformations in Development of intelligent 3. Kolb’s learning cycle
Constructivist Constructionism internal cognitive structures; learning systems and 4. Laurillard’s conversational
Reflective Learners build own mental personalized agents; framework
Problem-Based Learning structures; Structured learning 5. Community of inquiry
Inquiry-learning Task-orientated, self-directed environments (simulated framework
Dialogic-learning activities; worlds); 6. Jonassen’s constructivist
Experiential learning Language as a tool for joint Support systems that guide model
construction of knowledge; users; 7. n-Quire model
Learning as the transformation Access to resources and
of experience into knowledge, expertise to develop more
skill, attitudes, values and engaging active, authentic
emotions learning environments;
Asynchronous and synchronous
tools offer potential for richer
forms of dialogue/interaction;
Use of archive resources for
vicarious learning
(Continued )
TABLE 2.1 (Continued)
Perspective Approach Characteristics E-learning Application Models and Frameworks
Situative Cognitive apprenticeship Take social interactions into New forms of distribution 8. Activity Theory
Case-based learning account; archiving and retrieval 9. Wenger’s Community of
Scenario-based learning Learning as social participation; offer potential for shared Practice
Vicarious learning Within a wider sociocultural knowledge banks; 10. Salmon’s 5-stage
Collaborative learning context of rules and Adaptation in response to both e-moderating model
Social constructionism community discursive and active feedback;
Emphasis on social learning and
communication/collaboration;
Access to expertise;
Potential for new forms of
communities of practice
or enhancing existing
communities
Connectivist Networked learning, Learning in a network Use of social and participatory 11. Preece’s framework for
distributed learning, environment, through media to engage in a online community
social and participatory interaction with others, distributed community of 12. Connectivism
learning filtering and personalization peers, adopting technologies 13. Wenger’s Community of
to create a personalized Practice
learning environment for
dialogue and reflection,
harnessing the power of a
global, distributed network
Assessment Focus is on feedback and E-learning applications range 14. Gibbs and Boud models
assessment (internal reflection from in-text interactive 15. Nicol and the REAP
on learning, and also questions, through multiple framework
diagnostic, formative and choice questions up to
summative assessment) sophisticated automatic text
marking systems
• Demonstration principle—learning is promoted when learners observe a

demonstration.
• Application principle—learning is promoted when learners apply the new
knowledge.
• Task-centred principle—learning is promoted when learners engage in a
task-centred instructional strategy.
• Activation principle—learning is promoted when learners activate relevant
prior knowledge or experience.
• Integration principle—learning is promoted when learners integrate their
new knowledge into their everyday world.
Merrill’s “five first principles” model suggests that the most effective learn-
ing environments are those which are problem-based, where the students are
involved in four distinct stages: activation of prior knowledge, demonstration
of skills, application of skills and integration into real-world activities. To these
Collis and Margaryan (2005) have added six contextual criteria relating to
effective implementation in specific (business) environments: supervisor sup-
port; technology support; reuse; differentiation; collaboration; and learning from
others.
Huitt et al. (2009) summarize research into approaches to instruction. In par-
ticular they describe a general model, which consists of four phases:
• Presentation phase
° Review of previous material

° Statement of skills or knowledge to be learnt (what they are learning)
° Rationale for the approach/material (why they are learning this)
° Explanation of the skills or knowledge to be learnt
° Opportunities for students to demonstrate their understanding
• Practice phase
° Guided practice
° Independent practice
° Periodic review
• Assessment and evaluation phase
° Formative assessment
° Summative assessment
• Monitoring and feedback
° Cues and prompts

° Corrective feedback
56 Gráinne Conole
The Cognitive/Constructivist Perspective

The cognitive/constructivist perspective views learning as transformations in inter-
nal cognitive structures. It is characterized by processing and transmitting informa-
tion through communication, explanation, recombination, contrast, inference and
problem solving. It gives rise to constructivist and experiential/reflective positions.
One mechanism for promoting a constructive environment that has been
widely adopted in the creation of e-learning environments is cognitive scaffold-
ing, where the activities that learners engage with are supported by a series of
guidelines to help them to reflect on their actions. Many e-learning environ-
ments provide forms of cognitive scaffolding that guide learners’ actions and
promote reflection. This is also the principle on which wizards such as Word’s
“paper clip” are based, by providing the user with support, prompted by a series
of questions.
Kolb’s (1984) learning cycle is probably the best-known experiential model.
Building in particular on the work of Dewey (1916) and Lewin (1942), it pres-
ents an action-based or “learning by doing” approach through a four-stage cycle
(experience, reflection, abstraction and experimentation). Recently, Cowan
(2002) has extended Kolb’s’ learning cycle by considering explicitly how to plan
interactive activities to support each of the four stages.
Pask’s (1975) conversation theory centres on the idea that learning occurs
through conversation and the notion of “teachback” where one person teaches
another what they have learned. Laurillard’s conversational framework is derived
from this and has been widely cited and used as both a design template and
an analytic tool. Laurillard describes the stages involved in the dialogic interac-
tion between a teacher and student, demonstrating the way each internalizes and
adapts concepts in the process.3
The Community of Inquiry (COI) is an example of a framework for model-
ling Problem-Based Learning and in particular facilitating collaborative learning
(Garrison & Anderson, 2000). The diagram is adapted from http://communities
ofinquiry.com/model. The framework consists of three interconnected parts:
• Social presence—in terms of identification with the community

• Teaching presence—i.e. the design, facilitation and directing of learning
• Cognitive presence—i.e. to what extent learners can construct their own
meaning through reflection and discourses.
A good example of a framework that promotes constructivism is one devel-

oped by Jonassen et al. (1999, 2003). It can be used as a guideline to develop
Constructivist Learning Environments (CLEs). The key argument is that learning
occurs when students are actively engaged in meaning making. The framework
consists of five parts:4
• Active and manipulative: learning takes place when learners develop knowl-
edge and skills in response to their environment, manipulating objects and
observing and learning from the results.
• Constructive and reflective: learning occurs as learners reflect on activity and
observations and articulate what they have learned.
• Intentional: learning occurs when learners are motivated to achieve a
cognitive goal.
• Authentic (complex and contextualized): learning is situated in a meaningful
context rather than being oversimplified and presented in isolation.
• Cooperative (Collaborative/Conversational): learning relies on socially nego-
tiated understandings that help learners build on and learn from their own
and each other’s knowledge in order to construct new knowledge.
The Personal Inquiry project developed a personal inquiry framework

(n-Quire)5 for supporting inquiry learning across formal, non-formal and infor-
mal learning contexts. The framework is the basis for a toolkit, which is used to
support schoolchildren in using inquiry-based learning as a means to developing
an understanding of science.The inquiry process is represented as a set of iterative,
interdependent phases. The dashed lines between the phases graphically represent
the iterative nature of the inquiry process.
The Situative Perspective

The situative perspective views learning as social participation, and emphasizes
interpersonal relationships involving imitation, modelling and the joint construc-
tion of knowledge. It views the ultimate objective of learning as enabling us to
experience the world as meaningful.
Although described as a theory, Activity Theory can also be considered and
used as a framework. Activity Theory starts from the premise that activities occur
within a context and that this context needs to be taken into account if we are
to make meaning of the situation and come to an appropriate interpretation of
the results. It enables conceptualization of both individual and collective practices
in the wider sociocultural context within which they occur. Mwanza (2002) has
described a model for activity consisting of eight parameters: activity of interest;
objective; subjects; tools; rules and regulations; divisions of labour; community;
outcome. One of the most common ways of representing Activity Theory is as
a “triangle diagram”, which has at the centre the subject—object being consid-
ered and associated mediating artefacts. Qualifying this is the community within
which this takes place and the associated rules and divisions of labour.
Although not specifically developed for a learning context, Wenger’s theory of
communities of practice is valuable as it considers the ways communities of prac-
tice are formed and developed. He sees four main aspects: learning as community;
58 Gráinne Conole
learning as identity; learning as meaning; learning as practice. Therefore each is

valuable in that it helps to foreground particular aspects of learning, which can
then be used to provide guidance.This is very much an example of a socially situ-
ated theory of learning where learning is seen as social participation.
A specific e-learning model that describes the stages of increasing competence
in participating in an online learning community is Salomon’s (2003) five-stage
framework for supporting effective e-moderating in discussion forums, which
emphasizes the dialogic aspects of socially situated theoretical perspectives. The
five stages are:
• Access and motivation

• Online socialization
• Information exchange
• Knowledge construction
• Development
The Connectivist Perspective

Siemens (2005) has developed connectivism as an approach that emphasizes the
connected and networked nature within which modern learning occurs. This
includes a learning ecology model that considers the elements involved in the
learning process and how they can be facilitated within a networked ecology. It
emphasizes the networking affordances of technologies. In particular it addresses
the question: How does learning change when knowledge growth is overwhelm-
ing and technology replaces many basic tasks we have previously performed?
Preece (2001) has developed a framework for establishing and supporting
online communities which focuses around two key dimensions—sociability and
usability. These can then be considered in terms of a number of design criteria
and associated determinants of success, namely: purpose, people, policy, dialogue/
social support, information design, navigation and access. She argues that little
attention has been given to evaluating the success of online communities. She
suggests that the determinants of sociability include obvious measures such as the
number of participants in a community, the number of messages per unit of time,
members’ satisfaction, and some less obvious measures such as amount of reciproc-
ity, the number of on-topic messages, trustworthiness and several others. Measures
of usability include numbers of errors, productivity, user satisfaction and others.
Conclusion
This chapter has provided an overview of some of the key theoretical perspec-
tives associated with Learning Design. First and foremost the field is sociocultur-
ally located drawing on the work of Vygotsky and others and in particular the
TABLE 2.2 An abridged version of Preece’s framework
Framework Design Criteria Determinants of Success
Sociability Purpose Types of messages and comments; types of

interactivity; quality of contributions
People Who is participating?
Policy What policies are in place?
Usability Dialogue and social support How long does it take to learn about dialogue
and support?
Information design How long does it take to learn to find
information?
Navigation How long does it take to navigate around?
Access Can users get access to everything they need?
concept of mediating artefacts for design. The work of Gibson, from an ecologi-
cal perspective, is also drawn on and in particular that digital technologies have
affordances, which may or may not be applied, depending on the context and the
characteristics, skills and preferences of individuals. The methodology most used
in the field is design-based research (Barab, 2006; Wang & Hannafin, 2005), an
agile approach, where a problem is identified and addressed. The central problem
in Learning Design research is that teachers need support and guidance to make
pedagogically informed design decisions and to make appropriate use of tech-
nologies. There are three facets to this: guidance, visualization and sharing. The
Larnaca Declaration6 articulates the nature of the field and in particular how it is
distinctive from but complementary to the more established field of Instructional
Design. The Larnaca Declaration is a descriptive framework for Learning Design,
centring on the notion of the development of an educational notation for design,
which teachers can use to create and share good teaching practice. Figure 2.5
represents the field of Learning Design and its key components.The challenge for
the field is to help teachers create effective learning experiences that are aligned
to particular pedagogical approaches and learning objectives. It focuses around the
teaching cycle, which consists of: design and plan, engage with students, reflection
and professional development. It can work at any level of granularity, from micro
learning activities up to whole programmes. The three key concepts of Learning
Design are: guidance, representation and sharing, which translate into a range of
Learning Design tools and resources.
One of the distinctive features of the Learning Design approach is that it
is activity focussed rather than content focussed and helps the teacher design
for a particular learning context. There is now a plethora of Learning Design
tools and resources, from implementation tools such as LAMS,7 the Learning
Designer8 and ILDE9 through to resources and activities, such as those associ-
ated with the 7Cs of Learning Design framework.10 Evaluation of the use of
60 Gráinne Conole
Challenge

Engage
with
and Plan Program
students
Module
A range based on assumptions
about the Learning Environment Session
Learning Environment: Professional
Reflection Learning Activities
Characteristics & Values Development

Educator Learner
Implementation
Tools Resources
Learner Responses
FIGURE 2.5 Conceptual map of Learning Design
these tools has been positive. Teachers state that they help them think more
creatively, beyond content to a focus on activities. The tools and resources help
guide their design practice and help them to make their designs explicit and
hence shareable.Visualization in particular is seen as very powerful, enabling the
teachers to explore their design from different perspectives. Whether or not we
will ever achieve our dream of having a standardized educational notation, it
is clear the current suite of Learning Design tools and resources are useful in
helping improve design practice.
Notes
1 www.uml.org/
2 See http://phd.richardmillwood.net/en/portfolio/media/Learning%20Theory.pdf.
3 See www2.smumn.edu/deptpages/~instructtech/lol/laurillard/ for an interactive diagram
of the Conversational Framework, mapping technologies for each of the components.
4 Adapted from Clough and Ferguson (2010).
5 www.nquire.org.uk/home
6 See Chapter 1 and www.larnacadeclaration.org/
7 http://lamsfoundation.org/
8 https://sites.google.com/a/lkl.ac.uk/ldse/
9 http://ilde.upf.edu/
10 www2.le.ac.uk/projects/oer/oers/beyond-distance-research-alliance/7Cs-toolkit
References
Barab, S. (2006). Design-based research—a methodological toolkit for the learning scien-
tist. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 153–169).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Barab, S. A., M. A. Evans, et al. (2004). Activity theory as a lens for characterizing the par-
ticipatory unit. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications
and technology, second edition (pp. 199–214). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bower, M. (2008). Affordance analysis—matching learning tasks with learning technolo-
gies. Educational Media International, 45(1), pp. 3–15.
Boyle,T. & Cook, J. (2004). Understanding using technological affordances: A response to Boyle
and Cook. ALT-J, 12(3), pp. 301–308. Available online at http://oro.open.ac.uk/6980/.
Clough, G., & Ferguson, R. (2010). Virtual worlds are authentic sites for learning. In K.
Sheehy, R. Ferguson & G. Clough (Eds.),Virtual worlds: Controversies at the frontiers
of education. New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
Cole, M.,Y. Engeström, et al. (1997). Mind, culture and activity: Seminal papers from the labora-
tory of comparative human cognition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Collis, B., & Margaryan, A. (2005). Merrill Plus: Blending corporate strategy and instruc-
tional design. Educational Technology 45(5), pp. 54–58.
Conole, G. (2010). Review of pedagogical frameworks and models and their use in
e-learning. Available online at http://cloudworks.ac.uk/cloud/view/2982.
Conole, G. (2013). Designing for learning in an open world. New York, NY: Springer.
Conole, G., & Dyke, M. (2004). What are the affordances of information and communication
technologies? ALT-J, 12(2), pp. 113–124. Available online at http://oro.open.ac.uk/6981/.
Cowan, J. (2002). The impact of pedagogy on skills development in higher education—or—should
we facilitate the Kolb cycle constructively or socio-constructively? Keynote paper. Skills Devel-
opment in Higher Education: Forging Links, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield.
Currier, S., L. Campbell, et al. (2005). JISC pedagogical vocabularies project—report 1:
pedagogical vocabularies review. London: JISC. Available online at www.jisc.ac.uk/
uploaded_documents/PedVocab_VocabsReport_v0p11.doc.
Daniels, H., M. Cole, et al. (2007). The Cambridge companion to Vygotsky. New York: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Dewey, J. (1916). Experience and nature. New York, NY: Dover.
Engeström,Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work:Toward an activity-theoretical reconcep-
tualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), pp. 133–156.
Engeström, Y., R. L. Punamäki-Gitai, et al. (1999). Perspectives on activity theory. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Fewster, E. (n.d.). Technology affordances. The making of a 21C teacher: Exploring technology
based learning. http://makinga21cteacher.wordpress.com/technology-affordances/.
Gagne, R., & Driscoll, M. (1988). Essentials of Learning for Instruction (2nd Ed.). Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson,T., & Archer,W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environ-
ment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education,
2(2-3), 87–105.
Gaver, W. W. (1991). Technology affordances. CHI ’91 conference proceedings, New Orleans,
Lousiana.
62 Gráinne Conole
Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds)., Perceiving,
acting, and knowing: Toward an ecological psychology (pp. 67–82). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Goodyear, P. (2005). Educational design and networked learning: Patterns, pattern lan-
guages and design practice. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 21(1), 82–101.
Goodyear, P., & Retalis, S. (2010). Technology-enhanced learning: Design patterns and pattern
languages. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Huiitt, W., Monetti, D.M., Hummel, J.H. (2009) Designing direct instruction. Available
online at http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/papers/designing-direct-instruction.pdf
Jonasen, D. 1999, Designing constructivist learning environments, in C.R. Reiguluth (Ed),
Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kirschner, P., J. W. Strijbos, et al. (2004). Designing electronic collaborative learning envi-
ronments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(3), pp. 47–66.
Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development.
Englewood Clifffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Lewin, K. (1942). Field theory and learning. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Field theory in social
sciences: Selected theretical papers. London, Social Sciences Paperbacks, pp. 60–86.
Mayes, T., & de Freitas, S. (2004). Review of e-learning frameworks, models and theo-
ries, JISC e-learning models desk study. Available online at http://www.jisc.ac.uk/
uploaded_documents/Stage%202%20Learning%20Models%20(Version%201).pdf
Merill, D. (2002). First Principles of instruction, ETR&D, Vol. 50, No. 3, 2002, pp. 43–59.
Available online at http://mdavidmerrill.com/Papers/firstprinciplesbymerrill.pdf
Minick, N. (1997). The early history of the Vygotskian school: The relationship between
mind and activity. In M. Cole,Y. Engeström & O.Vasquez (Eds.), Mind, culture and activity
(pp. 117–127). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Mwanza, D. (2002). Conceptualising work activity for CAL system design, JCAL, 18(1),
84–92.
Pask, G. (1975). Conversation Theory developed by the cybernetician Gordon Pask in
Realizing the heavenly Jerusalem,Yitzhak I. Hayut, March 1995.
Preece, J. (2001). Sociability and usability: Twenty years of chatting online. Behavior and
Information Technology Journal, 20(5), 347–356.
Salomon, G. (Ed.). (1993). Distributed cognitions—pyschological and educational considerations.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one.
Educational Researcher, 27(2), p. 4.
Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal
of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1), 3–10.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learn-
ing environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), pp. 5–23.
Wijekumar, K. J., B.J.F. Meyer, et al. (2006). Technology affordances: The “real story” in
research with K-12 and undergraduate learners. British Journal of Educational Technology,
37(2), pp. 191–209.
3
REFLECTIONS ON METAPHORS
FOR LEARNING DESIGN
James Dalziel and Eva Dobozy
The Concept of Metaphors

Metaphors are commonly used to help explain complex phenomena. Hence,
they have been accepted as a simple yet effective cognitive tool which enables
the transfer of meaning between dissimilar domains. The literal interpretation
of the term metaphor is transfer. Tracing the etymology of the term, Stern provides
the following definition:
Middle English methaphor, from Old French metaphore, from Latin meta-
phora, from Greek, transference, metaphor, from metapherein, to transfer :
meta-, meta- + pherein, to carry.
[The American Heritage Dictionary (2000, p. 1134),
cited in Stern (2009, p. 81)]
Metaphors are adopted as a bridging tool between the source and target. The
use of particular metaphors by a person or persons enables the exposure of per-
sonal meaning-making strategies. In other words, metaphors are commonly used
to aid understanding of unfamiliar or changing concepts. Metaphors work by
relating novel ideas to already-known notions of a given concept. It is important
to note that metaphors should not be perceived simply as “a figure of speech”,
but rather as a fundamental form of cognitional assistance; for example Modell
refers to metaphors as “the currency of mind” (2005, p. 562). Functioning as a
pattern detector to influence perceptions, metaphors are most commonly used to
identify and explore widely recognized but ill-defined and fuzzy sets of relational
concepts, such as the difference between “consumer” students and “producer”
students (see Dobozy, 2011), or Learning Design and pedagogical modelling.
64 James Dalziel and Eva Dobozy
Metaphors are cognitive tools that assist a person’s information processing, but
they are incomplete in the sense that no one metaphor related to a specific issue
or concept (such as Learning Design) can capture the richness and complexity of
the concept. Therefore, it may be important to utilize a number of different and
complementary metaphors that may shed light on diverse aspects of a concept or
an issue. Indeed, we argue that a multiplicity of appropriate metaphors may foster
greater understanding than a single metaphor due to the way that different meta-
phors provide different perspectives on a complex concept.
It is also noteworthy that metaphors trigger emotions and are central to imagi-
nation and play, inducing a simulated reality of similarity and difference that is not
rigid, but rather fluid and malleable. Dobozy and Reynolds refer to metaphoric
reasoning as “symbolisation of meaning making” and explain that “the notion of
‘seeing’ and ‘seeing anew’ is important as we see what we are aware of and disre-
gard what we deem unimportant” (2012, p. 223).
According to Modell, metaphors are associated with a different neural system,
and may involve different neural pathways and patterns than knowledge-based
memory. Given their strong links to emotions and unconscious mental processes,
metaphors provide what Modell calls “an organisational template that establishes
the categories of emotional memory” (2009, p. 8).
In the context of Learning Design, metaphoric communication has the poten-
tial to provide mental stimulus for new ways of thinking. Metaphors can assist
in creating a bridge between different levels of Learning Design knowledge and
experience. In addition to cognitive understanding, the potential emotional res-
onance of metaphors may assist in interpersonal meaning making. Given that
course development processes often involve teams of educators (or educators
and educational designers/developers), metaphors can assist the process of shared
meaning making in collaborative teams.
Learning Design Metaphors

Metaphors have been frequently used in explaining the rich and challenging con-
cepts of Learning Design, especially the “play/act” metaphor used in the IMS
Learning Design specification (IMS, 2003) and the music notation, lesson plan
and pattern metaphors of subsequent discussion in the field (See Chapter 1).
Other more technical metaphor (or metaphor-like) examples include the Unified
Modelling Language (Fowler, 2004) and Business Process Modelling (Ko, 2009).
Hence, we provide a brief overview of each of these Learning Design metaphors
as follows:
• The “play/act” metaphor

• The music notation
• The lesson plan
Metaphors for Learning Design 65
• Unified Modelling Language

• Business Process Modelling
• Patterns
The overview also includes any history relevant to the current considerations,
and a brief discussion of potential benefits and weaknesses as an aid to under-
standing Learning Design concepts. Where appropriate, we also reflect on any
interesting variants of the metaphor and its application to Learning Design.While
it could be argued that some of the metaphors used are not strict metaphors for
Learning Design (e.g. lesson plans), they nonetheless provide ways of thinking
analogously about Learning Design concepts, and hence are considered in the
general discussion of metaphors provided here.
The “Play/Act” Metaphor

One of the original statements of the concept of Learning Design, the IMS Learn-
ing Design specification (IMS, 2003), included the “play/act” metaphor (for an
overview of the IMS Learning Design specification, see Jeffrey & Currier, 2005).
The key idea was that in a “Unit of Learning” (that is, a collection/sequence of
learning activities in IMS LD), the whole Unit of Learning could be thought of
as a play, with each particular learning activity being like an act within a play. An
educator designs a sequence of learning activities for students prior to a lesson
(analogous to the script of a play), and then implements these “live” with students
in a classroom or online (analogous to the performance of a play).
Part of the Unit of Learning descriptive information was the “sequence” of
learning activities (where sequence should be understood very broadly as it does
not mean only linear sequences). This is compared to the sequence of acts within
a play (Jeffrey & Currier, 2005). Hence the play/act metaphor helps provide a way
of thinking about education as a sequence of different learning activities, with
each activity having its own particular requirements (the act), and yet also being
part of a wider whole (the play). To extend the metaphor, while certain acts in a
play appear on stage in a linear sequence, their representation of time within the
play may not be linear—one act may be a flashback to the past—this is (partially)
analogous to educational contexts where students may work through activities in
different orders.
An important focus of the IMS Learning Design specification was the concept
of collaborative learning and the potential for different roles for educators and
students (e.g. in a discussion, there may be a discussion-leader role, a note-taking
role and a discussant role). The play/act metaphor elegantly captures this concept,
as the different actors on stage each have a different role as they interact with each
other, and different roles may be present in different acts (for examples of roles
in IMS Learning Design and their implementation in software, see Griffiths, Blat,
Garcia, Vogten & Kwong, 2005). The emphasis on collaborative learning in IMS

Learning Design (as illustrated by the potential for different roles) is illustrative
of how Learning Design differs from almost all other educational technology
approaches (such as traditional instructional design) and specifications (such as
SCORM), which are based on individual, self-paced learning experiences. The
play/act metaphor’s use of roles is central to conveying this distinctive idea of
Learning Design.
Despite its elegance in capturing certain aspects of Learning Design, the play/
act metaphor has three notable weaknesses. First, anecdotal evidence from work-
shops with educators suggests that many educators struggle to reconceptualize
their teaching experiences using the play/act metaphor.That is, while the play/act
metaphor may be useful for capturing some key elements of the theory of Learn-
ing Design (e.g. roles), it is not intuitive for many educators (Martínez-Ortiz,
Sierra & Fernández-Manjón, 2009).
Second, the concept of roles is not ideal for describing typical collaborative
learning contexts in which many students may have the same role (e.g. “discus-
sant” in a discussion group). While the concept of roles can be “stretched” to
address this issue, it would be preferable to have a concept of groups (in addition
to roles) in order to represent many typical workshop-style activities.The concept
of a “group” role sits uneasily with the play/act metaphor (it is rare for a play to
have a group of individuals who all say the same thing), although a slightly modi-
fied metaphor (that of an opera) may offer a better match for a “group” role (in
the form of the “chorus” in an opera, which often has different groups of singers
even within the chorus, and still allows for individual roles, such as the lead char-
acters/singers, which are separate from the group roles).
Third, the special nature of the educator’s role is not sufficiently clear in the
play/act metaphor. While the educator could be considered just one more actor
in the play, this fails to capture the educator’s role in constructing and guiding
an educational experience for students. In this sense, the educator may be more
analogous to the stage manager or the producer of the play—but these roles are
not “present” in the play in the obvious way that an educator is typically present
in a classroom. The opera modification of the play/act metaphor may again be
helpful here, as an opera involves a conductor, who plays a key role of guiding and
facilitating the action on the stage (in real time), and yet is not a role on the stage
itself. But even the role of a conductor of an opera does not properly capture the
unique role of an educator in a classroom, let alone a case of multiple educators
working together, each with different teaching roles.
The initial metaphor (play/act) and the modified metaphor (opera) illustrate
the challenges of using any metaphor to describe a complex idea like Learning
Design—some aspects of a metaphor will be particularly apt or elegant (e.g. the
concept of roles in plays), and yet other elements may be missing or even mislead-
ing (e.g. the conductor of an opera fits well for a set of learning activities guided
“from the side” by an educator, but is less appropriate for a learning activity, such
as lecturing, where the educator is central).
On the whole, we see the play/act metaphor as an early, useful descriptive
model for some parts of Learning Design theory. However, the gaps in its descrip-
tive power, and the anecdotal experiences of practicing educators who struggle to
understand this metaphor, has meant that it has not been widely adopted across
the field of Learning Design to date, except for some of those working closely
with the IMS Learning Design specification (e.g. Hernández-Leo et al., 2006).
Music Notation
The Larnaca Declaration uses music notation as its foundational metaphor for
explaining how the concept of Learning Design relates to many different aspects
of teaching and learning (See Chapter 1). There are many resonances between
music notation and the concept of Learning Design, and yet there are also some
important weaknesses in this metaphor.
In terms of the benefits of this metaphor, music notation offers an example of
documentation and sharing of a particular type of experience that in the past was
thought impossible to document, as is sometimes still said of education today.
Music notation elegantly provides a single descriptive framework for captur-
ing different styles of music, and within any given style, the music itself may be
beautiful or mediocre; just as education has different approaches (e.g. instruc-
tivist, constructivist, Problem-Based Learning etc.), and any given example of
one of these approaches may be more or less effective for student learning (see
Chapter 1).
The distinction between the description of a piece of music and its perfor-
mance is similar to the difference between educators’ preparation of learning
activities and the actual experience of implementing them with students. Simi-
larly, as a composer can share a piece of music with another musician, and many
musicians learn their skills by playing the works of others, so too Learning Design
encourages educators to share their best teaching ideas with each other, and by
reflecting on and implementing (or more typically, adapting and implementing)
the ideas of others, educators develop new skills and understanding.Teacher train-
ing can use Learning Design examples of great teaching ideas just as music teach-
ers use great musical works in student learning.
The technical side of Learning Design finds an elegant example in music—the
“player piano” of the past, where a roll of music was played by a mechanical piano,
is not unlike the XML-based descriptions of Learning Design implemented by
Learning Design software such as Coppercore and LAMS. More recent MIDI and
XML-based music is even more directly comparable to Learning Design software.
It is also worth noting that music notation does not contain “everything” about
a musical performance. Rather, it contains just enough information to allow one
person to convey a great musical idea to another in a notated form—the per-

former still has an important role in interpreting the music. Similarly, Learning
Design does not seek to capture everything about an educational experience, but
it seeks to capture enough information for one educator to reproduce (or more
typically, adapt) an effective educational experience.
Related to the amount of information conveyed, an expert musician can more
readily interpret a piece of music than a novice, based on past experience; so too
an educational expert is more able to infer the background pedagogy of Learning
Design than a novice, because novice educators may need additional descriptive
information to accompany Learning Design before they fully understand its goals
(and hence better understand ways it could be appropriately adapted). This issue
relates to the topic of the appropriate metadata to accompany a learning design
(Agostinho, Bennett, Lockyer & Harper, 2004).
Even one of the limitations of music notation as a way to represent lived expe-
rience finds an important analogue with a limitation in Learning Design. The
Western music notation tradition is highly effective at representing many kinds
of music, but not all (e.g. quartertone singing, or different approaches to elapsed
time in music); non-Western music notation systems may be more effective for
some of these challenges, yet weaker in other areas. In the Larnaca Declaration on
Learning Design, a number of “proto Learning Design” approaches are discussed
(such as LAMS, AUTC flow diagrams and patterns), but these approaches illus-
trate a problem similar to the limitations of Western music notation, in that they
represent certain aspects of education relatively well (e.g. the flow of activities),
yet are weak at representing other aspects (e.g. how an educator might change the
flow “on the fly”). We would argue that, although the future will hopefully bring
more expressive and comprehensive Learning Design representational approaches,
even these will retain certain biases in what they represent well or poorly. It may
be that multiple representations need to be taken together (as in UML with pro-
gramming; see later in this chapter) in order to describe something as complex as
educational experiences.
An interesting example of a new kind of digital notation may be relevant
to the problem of multiple representation. The “Map My Programme” project
(Walker & Kerrigan-Holt, 2012) used an animated representation of assessment
tasks over the life of a typical semester (across multiple subjects). The use of ani-
mated graphics that evolved over time offered a new, compelling way of illus-
trating one of the great problems of university assessment across courses (that
assessments often clump together at the same time, leaving students with a period
of relatively little work followed by a period when all the assignments are due at
the same time). The point here is that this kind of animated graphical approach
is not easily conveyed on paper—it requires the animation capability of modern
technology. Interestingly, the highly successful Guitar Hero music games use a novel
representation of music, based around animation, that helps “novice” musicians
experience the joy of performance without the usual demands of understanding

traditional music notation. While the Guitar Hero games include other factors to
assist performers (including simplified instruments), it is fascinating that a new
kind of digital representation of music plays a central role in the success of these
games; and so by analogy, animation may be part of a future successful Learning
Design representational approach.
The most important weakness of the music notation metaphor for Learning
Design is the difference in sophistication and adoption. The field of Learning
Design is new and emerging and thus does not (yet) have a notation system that
is as expressive or as widely agreed as, say, Western music notation. But then this
is not surprising given that Learning Design is in its infancy as an educational
research field and as pedagogical practice, and Western music notation has existed
for hundreds of years. While some early examples are promising, much work
remains to be done until the concepts of Learning Design representation can be
recognized as a pedagogical modelling tool, similar to Western musical notations
as abstract musical tools that assist not only individual musicians to play a wide
variety of music, but also whole orchestras to play in harmony.
Another important weakness of the music notation metaphor for Learning
Design includes the concept of “improvisation” in face-to-face education. Most
educators would agree that watching and adapting to student needs in real time in
the classroom is an essential aspect of effective teaching. While the role of impro-
visation in some areas of music (such as jazz) is well understood, this is an area
where the music metaphor may not capture the unique challenges of adapting
during classroom teaching.
A different weakness arises from the nature of time in educational experiences.
Classroom teaching is a live, synchronous experience that is most comparable to a
music performance, whereas asynchronous learning environments, such as online
forums, present a more complicated picture of time. There is an important dif-
ference between time-on-task and elapsed time in asynchronous environments
that can make notational description very difficult, whereas this is less challeng-
ing when time-on-task and elapsed time are equivalent (or nearly so) as in the
classroom.
A challenging weakness for the music notation metaphor is the question of
“Who is the performer?” In most music performances this is quite clear, as there
are performers and there is an audience. The two groups are readily identifiable
and distinguishable. However, in education, educators and students are in a sense
both performers. In modern teaching and learning situations, students are not
members of the audience. Rather, they are active participants in their learning.
Learning Design descriptions are mainly about the educator’s plan for the per-
formance (even when the students do most of the activities themselves), whereas
some educational approaches (such as constructivism) require a much more active
role for students in not only conducting but also planning educational activities.
This is an area where Learning Design as a field needs much more development,
and this may draw attention to limitations on the concepts of notation.
Lesson Plans
Lesson plans are most common in K-12 school environments, although variants
of this idea exist in other areas (such as a workshop “run sheet” in corporate
training). Lesson plans may include several different kinds of information, such as
description of content used in the lesson, description of learning objectives and
alignment of the lesson plan with wider curriculum frameworks etc. The most
important element of the lesson plan, for our current purposes, is the description
of learning activities: “who will be doing what and when?” This element of the
lesson plan is most analogous to the sequence of acts in a play, or the sequence of
notes in music.
It is worth noting that a lesson plan is a different sort of metaphor for Learning
Design than the play/act and music notation examples because it is a more direct
representation of Learning Design in the same educational context. However,
there are potential differences between a written “table format” Learning Design
and a lesson plan, and hence it is worth exploring these differences here. Most
importantly, the lesson plan is widely understood among schoolteachers, and even
by many educators in other sectors, so this metaphor is usually the most easily
understood when introducing Learning Design to educator audiences.
As there are many different lesson plan formats, we will not attempt to repli-
cate these here—instead, we provide an example of a Learning Design in a “table
format” to provide a point of comparison to typical lesson plans (see Table 3.1).
There are other table formats for Learning Design (e.g. “LD_Lite”, Littlejohn &
Pegler, 2007)—but the example here is based on the general format introduced in
Dalziel (2008), with the particular case illustrated taken from Dalziel (2011). The
textual description of the educational experience is:
A teacher introduces a new topic with some content (e.g., article, video, lecture, web-
site), then students are broken into small groups (e.g., 4 groups), then students discuss
the initial content in their small groups, then the teacher introduces a second content
resource with different information or a different perspective, then students discuss
the ideas of this different content in their small groups, then the teacher has students
compare and contrast the two different content examples in a whole class discussion.
Finally, the teacher has students complete an assignment on the topic, such as writ-
ing an essay to compare the different perspectives and giving the student’s own view
with reasons.
This experience is then represented in a table format as follows, based on five

questions—Why? When? What? Who? and How?
As compared to a typical lesson plan, there is less emphasis on objectives/

outcomes and assessment, but relatively more emphasis on the sequence of learn-
ing activities (the “when”). Most importantly, each individual learning activity is
quite precisely specified in terms of “who, what and how” compared to a typical
lesson plan. This precision is to provide clear instruction to an educator on how
to replicate the “mechanics” of the classroom arrangements.
A key reason many lesson plans are not as precise in this area is that the creator
of the plan is the same person who uses the plan. Hence, the plan functions more
as a memory aid than as a set of detailed instructions for a different person. Even
in cases where lesson plans are shared among different educators and educational
groups, a lack of precise detail may be due to assumptions about the professional
expertise of the educators who will use the lesson plan—they are assumed to be
able to infer the detailed classroom implementation requirements based on past
experience.
By comparison a learning design, particularly where the activities will be partly
or fully implemented with software, requires greater precision in the description
of the “who, what and how” for each activity and the “when” for the sequence of
activities in order to ensure the desired outcome is achieved (such as the software
implementing the appropriate online learning tools for the right students).
Perhaps the best way to think about lesson plans and the Learning Design
table format is not in terms of relative strengths and weaknesses as a metaphor
(indeed, lesson plans could be considered more as a “description” than as a “meta-
phor”), but rather in terms of how the table format could be used as part of a
more detailed lesson plan format. By encouraging those who prepare lesson plans
to include more explicit detail about the sequence and mechanics of classroom
activities, it would lessen the burden on adopters or adapters of reusable lesson
plans to infer missing details (e.g. how many students per group is recommended).
This is particularly relevant to novices who may lack the educational experience
necessary for these kinds of inferences. In addition, this greater precision would
make it much easier to transfer written lesson plans into Learning Design soft-
ware. Indeed, one future goal of the Learning Design field could be to develop
libraries of lesson plans that are automatically implementable in Learning Design
software. This would be beneficial not only for school implementation, but also
for practical illustration of teaching within teacher training programmes.
Unified Modelling Language

The Unified Modelling Language (UML) was developed in the 1990s as a way
of providing graphical representations of different aspects of software develop-
ment. Its most striking feature is that it does not seek to represent a software
program using a single representation; rather, it recognizes that different aspects of
a software program need different kinds of representations (Fowler, 2004). UML
diagrams can be subdivided into two main categories: “structure” diagrams and
“behaviour” diagrams. For example, one of the most used structure diagrams is a
“class diagram”, which describes the different classes (software sub-components)
that make up the program, and connections between these classes. By comparison,
one of the most used behaviour diagrams is the “sequence diagram”, which shows
the sequence of messages between different parts of a software system over time
(Fowler, 2004).
UML is useful as a metaphor for Learning Design because of the attention it
draws to using multiple representations, and the clarity this brings to the differ-
ent purpose of each type of diagram. For example, the table format (Table 3.1)
outlined earlier tries to indicate information about the sequence of events (in the
“When?” section) that is somewhat similar to the sequence diagram of UML.
However, the table also tries to include information about what educational con-
tent is covered within the same table, whereas UML would seek to convey this
information in a separate diagram with different representational conventions.
TABLE 3.1 Example of a Learning Design table format with content for a “compare and
contrast” learning design, including alternative delivery methods for face-to-face or online
delivery (How?), with suggested timing for a one-hour class.
Learning Objectives—Why? [This section would include discipline-specific objectives related

to the chosen content, as well as generic skills such as critical thinking, teamwork, effective
communication.]
Sequence- What? Who? How? (Face to face / Online)
When?
Step 1 Consider Content A Each student Educator gives lecture/ students

(10 min) (20 × 1) read or watch video
Step 2 Break into groups 4 × group of Educator chooses groups/ system
(1 min) 5 students randomly allocates
Step 3 Small group 4 × group of Small group discussion of Content
(10 min) discussion 5 students A in corners of class/ groups
discuss online in private forums
Step 4 Consider Content B Each student Educator gives lecture/ students
(10 min) (20 × 1) read or watch video
Step 5 Small group 4 × group of Small group discussion of Content
(10 min) discussion 5 students B in corners of class/ groups
discuss online in private forums
Step 6 Whole class 1 × 20 students Whole class discussion / online
(15+ min) discussion (+ educator forum for whole class
facilitated)
Step 7 Write Essay Each student Student writes essay and gives to
(outside class) (20 × 1) educator for marking / uploads
essay online
It is noteworthy that the IMS Learning Design specification makes use of

UML in its more technical documentation and recommends the use of “semifor-
mal UML” as part of the development process (see IMS, 2003). However, based
on anecdotal evidence and personal experience, we can note that few educators
are comfortable with UML, and hence there has been an interest in conveying
UML-like ideas, but in a less complex and technical manner (Griffiths & Blat,
2005). It is possible that the relative popularity of the sequence diagram in LAMS
(which is somewhat like a simplified combination of a UML “class diagram” and
“sequence diagram”) illustrates how UML-like ideas could be adapted to educa-
tional contexts.
In passing it is also worth pointing out that the challenges of “improvisation”
in the classroom for the music notation metaphor apply equally to UML. It is
challenging to imagine how to represent a situation where a software system is
developed and then implemented, and yet the software itself may be changed “on
the fly” mid-implementation.
Business Process Modelling

Within business software there is a cluster of systems, languages and modelling
approaches related to business workflows known as Business Process Modelling
(BPM) (Ko, 2009). This includes technical approaches such as Business Process
Modelling Notation (BPMN) and Business Process Execution Language (BPEL),
which may include both diagrammatic and XML-based representations. UML
is widely used in BPM. Hence BPM can be used as a metaphor for Learning
Design, and there are considerable points of similarity in the technical challenges
and approaches of these two fields.
Yoichi Takayama (a member of the LAMS software team) and colleagues
analyzed the similarities and differences between BPM and Learning Design
approaches (Takayama, Ghiglione,Wilson & Dalziel, 2007, 2009).While the tech-
nical details are beyond the scope of the current context, the main outcome
was that although there were several interesting points of similarity, there was no
concept of collaborative activities in BPM that was equivalent to collaborative
activities in Learning Design. While some BPM approaches allowed for multiple
roles in a workflow, they were based on one individual acting in a role at a time,
followed by another individual in a different role at a later time (for example, a
manager requests an airline flight booking, then an assistant seeks an appropri-
ate flight and selects it, and then a finance officer reviews the selected flight and
approves it for payment). The point is that “educational workflow” often requires
collaboration within each learning activity, and this concept was absent from the
business workflow literature. This example illustrates how the complexities of
education can exceed those of business, and how business technology can learn
from the concepts of educational software.
It is also worth noting that many business workflows are examples of

“long-running” workflows—they may run for many months or years—such
as the customer relationship management of a subscriber to a telecommunica-
tions provider (e.g. a mobile phone contract). By contrast, many “educational
workflows” (i.e. learning designs) are shorter—they may be only one class in
length—and even when they run over multiple classes, they are rarely more than
a few weeks long. This means that an individual workflow in a business context
may be much more complex than an individual learning design, but the single
business workflow may capture the complete customer experience (e.g. mobile
phone contract over several years), whereas one year of student education may
be made up of tens if not hundreds of different learning designs. These learning
designs may exist at several different levels of granularity (as noted in the Larnaca
Declaration).
Patterns
Patterns were first developed in the field of architecture and town planning by
Christopher Alexander (e.g. Alexander, 1979). They are brief, structured descrip-
tions of a particular design problem together with a proposed solution. Taken
together, many patterns on a similar topic can be described as a “pattern lan-
guage”. The concept of patterns was subsequently adopted in software develop-
ment (e.g. Gamma, Helm, Johnson & Vlissides, 1994) and a range of other fields,
including education (e.g. Bergin, 2000).
As with lesson plans, patterns are an example of a metaphor that is quite close
to Learning Design, particularly in cases of educational patterns, which share the
same domain of application as Learning Design. An example of a jigsaw pattern
is included in the Larnaca Declaration, and several Learning Design projects have
explored the overlap of pattern ideas with Learning Design (e.g. Hernández-Leo
et al., 2006; McAndrew, Goodyear & Dalziel, 2006).
A key concept in the patterns literature is the “creative leap”, which is a pattern
that does not provide a specific solution to a local problem; rather, it provides an
idea for a solution that must then be adapted to suit local requirements.This draws
attention to an important difference between some learning designs and patterns.
A learning design may contain all the content and activities needed to “run” the
design with students, and hence the educator’s role is simply to select an appropri-
ate design, and having run it, monitor it for any ongoing interactions that may be
required of the educator. In this case, there is no “creative leap” in terms of the
planning of the learning design. Other kinds of learning designs, such as Transdis-
ciplinary Pedagogical Templates (see Chapters 7 and 9 in this volume), provide a
learning design in the form of a pedagogical template that is intentionally lacking
in discipline content, in order that the educator who uses this template will con-
tribute relevant discipline content prior to implementation.
Hence, some learning designs (such as TPTs) are similar to patterns in their
requirement of a “creative leap” by the educator, but this is not true of all learning
designs. It is worth noting that even with a “ready-to-use” learning design that
includes discipline content, the educator may still wish to change this design “on
the fly” during implementation or contribute to discussions during implementa-
tion in a way that directs students towards new ideas. It could be argued that in
these cases, there is still a kind of “creative leap” involved, but it occurs during the
implementation process rather than at the planning stage.
One of the challenges with some educational patterns is that they operate at
different levels of granularity for implementation e.g. some patterns address the
management of a short discussion, whereas other patterns address the structure of
an entire semester-long course. While these issues could theoretically also occur
with learning designs, there seems to be wider variability in the level of granu-
larity within current educational patterns. A clear descriptive framework for the
level of application would be useful for patterns, such as the categories described
in the Larnaca Declaration for “Level of Granularity” in the Learning Design
Concept Map. It may also suggest the need for more flexibility, or more levels,
when using “Level of Granularity” in analysis of educational patterns.
Conclusion
Each of the metaphors mentioned earlier illustrates different facets of the concept
of Learning Design. In some cases, a metaphor is particularly apt for one dimen-
sion of Learning Design e.g. roles in the play/act metaphor, creative leap in pat-
terns. By using relevant aspects of these metaphors, it is possible to better explicate
the complex nature of Learning Design: for example, learning designs such as
Transdisciplinary Pedagogical Templates require a creative leap in a way similar
to patterns, but ready-to-use learning design (“local designs”) do not require a
creative leap, as the design provides an executable sequence of activities ready for
use with students, including discipline content.
The music notation metaphor has many useful points of comparison with
Learning Design as noted in the Larnaca Declaration—it includes concepts such
as the description of events over time, the separation of composition and per-
formance, the concept of sharing and a representation method that can describe
many different “styles”. However, no one metaphor captures all aspects of Learn-
ing Design, and this is illustrated by the issues of improvisation, as well as the chal-
lenging question of “who is the performer?” in a learning design (both educator
and students, unlike the musician and audience).
Metaphors are often perceived as two-term relationships between source
(music notation) and target (LD representation/notation), located in different
domains. They have a unifying function, bridging the cognitive divide between
the familiar and unfamiliar and/or complex. But at the same time, they run the
risk of introducing further comparisons arising from the metaphor that are not
appropriate to the target, for example, educational processes are not completely
reducible into software like some business processes. Hence metaphors bring both
benefits and risks to the understanding of Learning Designs, and so careful analysis
of both positive and negative aspects of metaphorical thinking in Learning Design
is required.
References
Agostinho, S., Bennett, S., Lockyer, L., & Harper, B. (2004). Developing a learning object
metadata application profile based on LOM suitable for the Australian higher education
context. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 20(2), pp. 191–208.
Alexander, C. (1979). The timeless way of building (vol. 1). New York: Oxford University
Press.
Bergin, J. (2000). Fourteen pedagogical patterns. In The Proceedings for the 15th European
Conference on Pattern Languages Programs (EuroPLoP2000) (pp. 1–49).
Dalziel, J. (2008). Learning design: Sharing pedagogical know-how. In T. Iiyoshi, M.S.V.
Kumar & J. S. Brown (Eds.), Opening up education: The collective advancement of education
through open technology, open content, and open knowledge (pp. 375–388). Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Dalziel, J. (2011). Learning design, LAMS and Christian education. Journal of Christian
Education, 51, pp. 39–56.
Dobozy, E. (2011). Resisting student consumers and assisting student producers. In C.
Nygaard, C. Holtham & N. Courtney (Eds.), Beyond transmission: Innovations in university
teaching (pp. 11–16). Faringdon, England: Libri Publishing.
Dobozy, E., & Reynolds, P. (2012). The tele-learning airport model: Serving consumer
and producer students. Refereed proceedings of the 3rd annual Conference of the
International Association for Development of the Information Society (IADIS), Inter-
net Technologies & Society (ITS) stream, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia,
28–30 November, pp. 222–226.
Fowler, M. (2004). UML distilled: A brief guide to the standard object modeling language. Boston:
Addison-Wesley Professional.
Gamma, E., Helm, R., Johnson, R., & Vlissides, J. (1994). Design patterns: Elements of reusable
object-oriented software. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Griffiths, D., & Blat, J. (2005). The role of teachers in editing and authoring units of learn-
ing using IMS Learning Design. International Journal on Advanced Technology for Learning,
Special Session on Designing Learning Activities: From Content-based to Context-based Learn-
ing Services, 2(4).
Griffiths, D., Blat, J., Garcia, R.,Vogten, H., & Kwong, K. L. (2005). Learning design tools.
In R. Koper & C. Tattersall (Eds.), Learning Design (pp. 109–135). Berlin Heidelberg:
Springer.
Hernández-Leo, D., Villasclaras-Fernández, E. D., Asensio-Pérez, J. I., Dimitriadis, Y.,
Jorrín-Abellán, I. M., Ruiz-Requies, I. & Rubia-Avi, B. (2006). COLLAGE: A collab-
orative Learning Design editor based on patterns. Journal of Educational Technology &
Society, 9(1).
IMS (2003). IMS Global Learning Consortium—Learning Design. www.imsglobal.org/

learningdesign/.
Jeffrey, A., & Currier, S. (2005). What is IMS Learning Design? http://publications.cetis.
ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/WhatIsLD2_web.pdf.
Ko, R. K. (2009). A computer scientist’s introductory guide to business process manage-
ment (BPM). Crossroads, 15(4), p. 4.
Littlejohn, A., & Pegler, C. (2007). Preparing for blended e-learning. London: Routledge.
Martínez-Ortiz, I., Sierra, J. L. & Fernández-Manjón, B. (2009, May). Enhancing IMS LD
units of learning comprehension. In Internet and Web applications and services, 2009. ICIW
’09. Fourth International Conference (pp. 561–566). IEEE.
McAndrew, P., Goodyear, P. & Dalziel, J. (2006). Patterns, designs and activities: Unify-
ing descriptions of learning structures. International Journal of Learning Technology, 2(2),
pp. 216–242.
Modell, A. (2005). Emotional memory, metaphor and meaning. Psychological Inquiry, 25(4),
pp. 555–568.
Modell, A. (2009). Metaphor—the bridge between feeling and knowledge. Psychological
Inquiry, 29(1), pp. 6–11.
Stern, D. (2009). Shall the twain meet? Metaphor, dissociation and coocurrence. Psychologi-
cal Inquiry, 29(1), pp. 79–90.
Takayama,Y., Ghiglione, E., Wilson, S. & Dalziel, J. (2007). Human collaborative workflow
and business process and services computing. In BPSC (pp. 152–168).
Takayama,Y., Ghiglione, E., Wilson, S. & Dalziel, J. (2009). Human activities in distributed
BPM. In BPSC (pp. 139–154).
Walker, S., & Kerrigan-Holt, M. (2012). Map My Programme. www.mapmyprogramme.
com/.
4
LEARNING DESIGN IN THE
NEW DIGITAL AGE
Simon Walker and Mark J. P. Kerrigan
Introduction
The relatively new field of Learning Design has the potential to offer ways of rep-
resenting, communicating and critiquing learning ideas, patterns and experiences
across different subjects and from multiple perspectives. It provides opportunities
for institutions to develop ideas to refresh formal learning and professional devel-
opment, as well as to build capacity into their particular learning cultures and
student experiences. Achieving this within the context of the digital age comes
with a number of unique research challenges. The STELLAR1 network identifies
these as:
• Seeking appropriate forms for representing design knowledge in Technology-

Enhanced Learning (TEL) and ways these can be effectively blended into the
discourse and practices of educators, researchers and policy makers;
• Empowering and supporting educational practitioners in reshaping their role
from providers of knowledge to designers of TEL experiences;
• Evaluating the quality of design products and processes in TEL and assessing
the impact on learning (Fischer, 2014).
This chapter explores some of the issues that confront students and teachers
as they work to re-invent teaching routines and embed within them new designs
for learning. Drawing on the growing literature on digital literacy, the authors
attempt to illuminate the ways the Larnaca Declaration of Learning Design’s core
elements of representation, sharing and guidance could be developed for sup-
porting teaching and learning within a digital context. The aim is twofold: to
enable the production of a more effective, innovative and transparent pedagogy,
Learning Design in the New Digital Age 79
so that staff feel more empowered to change their teaching; to help institutions to
identify the policies, procedures and structural reforms that will encourage good
teaching and assessment, thereby maximizing student employment outcomes and
promoting life-long learning.
The Relationship of Digital Literacy to Learning Design

Whilst the Larnaca Declaration tries to avoid favouring or prioritizing any par-
ticular pedagogical approach, theory or system, it does recognize the changing
nature of working within a digitally enabled and connected environment and
the impact this has on students and staff (See Chapter 1). Indeed, the reality of
operating, learning and working within a global digital environment cannot be
overlooked or avoided. In his book, The New Digital Age, the chairman of Google,
Eric Schmidt, notes:
The most important pillar behind innovation and opportunity—education—

will see tremendous positive change in the coming decades as rising connec-
tivity reshapes traditional routines and offers new paths for learning.
(Schmidt, 2013, p. 21)
A simple survey of higher education institutional websites indicates that repre-

senting, communicating and disseminating research in the digital age has been
clearly understood—key in /(forward-slash) the term “research” after any higher
education institutional Web address and a “glittering world” of new knowledge
is presented to the interested investigator. The opposite is true for teaching and
learning—try the same using the terms “/learning” or “/teaching” and, more than
likely, the investigator will be served with a Forbidden page or Error 404 Page not
found. For most higher education institutions across the world, teaching is the
primary source of income, but within and across disciplines, the design, repre-
sentation and delivery of teaching remains hidden, unshared, uncoordinated and
largely uncelebrated. Have institutions merely failed to understand the impor-
tance of conveying this core institutional information, or are they simply strug-
gling to articulate to their audiences the essential qualities underpinning their
designs of teaching and learning?
Currently, practitioners face many challenges in achieving the development
of a relevant and useful education. In the West, there is a shift from teaching to
learning, from transmission to co-creation, from teacher-as-producer to student-
as-producer and from teacher as change agent to student as change agent. These
transitions require the development of different relationships and pedagogical
models. For example, the proliferation of digital content in open environments
accessed by ubiquitous personal devices has, ironically, led to the reclassification
of the traditional large lecture as a distance education method, characterized by
80 Simon Walker and Mark J. P. Kerrigan
the remote experience of students, often passively sitting in a large lecture theatre,
perhaps struggling to hear or see and with little chance of engaging directly with
the lecturer. Contemporary technology, meanwhile, provides many opportunities
for students on and off campus to access knowledge and develop attributes that
will help them to thrive in the digital workplace. Barber (2013) goes further, sug-
gesting that students should aspire to learn and practise the skills associated with
being innovative: They should seek to be on innovative teams within innovative
organizations and become part of an innovative society; here, they will grow and
develop the skills needed to be globally competitive. All educational institutions
must therefore constantly reflect on their position within this network and act to
give their students the best preparation for work in a digital world.
Current trending patterns identified by long-standing research bodies indi-
cate the emergence of open content, mobile learning and massive open online
courses—MOOCs (Johnson, et al., 2014; Sharples 2013). These require educators
to respond by designing appropriate agile learning environments and activities
that will enable students to better construct real-world knowledge and to engage
more meaningfully with their teachers and peers, thus preparing them properly for
potential employment. The continuing evolution of learning technologies gives
educators and learners incomparable opportunities to access, create, organize, share,
critique and aggregate knowledge. Educational institutions have been given new
ideas that can help them rethink what they do and how they do it.
Today’s students have different expectations of their academic experience from
those in the past. They use digital technologies, they multi-task and they col-
laborate; they are therefore less patient with the teacher-centric styles of educa-
tion that still, to a large extent, dominate higher education, where technology
is mostly used to replicate traditional learning and teaching practices (Beetham,
2013; Dahlstrom, 2013). As Bryant and Walker note:
the learner generally arrives at university with a digital backpack of devices,

skills and an already existing, or perhaps nascent set of connections and
networks.
(2013, p. 2)
The reality is that the majority of students across the developed and developing
world have now grown up with access to information and communications tech-
nology (ICT) and are therefore already e-learners. They have used digital tech-
nologies in their schools, libraries and homes to support their formal education
and used them informally for a variety of other educational purposes, including
learning for hobbies, pursuing personal interests and solving problems. However,
today’s students face continual oscillation between formal institutional learning and
informal learning, between learning for personal growth and learning for work.
This places high demands on them to self-manage their learning. It is true that
students arriving at university often display a wide disparity in skills and knowl-
edge, including their ability to use digital tools for learning. It follows that teachers
may make incorrect assumptions about students’ individual capabilities as digital
learners, with consequent negative impact on their long-term learning and future
success. Students certainly report critical moments in their transition to learning in
higher education—for example: “My first experience of [lecture] PowerPoint”, “lectures
with projector facilities were new to me”, and “working collaboratively” (Kerrigan & Walker,
2013)—and teachers should be attentive to the implications of these. Notwithstand-
ing the cultural complexity and heated debates about the digital divide, the concept
of digital literacy is attracting more critical and academic interest and is now rep-
resented in various educational frameworks2 and institutional strategic documents.
In the Larnaca Declaration, digital literacy is viewed as “the development of criti-
cal reflection on life and work with digital technologies” (See Chapter 1, p. 20). Digital
literacy is linked to a number of research and practice fields—such as library and
information studies, media and film education, academic literacies, educational
technology and digital humanities (Fransman, 2013)—and reveals a set of tensions,
interactions and debates between culture and technology. Previously, discussion
about digital literacy tended to focus on functional IT/ICT skills development
and how to integrate this into a formal curriculum.The agenda promoted techni-
cal skills development rather than raising questions about how digital literacy is
constructed and the power relations that permeate its formation and distribution.
More recently, Hinrichsen and Coombs (2014) argue that the shift from
a technological hard IT/ICT position to a more complex and nuanced con-
cept of literacy within a digital context has provided a new opportunity to
look more broadly at the sociocultural practices and discourses that exist. Their
re-interpretation of Luke and Freebody’s (1999) original work refines and elab-
orates a critical digital literacy framework, which focuses on learner processes
that fit the practices of reading and writing in and for the digital environment.
Alongside activity areas of Decoding, Making Meaning, Using and Analyzing, a new
element, Persona, has been added (Figure 4.1). Persona comprises Identity Building,
Managing Reputation and Participating (Table 4.1).3
Today’s graduates face selection scrutiny of a kind experienced by no previ-
ous generation, as employers are currently free to exploit every digital source
of information about them that they can find and feel at liberty to make their
decisions about individuals’ life chances based on it. Teaching students how to
safeguard identity and manage reputation presents an immediate and a continu-
ous challenge. Our learning designs need to enable students to become sophisti-
cated graduates, capable of adding value to their employers’ products and services
whilst simultaneously avoiding the digital faux pas that can occur in a globally
connected world. Understanding how technology can contribute to the acquisi-
tion of 21st-century skills, attributes and literacies and how strategically to sup-
port these changes is not so much a debate about the technology itself, or what
FIGURE 4.1 Model of critical digital literacy
TABLE 4.1 Persona of the CDL Model
Identity Building Managing Reputation Participating

Management
The development of a Learners need to be The ability to work

sense of one’s own aware of their own with others in a variety of
role within different and their communities’ modes (e.g. synchronous
digital environments reputations as assets that and asynchronous) via
and sensitivity to should be developed digital interaction and
relationships and and managed effectively exchange. To experience
alignments within groups to support aspirations, the contribution that
and communities. An such as those related to individuals, groups and
understanding of the career and employment. communities can make to
multifaceted nature They need to safeguard an activity or endeavour.
of identity, how this against loss of reputation, Awareness of the ethical
operates in different understanding how to and cultural challenges this
contexts and the protect and partition their raises.
relationships between online activity.
digital and other
identities.
platforms or systems are deployed, but about how it can support structural and
cultural change and drive the development of new practices. The challenge for
Learning Design theory and the further development of the Larnaca Declaration
is not only to embed critical digital literacy into the development of learning
practices, but also to contextualize this as part of successful Learning Design.
Digital Literacy and Learning Design

The focus of this chapter has so far been mainly on the student, but it is
important to remember that it is predominantly academic staff who influ-
ence students’ learning in a formal setting. Staff capability has a key role to
play in developing and supporting the students’ journey towards becoming
digitally literate and consequently is intrinsically linked to the personal devel-
opment of each member of staff. This creates a relationship between student
and staff digital literacy, which, if a learning design is going to succeed, needs
to be fully understood. This relationship can be conceptualized using a simple
model (Figure 4.2), whereby staff and student critical digital literacy abilities
are plotted against each other by means of four quadrants. The four shaded quad-
rants represent different scenarios. In this example, the horizontal axis and ver-
tical dashed line, representing staff, and the vertical axis and horizontal dotted
line representing students, express equal critical digital literacy ability. Anything
to the right of the dashed line is above the level of staff critical digital literacy,
and anything to the left, is below it. For students, anything above the dotted line
exceeds their critical digital literacy level and anything under is below it. The top
right quadrant, which is above the level of both students and staff, indicates an
area of risk in which staff do not have the critical digital literacy level to teach or
support their students. In the bottom right quadrant, the critical digital literacy
level is above that of staff but below that of students. In the bottom left quadrant,
both staff and students have a critical digital literacy level to engage with material,
although there is no critical digital literacy development for the students, whereas
in the top left quadrant, the critical digital literacy level of the staff is higher than
that of the students and thus this scenario offers developmental opportunities.
The impact of critical digital literacy abilities of staff and students on learn-
ing opportunities is shown in Figure 4.3. Interestingly, the representation offer
insights for enhancement and for students to support and develop staff. It res-
onates with the increasing emphasis placed upon student engagment and the
implications for staff and students to work as partners. In the example shown
in Figure 4.3a, it is possible to see that, where the critical digital literacy ability
of staff is greater than that of the students, the opportunity for student critical
digital literacy development is increased (a) and the risk that staff will not be able
to support students is reduced. Conversely, if the level of the students is greater
than that of the staff, student development opportunities are reduced, whilst the
requirement for staff development is higher (b).
10
9 Staff are equipped with the Staff are not equipped with
necessary CDL skills to the necessary CDL skills to
support student support student
8
development development
Student Critical Digital Literacy
7 Students do not have the Students do not have the

CDL skills to operate at this CDL skills to operate at this
level but have the potential level and will require
6 for development support and development
5
Staff are equipped with the Staff are not equipped with
necessary CDL skills to the necessary CDL skills to
4
support student support student
development development
3 Students have the CDL
Students have the CDL
skills to operate at this
skills to operate at this
2 level but there is no CDL
level and will require
development. Students can
support and development
support staff
1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Staff Critical Digital Literacy
FIGURE 4.2 Quadrant model of staff/student CDL
The model (shown in Figures 4.2, 4.3a and 4.3b) is an effective representa-
tion of how different levels of critical digital literacy levels of staff and students
can impact learning and teaching development opportunities, but it does not yet
take into account the learning design itself. Indeed, the development of student
digital literacy as part of Learning Design theory requires the knowledge of three
core elements: student critical digital literacy capability, staff critical digital literacy
capability as indicated by their practice and the design itself. The critical digital
literacy of staff and students, as well as the critical digital literacy required within
the learning design itself, therefore needs to be quantified. The proposition that
staff and student digital literacy be quantified by means of the same critical digital
literacy scale and the results applied to individual learning designs would give
teachers confidence that the chosen design would function at their own and their
students’ level of practice. Furthermore, this quantification would permit practi-
tioners to visualize the development of critical digital literacy within a learning
design for their students.Translating this into a model of Digital Literacy Learning
10
9
8
Student Digital Literacy

7
6
5
4
3
2
1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Staff Digital Literacy
(a)
10
9
8
Student Digital Literacy
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Staff Digital Literacy
(b)
FIGURE 4.3 Impact of changes in staff/student CDL on learning potential
Design (DLLD; Figure 4.4) allows us to link the critical digital literacy levels of
staff and students with learning designs.
In this representation, anything to the right of the dotted line is above the
students’ critical digital literacy ability and anything to the left is below. For staff,
anything to the right of the dashed line is above their critical digital literacy
10
1
cy
9 2
Sta
era
ff C
8
Lit
3
riti
tal
7 4
ca
igi
lD
lD
6 5
igi
(a)
ica
t
rit 5
al
6
tC
Lit
4
en
era
7
ud
cy
3 8
St
(c) (d)
2 9
(b)
1 10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Learning Design
a) Staff “effective” teaching area c) Student “unchallenged ” area
b) Staff “CPD” area d) Student “learning ” area
FIGURE 4.4 Visualizing staff and student digital literacy
ability and anything to the left is below. Visually, one is able to apply a series of
intersects to each side of the DLLD model, which form areas that represent a
range of scenarios (Figure 4.5). In these examples, the impact of critical digital
literacy development can be envisaged in situations where: (1) staff and students
have an equal critical digital literacy (Figure 4.5a); (2) students have greater criti-
cal digital literacy than staff (Figure 4.5b); (3) staff have greater critical digital
literacy than students (Figure 4.5c). The outcomes of these will then inform the
application of the learning design and the suitability for staff and students. Addi-
tionally, the model offers insight into where staff development is needed or, inter-
estingly, where students, working as agents4 or partners of change, can offer staff
enrichment.
The vertices on the DLLD model create a series of sections, which describe
different learning situations and implications for staff and student engagement
with critical digital literacy (Table 4.2). If (a)>(c), then staff have the capacity
and skill to enhance their students’ critical digital literacy, whereas if (a)<(c), staff
have the capacity to work only at the critical digital literacy level that students are
comfortable with but not challenged by, assuming they have the critical digital
literacy level themselves. Situations (b) and (d) indicate a potential to increase
staff and student capabilities for critical digital literacy, either through professional
development activities (staff), or via the successful delivery of a learning design
(student). Situation (e) is a collaborative zone where students, given the correct
opportunities, can enhance staff critical digital literacy, or staff have the critical
digital literacy capacity to develop students.
(A) Student = Staff
10
1
St
y
9 2
rac
aff
e
8
C
3
Lit
rit
7
tal
ica
4
igi
lD
6 5
lD
(a)
igi
5
ica
tal
6
rit
Lit
4
tC
7
era
en 3 8
cy
ud
2 (c) (d)
St
(b) 9
1 10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Learning Design
(B) Student > Staff (c) Student < Staff
10 10
1 1
Sta
St
cy
cy
9 2 9 2
aff
era
era
ff C
8 3 8
Cr
3
Lit
Lit
riti
itic
7 7
tal
4 tal 4
ca
al
igi
igi
lD
6 6
Di
5 5
lD
lD
(a)
igi
(a) (b)
git
5 5
ica
ica
tal
al
6 6
rit
rit
Lit
Lit
4 4
tC
tC
7 7
era
era
en
en
3 8 3 8
cy
cy
ud
ud
(c) (d) (c) (d)

2 2
St
St
9 (e) (b) 9
1 (e) 10 1 10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Learning Design Learning Design
a) Staff “effective” teaching zone d) Student “learning ” zone

b) Staff “CPD” zone e) Stakeholder “enrichment ” zone
c) Student “unchallenged ” zone
FIGURE 4.5 Examples of the DLLD model in relation to staff/student CDL
TABLE 4.2 DLLD model. The vertices in the DLLD model create a series of areas, each
of which have an impact on the staff and student engagement and the capacity for staff to
support student CDL.
Area Name Observation
(a) Effective staff teaching Indicates the area whereby staff have the CDL skill to
deliver a learning design
(b) Staff CDP Indicates the area where staff have the capacity to undergo
future CPD to increase their CDL skill
(c) Student unchallenged Indicates the area where any applied learning design does
not enhance students’ CDL skill
(d) Student learning Indicates the area where any applied learning design has the
potential to enhance students’ CDL skill
(e) Stakeholder Indicates the area where either the staff or student has the
enrichment potential to enhance the CDL of the other.
The Application of Digital Literacy to Learning Design

Whilst the relationship between student and staff capacity for critical digital lit-
eracy is essential to ensure its development, it does not provide an insight into
the potential effectiveness or the difficulties of a learning design. It is therefore
necessary to review and quantify a learning design at a session level of granularity.
To highlight this, one can use the example of the learning design applied to the
role play featured in the Larnaca Declaration (See Chapter 1). Traditionally, the
teaching of role play is a face-to-face activity where students, in this example a
group of trainee teachers, are given roles to play and, following discussion and/or
research to develop their roles, enact the role play.This learning design is used suc-
cessfully in many educational settings, including teaching, management and medi-
cal education (Nestel & Tierney, 2007), and has significant potential to develop
critical digital literacy. Conceptually, one can apply a transitional approach to role
play to support the development of critical digital literacy through the introduc-
tion of digital technology by accepting the premise that there are alternatives to
face-to-face engagement (Figure 4.6). Here students can receive the roles via a
variety of digital modes and then work in groups to Decode and Make Meaning of
Low CDL High CDL

Roles Text delivered: app/tweet/
handed to vine/webpage/Podcast; Text
Activity when using role play learning design
trainee Written text on a page

received using: PC/tablet/
teachers smartphone
F2F/single location/
Roles Large group size/distributed/
small group size/
groups virtual/collaborative space
discussion constrained
meet using cloud and BYOD
to physical environment
Discuss Research could be: online/

conduct/ Role equates to through own and professional
Perform speaking and acting social networks/Skype/using
research BYOD
Could be: virtual/cross-

Role play Role equates to
cultural/international/inquiry
enacted speaking and acting
based
Increasing difficulty of CDL in LD
FIGURE 4.6 The integration of CDL in the role play teaching methodology

the technology and the instructions. In the critical digital literacy model (Hinrich-
sen & Coombs, 2014), students work in groups to Analyze and Use the technology
to explore/research the role and engage with digital technology to present the
role, thus developing the Persona dimension. The learning design therefore has the
potential to develop critical digital literacy and is dependent on both the technol-
ogy and the critical digital literacy applied to the technology for both staff and
students.
Having explored an example of a specific learning design and how it can be
adapted to require different levels of digital literacy, we are now in the position to
explore the level of critical digital literacy in a learning design (Figure 4.7), and
thus explore the relationship between staff and student capabilities, and the learning
design at a session level. Here, we can model the optimal application of a learn-
ing design to ensure the development of student critical digital literacy whilst also
ensuring that staff have the capability to deliver this. For example, a learning design
at level 55, represented by the thick black line, requires staff of equal or greater criti-
cal digital literacy to teach it, and students above or below, depending on the learn-
ing intended. If students are above this level, there will be no critical digital literacy
development; if below, they will require support from staff, but may reach the level
of the learning design at the end of the design. It could be argued that, if a learning
design requires a critical digital literacy level greater than that of the practitioner, it
could spur that person to undertake CPD in critical digital literacy or, alternatively,
as s/he prepares for the lesson, her/his critical digital literacy may further develop.
(ST<SF)>LD
10
1
9 2
8
Sta
3
cy
era
ff D
7 4
Lit
igi
6
al
tal
5
git
Lit
Di
5
era
6
t
en
(a)
cy
4
ud
7
St
3 (d)
8
2 (f)
9
(b)
(c) (e)
1 10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Learning Design
FIGURE 4.7 Applying the CDL of a learning design to the DLLD model

(A) Student=Staff
10
1
9 2
St
y
8
rac
3
aff
e
7
D
4
Lit
igi
6
tal
tal
(a) 5
igi
Lit
5
tD
6
era
en 4 7
cy
(g)
ud
3
St
8
2 (c) (d)
(b) 9
1 (f) 10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Learning Design
(B) Student>Staff (C) Student<Staff
10 10
1 1
9 2 9 2
St
cy
Sta
cy
8 3 8 3
aff
era
era
ff D
7 7
Di
4 4
Lit
Lit
igi
git
6
tal
6
tal
tal
5 5
al
(a) (b) (a)

igi
igi
Lit
Lit
5
tD
6
tD
6
era
era
en
en
4 7 4
cy
cy
(g)
ud
ud
3 3
St
8
St
8
2 (c) (d) 2 (c) (d)
9 9
(e) (b)
1 (e) 10 1
(f) (f) 10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Learning Design Learning Design
a) Staff “effective” teaching zone e) Stakeholder “enrichment ” zone
b) Staff “CPD” zone f) Student “achievement ” post LD
c) Student “unchallenged ” zone g) Staff “development ” required to
d) Student “learning ” zone teach LD
FIGURE 4.8 Applying the CDL of a learning design to the DLLD model
The introduction of critical digital literacy quantification to Learning Design

introduces new areas into the model and provides a representation of the rela-
tionship between the learning design and staff and student critical digital literacy
development (Figure 4.8; Table 4.3). Combined, it is now possible to relate a
learning design to the students it is intended for and to the practitioner who
will be delivering it. Importantly, the two additional zones describe, where appli-
cable: (1) an increase in student critical digital literacy following the successful
engagement with a learning design, indicated by (f ); and (2) the degree of staff
continuing professional development (CPD) required to deliver that particular
learning design, indicated by (g). At the holistic level, the model will provide the
TABLE 4.3 DLLD aligned to critical digital literacy of a learning design.The vertices in the
DLLD model create a series of areas, each of which have an impact on the staff and student
engagement with CDL and the delivery of a learning design.
Zone Name Observation
(a) Staff effective teaching Indicates the area whereby staff have the CDL skill to
zone deliver a learning design
(b) Staff CDP zone Indicates the area where staff have the capacity to
undergo future CPD to increase their CDL skill
(c) Student unchallenged Indicates the area where any applied learning design in
zone this zone will not enhance the students’ CDL skill
(d) Student learning zone Indicates the area where any applied learning design in
this zone has the potential to enhance the students’
CDL skill
(e) Stakeholder Indicates the area where either the staff or student has
enrichment zone the potential to enhance the CDL of the other
(f) Student achievement Indicates the level of increase in student CDL
post learning design following the successful completion of the learning
design
(g) Staff development Indicates the required CPD to deliver the learning
required to teach design
learning design
necessary confidence and reassurance for students to engage in a session and not
feel excluded on account of their lack of critical digital literacy.
Whilst these visualizations are useful, they have limited scope for understand-
ing situations and take time to construct. Mathematically, one can construct a
series of scenarios to explore these relationships in greater detail (Table 4.4) and
begin to deconstruct the processes required for the application of a learning
design to support the development of student critical digital literacy. These logic
statements will permit the construction of models to predict and demonstrate the
effectiveness of numerous real scenarios. These scenarios permit the prediction of
the student and staff experience, and how the learning design will impact student
transition. This gives rise to the optimal teaching condition needed to develop
critical digital literacy—(ST<LD)≤SF—and highlights immediate areas of risk—
(ST≤LD)≥SF—as well as areas of opportunity—(ST≥LD)≥SF.
Having reviewed a possible model to link the development of critical digital
literacy, staff professional development and Learning Design, it is important to
look at how this model could be applied to practice. The basis of the model is
the quantification of critical digital literacy for the individual and for the learning
design. For the model to work, the same criteria need to be applied to staff and
students, as well as to the design itself.The subject of quantifying digital literacy is
complex and, to date, numerous models have been proposed. One such model is
the result of Bath University’s PriDE6 project. Here, they use the Functional Skills,
TABLE 4.4 DLLD Logics statements. The intersects in the DLLD model create a series of
areas, each of which have an impact on the staff and student engagement with critical digital
literacy and the delivery of a learning design. Learning in areas other than CDL may take place.
Logic Student (ST) Staff (SF) Learning Design (LD)
(ST=SF)=LD No intended Teaching is static CDL level static and offers

development. no learning development
Learning is static
(ST=SF) >LD Wasted potential for Wasted potential for CDL level too low. Offers
development development no clear development
(ST=SF)<LD Wasted potential for Unable to develop CDL level too high.
development students’ CDL Risk of confusion and
disengagement
(ST≥LD) >SF Wasted potential for Learning potential CDL level too low. Offers
student development. through students. no student development
Potential enrichment Unable to develop but possibility for staff
of staff students. development
(ST<LD)>SF Potential for Unable to develop CDL level too high.
disengagement students’ CDL Risk of confusion and
disengagement
(ST≤LD)≤SF Engaged. Potential Supports student CDL level pitched correctly
enrichment of development
students’ CDL
Practices and Attributes taxonomic approach, building an identity for each core
discipline, which has the potential to be numerically quantified. The University
of Exeter’s Cascade project7 has developed an online questionnaire that explores the
digital learner profile, visualizing ability in eight core areas: (1) Global Citizen, (2)
Information Junkie, (3) Learner Networker, (4) Career Building, (5) Digital Enthusi-
ast, (6) Digital Sceptic, (7) Media Savvy and (8) Life Planner. From the perspective of
applying the model to the development of critical digital literacy, the scale could be as
simple as low to high or as complex as a numerical grading system.What is important
is that the scale is consistently applied to staff, students and the learning design.
Putting into Practice

The model offers multiple opportunities to support the successful integration of
critical digital literacy within a learning design at different levels of granularity8
and also resonates with the larger picture that the Larnaca Declaration provides.
With these combined, it is therefore possible to construct a set of practice sug-
gestions to support the alignment of Learning Design and critical digital literacy:
1. The institution has a transparent process for the development of critical digi-
tal literacy as part of a teaching, learning and assessment strategy.
2. The institution subscribes to a process for continuous monitoring, reflection

and enhancement of critical digital literacy evidenced in annual monitoring.
3. Commitment from all programme teams to develop student critical digital
literacy and embedded in programme documentation.
4. All programme teaching activities are rated for their critical digital literacy
requirement and content.
5. At the programme level, all teaching, learning and assessment material is
ordered and aligned to support student critical digital literacy development.
6. Staff and students can rate their critical digital literacy ability on an institu-
tionally agreed framework.
7. CPD provision is in place to develop staff critical digital literacy and staff are
never asked to teach above their critical digital literacy level.
8. Students and staff can engage in additional critical digital literacy support as
required.
9. Students are involved in programme critical digital literacy development, as
part of design and validation.
10. Future employers are engaged throughout programme design to ensure
alignment of critical digital literacy with professional practice.
Conclusion
This chapter has focussed on the importance of embracing digitally enhanced
Learning Design as a means to improve students’ ability to thrive in the digital
age, and to improve the capability of staff to teach in a technological world they
did not grow up in. It has introduced two models to explore the relationship
between staff and student digital literacy and how this relates to successful Learn-
ing Design. The authors have discussed the effectiveness of an individual learning
design and, by extrapolation, how multiple learning designs could be constructed
to develop student critical digital literacy at the holistic level. Applying this at
a higher level of granularity would offer a robust methodology that could be
used to inform and address numerous institutional priorities. As an example, if an
institution embraced a practice of “bring your own device” (BYOD), the DLLD
model could provide a framework to identify learning designs, staff capabilities
and student risk factors, thereby impacting the success of the BYOD initiative.
Specifically, this model could be used to identify a sequence of learning designs
that will ensure successful BYOD student engagement. This will be supported
by staff known to have the capabilities to deliver and develop the critical digital
literacy required for BYOD, and thus help to prevent the disengagement, attri-
tion and failure often associated with poorly designed technological implemen-
tations. A second example could be the need for institutions to support their
graduates’ employability within specific programmes. Here, having identified the
critical digital literacy required by employers, learning designs can be constructed
or adapted to ensure alignment, and thus equip students with the necessary criti-
cal digital literacy to succeed. Importantly, this model will ensure both that staff
have confidence that students will be able to engage with the newly constructed
designs and that staff are equipped to deliver within them.
Notes
1 The aims of the STELLAR Network are to build capacity into TEL research within
Europe to allow the European Union to achieve its goals via the Bologna Agreement
and the execution of the Lisbon Agenda.
2 See for example www.sconul.ac.uk/tags/digital-literacy/.
3 Other components that make up the critical digital literacy framework can be viewed at:
https://sites.google.com/site/dlframework/home/background.
4 www.changeagentsnetwork.co.uk
5 Note that this is an example based on the quantification of critical digital literacy on a
scale from 1 to 10.
6 http://digilitpride.wordpress.com
7 http://blogs.exeter.ac.uk/cascade/
8 See Larnaca Declaration for an explanation of the term “granularity”.
References
Barber, M. D. (2013). An avalanche is coming: Higher education and the revolution ahead. London:
Institute for Public Policy Research.
Beetham, H. W. (2013). Students’ expectations and experiences of the digital environment. Avail-
able at The Digital Studio: http://jiscdesignstudio.pbworks.com/w/page/69725309/
students’%20expectations%20and%20experiences%20of%20the%20digital%20
environment.
Bryant, P., & Walker, S. (2013). The modern university in the digital age. Available at ARV
13 Crisis Forum: http://arv13crisisforum.wordpress.com/2013/01/13/the-modern-
university-in-the-digital-age/.
Dahlstrom, E. W. (2013). ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology.
Available at www.educause.edu/ecar.
Fischer, F. (2014). Grand challenges in technology enhanced learning. London: SpringerBriefs in
Education.
Fransman, J. (2013) Researching academic literacy practices around Twitter: Performative
methods and their onto-ethical implications. In R. A. Goodfellow (Ed.), Literacy in the
digital university: Critical perspectives on learning, scholarship and technology (pp. 27–41). Lon-
don: SHRE, Routledge.
Hinrichsen, J., & Coombs, A. (2014). The five resources of critical digital literacy: A frame-
work for curriculum integration. Research in Learning Technology, 21, p. 21334. Available
at http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v21.21334.
Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada,V., Freeman, A. (2014). NMC Horizon Report: 2014
Higher Education Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.
Kerrigan, M.J.P., & Walker, S. (2013) Digital literacies in transition. Available at http://dlinhe.
ning.com/.
Luke, A., & Freebody, P. (1999). Further notes on the four resources model. Available at www.
readingonline.org/research/lukefreebody.html.
Nestel, B., & Tierney,T. (2007). Role-play for medical students learning about communica-
tion: Guidelines for maximinsing benefits. BMC Medical Education, 7(3).
Schmidt, E. (2013). The new digital age: Reshaping the future of people, nations and business.
London: John Murray (2014).
Sharples, M. (2013). Innovating Pedagogy 2013. Available at www.open.ac.uk/blogs/
innovating/.
5
THE COMPLEMENTARY NATURE OF
LEARNING DESIGN AND TPACK
Eva Dobozy and Chris Campbell
This chapter explores the concepts of Learning Design (LD) and Technologi-
cal Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK) in an attempt to contribute
greater clarity about their epistemological and conceptual similarities and differ-
ences. Drawing on LD and TPACK research, we present a conceptual framework
that helps to analyze LD and TPACK philosophy and application, specifically
targeting designers of teaching and learning activities, educational researchers and
administrators. A key goal of this chapter is to illustrate that, although the concepts
operate in different paradigms and are designed for a different target audience,
they are complementary.The LD construct based on the Learning Design Frame-
work (LD-F) introduced in the Larnaca Declaration is focussing on pedagogical
design and is underpinned by ideas of interdisciplinarity, general applicability and
flexibility in epistemology and ontology, whereas TPACK is specifically targeted
to the education of schoolteachers, providing a framework that illustrates the rela-
tionship between the three components of TPACK, technical (T), pedagogical (P)
and (C) content (K) knowledge. Understanding their complementary nature will
assist designers of learning and teaching to make better-informed decisions about
technology-enhanced learning and teaching provisions.
Introduction
Many of the sciences are converging on an evolutionary view of how new
aspects of reality emerge locally from the surrounding and interpenetrat-
ing global complexity. The roots of this altered worldview seem simple . . .
[t]aken together, they imply a multifaceted and complex open ecology with
the possibility of multiple causes, strange loops of feedback and reflection,
dramatic jumps in behavior, nonlinearity and chaos. Computers now allow
Learning Design and TPACK 97
us to see, manipulate and understand this more nuanced world in new

ways, and that is transforming the way the world does science. The new
evolutionary worldview of complex systems is a result of science coming to
grips with the implications of its simple beginnings in the face of errors that
accumulate from applying those ideas to complex realities.
(Gibson & Knezek, 2011, p. 2)
Many have hailed the Internet as a game changer for education. Unsurpris-
ingly, then, the increased provision of technology-based learning and teaching,
whether in school education, higher and further education or corporate, gov-
ernment and military settings, is now readily accepted. But, “why has university
teaching remained so stubbornly traditional?” asks Peter Scott (2013). Many edu-
cational researchers have commented on teachers’ “knowledge gap” in relation
to technology-mediated learning and teaching and identified their resistance to
change as a major factor (Conole, 2013; Howard, 2013; Koehler, Mishra, Ker-
eluik, Shin, & Graham, 2013). The new and emerging field of Learning Design
Research (LDR) is grappling with this very issue, attempting to “come to grips
with the implications” (Gibson & Knezek, 2011, p. 2) of errors of assumptions
and the paradoxical gap in potential and reality of technology-mediated con-
temporary education. The errors and assumptions are that technology will be
able to “magically” transform educational practices, enabling more authentic and
learner-centric experiences (Conole & Koskinen, 2011).
Despite the many fashionable terms used within the field, such as “tele-learning”
(Dobozy & Reynolds, 2012), m-learning (Laurillard, 2007) and we-learning
(International Council for Educational Media, 2013), technology-mediated
learning and teaching is often referred to simply as “eLearning” or “eTeaching”
and has recently been defined as “on-line learning delivered over the World Wide
Web via the public internet or the private, corporate intranet” (International
Academy Research and Industry Association, 2012). Despite its popularity and
the mushrooming literature on eLearning/eTeaching theory and practice, the
many publications and global conferences seem to obscure limited conceptual and
pedagogical alignments in various emerging eLearning/eTeaching models (see
Hannafin & Land, 1997; Sveiby, Grippenberg & Segercrantz, 2012).We argue that
teachers’ overall pedagogical knowledge needs to reflect their understanding of
the situatedness of learning with technology and the enhancement effect of teach-
ing with new and emerging technologies (Dobozy, Mullaney & Gibson, in press).
In response to the identified need for greater conceptual and pedagogical clarity,
this chapter will explore the key organizing patterns and underpinning episte-
mological ideas that characterize two eLearning/eTeaching frameworks, namely:
Learning Design (LD) and Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge
(TPACK). Both LD and TPACK have recently gained substantial popularity
and increased attention, especially in academic research and practice as a way to
help plan and reflect on technology-integrated teaching and learning practices.
98 Eva Dobozy and Chris Campbell
However, we argue that they are relevant for all education sectors and settings. By
investigating the theoretical and practical conceptualization of Learning Design
and TPACK principles and practices, it will be possible to make explicit their
similarities and differences, thus helping educators understand their value-adding
nature and their individual and combined utility.
This chapter is organized as follows: Firstly, Learning Design as an emerging
subfield of eLearning/eTeaching is introduced. Secondly, TPACK as a new and
developing framework is explored. Thirdly, the nature of the complementarity of
LD and TPACK is described, including how the complementary nature of the
twin frameworks is likely to explain and then guide implementation or profes-
sional learning. Fourthly, we describe important implications for teacher profes-
sional development, particularly how understanding the complementarity of LD
and TPACK can assist designers of learning and teaching activities make better
and informed decisions about technology-enhanced learning and teaching provi-
sions. Finally, in this chapter we offer suggestions for future research.
Learning Design and the Larnaca Declaration

Learning Design as an emerging field of study and pedagogical practice has been
well documented in the past 10 years (Cameron & Campbell, 2013; Campbell &
Cameron, 2011; Conole, 2011; Dalziel, 2011; Dobozy, 2012, 2013; Dobozy, Dal-
ziel & Dalziel, 2013; Donald, Blake, Girault, Datt & Ramsay, 2009; Larnaca Dec-
laration, see Ch. 1 in this volume; Laurillard et al., 2011), with it often described
as a discipline that “documents and describes a learning activity in such a way that
other teachers can understand it and use it in their own context.Typically a learn-
ing design includes descriptions of learning tasks, resources and supports provided
by the teacher” (Donald et al., 2009, p. 180).
Learning Design (LD) has been described as an emerging field in education
and is depicted in a variety of ways by LD researchers and practitioners. Learning
Design Research (LDR) has occurred in response to a perceived gap between the
potential of technologies in terms of their use to support learning and their actual
use in practice (Bennett et al., 2007; Conole et al., 2004; Dobozy, 2013). More-
over, LD and LDR have been recognized as a possible means to support educators
in their quest to “modernise their pedagogical practices and reconceptualise their
approaches to teaching and learning” (Dobozy et al., 2013, p. 62). However, for
the field to advance, there needs to be more conceptual clarity and some form of
shared direction. The Larnaca Declaration on Learning Design has acknowledged
the definitional problems and notes that “definitions are not sufficiently clear and
that there is a need to create clearer conceptual foundations in order to foster the
next generation of research and development” (see Ch. 1 in this volume). In the
context of LD and LDR, the Larnaca Declaration is an important document in that
it provides an ontological foundation for the field to move forward. As a description
of interrelating concepts and their relationship, the Larnaca Declaration enables the
field to mature and build on a common and agreed upon set of principles. Tom
Gruber refers to this common set of principles and agreed upon explanations as
“ontological commitments” (1993, p. 202). More specifically, he explains:
A common ontology defines the vocabulary with which queries and asser-
tions are exchanged among agents . . . [and] a commitment to a common
ontology is a guarantee of consistency, but not completeness.
(Gruber, 1993, p. 203)
In other words, LD and LDR are concerned with the act of designing for learning.
The ontological foundation as shared semantics outlined in the Larnaca Declaration
is what was needed to advance LDR and designers’ common and individual work.
The shared conceptualization and lexis as a measure of an “ontological commitment”
(Gruber, 1993, p. 202) is captured in Figure 5.1 and elaborated in Table 5.1.
It is apparent, then, that this conceptualization emerged out of a perceived
need to support learning designers and educational researchers and educators to
document their design decisions and share their learning designs with the wider
education community. More importantly, the Larnaca Declaration can inform
LDR as educational researchers study the development, implementation and
Learning Design
Learning Learning Learning

Design Design Design
Conceptual Framework Practice
Map (LD-F) (LD-P)
(LD-CM)
FIGURE 5.1 Learning Design ontology
TABLE 5.1 Shared LD conceptualization and lexis
LD—Map LD—Framework LD—Practice
The LD Map provides a The LD Framework The LD Practice explores the

“big picture” overview of describes teaching and day-to-day design work
LD, linking core concepts learning sequences and of teachers, illustrating
and making relationships activities grounded in meaningful ways student
explicit. different learning theories learning experiences are
and based on different organized and sequenced,
pedagogies. adhering to the teacher’s
epistemology.
adoption of carefully designed eLearning/eTeaching activities and sequences of

activities in various contexts and for multiple purposes.
Patterning is a key feature of LD, and Goodyear emphasized that LD patterns
ought to embody “educational values and vision” (2005, p. 82). These patterns
provide a reproducible and sharable template that can be represented in a variety
of ways: graphically, textually or in codable, machine-readable form.
The next section will introduce the TPACK framework and briefly outline its
historical beginnings.
The TPACK Framework

The influence of technology on teaching and learning activities demands for-
mal representations and ontological clarity. The TPACK model is well known,
and builds on Shulman’s (1986, 1987) work on teachers’ pedagogical content
knowledge (PCK) as well as earlier explorations of the link between PCK and
technology by a number of scholars dating as far back as 1998 (see Abbitt, 2011;
Koehler, 2011). TPACK is a “simple, yet powerful idea” (Thompson & Mishra,
2007, p. 38), and a way of representing what teachers need to know about tech-
nology (Koehler & Mishra, 2005), as well as giving a language to explain technol-
ogy integration into teaching.
The TPACK framework Mishra and Koehler developed (Koehler & Mishra,
2005; Mishra & Koehler, 2006) describes how teachers’ understanding of technol-
ogy (TK) along with content knowledge (CK) and pedagogical knowledge (PK)
are integrated into their teaching. Koehler and Mishra’s (2005) suggestion that
good technology-enhanced pedagogy is more than simply adding technology to
existing teaching provisions has been echoed by many (Abbitt, 2011; Conole,
2013; Howard, 2013; Laurillard et al., 2011). Rather it is the “representation of
new concepts and requires developing a sensitivity to the dynamic, transactional
relationship between all three components suggested by the TP[A]CK framework”
(Koehler & Mishra, 2005, p. 134). The three components of the TPCK model are:
technology (T), pedagogy (P) and content (C). Interestingly, Koehler and Mishra
(2012) noted recently that the addition of the “A” in the TPACK model was
desirable because they want to emphasize the “and” in relation to the concepts
outlined earlier, meaning that the three knowledge domains upon which TPACK
was built need to be perceived not in isolation from each other, but rather as a
“Total PACKage” (Thompson & Mishra, 2007, p. 38). Hence, in the newer litera-
ture that refers to TPACK, the “A” is always included (Koehler et al., 2013). The
relationship between the individual components of the TPACK framework—the
interactions, connections and affordances—is crucial for the effective integration
of technology into the teaching and learning environment. The points at which
all three components (represented as circles) interact is referred to as TPACK (see
Figure 5.2).
FIGURE 5.2 TPACK Framework

Reproduced by permission of the publisher, © 2012 by tpack.org
Mishra and Koehler (2006) advocate the use of pairs at the intersect points on
the diagram:
• pedagogical content knowledge (PCK)

• technological content knowledge (TCK)
• technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK).
The diagram has been reproduced many times and is well known. However,
enhancement of learning and teaching through technology can only be achieved
if there is clarity of purpose, and analytical attention is focussed on the aim of
technological integration.
Graham (2011) suggests that the TPACK framework has the potential to pro-
vide teachers with a strong foundation for technological integration in lesson
planning and teaching. Moreover, various educational researchers have highlighted

the theoretical guidance of TPACK for various activities from lesson planning to
education programme evaluation (Campbell, 2013; Graham et al., 2009; Koehler,
2011). Further, many Australian educational researchers involved in the Australian
government–funded Teaching Teachers for the Future (TTF) project (see Campbell,
2013; Cavanagh & Koehler, 2013; Jamieson-Proctor et al., 2013) agree with Mishra
and Koehler’s (2006) perception of the considerable impact and influence of the
TPACK framework in education, offering “researchers and educators a common lan-
guage to bridge the gap between research and curriculum design” (Jamieson-Proctor
et al., 2013, p. 27). However, others have provided a more sobering assessment.
Unrealistic Expectations of TPACK

One key weakness of the TPACK framework is perhaps the unrealistic expecta-
tions it places on practitioners. It is implied within the TPACK model that teach-
ers, as trained reflective practitioners, will be able to self-diagnose their strengths
and weaknesses in each knowledge domain of the TPACK model (Kinchin, 2012,
2013). Not only that, but after successful self-diagnosis, teachers are expected to
self-correct some of the imbalances they detect in their technology-enhanced
learning application, based on, for teachers, often impenetrable descriptions of
the need for balance and alignment between TK, PK, CK and their intersections,
resulting in TPK, TCK and PCK, before arriving at a perfectly balanced TPACK.
Unsurprisingly, a number of researchers have grappled with how to close
the knowledge gap between theory and practice of effective technology inte-
gration, building on both Shulman’s ideas of PCK and Koehler and Mishra’s
(2005) TPACK model. For example Dilworth and colleagues (2012) note that
many teachers do not yet well understand the dynamic transactional relationship
between the three components (TK, PK and CK). They contend:
[M]any experienced educators have not yet fully assimilated implications for
teaching. Even though a large number of proposals related to TPACK are
submitted at many teacher education conferences, panels of reviewers with
expertise in this area report that a significant percentage of these proposals do
not fully reflect best practices related to TPACK. Often these papers do not
incorporate the three areas of requisite knowledge in an appropriate way. If the
teacher education faculty members who prepare future teachers do not fully
understand the practical implications of this framework, there is little chance
that tomorrow’s teachers will be able to employ technology effectively.
(Dilworth et al., 2012, p. 2)
Dilworth et al.’s criticism can be illustrated using recently published papers report-
ing key findings from the TTF TPACK survey and the development of the instru-
ment (Finger et al., 2013; Jamieson-Proctor et al., 2013), which was conducted
at 39 Australian universities and collected data from initial teacher education stu-
dents in 2011. The survey asked students to rate their confidence about teaching
with a range of ICTs and their perception of the usefulness of ICTs for them and
their future students. Question items included:
• How confident are you that you have the knowledge, skills and abilities to:
° Use ICT and teaching strategies that are responsive to students’ diverse
backgrounds
° Use ICT and teaching strategies that are responsive to students’ learning
styles
° Use ICT to teach specific subject areas in creative ways
• How useful do you consider it will be for you, as a teacher, to:
° Use ICT and teaching strategies that are responsive to students’ diverse
backgrounds
° Use ICT and teaching strategies that are responsive to students’ learning
styles
° Use ICT to teach specific subject areas in creative ways (Jamieson-Proctor
et al., 2013, p. 30).
Although this survey gauged the perceptions about the usefulness of ICT in
teaching and learning of a large number of teacher education students, and their
confidence, using decontextualized, and so it seems, ambiguous survey questions,
Finger et al. conclude that “the findings suggest that initial teacher education
students are now more likely to demonstrate TPACK as future teachers” (2013,
p. 23). Clearly, Finger et al. (2013) seem to agree with Campbell, who explains
that “the importance of TPACK is that it makes pre-eminent the integration of
a teacher’s knowledge, rather than simply its possession” (Campbell, 2013, p. 48).
What is unclear, however, is how TPACK can do this (Niess, 2011).
Despite the noted criticism about the usefulness of the TPACK framework, the
imbalance between the various components of TPACK in teachers’ work has been
acknowledged, giving rise to Australia’s TTF project. It has further been confirmed
through empirical research (Pamuk, 2012; Williams, 2012). With the assistance of
TPACK, the recent research has demonstrated that often teachers are not clear
about the cognitive complexity of technology-mediated teaching. According to
Hofer and Grandgenett, “the number, range, and complexity of educational tech-
nology tools and resources available in classrooms, along with their instructional
capabilities, have increased dramatically” (2012, p. 85). Moreover, teachers are
unsure how the TPACK framework can be utilized or how it applies to them
and their daily work. The gap between the TPACK model as a theoretical con-
cept and teachers’ day-to-day practice may have contributed to recent criticisms
of “two-dimensionality” (Kinchin, 2013) for its “surface-level approach to knowl-
edge” (Howard & Maton, 2011). As a theoretical framework, TPACK may not be
easily applied in teaching practice. However, combining TPACK with Learning

Design principles and practices could help teachers understand, translate and evalu-
ate their current pedagogy and support the improvement of their teaching practice.
Complementary Nature of Learning Design and TPACK

Exploring the complementary nature of the LD and the TPACK frameworks
may provide some more insight into the practical application of both concepts
and help unravel the dynamic nature of technology-mediated, effective teach-
ing and learning in the 21st century. The synergy between the two frameworks
(LD and TPACK) may not seem obvious; making them explicit may be helpful in
assisting teachers understand how theory can be enacted in practical ways. Most
interestingly, Koehler and Mishra used the term “learning by design” in 2005
(Koehler & Mishra, 2005). They suggest that learning by design is underpinned
by a constructivist approach and involves teachers actively participating in the
production of their learning and teaching plans, which is equally sensitive to the
subject matter and the learning of technology in general (Koehler & Mishra,
2005). Some of the criticism levelled at the TPACK model is that it does not
seem to provide sufficient meaningful assistance to teachers by itself and is not
particularly user friendly.The question remains: what do teachers actually do with
TPACK? A central task for teachers is to develop sound, technology-integrated
teaching and learning plans for their subject areas. Hence, LD-P, as outlined in
Table 5.1, can illustrate how teachers sequence student learning experiences, and,
most importantly, how the various TPACK domains are balanced against each
other (see Dobozy et al., in press). In what follows, we illustrate how a teacher
can utilize LD-P in conjunction with TPACK for self-reflection and lesson plan
analysis (see Figure 5.3). Two lesson plans will be introduced and analyzed from
the mathematics area in teacher education, one developed by Dobozy and Dalziel
(Chapter 9, this volume) and one taken from the Australian TTF project website
(Commonwealth of Australia, 2011a).
The first step is to develop or reuse a particular lesson plan. The second step is
to use the LD-P approach. In an attempt to support teachers as learning design-
ers, LD-P can illustrate the teaching and learning sequence for a particular lesson,
Readjust
Use LD-P Construct
Develop or elements of the
lesson actual TPACK
reuse lesson planned lesson to
visualizing tool model of
plan bring TPACK into
(LAMS) lesson
balance
FIGURE 5.3 Self-reflection process

making overt the underpinning philosophy and its link to pedagogy and assess-
ment choice. The Learning Activity Management System (LAMS) is a powerful
tool to make visible design decisions with research showing that this tool works
well for creating lesson plans (Cameron & Campbell, 2013; Campbell & Cam-
eron, 2009). The third step is to use TPACK in the creation of the actual lesson as
planned, based on the LD-P visualization.The fourth step is to reflect on the vari-
ous elements of TPACK and, if needed, readjust elements of the planned lesson to
make it more balanced in terms of technology being incorporated.
Example 1: The Fibonacci Numbers

Step 1: The Lesson Plan
TABLE 5.2 Lesson plan for mathematics lesson
Discipline Teacher Education
Learning Area Mathematics

Topic Number sequence
Lesson focus Fibonacci numbers
Learning outcomes To understand and explain what the Fibonacci numbers are and
the mathematical formula which defines the recurrent relation,
and how the Fibonacci numbers relate to nature and the
concept of the perfect rectangle
Pedagogy Classical lecture style with worksheet
Assessment Classical test
Technology Lecture recording tool,YouTube video, quiz tool in LMS
Learning content
Who was Fibonacci? Fibonacci in nature The “golden ratio”/the

The Fibonacci numbers Fibonacci numbers are an perfect rectangle
(Fn) are named interesting mathematical The really interesting thing about
after Leonardo idea.The prevalence making rectangles is that the ratio
Fibonacci Pisano, the of their appearance (the number that shows how the
mathematician who in nature and the sides relate to each other) stays
popularized “algorism” ease of understanding the same, no matter how big the
(step-by-step procedure) them makes them an rectangle gets.This ratio gives us
in Europe in the excellent principle rectangles that relate to the “golden
13th century. About for young children to ratio”.The golden ratio can be
800 years ago, he wrote study and understand found by dividing the long side
a book in which he the relationship by the short side. So if you have a
included a math problem between school-based rectangle that is 3 x 5, you would
that went like this: mathematics learning divide 5 by 3.This will give us
and nature. a number right around 1.61 (the
Greek letter phi).
(Continued )
TABLE 5.2 (Continued)
“A certain man put a pair The ancient Egyptians and ancient

of rabbits in a place Greeks already knew the number
surrounded by a wall. and, because they regarded it as an
How many pairs of aesthetically pleasing ratio, often
rabbits can be produced used it when building monuments
from that pair in a year if (e.g. the Parthenon).The pentagram
it is supposed that every so popular among the Pythagoreans
month each pair begets a also contains the golden ratio. It
new pair from which the is also used in modern buildings
second month on becomes and constructions.The golden ratio
productive?” (Liber abbaci, plays a role in human perception of
pp. 283–284, cited in beauty, as in body shapes and faces.
MENSA, 2009, p. 2).
Step 2: The LD-P Approach in an Unbalanced Lesson
Why investigate F... Lecture YouTube video
Label images Worksheet complet... Assessment
FIGURE 5.4 An example of an unbalanced lesson using LAMS
Step 3: Actual TPACK for the Fibonacci Numbers Lesson Plan
Pedagogical Knowledge
Content Knowledge
Technology Knowledge
FIGURE 5.5 An unbalanced TPACK

In our approximation of an unbalanced TPACK (see Figure 5.5), there is a

great deal of content with little technology knowledge and a little more, but still
unbalanced pedagogical knowledge. One way of ensuring that TPACK is bal-
anced is to use Learning Design in conjunction with the TPACK framework.
The TPACK model shown earlier shows that this lesson plan is based on a tradi-
tional instructionist paradigm (see Dobozy & Dalziel, Chapter 9 this volume, for a
discussion on various educational paradigms) and is out of balance. It shows strong
CK, sound PK and moderate TK. Given that the teacher was attempting to design
a student-centric and technology-integrated lesson, as the principal requested,
this example does not fulfil the condition of constructivist, technology-enhanced
teaching and learning that Koehler and Mishra (2005) advocated. Upon reflection,
the teacher may be able to see the need to make changes to the model to balance
the TPACK. However, it is unclear at this stage if the teacher (a) has the time and
willpower to do so, and (b) if she or he has the necessary expertise to readjust the
lesson plan to balance the TPACK. In any case, we presume the teacher is able and
willing to do so. Hence, Step 4 could look something like this.
Step 4: The Readjusted Lesson Plan to Balance TPACK

TABLE 5.3 Lesson plan for mathematics lesson that is a balanced lesson
Discipline Teacher education

Learning area Mathematics
Learning To understand and
outcomes explain what Fibonacci
numbers are and the
mathematical formula
which defines the
recurrent relation and
how the Fibonacci
numbers relate to
nature and the concept
of the perfect rectangle
Pedagogy Team-based, real-world
problem investigation
Assessment Learning journal and
video presentation of
solution to class and
industry representatives
Technology A range of open
educational resources,
such as mobile learning
and presentation tools
Learning No change
content
As we can see, the initial lesson idea had no ICT incorporated into the lesson.
Step 2 shows the lesson incorporated into a LAMS sequence. In theory, because of
the nature of LAMS there is now some technology incorporated into the lesson.
However, it is unbalanced as the CK is too strong and there is not enough TK.
This has then been reconceived into another LAMS sequence that is now bal-
anced and using an authentic learning problem to enhance student learning. The
TPACK principles have been applied to Step 4.
Example 2: Number Sequences in Context

Step 1: The Lesson Plan Number Sequences in Context
Using an example from the Teaching Teachers for the Future (TTF) package for
early year’s mathematics Lesson 2, www.ttf.edu.au/verve/_resources/M_F-4_
03_Lesson_plan_2.pdf, this second example illustrates a lesson on “number
sequences in context” (Commonwealth of Australia, 2011b).This TTF model les-
son shows an integrated and balanced TPACK approach, which is to be expected
as it was developed specifically to showcase a balanced sequence of learning activ-
ities and the successful integration of ICT tools within a lesson plan for early
childhood. Hence, it can be visually represented using the LAMS platform and
therefore translated with ease into a LAMS sequence.
Step 2: The LD-P Approach to a Balanced Lesson
Step 3: Actual TPACK for the Number Sequences in Context Lesson

This is an example of a balanced TPACK lesson and thus will be represented by
the well-known TPACK Venn diagram (see Figure 5.2).
Step 4: The Lesson Balancing TPACK

Although the lesson focus is on a mathematics concept, the children are encour-
aged to explore a number of digital technologies during this lesson. Interestingly,
this model lesson is dissimilar to the first examples, with much less maths-heavy
content (CK). Some people may argue that the focus of this lesson is less con-
cerned with increasing children’s mathematical understanding and more centred
around the integration of attractive digital technologies (TK) to ensure motiva-
tion and active engagement of children in the learning of mathematics. Neverthe-
less, as a TTF model lesson, from a TPACK framework perspective, it is seen as a
balanced lesson.
Introduction Pixlr
Image Gallery Image Gallery
Resources and Forum

Poll
Forum
Task List
Share Resources
Noticeboard
FIGURE 5.6 A LAMS sequence depicting balanced TPACK
Discussion
Modelling effective pedagogical decision making and the explicit integration of
more constructivist and technology-mediated lesson-planning ideas is important.
Researchers and educators have suggested that LD and TPACK might be benefi-
cial frameworks for teachers to utilize when examining their classroom practices.
It is not the technical knowledge and skills that should be foregrounded when
TABLE 5.4 A lesson example that uses balanced TPACK
Discipline Early Childhood Education

Topic Number sequence and
non-sequence in context
Lesson focus Number strings in the
playground
Learning To understand and explain
outcomes number sequence and use
technology confidently
Pedagogy Team-based, outdoor
investigative activity using
digital camera
Assessment Group recordings of number
sequences, presentation to
class, informal observation
of group work
Technology Interactive White Board,
digital camera, Pixlr,
image gallery
Learning No change
content
constructing learning sequences. Hence, although it is important for students to

know what buttons to press and how to transfer images from a digital camera to a
cloud-based image gallery (TK), technology-enhanced learning activities should
foreground pedagogical considerations that can explicitly explain the learning
area’s specific learning outcomes (CK).Thus, teachers’ overall pedagogical knowl-
edge (TPACK) needs to reflect their understanding of the interrelationship of
the various elements of TPACK and the situatedness of learning with technology
(Campbell & Cameron, 2011). Therefore, there is an identified need for teach-
ers to learn how to make more effective use of the TPACK framework. TPACK
alternatives have been developed, most notably by Pierson (2001), and Guerrero
(2005) developed models that focussed on technology integration, building on the
works of Shulman (1986). More recently, however, a number of research groups
(Angeli & Valanides, 2009; Brantley-Dias, Kinuthia, Shoffner, DeCastro & Rigole,
2007) not only attempted to apply Koehler and Mishra’s (2005) TPACK model
and provide useful critique, but also developed alternative models in the quest to
assist teachers in the integration of divergent variables, such as PK, CK and TK.
In introducing their alternative framework, the pedagogical technology inte-
gration content knowledge model (PTICK), Brantley-Dias et al. note:
PTICK contains five dimensions: technical procedural knowledge

(knowledge about and being able to operate the technology), technology
integration conceptual knowledge (integrated concepts, principles, strate-

gies and ideas behind effective uses of technology for teaching and learn-
ing), pedagogical content knowledge (knowledge and ability to transform
subject matter content for learners’ needs), reflective knowledge (metacog-
nitive abilities to reflect, problem-solve and learn from experiences), and
community knowledge (knowledge of local and school community, ability
to develop a classroom community as well as participate in a professional
learning community).
(2007, p. 143)
However, exploring the possible synergy between LD and TPACK may provide
teachers with more tangible support as they plan to integrate technology more
effectively into their student-centred learning and teaching practices. Oth-
ers have also made use of the relationship between LD-P and TPACK, most
notably, Bower, Hedberg and Kuswara (2010) and Bower (2012). Although the
TPACK framework has been referred to extensively in the teacher education
literature, the framework as Koehler et al. (2013) conceptualized it has drawn
some criticisms and led to the development of alternative models as outlined
earlier.
The aim of this chapter was to make overt the complimentary nature of the
LD and the TPACK framework. In particular, we intended to show how LD-P
may assist teachers to reflect on their designs. It has been argued that LD may
be able to help teachers utilize the TPACK framework. Hence, it is important
to note that LD is gaining prominence as teachers’ pedagogical decision-making
abilities are more and more linked with student engagement and learning out-
comes. A number of educational researchers are working on making overt their
pedagogical thinking. LDR is still in its infancy, but in due course, the open shar-
ing of ideas, learning designs and pedagogical mishaps will assist the educational
research community to better understand teachers’ design thinking, assisting them
to reflect on the alignment between epistemology, ontology, pedagogy, technol-
ogy and student learning.
Future Research
One of the areas of future research is to investigate pre-service teachers and how
LD and TPACK can be taught at an early stage of higher education. This may
well set the pre-service teachers up to better use LD and integrate technology in
a systematic way using these principles. A longitudinal study may be beneficial in
their area as might research that takes place at multiple universities as part of the
same study.
Further research into how TPACK can be placed into LD could also be
considered.
Conclusion and Implications

This chapter explored the relationship between two increasingly well-known
frameworks: LD and TPACK. The purpose of this chapter was to assist educators
to modernize their teaching and learning practices through the integration of
technology. More specifically we aimed to contribute greater clarity about the
respective frameworks’ epistemological and conceptual similarities and differences.
Drawing on LD and TPACK research, we presented a conceptual framework that
helps to analyze LD and TPACK philosophy and application, specifically targeting
designers of teaching and learning activities, educational researchers and admin-
istrators. We illustrated that although the twin concepts operate in different para-
digms and are designed for a different target audience, they are complementary
in nature.
The LD construct based on the Learning Design Framework (LD-F) intro-
duced in the Larnaca Declaration is focussing on pedagogical design and is
underpinned by ideas of interdisciplinarity, general applicability and flexibility
in epistemology and ontology, whereas the TPACK framework is specifically
targeted to the education of schoolteachers, providing a fixed and stable frame-
work that illustrates the relationship between the three components of TPACK,
technical (T), pedagogical (P) and (C) content (K) knowledge. Understanding
the usefulness of both frameworks and their complementary nature will assist
designers of learning and teaching to make better-informed decisions about
technology-enhanced learning and teaching provisions. More importantly, our
examples may contribute to educators’ understanding of the powerful effect of
pedagogical visualization. This technique could be increasingly employed by
university lecturers and schoolteachers. Making the TPACK framework more
widely known will help university-level educators understand the significance
of pedagogical decision making and will help them focus more attention on
improving their pedagogical content knowledge. Most importantly, under-
standing the complementary nature of LD and TPACK and combining TPACK
with Learning Design principles and practices could help teachers understand,
translate and evaluate their current pedagogy and support the improvement of
their teaching practice.
References
Abbitt, J. (2011). Measuring technological pedagogical content knowledge in preservice
teacher education: A review of current methods and instruments. Journal of Research on
Technology in Education, 43(4), pp. 281–300.
Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Epistemological and methodological issues for the
conceptualization, development, and assessment of ICT-TPCK: Advances in tech-
nology and pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). Computers and Education, 52(1),
pp. 154–168.
Bennett, S., Agostinho, S., Lockyer, L., Kosta, L., Jones, J., Koper, R., & Harper, B. (2007).
Learning designs: Bridging the gap between theory and practice. Paper presented at the ICT: Pro-
viding choices for learners and learning. Proceedings ascilite Singapore 2007, Singapore.
Bower, M. (2012). A framework for developing pre-service teachers’ Web 2.0 Learn-
ing Design capabilities. In D. Polly, C. Mims & K. A. Persichitte (Eds.), Developing
technology-rich teacher education programs: Key issues (pp. 58–76). Hershey, PA: Information
Science Reference.
Bower, M., Medberg, J., & Kuswara, A. (2010). A framework for Web 2.0 learning design.
Educational Media International, 47(3), pp. 177–198.
Brantley-Dias, L., Kinuthia,W., Shoffner, M. B., de Castro, C., & Rigole, N. J. (2007). Devel-
oping pedagogical technology integration content knowledge in preservice teachers: A
case study approach. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 23(4), pp. 143–150.
Brehony, K., & Deem, R. (2005). Challenging the post-Fordist/flexible organisation thesis:
The case of reformed educational organisations. British Journal of Sociology of Education,
26(3), pp. 395–414.
Cameron, L., & Campbell, C. (2013). The case for using learning designs with pre-service
teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 38(6). Available at: http://ro.ecu.edu.au/
ajte/vol38/iss6/3.
Campbell, C. (2013). Pre-service education students evaluating the TTF mathematics
packages. Australian Educational Computing, 27(3), pp. 48–53.
Campbell, C. & Cameron, L. (2009). Using Learning Activity Management Systems
(LAMS) with pre-service secondary teachers: An authentic task. In Same Places, Different
Spaces. Proceedings ascilite Auckland 2009. Available at www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/
auckland09/procs/campbellc.pdf.
Campbell, C., & Cameron, L. (2011). Introducing learning design and LAMS to pre-service
education students. Teaching English with Technology—Special Issue on LAMS and Learning
Design, 11(1), pp. 148–158.
Cavanagh, R., & Koehler, R. (2013). A turn toward specifying validity criteria in the
measurement of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK). Journal of
Research on Technology in Education, 46(2), pp. 129–148.
Commonwealth of Australia. (2011a). Teaching Teachers for the Future project. Available
at www.ttf.edu.au/.
Commonwealth of Australia. (2011b).Teaching Teachers for the Future project. Available at
www.ttf.edu.au/verve/_resources/M_F-4_03_Lesson_plan_2.pdf.
Conole, G. (2011). Learning Design workshop in Sydney. Blog post. Available at http://e4inno
vation.com/?p=472.
Conole, G. (2013). Designing for learning in an Open World. New York, NY: Springer.
Conole, G., Dyke, M., Oliver, M., & Seale, J. (2004). Mapping pedagogy and tools for effec-
tive learning design. Computers & Education, 43(2004), pp. 17–33.
Conole, G., & Koskinen, T. (2011). Editorial: Designing for learning. eLearning Papers
No 27, Special edition, 6. Available at www.elearningeuropa.info/sites/default/files/
ELEARNING-SPECIALEDITION.pdf.
Dalziel, J. (2010). Practical eTeaching Strategies: Predict-Observe-Explain, Problem
Based Learning and Role Plays. Sydney, NSW: LAMS International. See www.prac-
ticaleteachingstrategies.com.
Dalziel, J. (2011).Visualizing learning design in LAMS: A historical view. In C. Alexander,
J. Dalziel, J. Krajka, & E. Dobozy (Eds.), LAMS and Learning Design. Nicosia, Cyprus:
University of Nicosia Press.
Dilworth, P., Donaldson, A., George, M., Knezek, D., Searson, M., Starkweather, K.,
Strutchens, M., Tillotson, J. & Robinson, S. (2012). Editorial: Preparing teachers for
tomorrow’s technologies. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 12(1),
pp. 1–5.
Dobozy. E. (2012). Typologies of Learning Design and the introduction of a “LD-Type 2”
case example. In P. Ullmo & T. Koskinen (Eds.), eLearning papers—special edition 2012:
opening learning horizons. Barcelona, Spain.
Dobozy, E. (2013). Learning design research: Advancing pedagogies in the digital age.
Educational Media International, 50(1), pp. 63–76.
Dobozy, E., Dalziel, J. & Dalziel, B. (2013). Learning Design and Transdisciplinary Peda-
gogical Templates (TPTs). In C. Nygaard, J. Branch & C. Hotham (Eds.), Learning in
higher education: Contemporary standpoints (pp. 59–76). Faringdon, UK: Libri Publishing.
Dobozy, E., Mullaney, J. & Gibson, D. (in press). “Look at these new gadgets!”
Technology-enhanced learning’s Achilles heel. In C. Nygaard, J. Branch, & P. Bar-
tholomew (Eds.), Technology enhanced learning in higher education. Faringdon, UK: Libri
Publishing.
Dobozy, E., & Reynolds, P. (2012). The Tele-learning airport model: Serving consumer
and producer students. In IADIS International Conference on Internet Technologies & Society
(ITS 2012), 28 November. Perth, Western Australia: IADIS Press.
Donald, C., Blake, A., Girault, I., Datt, A. & Ramsay, I. (2009). Approaches to learning
design: Past the head and the hands to the HEART of the matter. Distance Education,
30(2), pp. 179–199.
Finger, G., Jamieson-Proctor, R. G., Cavanagh, R., Albion, P., Grimbeek, P., Bond,T., Fitzgerald,
R., Romeo, G. & Lloyed, M. (2013).Teaching teachers for the future (TTF) project TPACK
survey: Summary and key findings. Australian Educational Computing, 27(3), pp. 13–25.
Gibson, D., & Knezek, G. (2011). Game changers for teacher education. In Proceedings of
Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 929–942).
Available at www.mendeley.com/profiles/david-gibson1/.
Goodyear, P. (2005). Educational design and networked learning: Patterns, pattern languages
and design practice. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 21(1), pp. 82–101.
Graham, C. (2011). Theoretical considerations for understanding Technological Pedagogi-
cal Content Knowledge (TPACK). Computers & Education, 57(3), pp. 1953–1969.
Graham, C., Burgoyne, N., Cantrell, P., Smith, L., St. Clair, L., & Harris, R. (2009). Measur-
ing the TPACK confidence of inservice science teachers. TechTrends, 53(5), pp. 70–79.
Gruber,T. (1993). A translation approach to portable ontologies. Knowledge Acquisition, 5(2),
pp. 199–220.
Guerrero, S. (2005). Teacher knowledge and a new domain of expertise: Pedagogical tech-
nology knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 33(3), pp. 249–267.
Hannafin, M., & Land, M. (1997).The foundations and assumptions of technology-enhanced
student-centred learning environments. International Science, 25(3), pp. 167–202.
Hofer, M., & Grandgenett, N. (2012). TPACK development in teacher education: A longi-
tudinal study of preservice teachers in a secondary MA ed. program. Journal of Research
on Technology in Education, 45(1), pp. 83–106.
Howard, S. (2013). Risk-aversion: Understanding teachers’ resistance to technology inte-
gration. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 22(3), pp. 357–372.
Howard, S., & Maton, K. (2011). Theorising knowledge practices: A missing piece of the
educational technology puzzle. Research in Learning Technology, 19(3), pp. 191–206.
International Academy Research and Industry Association. (2012). International Con-

ference, Curtin University, Perth, Australia, 28–30 November. Available at http://its-
conf.org/.
International Council for Educational Media. (2013). 63rd Annual Conference. NTU Sin-
gapore, 1–4 October. Available at http://icem2013.ntu.edu.sg.
Jamieson-Proctor, R., Albion, P., Finger, G., Cavanagh, R., Fitzgerald, R., Bond, T., &
Grimbeek, P. (2013). Development of the TTF TPACK survey instrument. Australian
Educational Computing, 27(3), pp, 26–35.
Jude, L.T., Kajura, M. A. & Birevu, M. P. (2014). Adoption of the SAMR model to asses ICT
pedagogical adoption: A case of Makerere University. International Journal of e-Education,
e-Business, e-Management and e-Learning (4)2, pp. 106–115.
Kinchin, I. (2012). Avoiding technology-enhanced non-learning. British Journal of Educa-
tional Technology, 43(2), 43–48.
Kinchin, I. (2013). Concept mapping and the fundamental problem of moving between
knowledge structures. Journal for Educators,Teachers and Trainers 4(1), pp. 96–106.
Koehler, M. (2011). History of TPACK. Blog post. Available at http://mkoehler.educ.msu.
edu/tpack/what-is-tpack/.
Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2005). What happens when teachers design educational tech-
nology? The development of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of
Educational Computing Research, 32(2), pp. 131–152.
Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPCK. In AACTE Committee on Inno-
vation and Technology (Ed.), Handbook of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge
(TPCK) for educators (pp. 3–29). New York, NY: Routledge.
Koehler, M. & Mishra, P. (2012, March). TTF to the future! Keynote address at the 2012
Teaching Teachers for the Future Conference. Syndey, NSW, Australia.
Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., Kereluik, K., Shin, T. S., & Graham, C. (2013). The Technological
Pedagogical Content Knowledge framework. In M. J. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen &
M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (4th
ed.) (pp 101–111). New York, NY: Springer.
Laurillard, D. (2007). Modelling benefits-oriented costs for technology enhanced learning.
Higher Education. 54(1), pp. 21–39.
Laurillard, D. (2010). An approach to curriculum design. Available at www.lkl.ac.uk/ltu/
files/publications/Laurillard-An_Approach_to_Curriculum_Design-WIP.pdf.
Laurillard, D., Charlton, P., Craft, B., Dimakopoulos, D., Ljubojevic, D. & Magoulas, G.
(2011). A constructionist learning environment for teachers to model learning designs.
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(1), pp. 1–16.
MENSA Education and Research Foundation (2009). 4th Grade Lesson Plan — Fabulous
Fibonacci and his nifty numbers. Available at: http://www.mensaforkids.org/lessons/
fibonacci/mfklessons-fibonacci-all.pdf
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A new
framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), pp. 1017–1054.
Niess, M. (2011). Investigating TPACK: Knowledge growth in teaching with technology.
Journal of Educational Computing Research, 44(3), pp. 299–317.
Pamuk, S. (2012). Understanding preservice teachers’ technology use through TPACK
framework. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(5), pp. 425–439.
Pierson, M. (2001). Technology integration practice as a function of pedagogical expertise.
Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(4), pp. 413–430.
Puentedura, R. R. (2006). Transformation, technology, and education. Strengthening Your

District through Technology. 18 August. Maine Department of Education. Available at
http://hippasus.com/resources/tte/.
Scott, P. (2013). MOOCS: if we’re not careful so-called “open” courses will close
minds. The Guardian. Available at www.theguardian.com/education/2013/aug/05/
moocs-online-higher-education.
Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational
Researcher, 15(2), pp. 4–14.
Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard
Educational Review, 57(1), pp. 1–22.
Sveiby, K., Grippenberg, P. & Segercrantz, P. (Eds.). (2012). Challenging the innovation para-
digm. New York, NY: Routledge.
Teaching Teachers for the Future (2012). Lesson structure Lesson 2: Number sequences
in context. Teaching and learning plan and activities. Available at: www.ttf.edu.au/verve/_
resources/M_F-4_03_Lesson_plan_2.pdf.
Thompson, A. D., & Mishra, P. (2007). Breaking news: TPCK becomes TPACK! Journal of
Computing in Teacher Education, 24(2), pp. 38, 64.
Ward, G., & Overall, T. (2013). Technology integration for preservice mathematics teacher:
A time-series study. In R. McBride & M. Searson (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Informa-
tion Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2013 (pp. 4878–4884). Chesa-
peake,VA: AACE.
Williams, J. (2012). Using CoRes to develop the pedagogical content knowledge (PCK)
of early career science and technology teachers. Journal of Technology Education, 24(4),
pp. 34–53.
6
THE 7CS OF LEARNING DESIGN
Gráinne Conole
Introduction
There are now a rich variety of ways educators and students can use digital tech-
nologies to support learning. Social and participatory media provide a plethora of
ways learners can communicate with others, enabling learners to connect beyond
the formal class cohort. Many tools now enable teachers to create rich interac-
tive materials, podcasts and videos. These provide engaging mechanisms for the
presentation of concepts and the testing of understanding. Mobile devices (such
as smartphones and tablets) mean that learning anywhere, anytime is now a reality.
Virtual worlds and games for learning provide rich authentic learning environ-
ments to support situative learning, authentic and experiential learning and role
play. New surfaces promise the possibility of learning seamlessly across different
environments and devices.1 In addition, there are now hundreds of Open Edu-
cational Resource (OER) repositories, and a rapidly growing offering of massive
open online courses (MOOCs). OER have been promoted by organizations like
UNESCO and the Hewlett Foundation, built on the premise that education is a
fundamental human right and hence resources should be freely available. Many
European countries have implemented policies on the creation and use of OER.2
There is now a proliferation of MOOC providers.3 Evaluation on the success of
MOOCs is giving us a richer understanding of how the MOOC community
develops and the associated factors for success.4
So, theoretically, anything learners or indeed educators want to learn is out
there somewhere on the Web. Despite this changing educational landscape, tech-
nologies are not being used extensively and teachers are not making effective use
of OER. More worryingly, there is a lot of replication of bad pedagogy i.e. simple
118 Gráinne Conole
webpage turning (Oliver, 2000). Teachers are not harnessing the power of digital
technologies to provide rich, authentic learning environments, mechanisms to
support communication and collaboration and agile and timely assessment feed-
back.The reasons are that teachers lack the necessary digital literacy skills (Jenkins,
2009; Jenkins, Clinton et al., 2006) to harness the affordances of digital technolo-
gies (Conole, Thorpe et al., 2007). They fear that they don’t have time to experi-
ment with technologies, and feel there is a lack of support to help them. Finally, in
research-led institutions there is a tension between teaching and research, with the
latter being privileged over the former (Von Ahn, 2010).5 This is highlighted in
the Larnaca Declaration through the teaching cycle part of the Learning Design
Conceptual Map, which consists of: design and plan, engage with students, reflec-
tion and professional development.
The Learning Design approach described in this book aims to address these
issues. As described in Chapter 1, Learning Design consists of three main facets:
guiding the design process, visualizing/representing design and mechanisms to
enable educators to share and discuss their designs. The Learning Design Con-
ceptual Map of the Larnaca Declaration identifies many of the factors that affect
design decisions in education. This chapter describes the 7Cs of the Learning
Design framework, which aims to help teachers/designers make design decisions
that are pedagogically effective and make appropriate use of digital technolo-
gies, to promote interaction, communication and collaboration, beyond simple
electronic webpage turning. The 7Cs framework aligns with the three central
facets of Learning Design, as outlined in the Larnaca Declaration on Learning
Design,6 namely: guidance, representation and sharing. The tools and activities
associated with each of the 7Cs align with the tools and resources listed as part
of the Learning Design Conceptual Map illustrated in Figure 1.4. The tools and
activities associated with the 7Cs framework help guide the design practice, and
enable teachers/designers to make their designs explicit through visualization, so
that they can be shared and discussed with others.The 7Cs are the culmination of
work carried out at the Open University UK as part of the OU Learning Design
Initiative7 and the University of Leicester’s Carpe Diem work (Armellini, Salmon
et al., 2009). A series of interviews were carried out with teachers to draw out
their design practices, how they went about the design process, where they got
support, guidance and ideas, how they represented and shared their designs, and
how they evaluated the effectiveness of the designs. From this a series of tools and
resources was developed and evaluated in a range of Learning Design workshops.
The 7Cs of Learning Design Framework

When higher education lecturers design a learning intervention, they typically
focus on content, drawing on their own experience of learning (usually through
lectures and tutorials). Although it is true to say that many institutions now have
The 7Cs of Learning Design 119
The 7Cs of Learning Design

Vision
Conceptualize
Activities
Create Communicate Collaborate Consider
Synthesis
Combine
Implementation
Consolidate
FIGURE 6.1 The 7Cs of Learning Design framework
academic practice courses for new lecturers, which provide them with the peda-
gogical foundations needed to be effective teachers, these courses tend to be quite
general in nature and the extent to which they enable real change in practice is
variable. Few of these courses provide specific guidance on how to use technolo-
gies in teaching. The 7Cs framework shifts the focus away from content to activi-
ties and the ultimate learner experience. The underlying philosophy associated
with the 7Cs framework is helping teachers to shift from a teaching approach
that is implicit and belief-based to one that is explicit and design-based. The
design-based approach underpinning the 7Cs framework as outlined here is about
helping teachers/designers represent their designs, and fostering reflection and
creativity. Visualizing the design means that it can be shared and discussed with
others. The goal of the 7Cs framework is to shift the Learning Design practice of
educators away from a teacher and content-centric approach to one that is learner
and activity-centric.
Figure 6.1 illustrates the 7Cs of Learning Design framework.The visualizations
associated with the 7Cs are firstly for teachers to help guide their design practice.
However, they can also be made available to learners to enable them to see how
they will learn.
The first C, Conceptualize, provides the foundation on which all other deci-
sions are made. It is about creating a vision for the course or module being
designed, moving the focus away from content to the learners and the pedagogical
120 Gráinne Conole
approach that will most effectively help them succeed. The first C aims to assist
the educator/designer to think about the nature of the learners who are likely to
take the course or module, their age range, diversity, characteristics, skills, percep-
tions and aspirations. It is also about articulating the core principles associated
with the course or module. The next four Cs are concerned with designing the
resources and activities that the learners will engage with. The Create C, which
is the first of the four activities-related Cs, helps the educator/designer articu-
late what learning materials need to be created, whether these are text-based,
interactive multimedia materials, podcasts or videos. In addition, it covers the use
or repurposing of Open Educational Resources. Finally, the educator/designer
might also create some activities which require the learners to create their own
content. The Communicate C, which is the second of the activities-related Cs,
is concerned with methods to facilitate communication between the learners
and the educator, peer communication and communication between the learning
group and the broader community through social media. This might range from
mechanisms for fostering discussion in a forum, through moderation, or looser
communication through social media. Similarly, the Collaborate C, the third of
the activities-related Cs, is about fostering mechanisms to enable collaboration or
group work. Finally, the Consider C, the last of the four activities-related Cs, is
concerned with ways learner reflection and demonstration of learning achieve-
ments can be promoted. These are typically assessment-related learning outputs.
Assessments might be diagnostic, formative or summative.The Combine C enables
the educator/designer to step back and reflect on the design process to date and
look at the design from different perspectives. Finally, the Consolidate C is about
implementing the design in a real-life context and evaluating its effectiveness.
Mapping the 7Cs to Theories/Principles

Table 6.1 shows the theories/principles associated with each of the 7Cs, along
with practical examples that are discussed in the rest of this chapter. To sum-
marize, the Conceptualize C is about creating a vision for the module or course.
Examples described in this chapter include: the Course Features View, the Per-
sonas View and the Six Design Frames View. The Create C is about creating,
sharing and reuse of resources; the Resource Audit provides educators with a
structured means of doing this. Laurillard’s Conversation Framework is an exam-
ple of a theory underpinning the Communicate C. Practical implementations of
this include: the Structured Debate design and the Think-Pair-Share pedagogical
pattern. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning theoretically underpins the
Collaborate C. Practical examples include: the Jigsaw and Pyramid pedagogical
patterns. The REAP feedback and assessment principles underpin the Consider
C; the reflective learning cycles described earlier are examples of how this can
be implemented. The Combine C is underpinned by the principle of enabling
TABLE 6.1 Theories/Principles associated with the 7Cs
Phase of 7Cs Process Theory/Principles to Consider Practices/Examples to Consider
Conceptualize Vision of Module and Learners – Course Features View

– Personas View
– Six Design Frames view
Create Creating, Sharing and Reuse – Resource Audit
Communicate Conversational Framework – Structure Debate
(Laurillard) – Think-Pair-Share
Collaborate Computer-Supported – Jigsaw
Collaborative Learning (CSCL) – Pyramid
Consider REAP Feedback and Assessment – Reflective Learning Cycles
Principles
Combine Combine Different Perspectives – Course Map
– Activity Profile
– Designing MOOCs
– Storyboard
Consolidate Kirkpatrick’s Evaluation Model – Evaluation Checklist
– Apereo Course Evaluation
Rubric
the educator to look at the design from different perspectives; examples include
the Course Map, the Activity Profile and the Storyboard described earlier. Finally,
Kirkpatrick’s evaluation model could be used to underpin the Consolidate C.
Practical implementations include: the evaluation checklist described earlier and
the Apereo course evaluation rubric.
The following sections provide a more detailed explanation of each of the 7Cs
framework components and related theories and practices.
The Conceptualize C
The Conceptualize C enables the teacher/designer to create a vision for the
module or course, and to think about what the overall principles of the course
are and how these are realized through the pedagogical approaches adopted and
the resources and the activities that the learners engage with. It also enables the
teacher/designer to think about the types of learners who are likely to take the
course and their associated characteristics and needs. For example a first-year
undergraduate course on mathematics will typically have mainly 18–21-year-olds,
whereas a professional development course for nurse practitioners will typically
consist of learners who are mid-career and in their 30s to 50s. Clearly the needs
of these two cohorts will be very different; in the former case there may be a need
for quite structured guidance, in the latter case it may be more about drawing
on the learners’ own professional practice and experience. Three examples of the
Conceptualize C are provided: the Course Features view, the Personas view and
122 Gráinne Conole
the Six Design Frames view. This aligns with the “Learning Environment” box of
the Learning Design Conceptual Map.
Course Features View
The course features view enables the teacher/designer to brainstorm the overall
vision for the course and in particular the principles associated with the course,
the pedagogical approaches used, the forms of guidance and support, the nature of
the content and activities, the ways communication and collaboration are fostered
and the nature of reflection and demonstration.
It enables teachers to think about the overall essence of the learning interven-
tion and how it will be delivered and supported. Participants interact with a pack
of cards around the following elements:
1. Principles: What is the essence of the course? What are the core principles?
So for example cultural or aesthetic aspects may be important, the interven-
tion may have a practical focus or be about applying theory to practice; it
may be based on a professional community of peers, or it might be important
that the intervention includes elements of serendipity.
2. Pedagogical approaches: What pedagogies are involved? For example is the
intervention based on constructivist principles? Is it problem or inquiry-based?
3. Guidance and support:What guidance and support are provided (for example
in terms of a website or module handout, or access to study materials)?
4. Content and activities: What kinds of activities are included and what con-
tent will the learners be using?
5. Reflection and demonstration: Are the learners actively encouraged to reflect
at key points? How are they demonstrating their learning? What forms of
diagnostic, formative and summative assessment are included?
6. Communication and collaboration: How are the learners interacting with
each other and their tutors? Are any elements of collaboration included?
Figure 6.2 shows the card pack associated with the Course Features activities.
Participants work in teams of around five. The Course Features pack is available
online as a PDF.8 The cards can be used in a number of ways. For example, choos-
ing just 12 cards, which represent the course or creating three piles of cards, one
for the features that are really important, one for those features that are there to
some extent, and one for those that are not present at all.
Personas
In designing any course it is important to take account of the nature of the
learners; a first-year mathematics course will have very different students than a
FIGURE 6.2 The Course Features view
postgraduate course for nurses. Understanding the nature of your learners, their
competences, aspirations and perceptions is important and needs to feed into
the design process. The Persona activity9 helps the teacher/designer to articulate
the types of learners likely to take the course. Articulating some learner perso-
nas will help guide what kind of teaching intervention is appropriate for those
learners. Factors to take into account include: age, sex, cultural background,
discipline, level of technological competence and motivations for doing the
learning.
Figures 6.3 and 6.4 show two personas, for Joe and Marie. The personas illus-
trate the learners’ very different characteristics, in terms of their backgrounds,
motivations and goals.
The Six Design Frames

The six design frames enable teachers/designer to view the design process from
different perspectives to promote different pedagogical approaches. Each design
view influences the nature of the curriculum, the learning, teaching and assess-
ment, and the types of digital literacies and competences that the learners will
develop.
124 Gráinne Conole
Name: Joe
Gender: Male
Age: 19
Lives in: Gloucester, UK with his parents
Likes football and music
Education and Joe has had a conventional education completing 9 GSCEs and
experience 3 A levels (in Chemistry, Physics and Maths). He works in a local
restaurant as a waiter at the weekend. He has not travelled much
outside of the UK. His hobbies include watching football and
playing in a local band.
Roles and He has worked as a waiter for two years and now supervises new
responsibilities employees. He runs a computer programming club, which has
15 members. They meet every Sunday more for two hours. He
publishes a monthly newsletter on their activities.
Technical skills He is a proficient internet user and has good programming skills,
which he has learnt in his spare time. He has a laptop and an iPad.
He uses the latter primarily for surfing the Internet and keeping in
touch with friends.
Subject domain He has good science skills and a reasonable level of general
skills and knowledge, although he does not keep up much with current
knowledge affairs.
Motivation and He wants to get a job in the IT industry as a computer programmer,
desires he is passionate about programming and is very gifted at it.
Goals and His goal is to complete a computer science course and then get a job
expectations in the IT industry.
Obstacles to their His one weakness is a lack of concentration. He does not have very good
success study skills and tends not to put too much effort into his learning.
Unique assets He is a gifted computer programmer and is very sociable and
confident with lots of friends.
FIGURE 6.3 Joe’s persona
The six design frames looks at the design process from a number of different
perspectives. Bruce, Edwards et al. argue that:
[E]ducators are daily challenged by an environment in which colleagues

and students bring very different perspectives to curriculum design, teach-
ing and learning, and by the need to apply theories of learning to infor-
mation literacy education in coherent ways. The purpose of this paper is
to propose a model, Six Frames for Information Literacy Education, as a
tool for analysing, interpreting and understanding these challenges; and to
explain the relational frame in more detail.
(Bruce, Edwards et al., 2006)
Central to their approach is the premise that people see teaching and learning
differently; each teacher comes to the design space with his or her own inherent
Name: Maria
Gender: Female
Age: 45
Lives in: London, UK with her husband and two children
Likes classical music, theatre and reading
Education and Maria left school having completed 5 O Levels. She later returned
experience to college to complete an HND in cooking. She has run her own
Italian restaurant for 15 years. Her parents were Italian and moved
to the UK when Maria was ten years old.
Roles and Her restaurant business is very successful. She employs five people,
responsibilities including a full-time chef. She has overall responsibility for the
business, including the finances and deciding on the menus, in
conjunction with the chef.
Technical skills She does not use the Internet very much and has relatively low levels
of IT proficiency. She does own a desktop computer but uses it
mainly for sending and receiving emails.
Subject domain She is more practically orientated than academic. Her Italian is rusty,
skills and she hasn’t practiced it much since moving to the UK when she was
knowledge 10.
Motivation and Maria and her husband would like to move back to Italy when their
desires children have left home. They would like to set up a restaurant
business there. As a result she wants to improve her Italian skills. She
is not interested in getting a qualification per se, she just wants to
be proficient in Italian.
Goals and Her goal is to complete an online intermediate Italian course with the
expectations Open University, UK and then to move to Italy and set up a new
restaurant business.
Obstacles to their The main problem she has is a lack of time, she is kept busy with
success the restaurant (working very long hours) and her family. The OU
course requires 7 hours a week as a minimum, she will need to be
very focused and motivated to ensure she meets this commitment.
In addition, she will need support to begin with to develop her
Internet skills, given that the course is wholly delivered online.
Unique assets She is very practical and has a good business sense. Once she commits
to something she is very driven. She has good general language
skills and that fact that she lived in Italy for ten years should give
her a good head start.
FIGURE 6.4 Maria’s persona
ideas and beliefs, about approaches to teaching, use of technology, discipline and
cultural perspectives and their own background and competencies. Their frame-
work consists of the following six frames:
1. The content frame—where the focus of the design is on the content

2. The competency frame—where the focus of the design is on the compe-
tences the learners will develop
126 Gráinne Conole
Personal relevance frame
Content frame
Competency frame
Learning to learn frame
Social impact frame Relational frame
FIGURE 6.5 The relationship between the six design frames
3. The learning to learn frame—where the focus of the design is on enabling

learners to develop better learning strategies
4. The personal relevance frame—where the focus of the design is on articulat-
ing the personal relevance to the learner of the materials and activities
5. The social impact frame—where the focus of the design is on the social
impact and relevance of the materials in a wider societal and/or local context
6. The relational frame—where the focus of the design is on relating elements
of the materials and articulating different viewpoints.
Which frame is used to guide the design process will influence the learning
design process, the activities and content the learners engage with, how technolo-
gies are used, the way the learning is facilitated and the nature of any assessment
elements. Figure 6.5 shows a diagrammatic representation of the six design frames.
The first three can be seen as associated with the learning process, in terms of a
focus on content, competencies and learning to learn. The final three are more
contextual, in terms of personal relevance, social impact and the relational and
contested nature of the curriculum.
The Create C
The Create C helps teachers/designers articulate what interactive materials, pod-
casts and video they need to create. It also helps them think about what skills will
be needed and how much time they will take. It also helps them identify what
Open Education Resources (OER) they might use or repurpose. Finally, it helps
them design activities so that the learners can find or create their own content.
The Resource Audit
The Resource Audit focuses on the use and repurposing of OER.Table 6.2 shows
the template for the Resource Audit. The rows consist of: what I find and reuse
TABLE 6.2 The Resource Audit template for a module on technology-enhanced learning
Format
↓Content (under the Text & graphics Audio Video Slides (e.g. Other (e.g. Adobe Presenter)
appropriate licences) PowerPoint)
What I find and The e-learning timeline Michael Westch video Watch this presentation
reuse as is The innovating pedagogy report www. on the machine is on the 7Cs of Learning
open.ac.uk/personalpages/mike. www.youtube.com/ Design (50 mins)
sharples/Reports/Innovating_ watch?v=6gmP4nk0EOE http://meeting.uct.
Pedagogy_report_2013.pdf Useful video showing the key ac.za/p3y54vmg8zj/
The NMC Horizon 2014 report www. features of the Web (4.32
nmc.org/publications/2014-horizon- mins)
report-higher-ed Social media revolution—
video on key statistics
associated with the Web
(3.50 mins)
Changing educational
paradigms (11.41 mins)
What I find,
tweak and use
What I find,
repurpose and
use
What I create Core text on the history of Introductory podcast
for this technology-enhanced learning for each week
module (5 mins)
Learner- Creation of a wiki of key Presentation
generated Technology-Enhanced Learning terms on the
content A reflective blog affordances
of one
technology
128 Gráinne Conole
as is, what I find, tweak and use, what I find, repurpose and use, what I create for
this module, learner-generated content. The columns reflect the format, i.e. text
and graphics, audio, video, slides, other. The teacher/designer completes the cells
as appropriate, indicating the nature of the resource, the time needed to create,
any skills needed and the appropriateness or relevance of the resource. It is also
possible to indicate the time associated with finding and/or developing resources
and the associated skills needed. For example a teacher might set aside one hour
to find relevant resources, or two hours to record a podcast.
The Communicate C
The Communicate C is concerned with fostering communication between
learners and tutors, learners and their peers and learners and the wider com-
munity. Communication can be fostered in a variety of ways. Examples include
open discussion, structured debate, brainstorming, investigating, critiquing, assess-
ing, summarizing, and problem solving. Learners can be organized in different
ways, such as in small groups of two or three, or whole cohort groups. Individuals
can be assigned different roles, such as: contributor, facilitator, moderator or sum-
marizer; these roles can be assigned to learners and/or tutors.
The Conversational Framework

Laurillard’s Conversational Framework articulates the dialogical exchange
between teachers and learners (Laurillard, 2002). It consists of the following four
elements: the teacher’s concepts, the teacher’s constructed learning environment,
the learner’s concepts, and the learner’s specific actions in relation to learning
tasks.
Four types of interaction take place between the teacher and the learner: dis-
cussion, adaptation, interaction and reflection. In terms of discussion, the teacher
and learner concepts should be mutually accessible and both should be clear of
the learning objectives. In terms of adaptation, teachers adapt objectives with
respect to existing concepts and learners need to integrate feedback and link it to
their own conceptualization. In terms of interaction, teachers adapt to learning
environment and associated tasks; i.e. they create an environment adapted to the
task given to the learner, and they need to focus on support for the task and give
appropriate feedback to the learner. Finally, in terms of reflection on the learner’s
performance, the teacher needs to support the learner to revise his or her concep-
tions and adapt the tasks to the learning needs. Learners are encouraged to reflect
at all stages of the learning process (i.e. the initial concepts, the tasks, the learning
objectives and the feedback).
Laurillard argues that different media forms have different affordances to pro-
vide a different level of support for various kinds of learning experiences. She lists
Theory, ideas
Learners’ specific
Teacher’s concepts
concepts
Questions, ideas
Adaptation Reflections Adaptation Reflection

of learners’ on learners’ of actions in on light of
activities actions light of theory experience
Goal feedback
Teacher’s constructed Student’s specific
environment actions
Actions/revisions
FIGURE 6.6 Laurillard’s Conversational Framework
the following five media forms: narrative, interaction, communicative, adaptive

and productive.
Figure 6.6 illustrates the relationship between the four components of the
Conversational Framework. The process begins with the teacher presenting the-
ory and ideas. The learner then comes back with questions and ideas. The teacher
refines his or her constructed learning environment and adapts the learner’s activi-
ties in response to the learner’s reply.This is followed by reflection on the learner’s
actions. In response to the teacher presenting ideas and theories, the learner adapts
his or her actions in light of the theory, and this informs his or her specific actions.
Finally, the learner engages in a process of reflection in light of experience.10
Two examples of implementation of the Conversational Framework are now
described; these are examples of “teaching strategies” illustrated in the Learning
Design Conceptual Map.
Structured Debates
The first practical example of implementation of the Conversational Framework
is a structured debate. Structured debates can provide a useful mechanism for
learners to practise articulating different arguments and/or solutions to an issue
or problem. A common technique is to divide learners into two teams. A motion
is put forward, the first team presents its arguments for the motion, then the
130 Gráinne Conole
Propose the motion
Second the proposer
Oppose the motion
Vote
Second the opposer
Audience
contributions
Sum up for the

motion
Sum up for the

opposition
FIGURE 6.7 The debate format
opposing team outlines its arguments. This process can be repeated a number of
times and arguments can also be elicited from a wider audience. Finally the two
teams summarize their positions and the motion is put to a vote. Figure 6.7 illus-
trates an example of how this can be structured.
It is advisable to set some ground rules for the debate, for example encouraging
learners to use appropriate language, to respect each other’s points of view and to
listen to the contributions of their peers. In this way they learn how to politely
disagree or how to strongly disagree. Furthermore, they learn how to commu-
nicate and argue without being rude and aggressive. In addition to the approach
outlined earlier, a simpler variant is to conduct the debate by having half of the
learners for and the other half against a particular topic. This technique is valu-
able because through debating learners develop dialogic competencies which are
likely to be useful in their everyday lives and their professional contexts.
Think-Pair-Share Pedagogical Pattern

Another example of implementing the Conversational Framework is the Think-
Pair-Share activity. This is particularly useful when learners are trying to resolve
a challenge or open-ended question. Learners begin by reflecting on their own
thoughts on the challenge or question; they then discuss their thoughts in pairs.
Share They comment or take a

classroom “vote”
They pair and discuss

Pair abc abc abc abc their ideas about the
question
Each participant has

Think
time to think about the
question
Individuals
(general representation) Teacher
***
FIGURE 6.8 The Think-Pair-Share pedagogical pattern
Finally, they share their thoughts with the whole class and vote to resolve the issue
(Figure 6.8). It was originally developed by Lyman (1981).
Think-Pair-Share is a strategy designed to provide learners with a structured way
of reflecting on and resolving a challenge or open-ended question. Starting from
their own reflection, they then co-construct understanding in pairs and finally in a
whole class context. It enables them to formulate individual ideas and share these
ideas with other learners. It is a learning strategy Lyman and associates developed
to encourage participation. Rather than using a basic recitation method in which
a teacher poses a question and one student offers a response, Think-Pair-Share
encourages a high degree of learner response and can help keep learners on task.11
Think-Pair-Share offers a number of benefits. Firstly, learners benefit from
developing understanding in conjunction with others. Secondly, it provides a
structured approach to helping learners construct knowledge.Thirdly, articulating
their ideas with their peers helps learners to resolve misunderstandings and clarify
understanding. Finally, it can be a way of avoiding a few learners dominating the
conversation, ensuring equal opportunities are provided for all to contribute. It
also encourages shyer learners to participate.
There are numerous examples of applying the Think-Pair-Share design,12
and a number of variants on the basic approach, such as: Think-Tweet-Share,
Think-Text-Share, Think-Pair-Wordle-Share, and Think-Blog-Respond.13
The Collaborate C
Many careers require teamwork, so collaborating and working in a group is a use-
ful skill. Collaborating can also be a good way of breaking a problem down and
sharing it amongst a number of learners.
132 Gráinne Conole
The Jigsaw Pedagogical Pattern

A practical example of implementing collaboration is the jigsaw pedagogical pat-
tern, which is a useful way of breaking down a problem. Students are grouped
into teams of four. Each student is given a problem to investigate. For example,
in a master’s-level education course, the students might be tasked with research-
ing different pedagogical approaches. One student looks at associative pedago-
gies, another constructivist pedagogies, another situative pedagogies and another
connectivist pedagogies. They go away and research, and then get together with
members of other teams who have been researching the same pedagogies and
they share their knowledge and understanding. They then return to their teams
and combine the information retrieved (Figure 6.9).
SEGMENTATION
OF THE TOPIC
a c INTO
b SUB-TOPICS
a b c
EXPERT
GROUPS
(one group
per
sub-topic)
PRODUCTION
OF AN
a b c ARTEFACT
(one artefact per
sub-topic)
JIGSAW
a c GROUPS
a b
b
c
PRODUCTION
OF A SHARED
ARTEFACT
FIGURE 6.9 The jigsaw pedagogical pattern

The Pyramid Pedagogical Pattern

Another example is the pyramid pedagogical pattern, which is useful when stu-
dents are dealing with a complex task and when they need to come to some
form of resolution. Hernández-Leo, Asensio-Pérez et al. (2010) list the following
benefits of the pyramid approach:
• To promote the feeling that team members need each other to succeed (posi-
tive interdependence)
• To foster discussion in order to construct students’ knowledge
• To enable the development of negotiation skills
Figure 6.10 illustrates the stages involved in the pyramid pedagogical pattern.

In the first phase the students work on their own to consider the problem; in the
second phase they discuss their ideas and thinking in pairs. In the final phase there
is a class debate, which may be followed by a voting solution.
The Consider C
The Consider C is concerned with the ways learners are encouraged to reflect on
their learning and with demonstration of achievement of learning outcomes; i.e.
the assessment component of a unit of learning. Assessment might be diagnostic,
where the level of learners’ knowledge and competencies is assessed, formative
assessment or summative assessment. Assessment and feedback are well known
to be key drivers for learning. There are three types of assessment: tutor, peer or
self-assessment. Nicol14 argues that:
Assessment and feedback practices should be designed to enable students to

become self-regulated learners, able to monitor and evaluate the quality and
impact of their own work and that of others.
Level N
PHASE N: All propose a final and
agreed solution
Level i PHASE i: Compare, discuss and
propose a shared solution
PHASE 1: Individual (or initial
Level 1
group) study of the problem
Proposes & solution
Individual or initial group Teacher

(general representation)
***
FIGURE 6.10 The pyramid pedagogical pattern
134 Gráinne Conole
The REAP Principles

The REAP project developed a set of 12 principles15 to promote more effective
feedback and assessment:
1. Help to clarify what good performance is (goals, criteria and standards)

2. Encourage time and effort on challenging learning tasks
3. Deliver high-quality feedback that helps learners to self-correct
4. Provide opportunities to act on feedback (to close any gap between current
and desired performance)
5. Ensure that summative assessment has a positive impact on learning
6. Encourage interaction and dialogue around learning (peer-peer and
teacher-learner)
7. Facilitate the development of self-assessment and reflection in learning
8. Give choice in a topic, method, criteria, weighting or timing of assessments
9. Involve learners in decision making about assessment policy and practice
10. Support the development of learning groups and learning communities
11. Encourage positive motivational beliefs and self-esteem
12. Provide information to teachers that can be used to help shape their teaching
Reflective Learning
Reflective learning has three components: learning from experience, thoughtful
deliberation and systematic, critical and creative thinking about action with the
intention of understanding its roots and processes. Schon (1983) defines reflective
practice as:
The capacity to reflect on action so as to engage in a process of continuous

learning.
Gibbs’ reflective learning cycle (Figure 6.11) consists of the following six stages
of reflection:
1. Description—what happened?
2. Feelings—what were you thinking and feeling?
3. Evaluation—what was good and bad about the experience?
4. Analysis—what sense can you make of the situation?
5. Conclusion—what else could you have done?
6. Action plan—if it arose again what would you do?
The teacher can use the questions associated with the six stages to design activities
for the learners in which the teacher gets them to consider these questions, helping
Description
Action Plan Feelings
Conclusion Evaluation
Analysis
FIGURE 6.11 Gibbs’ reflective learning model
Concrete
Experience
Active Reflective
Experimentation Observation
Abstract
conceptualization
FIGURE 6.12 Kolb’s experiential learning cycle
them to reflect on their learning.This might be achieved through getting learners to

keep a reflective blog or asking them to contribute to a discussion forum.
Kolb’s experiential learning cycle (Kolb, 1984) is similar to the model that
Gibbs developed (Figure 6.12). A core principle of Kolb’s work is that learners
learn through discovery and experience.The four aspects of the learning cycle are:
• Concrete experience—where the learner is assigned a task with a focus on

active learning.
• Reflective observation—where the learner steps back and reflects on his or
her learning.
136 Gráinne Conole
TABLE 6.3 Mapping Kolb’s learning cycle to activities and teaching activities
Stage Activities Teaching Activities
Concrete experience Ice breakers & energizers Readings

Team games Examples
Problem solving Fieldwork
Discussion Laboratories
Practical exercises, e.g. making a Problem sets
presentation Trigger films
Debates Observations
Simulations/games
Text reading
Reflective Ask for observation • Logs
observation Write a short report on what took • Journals
place • Discussion
Give feedback to other participants • Brainstorming
Quiet thinking time • Thought questions
Tea & coffee breaks • Rhetorical
Completing learning logs or diaries questions
Abstract Present models Lectures
conceptualization Give theories Papers
Give facts Projects
Analogies
Model building
Active Give learners time to plan Projects
experimentation Use case studies Fieldwork
Use role play Homework
Ask learners to use real problems Laboratory
Case study
Simulations
• Abstract conceptualization—where the learner makes sense of what has hap-

pened; this involves interpreting the events and understanding the relation-
ships between them.
• Active experimentation—where the learner considers how he or she is going
to put what he or she has learnt into practice.
Table 6.316 shows examples of the types of activities that can be used to facili-
tate each of the stages.
The Combine C
The Combine C enables the teacher/designer to take a step back and look at the
design from different perspectives. Four examples are described: the course view,
the activity profile, designing MOOCs and the storyboard.
The Course Map View

The course map view enables the teacher/designer to get a holistic overview of
the unit, in terms of: what Guidance and Support is provided, what Content
and Activities the learners will engage with, what forms of Communication
and Collaboration are included and the types of Reflection and Demonstra-
tion.This includes details of which tools and resources are associated with each of
the elements and any notes such as details of prerequisites required or description
of the philosophy underpinning the learning intervention, for example it might
be that peer interaction is deemed important or that learners are expected to
generate their own materials (Table 6.4).
Table 6.5 is an example of a completed course map view for a postgraduate
module on accessibility in online learning and teaching. A central feature of the
course is to promote accessibility and improve access for disabled students. The
module is structured around a series of activities that ask students to collabora-
tively read, think, debate and write about a subject with reference to their own or
an adapted context and practice.
The Activity Profile

The pedagogy or activity profile view (Figure 6.13) enables the teacher/
designer to map the types of activities the learners will engage with. There are
six types: assimilative activities (reading, viewing, listening), information handling,
communicative, productive, experiential (such as drill and practice exercises) and
TABLE 6.4 The course map view
Course Map representation

Guidance and “Learning pathway”
support Course structure and timetable
Course calendar, study guide, tutorials
Information and “Contents and activities”
experience Could include course materials, prior experience or student-generated content
Readings, DVDs, podcasts, lab or field work, placements
Communication “Dialogue”
and interaction Social dimensions of the course, interaction with other students and tutors
Course forum, e-mail
Thinking and “Meta-cognition”
reflection Internalization and reflecting on learning
In-text questions, notebook, blog, e-portfolio
Evidence and “Assessment”
demonstration Diagnostic, formative and summative
Multiple choice quizzes, TMAs, ECA
TABLE 6.5 A completed course map view
Guidance and support Content and experience
Tools & resources Responsibilities & relationships Tools & resources Responsibilities & relationships
1. StudentHome (student It is expected that students 1. Three blocks of study Students study for approx.
support portal I will already be using activities 15 hours per week
2. Programme website graduate-level study 2. A set of detailed learning (including course and
3. Course website skills. outcomes self-directed study and the
4. Course guide A spirit of mutual support 3. Module material completion of assignments).
5. Assignment guide is encouraged. (categorized as core, Variety of activities includes
6. University library website Tutors use a developmental further and background) reading, discussing, practical
7. General forum mentoring approach. which includes articles, tasks and collaborative
8. Technical self-help forum reports, readings. activities.
9. Cafe forum 4. One set book Students will use a real
10. Specific guidance and 5. JISC TechDis website or adopted professional
information (i.e. Delicious 6. Delirious bookmarks perspective throughout to
bookmarks) frame their discussions and
reflections.
Reflection and demonstration Communication and collaboration
Tools & resources Responsibilities & relationships Tools & resources Responsibilities & relationships
1. Personal reflective blog Use of a reflective personal 1. 4x Asynchronous online Strong emphasis on peer
2. Tutor group wiki blog is encouraged forums communication and
3. ePortfolio (student optional) throughout the module. 2. Live online discussions collaboration and learning
4. Tutor group forum (10% of Assessment of the module via Elluminate (optional from one another’s
mod Lie marks) is integrated with the student) experiences.
5. Assignment 1 (1500 word teaching and learning 3. Telephone (optional tutor) Wide variety of
report 15% of module marks) activities so that all 4. Email (optional tutor) communication methods
assignment work is a 5. Delicious (optional student) and tools used with an
learning experience. 6. ePortfolio (optional emphasis on the use of the
student) tutor group forum.
6. Assignment 2 (3,000-word Assignments relate to 7. Personal blog Student activity on the forum
report 30% of module marks) personal contexts and 8. Tutor group wiki is supported, guided and
7. Final assignment (6,000-word practices. 9. Access to an international assessed.
report 45%) Students and tutors use a professional student
8. Assessment guide shared marking criteria. community
9. Marking criteria for each
assignment
140 Gráinne Conole
Information Handing
Communication
Assessment
Assimilative
Experiential
Productive
Adaptive
Item Assim Info H Comm. Prod. Exper Adapt. Assess
Game 10 5 0 0 0 10
Session with advise 0 0 20 0 0 0 0
TOTALS 10 5 20 0 0 0 10
FIGURE 6.13 An example of a completed pedagogy profile
adaptive (such as modelling or simulation). The profile also indicates the amount
of time spent on assessment activities. The profile is available as an online flash
widget.17
Designing MOOCs
Table 6.6 shows a MOOC classification schema that can be used to design,
describe and evaluate MOOCs. The classification consists of 12 dimensions: 3 to
do with the context of the MOOC (the degree of openness, the scale of partici-
pation (massification), the diversity of the learners) and 9 to do with the pedagogy
(the extent of use of multimedia, the amount of communication, the extent to
which collaboration is included, the way reflection is encouraged, the type of
learner pathway [from learner-centred to teacher-centred and highly structured],
the level of quality assurance, the level of accreditation, how informal or formal it
is, the level of learner autonomy).
The Storyboard
Storyboarding is a well-established approach to visually representing a tempo-
ral sequence of activities. For example, the film industry uses storyboarding to
TABLE 6.6 The 12-dimensional MOOC classification schema
Context
Open Degree to which the MOOC is open

Massive How large the MOOC is
Diversity The diversity of the learners
Learning
Use of multimedia Extent of use of rich multimedia

Degree of communication Amount of communication incorporated
Degree of collaboration Amount of collaboration incorporated
Amount of reflection Ways reflection is encouraged
Learning pathway Degree to which the learning pathway is supported
Quality assurance Degree of quality assurance
Certification Mechanisms for accreditation
Formal learning Feed into formal learning offerings
Autonomy Degree of learner autonomy
FIGURE 6.14 A storyboard

142 Gráinne Conole
represent the key sequences involved in a plot. Storyboarding is used in our

Learning Design work as a means of representing overall design. It enables
the teacher/designer to see how the different elements of the design process
fit together. It consists of a timeline, with the activities included in the design
along the middle. Learning outcomes are mapped to the assessment elements.
Above the activities any inputs to the individual activities are included: for
example reading materials or podcasts. Below the activities outputs are listed:
for example contribution to a discussion forum or creation of a blog post.
Figure 6.14 shows an example of part of a storyboard. Along the top are
listed the weeks and the topics. The learning outcomes are listed down the
left-hand side. The storyboard is activity-centred; the activities the students
will engage with are shown in the middle. Above the activities are the inputs
the students are asked to engage with, so in week one they watch a video and
read a document, in week two they listen to a podcast and read a document.
In the final two weeks they read a document, listen to a podcast and watch
a video. Below the activities the learning outputs are shown. In week one
the students produce an essay, in week two a reflective blog post and in the
final weeks they do a group presentation and write a reflective essay on their
learning. Underneath this are the assessment elements. The tutor provides
formative assessment on the written document in week one, the students peer
comment on two other blog posts in week two, and the tutor provides sum-
mative assessment on the group presentation and the reflective document in
the final weeks. The final stage is to ensure that all the learning outcomes are
met through the assessment elements, which Biggs (1999) refers to as con-
structive alignment.
The Consolidate C
The Consolidate C focusses on implementation of the design in a real learning
context and evaluating its effectiveness. Table 6.7 shows an evaluation rubric. The
first column lists a set of metrics for the evaluation. These need to be measurable
and observable. The second column is used to list the data collection techniques
that will be used to evaluate the learning intervention and to assess the extent
to which the learning design has been successful. The first four criteria are from
Kirkpatrick’s (1959) evaluation model.
An alternative, more rigorous evaluation can be undertaken using the Apereo
course evaluation rubric.18
TABLE 6.7 Evaluation checklist
Criteria Data Collection Methods Focus Description
Step 1: Reaction — Survey Are learning outcomes indicated?

How well did the Focus groups Do the learning outcomes use active verbs?
learners like the Interviews Are there clear signposts for navigation and labelling (i.e. are there clear headings
learning process? Observation and is it easy for the participants to navigate around?
Analysis of online Is the learning time associated with resources and activities indicated?
interactions Is the material logically structured and coherent (are terms explained, do sections
Step 2: Learning — Assignments follow each other)?
What did they Survey Is there an appropriate mix of multimedia?
learn (the extent to Focus groups Are videos kept to shorter than 10 minutes?
which the learners Interviews Is there a clear and logical learning pathway?
gained knowledge Is the way technologies are to be used made clear to the learners?
and skills)? Is the content coherent and logically structured?
Step 3: Behaviour — Assignments Are the pedagogical approaches explicit?
What changes in Survey In what ways are communication and collaboration encouraged?
job performance Focus groups Are all the materials accessible (variable fonts, suitable colours)?
resulted from the Interviews Do all the links work?
learning process Are the activities consistent with the platform’s functionality (i.e. discussion
(capability to forum, feedback mechanism)?
perform the newly Are the materials open (are there any technological access issues)?
learned skills while What pedagogical approaches are used?
on the job)? Are sections given clear timeframes?
Step 4: Results — How are activities monitored?
What are the Is there is clear minimum to complete and is there a clear learning timescale?
tangible results of What assessment elements are there?
the learning
process in terms
of reduced
cost, improved
quality, increased
production,
efficiency etc.?
144 Gráinne Conole
Conclusion
This chapter has described the 7Cs of Learning Design framework, which has
been designed to help teachers/designers make design decisions that are peda-
gogically effective and make appropriate use of digital technologies. Each C has
associated with it a set of Learning Design representations that guides the teacher/
designer’s thinking practice, helps him or her make design decisions and enables
them to make these designs explicit, with the ultimate goal to make the design
process and product shareable. Evaluation of the use of the resources and activi-
ties associated with the 7Cs framework has been positive. Teachers state that the
resources and activities help them to think beyond content to the learning activi-
ties and the learner experience.19 They enable them to be more creative in their
design thinking. The resources and activities are easy to use; the teacher/designer
can iteratively improve the design representations over time.
Notes
1 See for example www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZkHpNnXLB0 and more specifically
for learning www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZ73ZsBkcus.
2 See for example www-jime.open.ac.uk/jime/article/view/2014–05.
3 See for example www.mooc-list.com/.
4 See for example: http://mooc.efquel.org/, http://tinyurl.com/gconole-MOOC and
www.moocs4d.org/media.html.
5 See also https://about.curtin.edu.au/files/curtin-2013-annual-report-kpis.pdf.
6 See Chapter 1 and www.larnacadeclaration.org/
7 www.open.ac.uk/blogs/OULDI/
8 http://jiscdesignstudio.pbworks.com/f/OULDI_Pedagogic_Aspects_v8_Release.
pdf?ld=1, and there is an introductory video about the course features pack and how
it can be used http://cloudworks.ac.uk/cloud/view/5950.
9 More on the Persona Design can be found at www.ld-grid.org/resources/representations-
and-languages/personas.
10 Also see www2.smumn.edu/deptpages/~instructtech/lol/laurillard/ for an interactive
version of the Conversational Framework which shows the media types that can be
used to promote each element of the framework.
11 http://olc.spsd.sk.ca/De/PD/instr/strats/think/
12 See for example http://serc.carleton.edu/econ/interactive/tpshareexm.html.
13 http://learningisgrowing.wordpress.com/2012/03/21/think-pair-share-variations/
14 http://www.reap.ac.uk
15 Taken from www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/elearning/digiassass_
eada.pdf.
16 This is taken from www2.le.ac.uk/departments/gradschool/training/eresources/
teaching/theories/kolb.
17 www.rjid.com/open/pedagogy/html/pedagogy_profile_1_2.html
18 Derived from www.apereo.org/twsia/rubric-course-project.
19 See for example the evaluation findings from the SPEED project www2.le.ac.uk/
departments/beyond-distance-research-alliance/projects/speed.
References
Armellini, A., G. Salmon, et al. (2009). The Carpe Diem journey: Designing for learn-
ing transformation. In T. Mayes, D. Morrison, H. Mellar, P. Bullen & M. Oliver (Eds.),
Transforming higher education through technology-enhanced learning (pp. 135–148).York: The
Higher Education Authority.
Biggs, J. (1999). What the student does: Teaching for enhanced learning. Higher Education
Research & Development, 18(1), pp. 57–75.
Bruce, C., S. Edwards, et al. (2006). Six frames for information literacy education: A con-
ceptual framework for interpreting the relationships between theory and practice. Six
frames for information literacy Education 5(1).
Conole, G., M. Thorpe, et al. (2007). Capturing practice and scaffolding learning design. EDEN
2007, Naples.
Hernández-Leo, D., J. I. Asensio-Pérez, et al. (2010). Generating CSCL scripts: From a
conceptual model of pattern languages to the design of real scripts. In P. Goodyear & S.
Retalis (Eds.), E-learning design patterns (pp. 49–64). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Jenkins, H. (2009). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st
century. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jenkins, H., K. Clinton, et al. (2006). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture:
media education for the 21st century. Chicago, IL: The MacArthur Foundation.
Kirkpatrick, D. (1959). Articles on reaction, learning, behavior and results. Journal of the
American Society of Training Directors, ASTD.
Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching. New York: Routledge.
Lyman, F. (1981). The Responsive Classroom Discussion: The Inclusion of All Students. Main-
streaming Digest. College Park: University of Maryland.
Nicol, D. (2009). Transforming assessment and feedback – enhancing integration and enhancement.
Glasgow: Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education.
NMC Horizon Report (2014). 2014 Higher Education Edition. Available at www.nmc.
org/publications/2014-horizon-report-higher-ed.
Oliver, R. (2000). Where teaching meets learning: Design principles and strategies for
Web-based learning environments that support knowledge construction. R. Sims. Coffs
Harbour, ASCILITE.
Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic
Books.
Von Ahn, L. (2010). Research versus teaching. Luis Von Blog http://vonahn.blogspot.
co.uk/2010/06/research-versus-teaching.html.
7
INVESTIGATING UNIVERSITY
EDUCATORS’ DESIGN THINKING
AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR
DESIGN SUPPORT TOOLS
Sue Bennett, Shirley Agostinho and Lori Lockyer
Introduction
The routine design work that all educators perform when preparing and plan-
ning learning experiences for students is an important part of their role. For uni-
versity educators, designing effective learning experiences requires them to draw
together their specialist domain expertise with appropriate teaching strategies,
while integrating the range of digital technologies that are now commonplace
in higher education. This represents a significant challenge for even the most
experienced university educators, and one which institutions and professional
bodies have supported, for example through funding initiatives of the UK’s JISC
(http://jisc.ac.uk/) and Australia’s Office for Learning and Teaching (www.olt.
gov.au/).
The field of Learning Design has developed a particular focus that is con-
cerned with this routine design work educators do to create learning experi-
ences for their students. Learning Design refers to ways educators can document,
model, implement, store, share, adapt and reuse pedagogical ideas. It has a par-
ticular focus on guidance (providing tips and advice to educators), representation
(documenting pedagogical ideas in a consistent way) and sharing (enabling edu-
cators to build on the work of others by reusing and adapting pedagogical ideas).
Learning Design has emerged as a particular branch of educational research and
development that seeks to understand and support the design processes inherent
in teaching. This body of work is underpinned by the premise that supporting
university educators as they conceptualize, plan and prepare a unit1 they are to
teach in an upcoming academic session will result in more coherent and engag-
ing learning experiences for students, with flow-on improvements in learning
outcomes.
University Educators’ Design Thinking 147
This premise for design support has generated a multitude of different

approaches, contributing to different aspects of Learning Design (see the Learn-
ing Design Conceptual Map, Ch. 1 in p. 17 this volume). Some have focussed
on developing tools to support design by helping educators think about and
make decisions about their design ideas (e.g. The Learning Design Support Envi-
ronment (LDSE) project explained in Laurillard et al. (2013); and see Conole
(2013) for a review of Learning Design tools). Others have sought to support
the sharing of “good” design ideas through repositories or online networking
tools [e.g. online community sharing (http://cloudworks.open.ac.uk/]), collec-
tions of examples or cases (e.g. www.pedagogicalpatterns.org/, www.learningde-
signs.uow.edu.au/). These efforts have been complemented by investigations into
different ways designs can be effectively represented; e.g. see Agostinho, Harper,
Oliver,Wills and Hedberg (2008), Agostinho (2009), Agostinho (2011), Agostinho,
Bennett, Lockyer, Jones & Harper (2013), Conole (2013) and McAndrew and
Goodyear (2013). Another line of work has sought to understand more about the
fundamental design processes educators adopt in an effort to identify the context
in which design occurs, the types of decisions that are part of the design process
and where support might be best located (e.g. Bennett et al., 2011).
The purpose of this chapter is to present the results of a research study that
contributed across several aspects of learning design work—namely to understand
more about the nature of design work as part of the teaching cycle,2 to identify factors
in the learning environment and how they influence design decisions, and how tools
and specifications might support guidance, representation and sharing. The project was
conducted by an Australian research team, with technical input from the Australian
developers of a learning management system ( Janison Solutions) and researchers
from the Open University of the Netherlands. The aims of the project were to:
1. Advance understanding of university educators’ design practices by interview-

ing university educators about how they undertake design (Investigation 1);
2. Improve the methods used for selecting and representing high-quality learn-
ing designs from real-life cases by reviewing an existing learning design
repository and developing a refined learning design representation (Investi-
gation 2); and
3. Determine the feasibility of integrating learning design specifications
(IMS-LD) into design support tools within the learning management system
(Investigation 3).
Later in this chapter is an overview of the entire project that provides the
background to our work, followed by an explanation of each of the three main
investigations (aligned to the project aims as seen earlier) and a discussion of the
key outcomes. A reflection on the outcomes is presented in terms of future direc-
tions for research and practice in this area.
148 Sue Bennett et al.
Background
The idea for this research study developed from research the authors conducted
between 2002 and 2005, and prior to that from their involvement in the Australian
University Teaching Committee (AUTC) project, ICTs and Their Role in Flexible
Learning (2000–2002) (referred to as the AUTC Learning Design project in this
volume). The AUTC Learning Design project collected and described examples
of teaching practice in higher education that made effective use of information
and communication technologies (ICTs). The outcome was an online repository
of 32 exemplars derived from real-life cases. These cases are contextualized whilst
there also is a smaller number of abstracted designs developed from five of the
cases.3 The intention was to provide these exemplars to educators as a stimulus for
their own designs, so that they could tailor a learning design according to their
particular circumstances and the demands of their contexts.
One of the most significant contributions of the AUTC Learning Design
project was the method developed to represent each exemplar, which combined
graphical notations of the sequence of tasks, resources and supports, with a textual
description of the features of the design, the pedagogical reasoning underpin-
ning it, the context in which it had been applied, and any evaluation/research
outcomes (see Agostinho et al. (2008) for a detailed explanation of this learning
design representation). The development of this approach to systematically docu-
ment a learning design was not the first attempt at this goal, and was one of a
number of alternative approaches developed at the time (Agostinho, 2009).
As a teaching and learning grant, the AUTC Learning Design project had a
practical rather than research focus, and when the project was completed there
were many questions about whether and how this “new” method of represent-
ing learning designs would work. This became the focus for several subsequent
research projects the authors conducted, some of which are outlined later in this
chapter.
For example, some further work the authors undertook was conducted as
part of an interdisciplinary project, funded by the Smart Internet Cooperative
Research Centre (2002–2004). The focus of this research and development work
was to examine how the use of metadata, which was becoming prominent at the
time as a way of categorizing/classifying learning objects e.g. Learning Object
Metadata (IEEE, 2002), could be used within learning designs as a way of helping
educators select appropriate learning designs and objects that could be included
in a learning design. The aim was to investigate the potential of developing one
form of support tool that used metadata to guide an educator in the selection of a
learning design, and then the addition of appropriate learning objects to develop
learning activities documented in accordance to the technical standards that were
new at the time e.g. IMS Learning Design specification (Koper & Tattersall, 2005).
The project was a collaboration between educational researchers (the authors)
and researchers from informatics and engineering. Although the project out-
comes mainly focussed on developing the metadata and technical standards (e.g.
see Agostinho, Bennett, Lockyer & Harper, 2004), this research work continued
the authors’ interest in learning designs as a means of supporting educators’ design
processes. During the same period, work was undertaken on several smaller proj-
ects that sought to develop the learning design approach further by applying the
method to representing designs relevant to the school sector, and working with
school and university educators to test the application of learning designs in prac-
tice (e.g. see Bennett, Agostinho & Lockyer, 2005).
The culmination of this research work led to a conceptualization of learning
design support tools that formed the basis for the research study discussed in this
chapter. This conceptualization is explained by the following scenario that illus-
trates how the research team envisaged the process by which an educator could
use a learning design support tool to select a shared learning design, adapt it and
implement it in his or her particular teaching context using any learning manage-
ment system (LMS), and then possibly re-share the adapted learning design.
1. Select a learning design: An educator reviews the learning designs contained in

a repository and represented in a form that communicates the essential fea-
tures of the design, including a summary of the overall pedagogical approach.
Metadata of the learning designs (provided in the repository) assist the educa-
tor to identify potentially appropriate designs to suit his or her context. For
example, an educator might search for a particular pedagogical approach or
learning outcome.
2. Import the learning design into a LMS: After choosing a design from a reposi-
tory, the educator imports the design into the learning management system.
This process is supported by technical specifications that provide standard-
ized, machine-readable ways of describing learning designs.
3. Customize the learning design: The educator uses his or her expert knowledge
as a discipline specialist and educator, drawing on knowledge of the con-
text, and customizes the learning design in the LMS interface in the way
he or she would normally work (rather than using a separate design tool).
This process involves modifying the original design to introduce appropriate
resources, provide specific details of tasks and make decisions about how to
support students to complete the tasks. Provision is also available for the addi-
tion of new tasks, resources and supports not present in the original design
but deemed necessary by the educator. Over time, the educator develops
the completed “unit of study”. This is a term that refers to a contextualized
learning design, that is, one that includes specific context for implemen-
tation information, such as specific content resources, dates for assessment
submission etc. as opposed to a more generic learning design that does not
include context-specific information. This distinguishes between a learning
design that can be adapted (a generic learning design) and a learning design
adapted for a particular context (a contextualized learning design or a “run-
ning learning design”, Ch. 1 in p. 14 this volume).
4. Implement the unit of study:The unit of study is made available to students at the
commencement of the academic session.After this point two types of teaching
and learning activities occur. One type is the interactions between educator(s)
and students on the site that are a normal part of the teaching and learning
process. For example, the educator makes announcements, the educators(s)
and students participate in online discussions, assignments are uploaded and
feedback is provided. It is important to note here that the degree to which the
actual interactions have been specified depends very much on the nature of
the design. Some units may be highly specified prior to the commencement
of the session, whereas others may adopt an open-ended design, one in which
the actual activities are unspecified prior to implementation but instead are
planned by the educator to unfold during implementation. This may be par-
ticularly so in project, problem, simulation, role-play or game-based designs.
The second type of activity is the improvisation element of teaching, where
it is desirable to make dynamic changes to adapt the design of the unit of
study. For example, the educator might add major new resources, introduce a
new learning support or change the nature of a task based on the responses
of students. All of these possibilities highlight the potentially complex nature
of learning design and demonstrate how design does not necessarily stop at
the commencement of implementation (e.g. at the beginning of a teaching
session), but can continue into the session such that by the end of session the
design is different to that presented in the first week. Given that there can be
limitations on what educators can change during a session as dictated by insti-
tutional policy, these changes may vary in significance from one institution or
context to another. While significant redesign may be relatively rare, it should
nevertheless be anticipated as a possibility in any learning design approach.
5. Export a copy of the unit of study: At any stage of this process the educator can
export his or her unit of study to archive, to store for future use (e.g. to refine
in a subsequent year), to share as a coherent whole with others or to transfer
the design into another LMS.
6. Share a revised learning design: At the end of a teaching session, in addition to
exporting the unit in its entirety, it is possible that an educator might want
to share his or her revised design with others whereby specific content and
detail is removed and additional pedagogical advice added. Technical tools
would be available in the LMS to enable the educator to convert his or her
unit of study into a “sharable learning design” format.
This conceptualization distinguishes a “learning design” that is shared as some-

thing created with the intention that it be customized. It therefore needs to be
content-free, describing the pedagogical framework with tasks and supports being
abstracted somewhat from their original context so as to make them adaptable and
understandable both within and across disciplines. A “unit of study” (a running
learning design) is the product of the design process which is fully specified as a
particular teaching experience, at first ready for students and educators to interact
with and then changed through that interaction in ways that may or may not alter
the underlying design. Thus, the creation of a unit of study may result in a new
design or design variant that could be shared with others, rather than sharing the
more fully formed unit of study which may be more unwieldy to repurpose.
The research study reported in this chapter explored how this process could be
implemented in an LMS. The research study was comprised of three phases and
each phase addressed particular aspects of the scenario explained earlier. The next
section explains each of these three project phases.
Overview of the Project and Outcomes

The project was conducted as three interlinked investigations; the nature of which
and their outcomes are described later.
Investigation 1: Educator Design Thinking and Practices

This investigation was concerned with learning more about university educators’
routine design practices. The purpose of this investigation was to gain a better
understanding of the context into which learning design support tools would be
embedded. Specifically, we wanted to learn more about how university educators
go about their design work, what influences their decisions and what supports
they draw on to identify aspects of current practice into which tools might inte-
grate and further develop.
Institutional human research ethics approval was obtained and participants
were recruited with an initial invitation distributed via electronic mailing lists
through the following four Australian professional organizations with a higher
education teaching and learning focus: Higher Education Research and Develop-
ment Society of Australasia, the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in
Tertiary Education, the Open and Distance Learning Association of Australia and
the Australian Association for Research in Education.Those who responded were
asked to provide basic information about the discipline in which they taught, the
number of years they had been a university educator and their prior experience
with online technologies. Based on this criteria, a representative sample of 30 par-
ticipants across 16 Australian universities was selected. To simplify the question of
discipline, we used three broad discipline groups—Arts, Sciences and Professions.
This approach was based on the work of Becher and Trowler (2001), and Shul-
man (2005) that identifies key differences between these discipline groupings.
Participants were interviewed mainly by telephone, with a small number of

local participants interviewed in person. The interview was conducted according
to a semi-structured protocol that ensured coverage of key questions, but also
allowed for the conversation to flow and for unanticipated issues to arise and be
discussed.The duration of the interviews was between 60 and 90 minutes; all were
audio-recorded and then transcribed verbatim for analysis. Participants were sent
a copy of their transcripts for verification.
Coding of the transcripts was undertaken by all six members of the research
team. Firstly a subset of interviews was read and annotated, each by one team
member.The annotations were collated into codes and the set of codes was added
to a framework developed from the research questions. The framework con-
sisted of a table with multiple columns that included the code name, a definition
for each category and code and example quotes. An additional category called
“emerging codes” was established to capture any further relevant but unantici-
pated issues. With the coding framework developed, each transcript was allocated
to two team members who coded it sequentially. This ensured that all coding was
checked and where discrepancies arose could be resolved by changes to coding or
refinement of the coding framework. Coding was completed when all transcripts
had been coded, checked and no further disagreement was detected. After coding
was complete, the interview excerpts under each code were further analyzed and
interpreted thematically.
The study found that our participants had a high degree of freedom when
designing units. Where constraints existed they consisted of specific content or
types of professional experience required by accrediting bodies, or requirements
governing teaching practices, such as limits on the length, weighting or timing of
assessment. There was a tendency for participants to work alone on the design
of a unit they coordinated, while collaboration tended to occur more at the level
of programme planning. The nature of the context suggests there are opportu-
nities for Australian university academics to innovate in their teaching without
significant restrictions on their design decisions (see Bennett et al., 2011 for a
detailed explanation).
In terms of how university educators engage in the process of design, our
participants began at different points depending on the contexts for their designs.
When designing a new unit, participants started from either an outcomes or con-
tent focus. When redesigning an existing unit, the starting point was based on
what needed to be modified as the overall learning outcomes and content were
already established. A second feature was that the process of design moves from
broad to specific. The overall framework of a unit, in terms of the learning out-
comes, content and assessment, is usually designed first, followed by designing/
redesigning the more specific aspects of the unit such as weekly tutorial activities.
A third feature that emerged was that design is an iterative process that occurs
before, during and after unit implementation. Participants explained how they
engage in design before a unit is implemented in order to prepare the unit, but
also how they think about design during unit implementation in terms of design-
ing specific resources or materials for the unit and reflecting on the progress of
the unit, and how they continue to design after unit implementation as part of
reflecting how the unit can be modified for its next iteration. (These findings
were discussed in a symposium—Goodyear et al., 2010.)
Four themes emerged from discussion about the factors that influenced univer-
sity educators’ design practices (see Bennett et al., 2008). A desire to meet learner
needs was raised as an important consideration, and judgements were based on
an understanding of the nature of the learner cohort. This included considering
learners’ prior knowledge, their cultural backgrounds, their commitments beyond
university or their need to be prepared for particular professions. Participants
recognized that their designs were influenced by their past teaching experiences,
particularly of successful or unsuccessful teaching strategies, but also ideas arising
from formal study, professional learning and disciplinary practices. Experimenta-
tion and innovation were also drivers of design decisions, with accounts given
of looking for and trying out new strategies found in the literature or shared by
colleagues. All explained the need to work within the constraints of the university
teaching context, which included university policies, but also the limitations of
timetabling, workload, teaching spaces and resourcing.
The study also sought to identify the support mechanisms academics use to
develop their teaching practice. The participants in our study accessed a range of
sources to generate and develop their ideas about teaching and the design of their
units, including academic literature, workshops, conferences and informal discus-
sions with colleagues. Overwhelmingly, participants drew support from the ideas
of “others”. This suggests the value academics place on the ideas of other educa-
tors, generally close colleagues or people they can see are similar to themselves.
Our participants did not limit their interest exclusively to those within their own
discipline or in closely related disciplines. However, they did place greater value
on those actively engaged in teaching rather than those who may not have a direct
teaching role. These findings support the concept of learning designs which pro-
vide contextualized ideas from credible others. Participants also commented on
how central support units were more important early in their careers, and became
less relevant as they gained experience.This highlights the need for different types
of supports depending on an educator’s career stage.
Together, these findings provide insights into the context in which university
educators do their design work and about their approaches, processes and influ-
ences on their decisions.The results reveal a complex process of balancing oppor-
tunity and constraint. The nature of their practice has much in common with the
characteristics of design identified in the broader design studies literature (e.g.
Razzouk and Shute, 2012), although important differences exist. One key differ-
ence that our investigation has highlighted (although anecdotally we were already
aware of this) is that university educators are actual participants in their designs,
whereas other designers (such as instructional designers) are often not end-users
of the final product (i.e. the teaching and learning experience) they have designed.
Furthermore, teaching designs are rather ephemeral in nature; they exist as par-
ticular instances experienced by students and educators, but they can be re-visited
and revised when used again, either by the original designer or by another educa-
tor to whom the unit has been allocated. Thus in terms of providing design sup-
port tools, the main insight from this investigation was that a design support tool
could not only assist an educator to design a unit before implementing it, but can
provide provision for access throughout the implementation of a unit to refine,
add and change and, after unit implementation as a reflection tool, to document
what could be changed for the subsequent unit iteration.
Investigation 2: Review of Learning Design Representation

The second investigation in the research project involved revisiting the learning
design descriptions of the 32 exemplars developed from the AUTC Learning
Design project to examine whether the way they are described and documented
could be considered effective based on more recent research about effective learn-
ing design representations. The original exemplars were presented in a four-part
structure:
• A summary of the exemplar’s purpose and function, details of the design team
and links to any publications about implementation and evaluation.
• A detailed description of the tasks, resources and supports in graphical and
text form.
• A description of the implementation context, including intended learning
outcomes and assessment strategies.
• Reflections about the rationale for the pedagogical approach, development
and implementation history of the exemplar, details of any evaluation research
and perceived quality of the exemplar.
Since completion of the project in 2002, international research in learning

design has advanced understanding of how learning design representations could
support the sharing and reuse of pedagogical ideas, particularly in higher educa-
tion. Several newer learning design representations have emerged (see Agostinho,
2009, for a summary). In addition, technical developments such as the IMS-LD
specification and software applications compliant with it have advanced. Given
these developments, it was timely to review the literature to determine the char-
acteristics that constituted an “effective learning design representation” and use
these characteristics as criteria to review the 32 examples to compare them with
the more contemporary benchmarks of effective descriptions.
Analysis of the international research between 2002 and 2009 led to the
identification of characteristics of an “effective” learning design description. The
literature drawn on included: Britain (2004); Conole, Littlejohn, Falconer and Jef-
frey (2005); Falconer and Littlejohn (2006); Falconer, Beetham, Oliver, Lockyer,
and Littlejohn (2007); Falconer and Littlejohn (2009); Littlejohn, Falconer, and
McGill (2008) (see Agostinho et al., 2009 for full details). The following three
fundamental characteristics that would support reuse were identified:
• The pedagogy must be clear and explicitly described;

• A quality rating of some form, such as evaluative findings, should be included; and
• Explicit guidance or advice about how the learning design could be reused
should be provided.
These characteristics formed the basis of criteria for an instrument that was
developed to review the 32 examples. The instrument consisted of 10 elements,
each of which was rated on a five-point scale from very poor to very good and
accompanied by a qualitative comment.The first six elements focussed on provid-
ing clear and explicit pedagogy by summarizing the learning design and explaining
its pedagogy and implementation context as well as detailing the tasks, resources
and supports used. The next three elements focused on evaluating the learning
design’s “quality” by reviewing the description of the rationale for ICT use, the
explanation of any evaluation findings and whether the designer(s) had provided
any reflections on implementation. The final element focussed on whether the
learning design description provided any advice or guidance about reuse.
All 32 exemplar were reviewed using this instrument, and 6 were found to
meet the criteria to be considered effective learning design descriptions:
1. “Environmental Decision Making”—“role play” focus in the discipline area

of environmental science (Brierley, Hillman, Devonshire & Funnell, 2002)
2. “Mekong e-Sim”—“role play” focus in the discipline area of social science
(McLaughlan, Kirkpatrick, Maier & Hirsch, 2002)
3. “Predict-Observe-Explain”—“procedure development” focus in the disci-
pline area of science (Kearney, 2002)
4. “Research Methods Online”—“problem-based learning” focus in the disci-
pline area of education (Angus & Gray, 2002)
5. “Real life cases in multimedia”—“project/case-based” focus in the discipline
area of education (Bennett, 2002)
6. “Generic skills development”—“collaborative” focus in the discipline area of
information technology (Luca, 2002).
As a result of this investigation refinements were made to the format for learning
design representations and the six exemplars identified as containing the information
required were adapted to the revised format. Refinements included adding more
specific information about how the learning design could be customized and high-
lighting key resources and supports of the learning design. Appendix A illustrates the
revised format for describing a learning design. Sections 4. Checklist and Section 5.
Design and Implementation Tips are additional components. The revised descrip-
tions of the six learning designs were then used in Investigation 3 to explore the
possibilities for integrating learning design support tools into a learning manage-
ment system. The designs themselves have also been used as resources to stimulate
design ideas and discussion in workshops (e.g. Bennett, Agostinho & Conole, 2009).
Investigation 3: Integrating technical standards into a learning

design support tool
The purpose of Investigation 3 was to explore the feasibility of integrating techni-
cal standards into a learning design support tool within a learning management
system, and to develop a preliminary design for such a tool. This work was con-
ducted in collaboration with our industry partner, Janison Solutions.The research-
ers worked with programmers and educational designers at Janison Solutions to
develop workflows and screen mock-ups which could be underpinned by the
IMS-LD specification. Additional discussions with research colleagues at the Open
University of the Netherlands helped to clarify and refine the strategies tested.
Investigation 3 explored the possibility of integrating the IMS-LD specifica-
tion into design tools for teaching.The thinking at the time was that specifications
would make learning materials “technically interoperable”, that is they would be
readily transferrable from one compliant system to another, thereby improving
reusability. There was considerable interest in this idea at the time although there
was little adoption by developers of learning management systems.
Rather than fully develop a software solution, the goal of the project was to
explore the potential for the integration of specification and devise a strategy
for how it might be achieved. In essence, the goal was “proof of concept” rather
than a developed product. The research team worked with the industry partner’s
technical and design staff to test a series of possible scenarios that would suit the
overall philosophy of the project, which was to allow for a high degree of custom-
ization of the learning design by an educator.
The team ultimately devised the following general process that would reflect
the conceptualization developed at the commencement of the project:
1. The educator selects a learning design from those available in the repository
and this appears as a partially completed unit of study in the learning man-
agement system. The technical specification allows the design to be “read
into” the system with the relevant system components appearing according
to the design. The scaffold includes both pre-determined characteristics and
customizable features. For example, a problem-based design may include a
discussion activity as a key learning task (a pre-determined characteristic),

but the educator would be given the option of offering that discussion in
face-to-face, synchronously online or asynchronously online modes. Thus,
the starting point for building specifications comes from what is already
known about the design chosen.
2. The educator makes changes to the design within the learning manage-
ment system to customize it to suit his/her own context. The flexible design
tool allows an educator to start working at any point, at either a macro or
micro level, to begin building a design based on the established over-arching
framework. (This reflects what our interviews had revealed about the pro-
cesses educators used already as part of their design practices.) The educa-
tor makes choices to specify the resources, tasks and supports to use, and
adds and removes elements as appropriate. When adding or removing new
tasks, resources or supports that change the original design, the educator
is prompted to add notes explaining the pedagogical rationale. Behind the
scenes, the software builds the specifications for the “unit of study” that is
being created, out of sight of the educator, who interacts with the learn-
ing management system interface that is already familiar. Metadata relevant
to IMS-LD is recorded, while additional metadata beyond the scope of the
specification but useful to future sharing of the design is captured as separate
notes.This approach solves key problems by constructing the metadata record
without an educator interacting directly with the technical specification and
removes the need for a separate design interface because the educator is
working within the LMS. This approach also facilitates updates to the “unit
of study” dynamically during the teaching session such that the metadata is
also updated and changes to the design are captured.
3. At any point in the process, the educator can “export” his or her design from
the learning management to back up elsewhere or to share. IMS-LD meta-
data is exported and thus available for import into a compliant system, with
options provided for exporting the “unit of study” (running learning design)
or the learning design.The former contains all of the detail of the completed
unit, whereas the latter includes only the structural features of the design.
Upon export, the system prompts the educator to add to the metadata, for
example, with reflections on the implementation or results from evaluations
that provide evidence of the efficacy of the design.
Full development of a learning design support tool envisaged as an outcome of

this investigation was beyond the scope of this project and would require signifi-
cant further funding. A key insight from this investigation was the need to include
opportunities to collect additional data beyond that included in the IMS-LD
specification to achieve the design supports and the outputs characteristic of the
effective learning design representations identified in Investigation 2.
Discussion
The findings from this study advance our understanding of university educators’
design thinking by providing insights into existing practice that are anecdotally
familiar, but have garnered little empirical evidence to date. The accounts from
our participants from Investigation 1 suggest that there is an existing design prac-
tice that is part of routine teaching, but this is under-developed in comparison to
other areas of design activity such as architecture and engineering. Because educa-
tional design work has been subsumed into teaching, we, as yet, lack a vocabulary
to discuss it clearly and have only recently begun to map it conceptually, work
which is needed to underpin further learning design support tools.
There is much more to learn, also, about effective representations. There is
a theoretical and empirical basis for providing educators with solutions to past
problems that are abstracted sufficiently from the original context to promote
customization (Kolodner, Owensby & Guzdial, 2004). Our own investigations
have used a representation that combines graphical and textual information,
and chooses brevity over detail. But there is still little consensus in the learn-
ing design literature over the critical characteristics of effective representations.
Our findings from Investigation 2 lend support for the inclusion of reflective
and evaluative information, together with guidance and advice within learning
design representations as this was identified from the literature as a key charac-
teristic that would support reuse. Findings from Investigations 1 and 2 suggest
that developing one’s own teaching practice by adapting ideas from respected
others is a useful strategy regarded by educators looking to expand their reper-
toire (this is highlighted from interview data in Investigation 1 and the inclusion
of a “quality” rating from evaluative findings in a learning design description in
Investigation 2). But how this can be fostered, particularly within institutions by
central units, needs careful thinking to cater for different discipline backgrounds
and different career stages.
What is clear from Investigation 1 is the need for flexible design tools that sup-
port decision-making. Flexibility is needed because design is not only about plan-
ning and preparation prior to an academic session, but occurs throughout sessions
dynamically in response to learners’ emerging needs and extends beyond as part
of educators’ reflections on their experiences. Flexibility is also needed because
design is iterative with various starting points, depending on the nature of the
changes to be made, and with attention shifting between macro to micro features.
Lock-step tools that restrict the order in which a design is specified are unlikely to
be successful, but at the same time tools must help an educator navigate through a
developing design. Learning design support tools that include these features (e.g.
flexibility rather than lock-step tools) will act as a coach, with the goal of empow-
ering educators in the design process with good tools rather than correcting poor
design or corralling the design process too narrowly.
It is important to contextualize these interpretations and speculations within

the limitations of this study. Firstly, the project was only concerned with inves-
tigating and refining the learning design representation originating from the
AUTC Learning Design project. This is only one of a number of representations
attempting to address the same challenge. Investigation 1 was conducted in the
Australian context and attracted volunteers with an interest in teaching and learn-
ing. Members of this self-selecting group are not necessarily representative of all
university educators and so their experiences must be interpreted with this in
mind. The study also took place at a particular point in time, and it must be rec-
ognized that ongoing changes to higher education bring new challenges. Given
the increasing importance of online pedagogies, however, this is only likely to
heighten the pressure on educators to design well.
Conclusion
High-quality design is critical to effective learning experiences and outcomes.
The context in which university educators work is increasingly challenging
with a more diverse student body than ever before and new technologies
becoming integral to higher education. Effective design supports are needed
and this is the challenge the field of Learning Design engages with. The find-
ings of this project advance our thinking about the need for learning design
support tools that allow features such as the ability to easily import and adapt
a learning design, and provides flexibility by enabling the educator to revise,
refine and reflect on his or her design both before and during implementa-
tion; but at the same time expose the magnitude of the challenge. The core
concepts of Learning Design—guidance, representation and sharing—offer rich
opportunities for further theoretical, empirical and practical work and already
encompass a wide range of approaches and initiatives that can be built on as this
emerging field develops. As part of this development, the field must do more
to engage university administrators and policy makers and convince them of
the significance of this approach, and engage more with educators to test and
refine their ideas.
Acknowledgements
This research project was funded under the Australian Research Council Linkage
project scheme: Improving university teaching: Creating strategies and tools to
support the design process (LP0669368). We thank our industry partner, Janison
Solutions, for its invaluable contribution to this project. The authors would like
to also acknowledge the input of the rest of the research team: Professor Emeritus
Barry Harper, Professor Rob Koper (and staff at the OUNL), Dr Lisa Thomas and
Ms Jennifer Jones.
Notes
1 The term “unit” is used generically throughout to refer to a programme, module, session
or learning activity that an educator designs for students to engage with.
2 Italics refer to specific components of the Learning Design Conceptual Map.
3 www.learningdesigns.uow.edu.au
References
Agostinho, S. (2009). Learning Design representations to document, model, and share
teaching practice. In L. Lockyer, S. Bennett, S. Agostinho & B. Harper (Eds.) Handbook of
research of learning design and learning objects: Issues, applications, and technologies (pp. 1–19).
Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
Agostinho, S. (2011). The use of a visual learning design representation to support the
design process of teaching in higher education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technol-
ogy, 27(6), pp. 961–978.
Agostinho, S., Bennett, S., Lockyer, L. & Harper, B. (2004). Developing a learning object
metadata application profile based on LOM suitable for the Australian higher education
context. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 20(2), pp. 191–208.
Agostinho, S., Bennett, S., Lockyer, L., Jones, J. & Harper, B. (2013). Learning designs
as a stimulus and support for teachers’ design practices. In H. Beetham & R. Sharpe
(Eds.), Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age: Designing and delivering e-learning (2nd Ed.)
(pp. 119–132). New York, NY: Routledge.
Agostinho, S., Bennett, S., Lockyer, L., Kosta, L., Jones, J. & Harper, B. (2009). An examina-
tion of learning design descriptions in an existing learning design repository. In R. J.
Atkinson & C. McBeath (Eds.). Same places, different spaces. Proceedings ascilite Auckland
2009. 26th Annual ascilite International Conference, (pp. 11–19). Auckland: The University
of Auckland, Auckland University of Technology, and Australasian Society for Comput-
ers in Learning in Tertiary Education.
Agostinho, S., Harper, B. M., Oliver, R., Wills, S. & Hedberg, J. (2008). A visual learning
design representation to facilitate dissemination and reuse of innovative pedagogical
strategies in university teaching. In L. Botturi & S. Stubbs (Eds.), Handbook of visual
languages for instructional design:Theories and practices (pp. 380–393). Hershey, PA: Informa-
tion Science Reference.
Angus, M., & Gray, J. (2002). Description of a situated learning approach in a research meth-
ods postgraduate subject. Available at www.learningdesigns.uow.edu.au/exemplars/info/
LD13/index.html.
Becher, T., Bennett, S., Thomas, L., Agostinho, S., Lockyer, L., Jones, J. & Harper, B. (2011).
Understanding the design context for Australian university educators: Implications for
the future of learning design. Learning, Media and Technology, 36(2), pp. 151–167.
Becher, T., & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic Tribes and Territories (2nd Ed.) Buckingham, UK:
Open University Press.
Bennett, S. (2002). Description of a technology-supported constructivist learning environment that
uses real-life cases to support collaborative project work. Available at www.learningdesigns.
uow.edu.au/exemplars/info/LD1/index.html.
Bennett, S., Thomas, L., Agostinho, S., Lockyer, L., Jones, J. & Harper, B. (2011). Under-
standing the design context for Australian university teachers: implications for the
future of learning design. Learning, Media and Technology, 36(2), 151–167.
Bennett. S., Agostinho, S. & Conole, G. (2009, December). Learning designs. Workshop pre-
sented at 26th Annual ascilite International Conference. Auckland: The University of Auck-
land, Auckland University of Technology, and Australasian Society for Computers in
Learning in Tertiary Education.
Bennett, S., Agostinho, S. & Lockyer, L. (2005). Reusable learning designs in university
education. In T. C. Montgomerie and J. R. Parker (Eds.), Proceedings of the IASTED Inter-
national Conference on Education and Technology (pp. 102–106). Anaheim, CA: ACTA Press.
Bennett, S., Agostinho, S., Lockyer, L., Harper, B. M. & Lukasiak, J. (2006). Supporting
university educators create pedagogically sound learning environments using learn-
ing designs and learning objects. IADIS International Journal on WWW/Internet, 4(1),
pp. 15–25.
Brierley, G., Hillman, M., Devonshire, E. & Funnell, L. (2002). Description of round table
exercise: Environmental decision-making about water resources in physical geography. Available
at www.learningdesigns.uow.edu.au/exemplars/info/LD26/index.html.
Britain, S. (2004). A review of learning design: Concept, specifications and tools. Available at www.
jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/ACF83C.doc.
Conole, G. (2013).Tools and resources to guide practice. In H. Beetham & R. Sharpe (Eds.)
Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age: Designing for 21st century learning (pp. 78–101). New
York: Routledge.
Conole, G., Littlejohn, A., Falconer, I. & A. Jeffery (2005), Pedagogical review of learning activi-
ties and use cases. LADIE project report. Accessed 26/8/07.
Falconer, I., Beetham, H., Oliver, R., Lockyer, L. & Littlejohn, A. (2007). Mod4L final report:
Representing learning designs. Available at www.academy.gcal.ac.uk/mod4l/.
Falconer, I., & Littlejohn, A. (2006). Mod4L report: Case studies, exemplars and learning designs.
Available at http://mod4l.com/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=2.
Falconer, I., & Littlejohn, A. (2009). Design for learning, domain map, granularity, JISC,
Joint Information Systems Committee, LAMS, Learning Activity Management System.
In L. Lockyer, S. Bennett, S. Agostinho & B. Harper (Eds.), Handbook of research on learn-
ing design and learning objects: Issues, applications and technologies (pp. 20–40). Hershey, PA :
Information Science Reference.
Goodyear, P., Markauskaite, L., Agostinho, S., Lockyer, L., Dalziel, J. & Cameron, L. (2010).
Teachers, technology and design. In C. H. Steel, M. J. Keppell, P. Gerbic & S. Housego
(Eds.), Curriculum, technology & transformation for an unknown future. Proceedings ascilite
Sydney 2010 (pp. 393–394). Brisbane, Australia: The University of Queensand.
IEEE (2002). 1484.12.1 IEEE Standard for Learning Object Metadata. Available at http://ltsc.
ieee.org/wg12/par1484–12–1.html.
Kearney, M. (2002). Description of predict-observe-explain strategy supported by the use of multime-
dia. Available at www.learningdesigns.uow.edu.au/exemplars/info/LD44/index.html.
Kolodner, J. L., Owensby, J. N. & Guzdial, M. (2004). Case-based learning aids. In D. H. Jona-
ssen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 829–861).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Koper, R., & Tattersall, C. (Eds.). (2005). Learning design: A handbook on modelling and deliver-
ing networked education and training. Berlin: Springer.
Laurillard, D., Charlton, P., Craft, B., Dimakopoulos, D., Ljubojevic, D., Magoulas, G.,
Masterman, E., Pujadas, R., Whitley, E. A. & Whittlestone, K. (2013). A construction-
ist learning environment for teachers to model learning designs. Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning, 29, pp. 15–30.
Littlejohn, A., Falconer, I. & Mcgill, L. (2008). Characterising effective eLearning resources.
Computers & Education, 50, pp. 757–771.
Luca, J. (2002). Description of supporting generic skill development with online technology. Available
McAndrew, P., & Goodyear, P. (2013). Representing practitioner experiences through
learning designs and patterns. In H. Beetham & R. Sharpe (Eds.), Rethinking pedagogy
for a digital age: Designing for 21st century learning (pp. 133–144). New York: Routledge.
McLaughlan, R., Kirkpatrick, D., Maier, H. & Hirsch, P. (2002). Description of Mekong e-Sim:
An online role-play simulation about international natural resource management issues. Available
Razzouk, R., & Shute,V. (2012). What is design thinking and why is it important? Review
of Educational Research, 82(3), pp. 330–348.
Shulman, L. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134(3), pp. 52–59.
Appendix A: Investigation 2 — Revised format for learning

design representations
LD title
1. Overview
a. Brief description
b. Graphical representation
2. General information
a. Learning objectives
b. Pedagogical rationale
c. Evidence of quality
3. Textual description of design sequence
a. Resources/tasks/supports
b. Suggestions for assessment
4. Checklist
a. Resources □ Critical resources listed here
b. Supports □ Critical supports listed here
5. Design and implementation tips
a. Customizing design
b. Set-up required before implementation
c. Implementation ideas
6. Acknowledgements
7. References
8
A DEEPER UNDERSTANDING
OF REUSE
Learning Designs, Activities, Resources and
Their Contexts
Sandra Wills and Chris Pegler
Introduction to Reuse and Repurpose

This chapter positions discussion of learning designs within the broad con-
text of reuse and repurpose. It compares two independently conceived longi-
tudinal case studies on reuse: Wills (2010) and Pegler (2011). Within the topic
of reuse, various terms and concepts have emerged such as Learning Objects,
Open Educational Resources (OER), Reusable Learning Objects (RLO), Reus-
able Learning Activities, Repurposable Learning Objects, Generative Learning
Objects (GLO) and Learning Designs. In education, a useful “reusable chunk”
could be a piece of content but it could also be a generic design for a sequence of
learner-centred activities, (reusable) resources and supports (Oliver, Harper, Hed-
berg,Wills & Agostinho, 2002). In reflecting on the constructs of Learning Object
versus Learning Design,Wills (2010) expanded the concept of Learning Object to
include Learning Designs as a subset because they too are sharable resources, albeit
generally content-free. The Wills study contrasts reuse of learning designs with
reuse of learning resources in order to shed light on issues for uptake of learning
designs. The Pegler study concentrates on reusable learning resources and adopts
the term Open Educational Resources.
The widespread reuse of digital online resources in technically efficient ways
has often been described as a Holy Grail within e-learning (Ferguson et al., 2007;
Weller, 2004) and is a key concept behind the Larnaca Declaration. It is assumed
that uptake and adoption of educational technology in teaching will be faster
if teachers reuse educational resources developed by other teachers rather than
“reinventing the wheel”. University teachers use educational materials, digital or
otherwise, by breaking the materials into constituent parts, reusing those parts that
164 Sandra Wills and Chris Pegler
are relevant to their subject, context and perspective, and reassembling those parts
from the original package along with parts from other packages to form a new
set of educational materials. It is assumed that systems that mirror teachers’ natu-
ral instinct to reuse chunks in their own preferred order for their own context
will assist uptake and adoption of educational technology. The vision for reuse is
expressed in the Larnaca Declaration elsewhere in this book and yet there is a lack
of research on how this theory works in practice.
Reuse has often been associated with e-learning, not because reuse does not
occur within other forms of learning and teaching, but because the scope of reuse
is different when learning and teaching occurs online. The digital online format
allows many users to access the same resource without compromising access for
others and without consumption of the original. Reuse of learning resources
within UK HE has also been recognized for some time (Boyle, 2003) as relying on
some element of technologically mediated repurposing or adaptation of resources
to re-contextualize them.This ideal of potential to repurpose continues in discus-
sion of reuse (e.g. Kernohan, 2010), with Bissell (2011) suggesting that the licence
adopted should be as open as possible to facilitate making of derivatives.
Focus of Two Previous Studies on Reuse

The rationale for the Pegler study was that while technical barriers and enablers
to reuse have been well addressed in literature on reuse, from reusable learning
objects (RLO) to OER, less attention has been given to the purpose of reuse and
the motivation of those who choose to share or use reusable learning resources.
Which factors have impact or influence on reuse, and how they relate to each
other, is largely unexplored.
Addressing intellectual property rights (IPR) barriers has dominated discus-
sion about reuse practice for many years. Rights issues have deflected attention
from other barriers and enablers, which may have significant effects on reuse.
Non-rights concerns now need to be identified, understood, and, where they
prove significant, addressed.
The rationale for the Wills study was to improve potential for reuse by iden-
tifying design factors in reusable e-learning resources, focussing on both reusable
learning designs and reusable learning objects. Online role play was the context.
It was proposed that issues around reuse of active, authentic and collaborative
learning environments such as online role play may be different from reuse of
small chunks of content which has been the (stereo-) typical portrayal of RLOs.
Typically an RLO has been defined as a small chunk of learning material
because a low level of granularity means it is easier to reuse, as it is, without modi-
fication. The larger a learning object becomes, the less likely it might be to meet
all new needs in the new context to which it is transferred, and the more likely it
will need adaptation. Previously, the e-learning industry would have deemed an
A Deeper Understanding of Reuse 165
online role play too large to be categorized as an RLO. However, following Wiley’s
definition of learning objects (2000, 2002) as anything that can be reused, Wills
describes learning designs as an example of a digital resource that can be reused.
The two studies adopted differing terminology, as seen from the description
given earlier, ranging from RLO to OER, which reflects the differing years of
data collection and cultural differences in the two countries. To reduce confu-
sion for the reader in the remainder of the paper, the authors choose to now use
one term, “reusable learning resource”, unless specifically referring to Learning
Design.
Methodology and Results from the Two Previous Studies

This chapter compares the two longitudinal case-based studies drawn from across
a decade. Both researchers are educational practitioners and national award win-
ners,1 which has provided an access and closeness to their cases, and to the net-
works of their case participants, which is unusual. The independently conceived
and executed investigations into factors shed light on what influences reuse of
designs, activities and resources. While Wills has tracked the reuse of online role
play designs, activities and resources to create a deep understanding of reuse and
repurposing of specific resources, Pegler has drawn on five significant UK-based
case studies representing different levels of reuse-focussed activity, ranging
from personal to national initiatives. Both researchers used grounded research
approaches drawing on qualitative data (group and individual interviews) and
quantitative (survey methods), with Pegler also using data capture observation.
Wills Study
Fifty-three online role plays in Australian higher education were identified and
tracked between 1990 and 2006 (Wills, 2010). Interviews and surveys led to
the creation of a generational mapping of the online role play designers. From
this map it was calculated that 45 role plays were a reuse of another role play
(Table 8.1), demonstrating that the topic of reusability is an important one in
higher education.
However, there were only eight instances of reuse of the same role play itself
(18%). Predictably these eight instances were a reuse within the same discipline.
Meanwhile, 82% of the instances were a reuse of another’s role play design. This
high percentage confirmed the importance of research about learning designs to
guide and underpin programmes for sharing good teaching practice.
Interestingly, the transfer of role play design ideas was mainly to different teach-
ers in different disciplines, whereas it was predicted that the ideas would be more
likely picked up by teachers in the same discipline. Additionally, the results show
that teachers who were reusing were almost as likely to be at different universities
TABLE 8.1 2006 analysis of reused role plays comparing different teacher or same teacher
and comparing different university or same university (n=45)
Reuse by. . . different teacher
in same discipline in different discipline
same different same different

university university university university
of same role 5 2 0 0
play
play design
Reuse by. . . same teacher
in same discipline in different discipline
same different same different

university university university university
play
play design
as at the same university. Whereas proximity is an influence in reuse of the same

role play, proximity was not a significant affordance to reuse for learning designs.
The eight instances of reuse of the same role play involved four role plays.
These four were analyzed in more detail via case study methodology, document-
ing their history of reuse. This case study analysis, conducted three years after the
earlier mapping, identified further instances of reuse for these four online role
plays (Table 8.2).
The study was seeking design factors influencing reusability, including start-
ing from a known learning design; however, the case studies also brought to light
important design context factors. The factors identified as influences on reusability
in the case studies are summarized in Table 8.3 according to whether the factor
operated FOR or AGAINST reuse.
In general, in these case studies, the design factors which contributed to reuse
are: access to a secure and reusable platform; small class size and small number
of roles; an interesting and rich scenario which at the same time is not overly
complex; embedding the role play activity and assessment in the departmental
curriculum; clear place for debriefing as an important step in the sequence of
learning activities; guidelines and training for teachers and facilitators involved in
the online role play; and branding of the online role play so that it has an identifi-
able, memorable name and image.
TABLE 8.2 2009 instances of reuse for each of the four online role plays
Reuse of . . . Middle Eastern Idontgoto Round Table Mekong

Politics Uni Discussion eSim
same role play by different one instance almost 2 1

teacher/s in different repeated
university in same numerous times
discipline
same role play by different 3 2 3
teacher in same
university in same
discipline
same role play by same 2 1 1
teacher in different
university in same
discipline
same learning design numerous 2 3
by different teacher in
different university
in different discipline
same learning design 1 1
by same teacher in
different university/
context in different
discipline
same learning design by
different teacher in 8 3
same university
-in different discipline 1
-in same discipline
same learning design by
same teacher in same 1 1
university
-in same discipline 1
-in different discipline
Design factors which at times worked against reuse include large class size
and large number of roles; difficulty of reaching consensus or resolution, a factor
related to size; personal style of the original facilitator which other facilitators
might not be comfortable with such as humour or sarcasm; cross-disciplinary or
cross-institutional implementation involving collaboration with others students
and teachers, leading to extra organizational workload.
The contextual factors which impacted the design process positively are: col-
laborative design by partners, including a significant role for educational develop-
ers; recognition of the value of a scholarly approach to evaluation and publication
about the innovation; establishment of legal contracts and licencing agreements
for governing reuse by others.
TABLE 8.3 Summary of factors influencing reusability in four Australian role plays
Middle East Idontgoto Roundtable Mekong

Politics Uni Discussion e-Sim
Design Factors
Platform FOR/ FOR FOR/AGAINST FOR

AGAINST
Size AGAINST FOR FOR AGAINST
Scenario AGAINST FOR FOR FOR
Embedded in the FOR FOR FOR
curriculum
Designer’s personal AGAINST
style
Resolution AGAINST AGAINST AGAINST
Debriefing FOR FOR
Facilitation guide FOR FOR
&/or training
Cross-disciplinary AGAINST AGAINST
&/or cross-
institutional student
collaboration
Branding & marketing FOR
Design Context
Factors
Discipline expertise AGAINST AGAINST AGAINST AGAINST
Partnership & FOR FOR FOR FOR/
collaboration AGAINST
Educational developers FOR FOR FOR
Scholarship FOR FOR FOR
Licencing & legal FOR FOR FOR
contracts
Intellectual property AGAINST AGAINST FOR
Identity & territory of AGAINST
HE staff
A significant contextual factor which worked against reuse in two of the cases
was conflicting and unclear perceptions of intellectual property rights. Partly related
to this factor in one case was differing perceptions of the identity of academic staff
and professional staff and the territory in which they may operate in terms of
scholarship and intellectual property. This factor has implications for the role of
what are variously called educational developers, learning designers or instructional
designers, as well as for the role of tutors in the higher education workplace.
Another contextual factor was that the four online role plays required sig-
nificant discipline expertise for the role play itself to be reused. The high level of
discipline expertise may be a reason learning objects and repositories are not as
common in the higher education context as they have become in the school and
technical education contexts.
The design factors and design context factors which contributed to the reus-
ability of the four online role plays in this study can be framed more generically
as factors influencing the design of reusable learning resources (Table 8.4). The
15 factors warrant attention when developing e-learning resources to be reusable.
These factors particularly apply to those reusable learning resources that involve
active, authentic and collaborative learning, such as online role plays.
It is noticeable that cost has not emerged as a factor in the design of online role
play because it usually appears on the list in most studies. However, this type of
learning design is a low-cost learning activity, one of the reasons for its usefulness.
Therefore, cost need not be a consideration, unless designers decide a graphically
immersive 3-D learning environment is required to meet the learning objectives
or if video is used as the trigger scenario.
TABLE 8.4 Wills’ 15 factors influencing the design of reusable learning resources
Factors influencing design of reusable learning resources
1 Access to common e-learning platform

2 Activity matched to manageable class size
3 Scenario that is engaging but not overly complex
4 Scaffold students through all phases of the learning activity, especially resolution or
conclusion
5 Embed use of the learning activity in departmental curriculum, especially the
assessment tasks
6 Clear place for debriefing and reflection in the sequence of learning resources
7 Guidelines and training for teachers and facilitators using the learning resource
8 Cater for different facilitation styles
9 Brand the learning activity so that it has an identifiable, memorable name and
image
10 Collaborative design by partners including a significant role for educational
developers
11 Reward the role of professional staff and tutors in designing and implementing
reusable learning resources
12 Scholarly approach to evaluation and publication about the innovation
13 Establish legal contracts and licencing agreements governing reuse by others
14 Confirm intellectual property rights of all team members
15 Support teacher workload if the reusable learning activity involves
interdisciplinary and/or inter-institutional student collaboration/competition
Pegler Study
Pegler drew on case-based research conducted across five reuse contexts within
UK higher education, representing a span of initiatives over an eight-year period
(Pegler, 2012). The cases ranged from a project exploring personal and informal
reuse strategies with focus on blogs and wikis, to activity underpinning formal
national and institutional repositories. Reuse activity noted (i.e. sharing and/or
use) included personal/institutional; formal/informal; distance/blended learning
scope of activity. The cases also included reuse activity at different scales: course/
module; intra-institutional (departmental); geographical (regional and national);
and intra-disciplinary. Each of the cases occurred between 2003 and 2010, and
each was directed at facilitating reuse of digital online resources or using reusable
resources within UK higher education. They included OER and RLO examples.
The case research was grounded in an extensive literature review and recorded
interviews or observations with educators involved in both sides of reuse activity
(sharing and use). Twenty-one semi-structured interviews with 24 participants in a
reuse facilitation activity, and a further two data capture suite observations with poten-
tial users selecting and commenting on resources for reuse were recorded and tran-
scribed, then coded, to identify potential drivers and enablers of reuse for each context.
Participants were asked questions about their experiences and expectations
of reuse, their preferences and practices in order to identify factors which could
affect reuse within their contexts. From this context-specific research, 222 factors
were identified from coding of interview and observation transcripts, and refer-
ence to project documentation and evaluations. These factors represented a broad
spread of observations or comments, primarily by participants within interviews,
relating to factors which had potential to affect decisions to share or use reusable
resources. Repetition of factors within each case were not recorded separately,
although note was made of the extent of the repetition. A broad list of factors was
derived across five separate and distinctive contexts.
As the factors related both to sharing activity and (re)use activity, even when
grouped in this way, the list was both complex and unwieldy. Sorting was there-
fore attempted on the basis of broader themes, derived from clustering and com-
paring groupings and the common features across groups.
Coding, sorting and comparison of the factors resulted in identification of
three broad classifications. Two hundred twenty-one (i.e. all but one) of the com-
ments and observations about reuse could be classified as relating to Technical,
Quality and/or Motivation concerns or conditions.
It was noted that some comments related to the technical features and poten-
tial of the systems and processes. These became described as Technical factors.
A larger group of factors related to how selection and choice between alternatives
might be addressed, identifying a number of approaches or concerns relating to
Quality. A further set of factors, most of which could not be described as Techni-
cal or Quality factors, or not solely so, addressed the reasons for resource reuse and
informed the conditions under which reuse would occur. These were described
as Motivation factors, and this class included the widest diversity (115 factors). In
contrast the technical factors were the least diverse (75 factors). This may reflect
the emphasis placed in projects on addressing Technical factors, and the volume of
research and commentary on issues such as metadata and licencing, resulting in an
established technical vocabulary around reuse.
Re-coding the factors using the three-factor classification resulted in 71% (158)
fitting within a single category with some overlap between classes for the others.
Of the factors that overlapped, only six (3%) were located within all three classes.
Examination of these established that they were particularly general comments. For
example “Would be useful to allow comments on the objects [resources] while
reviewing” was one of these statements. Although this suggests a technical modifi-
cation to the repository commented on, it could also suggest a purpose for which
this functionality was required (motivation) and a preference for resources which
featured this function (quality). Statements that were capable of classification in all
three classes were general or vague in nature and could perhaps be disaggregated
into individual factors, although in interviews they were expressed and recorded
as a single concept. A further factor was not classified in any category: “Changing
teaching practices towards sharing and reuse takes time.” This led to the decision to
exclude these seven from the analysis, leaving a set of 195 factors.
As an aid to exploring reuse factors and reuse contexts with different educator
audiences, in a supplementary activity, sets of physical cards were generated. Each card
within the 36-card set represented a reuse factor or group within the 195-factor list.
All three factor classes were represented, with 12 cards created for each of the Techni-
cal, Quality and Motivation themes (Table 8.5 and Figures 8.1a, 8.1b and 8.1c).
TABLE 8.5 Pegler’s 195 factors summarized as 36 factors categorized by three themes
Blue—Motivation Gold—Technical Pink—Quality
1 Exclusivity 13 Metadata 25 Brand

2 Custom/Habit 14 Moving online 26 Style/Tone
3 Sharing is good 15 Discoverability 27 Appearance
4 Personalization 16 Granularity 28 My community
5 Funding 17 Reliability 29 Quality checks
6 Policy 18 Context-free 30 Persistence
7 Learn new stuff 19 Licence to use 31 Ratings
8 Cutting costs 20 Adaptable 32 Known creator
9 Rarity 21 Innovation 33 Research basis
10 Up to date 22 Inter-operable 34 Proved in use
11 Convenience 23 Accessible 35 Description
12 Speed/Time 24 Repurpose-able 36 New/Improved
FIGURES 8.1a–c Sample of cards from Pegler’s set of 36 cards
FIGURES 8.1a–c (Continued)
FIGURES 8.1A–C (Continued)
Comparing Factors about Reuse Drawn from the Two Studies

Comparison of conclusions and analysis in the two studies reveals a general con-
sistency in the factor types identified and a common focus on the influence,
complexity and importance of context. Mapping Pegler’s summary 36 factors
(Table 8.5) against Wills’ summary 15 factors (Table 8.1) demonstrates that each
of the Wills factors matches factors in the Pegler study, although some Pegler fac-
tors do not map to the Wills factors (Table 8.6). Despite the different countries
and different types of reusable learning resources studied, this mapping provides
external validation of the results for each of the two independent studies of reuse.
However, it is interesting to note that the Wills factors mainly match factors
from Pegler’s Quality theme. Only two Quality factors were not accounted for:
30 Persistence and 36 New/Improved. Persistence is described on a Pegler card
as: “Learning to use a new repository takes time. Is knowing it will be around
and maintained far into the future important?” New/Improved is described as:
“Is reuse a way to update and improve your teaching? If so, are you attracted to
easy means of updating?” These two were difficult to map because Wills chose
a specific context of online role play and focussed on design aspects rather than
motivation aspects.
Not mapped also were seven Motivation factors—1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 11 and
12—again because of the fact that the Wills study was not about motivation for
reuse but on design for reuse. The Wills study focussed on the sharers rather than
the users.
Likewise, not able to be mapped from Pegler’s Technical theme were eight fac-
tors: 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21 and 23. An explanation might be that in the Wills
study,Technical factors did not dominate use of online role play.The platforms for
online role play were in general low tech and utilized the standard easily accessible
university-provided LMS/VLE platforms. However, it is worth noting that 7 of
15 of the Wills factors did map repeatedly to the same four factors from Pegler’s
Technical theme.
Overall, factors from the two studies did correlate, thus providing validation for
the studies as well as demonstrating that numerous themes in reuse are universal.
However, mapping the two studies is also significant because it reveals differences
that merit further investigation.The remainder of this chapter’s analysis centres on
enhancing understanding of academics’ thresholds for reuse, exploring the wider
relevance of specific issues highlighted in the studies around what Pegler describes
as “zones of proximity” and what Wills terms “nuances of reuse”.
Wills—Nuances of Reuse
The analysis of case studies of four online role plays focussed on factors that influ-
ence reuse of online role play. However the case studies also gave rise to reflection
more generally on what it means to “reuse”.
TABLE 8.6 Mapping Pegler’s 36 factors against Wills’ 15 factors
Pegler—Factors influencing reuse Wills—Factors influencing design for reuse
Inter-operable 22 1 Access to common e-learning platform

Granularity 16 2 Activity matched to manageable class size
Granularity 16 3 Scenario that is engaging but not overly complex
Licence to use 19 13 Establish legal contracts and licencing agreements
governing reuse by others
Licence to use 19 14 Confirm intellectual property rights of all team
members
Repurpose-able, 24, 20 6 Clear place for debriefing and reflection in the
Adaptable sequence of learning activities
Style/Tone, 26, 4, 8 Cater for different facilitation styles
personalization, 16
granularity
Description 35 4 Scaffold students through all phases of the learning
activity, especially resolution or conclusion
Description 35 7 Guidelines and training for teachers and facilitators
using the learning activity
Known creator, 32, 25, 9 Brand the reusable learning activity so that it has an
brand, 27 identifiable, memorable name and image
appearance
Quality checks, 29, 33, 12 Scholarly approach to evaluation and publication
research basis, 31, 34 about the innovation
ratings, proved
in use
Known creator, 32, 6, 28 5 Embed use of the learning activity in departmental
policy, my curriculum, especially the assessment tasks
community
Learn new stuff, 7, 3, 32 10 Collaborative design by partners including a
sharing is good, significant role for educational developers
known creator
Funding 5 11 Reward the role of professional staff and tutors in
designing and implementing reusable learning
resources
Funding 5 15 Support teacher workload if the reusable
learning activity involves interdisciplinary and/
or inter-institutional student collaboration/
competition
The initial analysis of reuse of 53 role plays used the framework of generational
mapping, distinguishing between reuse of a role play design and reuse of the role
play itself, according to the following additional dimensions:
• same teacher versus different teacher

• same discipline versus different discipline
• same university versus different university.
From the four in-depth cases, further dimensions were revealed. Table 8.7 lists
a number of scenarios that occurred in the history of reuse of the four online role
plays. This list of types of reuse goes further than the types discussed in the previ-
ous statistical analysis.
Each of these reuse scenarios has implications for how online role plays are
designed, if they are being designed with reuse in mind. Only one in this small
sample was designed specifically for reuse by (unknown) others (first shaded row
in Table 8.7). Most of the other descriptions of reuse involved reuse by people
already involved. In other words, the reusers had a degree of familiarity with the
online role play in that they helped to design it, helped to implement it or had
been trained to use it. No-one picked it up “cold”.
However, the purpose of this study was to look at factors for fostering this
reuse by unknown others, hence a better understanding of what is meant by
reuse is important. The final nuance in Table 8.7 (second shaded row), the
“potential to be transferred but not happened yet”, is particularly important as it
probably describes the majority of work currently happening under the heading
TABLE 8.7 Four case study online s: nuances of reuse by others
Types of reuse Middle Eastern Idontgoto Round Table Mekong

Politics Uni Discussion eSim
Simulation
Designed by a team for each to use y y y

Designed by cross institutional partners y y
to be used in each institution
Designed for cross institutional student y y
collaboration
Designed for transfer/reuse to unknown y
teacher
Continued to be used by one partner y
without the others
Used by new cross-institutional partners y y
Run by tutors /dept. members without y y y
original designer being present
Run by tutors/dept. members after y
original designer leaves
Modified by tutors or members of same y y
department
Transferred to new institution with an y
original designer
Transferred to entirely new teacher in a y
new institution
Potential to be transferred but not y y
happened yet
of reuse. If resources are not being reused, then gaining a broader understanding
of types of reuse might provide ideas for improving the design or improving
access.
In summary, the Wills study demonstrated that Learning Design, as a reus-
ability construct, has more impact for uptake, even influencing adoption in differ-
ent disciplines and different institutions. However, all the dimensions and factors
explored in this study about the four role plays that were reused could usefully be
applied to thinking about the nature of learning designs. This focus may improve
their uptake and acceptance in university contexts and also inform the develop-
ment of appropriate programmes and services for sharing teaching practice in
general (Wills, 2013).
Pegler—Zones of Proximity
Not all the cases Pegler studied were ones where reuse was feasible within the
time span of the research; however, one case from the Open University presented
several, apparently unproblematic, examples of extensive reuse within a relatively
short timeframe. Compared with other cases, this was an exceptional level of
reuse and achieved quickly in a usually slow production context. While this was
attributed in part to technical factors involved in this case, and the production of
the resources within an Open University Distance Learning system favours reuse,
it could also be associated with the close connection between the users and the
sharers of the resources. For these resources the sharers and users were the same
people, or members of the same small team.
As the relationship between the sharers and users was a theme commented
on across several cases, Pegler suggested that the proximity, i.e. distance, between
sharer(s) and user(s) may be a cross-case modifier acting on reuse. To represent
the proximity and distance “boundaries” represented in the cases, Figure 8.2
illustrates six “proximity zones”. In this schematic the zones are shown as con-
centric circles, with each circle representing a level of connection between the
participants in resource reuse (i.e. suppliers and users). The form of the illustra-
tion should not suggest that the zones represent equal size or are evenly distrib-
uted. It is meant to represent how different zones appear to “nest” or operate
within others.
As with other factors affecting reuse, the proximity level (or zone) can apply
to the activity of supplying resources for reuse or to the using/reusing of these
resources. Figure 8.2 shows the passage from one zone to another as crossing a
clear boundary, representing an identifiable change in the relationship of resource
producer and user. The shift from zone 1–6 could be described as a decline of
proximity, or growing distance, between creator and user. In practice, the move
towards more openness, in releasing resources for wider reuse, makes later retreat
to a more restricted position impractical. For example, once resources are available
1. Individual (Creator)
2. Module/Programme
3. Department/Institution
4. Community/Region
5. National
6. International/Open
FIGURE 8.2 Zones of Proximity as suggested by Pegler
under open licence to an international audience, reuse of that version cannot sub-
sequently be effectively restricted to a national or institutional zone.
Although there is a geographical dimension to the labels applied to the zones,
with “national” and “international” used to describe the two widest-ranging
zones, the zones do not necessarily denote distance or proximity in a geographi-
cal sense. Exchange of online resources does not usually recognize geographical
boundaries.
Moving beyond zone 1 level sharing is likely to require additional effort. This
could discourage proactive sharing. Motivation to reuse or share could be antici-
pated to be strongest where the proximity is highest, as the benefits of reuse are
realized by the staff expending effort in creating and sharing resources, or by their
colleagues/community.
As the zones progress from 1 to 6, the diversity of the resource sources (cre-
ators) will increase while the range of resources from each source decreases. At
zone 1, there is only one creator of resources, and 100% of that creator’s resources
reside within this zone. Most resources located here e.g. drafts and working plans
will never be made more widely available. At zone 2 and beyond, there are more
people involved in sharing or reusing. There is also a degree of selectivity (com-
pared with zone 1) in determining which resources will be shared. For example,
Margaryan et al. (2006) reporting research within the CD-LOR (Community
Dimensions of Learning Object Repositories project) found that 87% of respon-
dents shared at least some educational resources at the stage of being work in
progress. This indicates that 13% do not share any work in progress. What is not
known from that research is who these users shared progress versions with and
how proximate those were. In one case study, two participants are happy to share
even “fuzzy” work in progress, but they identified each other as co-located col-
leagues working within the same region on joint projects. Others in the same
project were more circumspect, even when talking about finished resources.
Decisions on what to share and who to share it with are important to under-
standing reuse of digital online resources (Walker & Masterman, 2010). Mov-
ing outwards through the zones from 1 to 6 requires a greater level of trust
between creators and (re)users. Participants in the exchange are less likely to have
prior knowledge of each other, so they need confidence in the description of the
resource. Users must usually take on trust technical information provided (e.g.
the clearance of, or nonexistence of third party rights within the resource). The
resource creator must trust users not to abuse any controls that have been set in
place e.g. by failing to acknowledge rights or not respecting restrictions on reuse.
The examples of proximity illustrated here, drawing on the case studies, sug-
gests that although increasingly easy to overcome technically, weak proximity
between creator and user in dissemination and discovery of reusable resources
may increase motivational tensions as well as the challenges of agreeing appro-
priate quality. With digital online resources structured for reuse and licensed as
OER, many challenges to widespread resource reuse have been addressed. How-
ever reuse within a relatively select community where trust, shared vocabulary
and common systems exist remains easiest to achieve in the short term. That
local sharing may, as these cases demonstrate, pave the way for wider sharing as
Figure 8.2 suggests.
Summary
The Important Thing We Want to Say Is:
The cross-case analysis provided in the two independently conceived longitudi-
nal studies compared in this chapter underline the complex challenges reuse can
present to operational, pedagogical and cultural aspects of university teaching.
While there has been considerable progress in addressing many of the technical
and quality concerns around reuse, there has been little progress on understanding
how to motivate reuse beyond funded projects. The question of how to persuade
educators to invest time into reuse on a consistent, continuous basis is likely to
be discipline and context dependant because these represent the least transfer
distance, the least transfer across zones of proximity.
However technically easy reuse activity has become, supported through the
networking potential of Web 2.0 tools such as Twitter, LinkedIn, Google+ and
through approaches centred on establishing communities of practice to share,
there is limited incentive for academics to select a resource for reuse, let alone
repurpose it for reuse. Expectations of time saving need to be balanced with
the practice-informed evidence about time investment required in both supply

and use.
The Wills study, despite being based on the single design of role play, points the
way to learning designs representing the most effective reuse strategy. The ulti-
mate goal may be widespread adoption of reusable learning resources; however,
support for adoption of learning designs may reap more immediate gains.
Note
1 Sandra Wills, ALTC Citation, Australia; Chris Pegler, HEA National Teaching Fellow, UK.
Prof Sandra Wills is PVC Student Learning at Charles Sturt University in Australia and
can be contacted at swills@csu.edu.au; Dr Chris Pegler is at the Institute for Educational
Technology at the Open University in the UK and can be contacted at chris.pegler@
open.ac.uk
References
Bissell, A.N. (2011). OER and open licenses: The dual-pub solution. Blog Post. http://
ahrashb.posterous.com/oer-and-open-licenses-the-dual-pub-solution.
Boyle,T. (2003). Design principles for authoring dynamic, reusable learning objects. Austra-
lian Journal of Educational Technology, 19(1), pp. 46–58.
Ferguson, N., Jacobs, N., Kernohan, D., & Schmoller, S. (2007). Conference Proceedings,
OpenLearn 2007: Sharing e-learning content: What are the main challenges? (pp. 63–66).
Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Kernohan, D. (2010). No derivatives licenses. JISCMAIL OER-SUPERList message
(closed mailing list), 4 March 11.53.
Margaryan, A., Currier, S., Littlejohn, A., & Nicol, D. (2006). Learning communities and
repositories. CDLOR project desk research report. JISC, UK.
Oliver, R., Harper, B., Hedberg, J.,Wills, S., & Agostinho, S. (2002). Formalising the descrip-
tion of learning designs. In A. Goody, J. Herrington & M. Northcote (Eds.), Quality
conversations: Research and Development in Higher Education, 25. Jamison, ACT, HERDSA.
Pegler, C. (2011). Reuse and repurposing of online digital learning resources within UK
higher education: 2003–2010. PhD thesis The Open University. http://oro.open.
ac.uk/32317/.
Pegler, C. (2012). Herzberg, hygiene and the motivation to reuse: Towards a three-factor
theory to explain motivation to share and use OER. Journal of Interactive Media in
Education, 4.
Thomson, S. (2010). A sustainable model for institutional implementation of OER. OpenEd
2010, 2–4 November, Barcelona.
Walker, S., & Masterman, L. (2010). Learning designs and the development of study skills:
Reuse and community perspectives In J. Dalziel, C. Alexander & J. Krajka (Eds.), LAMS
and Learning Design (Vol. 1) (pp. 23–38). Nicosia: University of Nicosia Press.
Weller, M. J. (2004, November). Learning objects and the e-learning cost dilemma. Open
Learning:The Journal of Open and Distance Learning, 19(3), pp. 293–302.
Wiley, D.A. (2000). Learning object design and sequencing theory. Doctoral dissertation, Brigham
Young University, Utah. http://opencontent.org//docs/dissertation.pdf.
Wiley, D. A. (2002). Connecting learning objects to instructional design theory: A defini-

tion, a metaphor, and a taxonomy. In D.Wiley (Ed.), The instructional use of learning objects.
Online Version. http://reusability.org/read/chapters/wiley.doc
Wills, S. (2010). Factors influencing the design of reusable e-learning activities in higher education.
Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Melbourne.
Wills, S. (2013). Rethinking reusability: Implications from a longitudinal study of online in
Australian higher education. In B. Tynan & J. Willems (Eds.), Outlooks and opportunities
in blended and distance learning. (pp. 130–139). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Wills, S., & McDougall, A. (2009). Reusability of online as learning objects or learning
designs. In L. Lockyer, S. Bennett, S. Agostinho, & B. Harper (Eds.), Handbook of research
on learning design and learning objects: Issues, applications and technologies (pp. 761–776).
Hershey, PA: IDEA Group.
9
THE USE AND USEFULNESS OF
TRANSDISCIPLINARY PEDAGOGICAL
TEMPLATES
Eva Dobozy and James Dalziel
Introduction
The ultimate goal of Learning Design is to convey great teaching ideas
among educators in order to improve student learning . . . successful sharing
of good teaching ideas can lead not only to more effective teaching, but also
to more efficient preparation for teaching.
(Larnaca Declaration on Learning Design, see Ch. 1 in this volume)
Transdisciplinary pedagogical templates (TPTs) provide a way to implement

learning designs across disciplinary boundaries (Dobozy, Dalziel & Dalziel, 2013).
They contain specific, ready-to-be-used information or content related to the
pedagogical decision-making and instruction of educators and students and offer
many advantages to time-poor educators at all levels of the education system.
TPTs or pedagogical design templates are generic designs that may or may not
align to specific learning theories. Their key feature is that they are discipline
independent. In this chapter, we illustrate how they can streamline and simplify
pedagogical planning.
Transdisciplinary pedagogical templates (TPTs) can assist educators to pro-
vide a productive learning environment where students are supported throughout
their academic maturation. At the university level, many educators are discipline
specialists, familiar with their discipline-specific literature, rules and procedures.
However, often, they are less interested in, or knowledgeable of contemporary
learning theory and Learning Design principles that underpin pedagogical design
decisions (Dalziel, 2008; Dobozy et al., 2013). In the past, the most common
184 Eva Dobozy and James Dalziel
mode of content delivery was a traditional lecture format. Even in the digital age,
traditional content delivery through live or recorded lectures is widely accepted
as an efficient and effective pedagogical model. Hence, video lectures as a form of
online learning content presentation have gained popularity in higher education.
Armstrong notes that Coursera, a leading MOOCs provider, “pledges to work to
develop best practices for online presentations and share them with instructors,
and the [host] university promises to present the video lecture content ‘chunked’
into short videos” (2012, p. 1).
The collection of facts, rules and procedures that a lecturer aims to “impart”
using the traditional lecture format is aligned with a classical instructionist teaching
and learning paradigm. Munz notes that “the concept of instruction is modelled on
the push-and-pull causality of classical mechanics” and adheres to an epistemology
which postulated that “knowledge is generated by pushes, exercised by the world on
the mind” (1993, p. 147) as a kind of information-processing machine. Despite the
long-lasting popularity of the instructionist teaching and learning model in higher
education, universities are increasingly adopting a more diverse range of pedagogical
practices. Universities aim to offer more learner-centred and personalized learning
experiences, which complement or sometimes disrupt formal teacher-centric edu-
cational practices (Metcalfe & Fenwick, 2009). In other words, demand is growing
for diversity of teaching and learning practices that fit disciplinary requirements
for deep, profession-specific or technical content knowledge, but also allow for the
development of less tangible soft skills, such as cooperative learning, communication
and critical thinking. These new, non-technical skill sets have often been referred
to as “21st century skills/competencies”, and linked to the requirements of highly
trained knowledge workers ready to engage with as yet unknown problems (Shecht-
man, deBarger, Dornsife, Rosier & Yarnall, 2013). The global knowledge economy
requires 21st-century knowledge workers with a mix of technical and generic
knowledge, skills and attitudes, and a readiness to engage with and be tolerant of
difference and diversity in views, values and experience (Dobozy, 2011; Shechtman
et al., 2013). The new field of Learning Design (LD) has emerged as a specialized
field of education to assist university teachers in the preparation of 21st-century
knowledge workers. LD can help university teachers in the design of virtual learning
spaces and learning activities that are engaging and lead to better learning outcomes.
In broad terms, contemporary lecturers, irrespective of their disciplinary back-
grounds, will need to acknowledge the legitimacy of different teaching and learn-
ing paradigms, based on different learning theories. The different paradigms and
learning theories bring with them a plurality of methods and rules of teaching
and learning practice. Investigating the paradigm ascribed to a particular learning
activity sequence is important because “to be locked in a particular paradigm is to
view the world in a particular way” (Burrell & Morgan, 1974, p. 24).The design of
a learning activity sequence, based on a particular epistemological and ontologi-
cal model, is referred to as Learning Design Practice (LD-P) within the Larnaca
Declaration on Learning Design (see Ch. 1 in this volume).
Transdisciplinary Pedagogical Templates 185
This chapter is structured as follows: First, Learning Design principles as outlined

in the Larnaca Declaration are introduced. Second, the need for pedagogical clar-
ity is explored and three different learning and teaching paradigms are introduced.
Third, “transdisciplinary pedagogical templates” (TPTs) are proposed as a model
to assist educators in providing pedagogical clarity and deciding how to teach
without the need for additional pedagogical training. Fourth, various TPT models
illustrate how different teacher and learner roles are instantiated in different TPTs
that subscribe to different learning theories, demonstrating the attractiveness of
TPTs, underpinned by a reuse philosophy, and the notion that such material can be
adopted or adapted for various purposes by other learning designers and developers.
The Larnaca Declaration Learning Design Principles

The educational field of Learning Design (LD) emerged out of the need to study
and describe the development, implementation and adaption of particular learn-
ing designs, created in various contexts and for multiple purposes (Conole, 2013).
LD as a specific field of education is concerned with the pedagogical approaches
taken that support the learning of narrow profession-specific technical informa-
tion and/or broad generic knowledge and skills (Dobozy, 2012). More specifically,
its purpose is to “assist educators to describe effective teaching ideas so that they
can be shared with, and adapted by, other educators” (see Ch. 1 in this volume).
In other words, LD’s aim, similar to architectural design, involves the planning
and construction of physical or virtual spaces and objects, and in education these
designs may lead to improvements in teaching and learning effectiveness, learner
engagement and learning outcomes.
One key defining feature of LD, as described in the Larnaca Declaration on
Learning Design, is its “provocative aspiration towards pedagogical neutrality”,
meaning that its attractiveness may lay in its ability to accommodate multiple
teaching and learning approaches. LD should therefore be “viewed as a layer of
abstraction” (see Ch. 1 in this volume) that is independent of paradigmatic restric-
tions, methods and rules of practice. Similar to a musical notation, the Learning
Design Framework (LD-F) as introduced in the Larnaca Declaration on Learning
Design is a framework made up of multiple elements that, taken together, aspired
to be free from representational and/or values constraints (see Dalziel & Dobozy,
Chapter 3 this volume).
Despite the values neutrality ascribed to the Learning Design Framework
(LD-F), there is a clear acknowledgement that the epistemological and ontologi-
cal assumptions of specific learning design sequences (Learning Design Practice
or LD-P) are based on a variety of views of reality. For example, social construc-
tivist and/or connectivist learning theory is based on a view of reality that is
subject to interpretations and personal meaning making. This view of reality is
quite different from one in which knowledge is independent from the person
and perceived as stable, fixed and verifiable through objective testing and simple
observation (which is ascribed to a positivist view of the world and aligned with
instructionism, also often referred to as behaviourist learning theory).
Hence, if a lecturer subscribes to a non-positivist view of reality and learn-
ing, classical transmission education may be devalued as something that is at best
ineffective and at worst distorts the concept of what it means “to know”. Con-
sequently, a reusable learning activity sequence complete with learning content
that is based on an instructionist paradigm would most likely not be viewed as an
acceptable solution by this lecturer, even if the learning content would be aligned
to the curriculum requirements.The reason is that the sequence’s set of pedagogi-
cal principles do not align with the lecturer’s view of reality—her or his view of
what is knowledge, what is valuable and the relationship between the knower and
what is to be known. Pansiri explains:
Paradigms have been defined as “world views’ that signal distinctive onto-
logical (view of reality), epistemological (view of knowledge and relation-
ships between knower and to-be known), methodological (view of mode of
inquiry), and axiological (view of what is valuable) positions.
(2005, p. 96)
Therefore, the transdisciplinary pedagogical templates (TPTs) captured as

reusable “great teaching ideas” (see Ch. 1 in this volume) will need to fulfil
one of two functions: either they need to be perceived as “neutral,” in the
sense that they do not privilege particular ontological and/or epistemologi-
cal values, or they need to incorporate a range of options that would allow
for a plurality of views of reality (epistemological and ontological values) and
aligned learning theories.
The Need for Pedagogical Clarity

This discussion demonstrates the need for pedagogical clarity in the advancement
of learning design practice and research. This point has also been made in the
Larnaca Declaration on Learning Design:
[I]t is possible to conceive of a framework for describing many different

types of teaching and learning activities, and that this framework could
appropriately aspire towards being pedagogically neutral, even if this goal
is unachievable in an absolute sense. The practical goal is a framework of
sufficient accuracy and expressiveness that it can describe many different
examples of teaching and learning activities (which are themselves based
on different pedagogical theories). . . . The ultimate rationale for Learning
Design is that it can convey great teaching ideas among educators in order
that learners may learn more effectively. This improved learning arises from
their educators adopting new, effective teaching strategies for designing
learning experiences. The conceptual difficulty is that the Learning Design

framework tries to avoid privileging any particular pedagogical theory over
another . . . and yet almost all educators who could use Learning Design
would wish to use it to improve learning, and improving learning requires
a theory of how students learn.
(see Ch. 1 of this volume)
Here, we have opted to illustrate the importance of pedagogical clarity through

the exploration of the three major educational paradigms or ways of teaching
and learning according to specific views of reality and knowledge; and exempli-
fied by what is valued as desirable competency. The chosen paradigms provide a
way to illustrate the significant differences that exist in design. As Thomas Kuhn
explains:
More is involved, however, than the incommensurability of standards. Since

new Paradigms are born from old ones, they ordinarily incorporate much of
the vocabulary and apparatus, both conceptual and manipulative, that the tra-
ditional paradigm had previously employed. But they seldom employ these
borrowed elements in quite the traditional way. Within the new paradigm,
old terms, concepts, and experiments fall into new relationships one with the
other.The inevitable result is what we must call, though the term is not quite
right, a misunderstanding between the two competing schools.
(1996, p. 149)
This quote may explain why there is much confusion about what similarities
and differences exist among the great variety of learning theories and traditions
outlined by, or attributed to educational thinkers and if, for example, Albert Ban-
dura should be classed as a behaviourist (McLeod, 2007) or cognitivist (Slavich &
Zimbardo, 2012). Nevertheless, there is a general acceptance that learning theo-
ries, rather than being unified, accepted theories of teaching and learning, are a
collection of overlapping general ideas based on epistemological and ontological
realities; for example, the relationship between instructionism and behaviourism,
cognitivism and information processing theory, and social constructivism and
connectivism. For reasons of simplicity and clarity, we opted to refer to three
distinctively different educational paradigms as follows:
• Instructionism
• Cognitivism
• Social Constructivism/Connectivism
The definitional constructs, key characteristics and functions of the three dis-
tinct educational paradigms as we currently understand them will form the basis
of our exploration of TPTs and LD-Ps (see Table 9.1).
TABLE 9.1 Three different educational paradigms
Instructionism Cognitivism Social Constructivism / Connectivism
Definition “Learners learn “Knowledge can be seen as schema or symbolic Both contemporary learning theories
through mental constructions. Learning is defined foreground student autonomy, agency
listening, watching as change in a learner’s schemata. . . . The and relatedness (Community of
and reading, i.e. architecture of the brain’s cognitive processes can Practice model or Personal Learning
learning through be likened to the standard engineering model Environment). Learning as knowledge
acquisition of for computer information processing: input; sharing, and meaning making through
knowledge and processing; storage; output. This is not to say that experience and exchange, embracing
concepts” (example the brain is patterned like a computer; rather it is authenticity, intentionality, diversity and
from Laurillard, to say that we have, consciously or unconsciously, open-mindedness (Mok, 2013).
2010, p. 21). designed computers to work much as our brains “A learner will always be subjected to
do” (Cognitive Approaches to Learning, 2008, influences from the social and cultural
p. 1). setting in which the learning occurs,
which will also define at least partly the
learning outcomes. This view of learning
focusses on the way knowledge is
distributed socially” (Mayes & de Freitas,
2010, p. 9).
Key Behaviourist— Information processing theory, individualist, Relativist, situated, relational and
characteristic stimulus-based mind-body connection transformative learning theories
learning theory
Centricity Teacher-centric Teacher/Learner-centric Learner-centric
Learning focus Predominantly Content/Process Predominantly process
content
Teacher role Knowledge teller Knowledge teller using step-by-step instruction and Knowledge curator and mentor
mentor
Student role Tabula rasa, consumer Some prior knowledge acknowledged and Producer and sharer of dynamic knowledge,
of pre-packaged misconceptions expected, consumer of building on collective prior knowledge
information pre-packaged information of team, challenging and displacing
individual misconceptions
Purpose Substantial “just-in- Substantial “just-in-case” knowledge and skills Mainly “just-in-time” knowledge and skills
case” knowledge development development
and skills
development
Interaction Primarily teacher to Primarily teacher to student Primarily student to student
pattern student
Thinking skills Primarily lower-order Some lower-order thinking (knowledge and Higher-order thinking (analyzing,
(Bloom’s thinking application of knowledge and skills) and some synthesizing, critiquing, redesigning and
taxonomy) (knowledge and higher-order thinking applying information to new contexts)
application of
knowledge and
skills)
Power/Agency Teacher in charge of Teacher in charge of content decision, but students Student in charge of content and process
content and process may have input into process decisions—medium decisions—high student agency
decisions—low to low student agency
student agency
Assessment Summative—high Summative—high stakes and/or formative, authentic Authentic, formative and summative
stakes
Transdisciplinary Pedagogical Templates

The generation of pedagogical plans or templates has a long tradition in educa-
tion. Nevertheless, the creation and sharing of Web-based pedagogical templates
among educators is relatively new and has enjoyed great popularity in recent years
(Sampson, Zervas & Sotirion, 2011). The transdisciplinary pedagogical templates
(TPTs) we introduce here are aligned to the three different schools of thought
explored earlier. The creation of TPTs is underpinned by a reuse philosophy and
the notion that such material can be adopted or adapted for various purposes
by other learning designers and developers. It exemplifies the idea that creating
and sharing “good teaching ideas” (see Ch. 1 of this volume) is related to learn-
ing objects, “whereby learning content is broken down into discrete amounts of
learning and material which can be brought together to deliver different learning
outcomes” (Akeroyd, 2005, p. 161).
Earlier work with TPTs (Dalziel, Mason & Dalziel, 2009; Dobozy et al., 2013)
has observed that some educators seem uncomfortable populating an empty shell
(pedagogical template) designed by a learning design expert. The need to see
how various learning theories (instructionism; cognitivism; social constructivism/
connectivism) are applied in practice, and a real learning situation, has inspired us
to showcase two different design examples for each theory. Dalziel et al. (2009)
have termed them “local designs” and “generic designs”. The primary difference
between local and generic learning designs is the role of content.
A local design is termed as one which combines discipline-specific content and
pedagogical decision-making and action on the part of the educator and student,
resulting in a “ready-to-be-used” learning design by a colleague from the same
discipline area. A generic design is structured in a way that encourages educators to
insert their relevant discipline-specific content into a generic pedagogical tem-
plate (see Table 9.2).
Our generic designs will contain specific information (content) related to
the pedagogical decision-making and instruction to educators and students. This
pedagogical information is sometimes referred to as metadata in the context of
Web-based learning design repositories (Akeroyd, 2005; Oliver, 2004), however, in
the current context, this advice includes pedagogical instructions inside individual
activities within the overall generic design (not just design-level descriptive meta-
data). It is important to note that the TPTs are, by definition, generic in nature.
Although they contain pedagogical advice, they are free from discipline-specific
content information.
The key difference between generic and local designs for educators who use
them is the need for sophisticated pedagogical knowledge in conjunction with
discipline-specific knowledge (for generic designs) versus the need for highly
specialist content knowledge and skills only (for local designs). The attractive-
ness of generic designs is the potential for easy application in various disciplinary
TABLE 9.2 Local and generic designs
Local Designs TPTs—Generic Designs
Discipline-specific curriculum content Included Not included

Pedagogical advice and instructions Included Included
Ready to be used Yes No
contexts with minimal effort and cost. The next section will illustrate the ease
with which discipline-specific curriculum content can be inserted into specific
TPTs that align with one of the three learning and teaching paradigms explored
earlier.
Various Models of Transdisciplinary Pedagogical Templates

This section illustrates how curriculum specialists can choose a particular tem-
plate design and simply insert their discipline-specific curriculum content into
the pre-designed sections. We have chosen LAMS as a platform to exemplify the
use and usefulness of TPTs. The first TPT (generic and local) designs are aligned
with the instructionist paradigm (see Figure 9.1), whereas the second TPT design
is underpinned by a cognitivist approach to learning and teaching (see Figure 9.2),
and the third TPT design adheres to social constructivist and/or connectivist
learning and teaching principles (see Figure 9.3).
The curriculum content chosen to exemplify how a discipline specialist can
use the TPTs is drawn from teacher education. More specifically, it pertains to the
Mathematics Learning Area and focusses on the topic of “number sequence and the
Fibonacci numbers”. In each of the three examples, the learning design sequence
is entitled: An investigation into Fibonacci numbers. It seeks similar discipline-specific
(profession-specific technical) learning outcomes, but also incorporates the learn-
ing of generic competencies, which will feature more prominently in the second
and especially third pair of learning design examples (LD-P). Nevertheless, all
three LD-Ps deal with the same discipline-specific learning content, which was
adapted from a free online lesson sequence provided by the MENSA Education
and Research Foundation (2009) designed to extend the learning of gifted and
talented primary school-aged children (see Table 9.3).
It is worth emphasizing that this illustration of local and generic designs for
the three educational philosophies (giving six permutations in all) is not specific
to the teaching of mathematics—indeed any discipline area could be analyzed in
a similar way. For the sake of illustration, it is most useful to consider one specific
topic (in this case, Fibonacci numbers) in all six permutations (or three pairs) in
order to illustrate the differences across each permutation, rather than to give
several different topic examples without showing all six permutations for each.
FIGURE 9.1 Instructionist TPTs
FIGURE 9.1 (Continued)
FIGURE 9.2 Cognitivist TPTs
We leave it to future authors to explore similar examples of the six permutations

in other discipline areas.
What follows is an illustration of the first pair of permutations based on an
instructionist approach. The generic design is provided on the left, with sup-
plementation of the generic design with discipline-specific content shown on
the right. Only the highlighted sections of the content pages are changed. The
pedagogical instructions are kept intact, meaning a content specialist can use this
pedagogical information “as is” (i.e. without needing change) while focussing on
adding content information. (The complete LAMS sequence can be accessed
here: http://lamscommunity.org/lamscentral/sequence?seq_id=1869791.)
Following the illustration of an instructionist learning design, we introduce the
second pair of permutations based on a design that is modelled on a cognitivist
educational paradigm, using the same learning area and subject-specific content.
As outlined in Table 9.1, the cognitivist approach focusses on the individual stu-
dent’s current knowledge base and how to extend it. Hence, the lesson sequence
commences with a real-world example to tap into the student’s understanding and
to alert the teacher to difficulties. The key idea is to acknowledge that students
come to learning with many experiences and a rich knowledge base. Hence it
is important to not only acknowledge existing knowledge, but also to displace
misconceptions and build new discipline-specific and critical thinking knowl-
edge and skills through engagement with the learning activities. (The complete
LAMS sequence can be accessed here: http://lamscommunity.org/lamscentral/
sequence?seq_id=1869794.)
FIGURE 9.3 Social constructivist / connectivist TPTs
TABLE 9.3 Discipline-specific curriculum content of exemplar TPTs
Discipline Teacher Education

Learning To understand and explain what Fibonacci numbers are, the
outcomes mathematical formula which defines the recurrent relation and
how the Fibonacci numbers relate to nature and the concept of
the perfect rectangle
Learning content
Who was Fibonacci in The “golden ratio”/the perfect
Fibonacci? nature rectangle
Fibonacci numbers Fibonacci numbers The really interesting thing about making
(Fn) are named are an interesting rectangles is that the ratio (the number that
after Leonardo mathematical idea. shows how the sides relate to each other) stays
Fibonacci Pisano, The prevalence of the same, no matter how big the rectangle gets.
the mathematician their appearance in This ratio gives us rectangles that relate to the
who popularized nature and the ease “golden ratio”.The golden ratio can be found
“algorithm” (step-by- of understanding by dividing the long side by the short side. So if
step procedure) in them makes you have a rectangle that is 3 x 5, you would
Europe in the 13th them an excellent divide 5 by 3.This will give us a number right
century. About principle for young around 1.61 (the Greek letter phi).The ancient
800 years ago, he children to study Egyptians and ancient Greeks already knew
wrote a book in which and understand the the number and, because they regarded it as an
he included a math relationship between aesthetically pleasing ratio, often used it when
problem that went like school-based building monuments (e.g. the Parthenon).The
this: mathematics pentagram so popular among the Pythagoreans
“A certain man put a learning and nature. also contains the golden ratio. It is also used in
pair of rabbits in a modern buildings and constructions.The golden
place surrounded by ratio plays a role in human perception of beauty,
a wall. How many as in body shapes and faces.
pairs of rabbits can be
produced from that
pair in a year if it is
supposed that every
month each pair begets
a new pair from which
the second month on
becomes productive?”
(Liber abbaci,
pp. 283–284, cited
in MENSA, 2009,
p. 2).
Finally, we introduce a design that is modelled on a social constructivist/con-

nectivist educational paradigm, using the same learning area and subject-specific
content. As outlined in Table 9.1, the social constructivist/connectivist approach
focusses on the idea of “intersubjectivity”. Through social activities, such as dis-
cussion and debate, students share their ideas, which are transformed into inter-
nal mental models. Hence, students’ thinking is gradually transformed through
observation and participation in social interactions. This kind of knowledge scaf-
folding is quite different from other educational paradigms—according to this
view of learning, students need each other to learn most effectively. Hence, the
lesson sequence commences with a real-world, ill-structured problem. Students
are required to function as a team to work through the problem, testing their
ideas and building on the knowledge of others. They learn to understand that
the knowledge they hold together is more powerful than the knowledge they
individually possess. (The complete LAMS sequence can be accessed here: http://
lamscommunity.org/lamscentral/sequence?seq_id=1870176.)
The three examples of the application of TPT designs in teacher education
make overt the alignment of the pedagogical design to a specific educational
paradigm. Irrespective of the preference for a particular pedagogical style, which is
underpinned by a specific learning theory and embedded within a common edu-
cational paradigm, the user of the design does not need to possess sophisticated
pedagogical knowledge. Instead he or she simply needs to follow the steps in each
section of the sequence and insert the discipline-specific content as noted in the
highlighted sections of the TPTs.
Reuse Philosophy
The central idea of designing pedagogical templates is their potential for adaptive
reuse. Adaptive reuse is a common architectural design strategy (Conejos, 2013)
that seems attractive also for pedagogy.The adopted generic template (instruction-
ist TPT, cognitivist TPT or social constructivist/connectivist TPT), while open
to modification as a pedagogical “blueprint”, provides a workable pedagogical
solution that can be applied in many different contexts. Hence, we argue that the
potential of TPT design lies with the ease of user application of these examples
of LD-P in various disciplinary contexts, with minimal effort and cost. However,
as TPTs become more widely known and used, their strengths and weaknesses,
structural integrity and the breadth, depth and appropriateness of elements will
need to be evaluated.
As noted in some early studies on reuse of learning designs (e.g. Dalziel,
2013; Dalziel et al., 2009) the benefits of TPTs are not limited to the direct use
of these templates in preparing teaching materials; they can also assist with the
professional development of educators in pedagogical concepts. For example,
educators who review TPTs often comment on how the exploration of the
generic and local versions of the design assisted them with understanding the
underlying pedagogical assumptions of the templates, and even when they do
not plan to use the given TPT in a specific teaching situation, they retain the
“essence” of the idea for later adaptation in another teaching context (Dalziel
et al., 2009). Hence, exploration of TPTs can be a useful component of profes-
sional learning for educators even apart from specific plans for implementation
with students.
Conclusion
The complexity of pedagogical decision making has been acknowledged in
higher education in combination with a growing understanding that some
subject specialists need support to bring their teaching methods into the 21st
century. Whereas some lecturers seek assistance so that they can offer more
interactive learning experiences, built on social constructivist/connectivist
learning theory, others are interested in infusing their teaching with Web 2.0
applications, gradually moving from an instructionist approach to teaching and
learning to a cognitivist approach as they focus on the teaching and learning
of foundational knowledge. In this chapter, we not only provided an argument
for the adoption of TPTs, but illustrated the attractiveness of pedagogical tem-
plate design. Moreover, we introduced the Larnaca Declaration on Learning
Design and explored the idea of a layer of abstraction, making possible a view
of LD that is on one hand “neutral” or independent of paradigmatic restric-
tions (see LD-F), and on the other hand acknowledge that epistemological and
ontological assumptions that guide a lecturer’s belief about good teaching are
most often aligned with specific learning theories (see LD-P). Hence, the TPTs
introduced here as examples of generic designs align to different educational
paradigms to provide choice to lecturing staff. As a busy lecturer with in-depth
subject-specific knowledge, it is not necessary to engage in time-consuming
and costly upskilling to create new pedagogical templates from scratch. Instead,
he or she can choose from the bank of pre-designed TPTs that provide a “best
fit” with her or his epistemological and ontological beliefs about good teach-
ing and then easily populate the selected TPT with discipline-specific content
without the need for complex pedagogical knowledge. Educators’ time is, so we
argue, better spent adapting and modifying “ready-to-use” templates for their
specific contexts, rather than holding on to “old” teaching methods, because
they may lack the time and expertise to develop something that is better suited
to the contemporary educational marketplace. Nevertheless, educators intend-
ing to modify TPT designs may not necessarily be proficient in certain peda-
gogical paradigms and teaching techniques, which may result in changes that
alter the pedagogical approach of the design—further research is required to
investigate the practical use of TPTs.
References
Akeroyd, J. (2005). Information management and e-learning: Some perspectives. ASLIB
Proceedings, 52(2), pp. 157–168.
Armstrong, A. (2012). Coursera and MITx—sustaining or disruptive? Changing Higher Edu-
cation. Available at www.changinghighereducation.com/2012/08/coursera-.html.
Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis. London:
Heinemann.
Conejos, S. (2013). Designing for future building adaptive reuse. PhD thesis. Institute of
Sustainable Development and Architecture. Available at http://epublications.bond.edu.
au/theses/72/.
Conole, G. (2013). Designing for learning in an open world. New York, NY: Springer.
Cognitive Approaches to Learning. (2008). Definition. Available at www.sparkplug9.com/
etec512/sparkplug9.com/etec512/2008/09/28/definition/index.html.
Dalziel, B., Mason, G. & Dalziel, J. (2009). Using a template for LAMS in a medical setting.
In Proceedings of the 4th International LAMS Conference. Opening Up Learning Design.
3–4 December. Sydney: LAMS Foundation, pp. 65–71.
Dalziel, J. (2008). Learning Design: Sharing pedagogical know-how. In T. Iiyoshi & M.S.V.
Kumar (Eds.), Opening up education: The collective Advancement of Education through Open
Technology, Open Content, and Open Knowledge (pp. 375–387). Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Dalziel, J. (2013). Implementing learning design: A decade of lessons learned. In H.
Carter, M. Gosper & J. Hedberg (Eds.), Electric dreams. Proceedings ascilite 2013 Sydney
(pp. 210–220).
Dobozy, E. (2011). Resisting student consumers and assisting student producers. In C.
Nygaard, N. Courtney & C. Holtham (Eds.), Beyond transmission: Innovations in university
teaching (pp. 11–26). Faringdon, UK: Libri Publishing.
Dobozy, E. (2012). Typologies of learning design and the introduction of a “LD-Type 2”
case example. In P. Ullmo & T. Koskinen (Eds.), eLearning papers—special edition 2012:
Opening learning horizons. Barcelona, Spain.
Dobozy, E., Dalziel, J. & Dalziel, B. (2013). Learning design and transdisciplinary pedagogi-
cal templates (TPTs). In C. Nygaard, J. Branch & C. Holtham (Eds.), Learning in uni-
versity education—contemporary standpoints (pp. 59–76). Faringdon, UK: Libri Publishing.
Kuhn,T. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Laurillard, D. (2010). An approach to curriculum design. Available at www.lkl.ac.uk/ltu/
files/publications/Laurillard-An_Approach_to_Curriculum_Design-WIP.pdf.
Mayes, T., & de Freitas, S. (2010). JISC e-Learning models desk study: Stage 2: Review of
e-learning theories, frameworks and models. Available at www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_doc
uments/Stage%202%20Learning%20Models%20(Version%201).pdf 23 August 2013.
McLeod, S. A. (2007). Behaviorism—simply psychology. Available at www.simplypsychol
ogy.org/behaviorism.html.
MENSA Education and Research Foundation (2009). 4th grade lesson plan—fabulous
Fibonacci and his nifty numbers. Available at www.mensaforkids.org/lessons/fibo
nacci/mfklessons-fibonacci-all.pdf.
Metcalfe, A., & Fenwick, T. (2009). Knowledge for whose society? Knowledge production,
higher education, and federal policy in Canada. Higher Education, 57(2), pp. 209–225.
Mok, S. (2013). Which learning theory would be most appropriate for our education sys-
tem? Instructivism, constructivism, or connectivism? Blog post. Available at http://
suifaijohnmak.wordpress.com/2013/03/27/which-learning-theory-would-be-most-
appropriate-for-our-education-system-instructivism-constructivism-or-connectiv
ism/.
Munz, P. (1993). Philosophical Darwinism: On the origin of knowledge by means of natural selec-
tion. New York, NY: Routledge.
Oliver, R. (2004). Factors impeding institutional design and the choice of learning designs in online
courses. Available at http://elrond.scam.ecu.edu.au/oliver/2003/workshop_paper.pdf.
Pansiri, J. (2005). Pragmatism: A methodological approach to researching strategic alliances
in tourism. Tourism and Hospitality Planning & Development, 2(3), pp. 191–206.
Roscoe, D., & Chi, M. (2007). Understanding tutor learning: Knowledge-building and
knowledge-telling in peer-tutors’ explanation and questions. Review of Educational
Research, 77(4), pp. 534–574.
Sampson, D., Zervas, P. & Sotirion, S. (2011). COSMOS: A Web-based repository of learn-
ing designs for science educators. Advanced Science Letters, 4(11–12), pp. 3366–3374.
Shechtman, N., deBarger, A., Dornsife, C., Rosier, S. & Yarnall, L. (2013). Promoting grit,
tenacity, and perseverance: Critical factors for success in the 21st century. Draft report
prepared by the Centre for Technology in Learning, U.S. Department of Education
Office of Educational Technology. Available at www.ed.gov/edblogs/technology/
files/2013/02/OET-Draft-Grit-Report-2–17–13.pdf.
Slavich, G., & Zimbardo, P. (2012). Transformational teaching: Theoretical underpinnings,
basic principles, and core methods. Educational Psychology Review, 24(4), pp. 569–608.
10
SOCIAL ADOPTION OF
LEARNING DESIGN
Emil Badilescu-Buga
Introduction
The Larnaca Declaration (See Chapter 1) describes the field of Learning Design
as follows:
The new field of Learning Design seeks to develop a descriptive framework

for teaching and learning activities (“educational notation”), and to explore
how this framework can assist educators to share and adopt great teaching
ideas.
According to the Larnaca Declaration’s proposed model, Learning Design has

three components: the Conceptual Map (a wider educational landscape related
to core Learning Design concepts), the Learning Design Framework (a lan-
guage/notational format/visualization used for describing teaching and learn-
ing activities using different pedagogical approaches) and the Learning Design
Practice (the application of Learning Design concepts in practice).This structure
implies that the adoption of Learning Design cannot be limited to the under-
standing and acceptance of a theoretical concept, but it needs to include a range
of practical considerations in relation to the teaching cycle, learning environ-
ment, guidance, representation and sharing, tools, resources and learner responses
(See Chapter 1).
Because Learning Design and its implementation in practice rely on sharing
and collaboration as an essential part of the educational process, it is useful to con-
sider the research question of how the adoption of Learning Design is enabled by
social factors that exist in the form of natural individual connections, professional
networks and communities. The leadership of educational institutions could
Social Adoption of Learning Design 209
benefit from research that tries to answer this question to learn how to accelerate
the adoption of new methodologies and tools and pace their investment effort to
obtain enhanced outcomes more effectively.
The first study discussed in this chapter examines the social adoption of a
Learning Design online tool using a model of social adoption of innovation
derived from a comprehensive educational research literature that analyzes vari-
ous aspects of adopting an online Learning Design tool and its use in teaching
and learning practice.
The online tool considered in this study is the Learning Activity Manage-
ment System (LAMS). This tool implements a Learning Design framework using
open source (http://lamsinternational.com) and many teachers around the world
have used it for a decade or so. The framework, the product and the platform
architecture are based on the fundamental belief that better teaching and learning
outcomes are achieved through sharing and collaborative participation.
The second study included in this chapter presents some of the findings
resulting from a project that looked into the influence and spread of ideas in the
research field of Learning Design using citation social networks analysis. Although
this research is not about how new educational methodologies are adopted, it
offers a social perspective on how research authors worked together on research
and publications in this particular field. The reason this study is included in this
chapter is to show how the model of social adoption of ideas applies to researchers
working in a field in its early stages. Educators who have adopted Learning Design
should have similar characteristics as innovators and early adopters, as the discus-
sion of the first study will explain in the following section. The conclusions from
the two studies overlap, suggesting that adoption of innovation is not exclusively
dependent on the availability of quality of training and structured acquisition of
knowledge through large institutional programmes, but it is strongly influenced
by social factors, which can stimulate or inhibit the adoption.
Social Adoption of Learning Design with LAMS

An earlier research study (Badilescu-Buga, 2011) proposed that a large-scale adop-
tion is multi-dimensional and synchronous: a number of conditions have to be
met in order to advance the adoption of innovation through its stages as described
in the classic adoption model based on the work of Moore (2002), Rogers (2003),
and Christensen, Horn and Johnson (2008).The research study conducted a com-
prehensive literature review consisting of 23 research papers on the adoption of
LAMS by individuals and institutions around the world, its practical implementa-
tion, and related educational projects and programmes.
What makes the social aspect of the adoption of Learning Design more impor-
tant is the inherent nature of the field. The most important promise of Learning
Design is the sharing of good teaching and learning ideas (Dalziel, 2010).
210 Emil Badilescu-Buga
FIGURE 10.1 Multi-dimensional adoption of innovation
Adoption of online Learning Design tools takes place in a social context. The
role of social interactions is important when new methods, concepts and tools are
trialled. The complexity of new systems is imposing a cognitive tax on the adop-
tion effort. This is difficult to address because the field hasn’t yet reached an early
majority adoption stage (see Figure 10.1) when training, instruction manuals and
practices are standardized and readily available.
The study used adoption of innovation models by four interdependent
domains (see Figure 10.1) in which adoption takes place in synchronized stages.
According to this study, the innovation advances to the next level of adoption
when the ideas are diffused within the adopters’ social structures typical to the
current adoption level, the use of information has the appropriate cognitive struc-
tures (information organization, processing and conversion into knowledge), and
the innovation is implemented using adequate professional standards (training,
professional accreditation).
The Adoption Stages

Innovators Stage
The earliest stage occurs in communities of practice, as Wenger (2009) defined
them, where the focus of members is innovative designs involving an intense
process of collaboration, face-to-face interaction and tasks aimed at reaching a
high-risk innovation goal. This is a stage during which innovators try new prod-
ucts, services and concepts, transforming the current practice.
The explicit cognitive structures are not fully developed at this stage as there
is little or no documentation because of the experimental characteristics of the
work.The newly generated information is shared based on trust and implicit rules
borne out of a long history of cooperation between the members of the com-
munities of practice, face-to-face interaction and ad hoc creative activities. Trial
data and related observations are generated and presented in pedagogical terms,
and other minimal cognitive items are shared through mostly informal conversa-
tions among members of community of practice. Innovators involved at this stage
are highly skilled and have the ability to identify emergent usage patterns, leading
to definitions of concepts, solutions for increased efficiency and distribution to a
broader user base.
Professional practice is established based on the knowledge and the skills of
members of the community of practice who learn by doing throughout the inno-
vation process.The innovators may share the acquired knowledge and experience
with the broader professional community and interact with others interested in
the new development.
Early Adopters
Walker and Masterman (2010) found that small communities of practice are early
adopters of innovation. It is important to make the distinction between the com-
munities of practice of innovators and early adopters. The early adopters are part
of a loosely connected network of distributed communities aiming at adopting
new tools and processes made available by the original innovators. Hung and
Nichani refer to the networks as quasi-communities characterized by loosely knit
relationships, bound by an indirect, explicit flow of information, with members
largely unknown to each other and in general exhibiting low organizational trust
(Hung & Nichani, 2002b). The online quasi-communities are built ad hoc in
spaces created by a hosting public infrastructure, which could be generic (wikis,
Yahoo, Facebook) or more specialized (LAMS communities, CloudWorks: http://
cloudworks.ac.uk/).
According to Hung and Nichani, in a community of practice learning is
demand driven, it is social, and it is identity forming (Hung & Nichani, 2002a).
These characteristics may be used to differentiate between formal school learning
communities and “real-life” communities. Teachers join the quasi-communities
because of their intrinsic motivation—seeking to learn and be inspired by what
they find—cultivate relationships with other members based on common inter-
ests and needs, and in the process share their own experience.
Finding information and learning through an individual effort using informa-
tion systems (computer based or otherwise) that employ instructions, manuals
and structured aid in general is also part of the adoption process. To make the
experience and findings available to others, the artefacts innovators generate need
to be gradually organized distinctly as an information source which is accessible

through an interface that communicates messages in a linguistic form with lower
semantic levels (Ingwersen, 1996). This loss of meaning is a barrier to adoption.
Teachers need to invest effort in using cognitive structures based on their per-
ception and interpretation of their current cognitive state to access information
necessary to perform their pedagogically contextualized work tasks. Thus early
adopters in quasi-communities need to have clear cognitive structures to help
them access effectively the information matching their needs for problem-solving
purposes.
Social cognitive structures raise the level of trust in quasi-communities
through an open and transparent feedback system that participants can use to rank
Learning Design objects, providing commentary and making recommendations
(Cohen & Prusak, 2001). Over time these cognitive structures will build implicit
trust similar to organizational trust that binds together members of communities
of practice (Hung & Nichani, 2002b). Creating such structures is not an easy task.
The organizations that develop, maintain and support them must ensure they have
adequate levels of long-term funding.
Shared learning designs need to be based on sound pedagogical principles
(Walker & Masterman, 2010) which should be supported by Learning Design
tools. As an increasing number of users adopts the online tools, a professional
framework needs to be put in place for two purposes: 1) to educate users about
Learning Design methodology based on pedagogical principles; 2) to facilitate
adoption in alignment with pedagogical goals set at the institutional level. Ped-
agogical techniques need to be shared online and linked to Learning Design
objects to enhance the sharing and reuse experience (Cameron, 2010). Where
clusters of users are formed resembling communities of practice within the
larger quasi-community, focused professional support can be provided through
face-to-face meetings with leading innovators and experienced users. These
demand-driven problem-solving educational sessions can be organized using an
approach such as CAMEL (Masterman, Manton & Balch, 2008) that offers scaf-
folding for the practice of Learning Design, sharing and reuse.
Early Majority
The critical moment in the innovation adoption life cycle occurs when the inno-
vation has been trialled and tested and is successfully used by early adopters with
positive results and an increasing number of users is attracted by the benefits
that result from the implementation of the innovation (Moore, 2002). The gap
between the two stages of adoption, which Moore calls the Innovation Chasm,
represents a jump in the adoption rate from 16% to 50% with transformational
impact on professional practice.
The social context in which large-scale adoption occurs in an online world

undergoes some significant changes. The term “quasi-community” gradually
becomes an inaccurate description of the user base because the participants have
higher expectations from their interaction with the community in the sense that
the community needs to be richer and offer more opportunities for learning
and for easily finding the resources needed to solve their problems. We use the
term “social network” based on the term “network” from Dron and Anderson
(2007)—distributed individuals who are directly or indirectly connected, not
aware of those who form part of the wider network, with emergent behav-
iour (not designed) resulting from the interactions between the members of the
network—to describe the social nature of this type of online community, but add-
ing a professional element to it as we are referring to a community built around
the use of Learning Design tools in particular and pedagogy in general.
A social network is a system that emerges from quasi-communities of success-
ful early adopters with new members joining in according to their professional
interest, need and desire to learn from and meet new colleagues. The formation
of the social network is borne out of necessity because it is one of the fast-
est platforms for sharing objects of interests, knowledge and skills and learning
through the experience of others. It is assumed that by now the tools (products)
have reached a higher level of maturity based on the feedback and experience
accumulated at earlier stages. The social network encourages the participation of
its members through reward mechanisms with multiple benefits: peer review/
ranking and recognition of both formal and informal contribution, learning and
identification of professional opportunities (Dron & Anderson, 2007).
The embedded reward mechanisms encourage further the sharing and reus-
ing of learning designs and templates. The identity formation through social acts
leads to the formation of ad hoc groups based on affiliations helping users learn
“about” (how do I do this task) and “to be” (who am I, who do I want to become
and interact with), influencing their personal formation and professional develop-
ment (Brown & Duguid, 2002). This thinking takes the social network beyond
Engeström’s object-centred sociality concept (Engeström, 2005) because it high-
lights the importance of the social element that motivates individuals to join a
community. The networks with identity-centred sociality have better opportuni-
ties in maintaining vibrant communities where members converse about new
ideas and share not only objects but their experiences as well. The success of
adoption through a social network depends largely on the level of trust that forms
as social capital accumulates over time (Cohen & Prusak, 2001).
Despite advances in technology, human interaction in a social context is still
needed to learn complex knowledge, especially implicit knowledge that cannot
be fully described and stored explicitly in digital form (Polanyi, 1962). Conse-
quently, this makes even more important the role of the deep diffusion in highly
trusted social communities where discussions of issues and sharing of information

can help address problems that escape even the most careful system design.
Large-scale adoption of Learning Design tools requires sound pedagogical prin-
ciples as a foundation for sharing learning designs (Ljubojevic & Laurillard, 2010).
The development of the pedagogical framework needs time and involvement of
participants from various educational jurisdictions to create rich general peda-
gogical structures that can be used as a starting point for localized adaptation and
as support for professional development programmes. Further research is needed
to investigate acceptable forms of pedagogical structures to accompany learning
design representations (e.g. the application of the Conversational Framework to
patterns described in the LDSE project (Ljubojevic & Laurillard, 2010)).
Late Majority and Laggards

Adoption at this stage is a continuation of the adoption process in the Early
Majority stage. Depending on the size of the social network, its evolution cre-
ates historical data and behaviours that may lead gradually to the formation of
collectives, which are aggregates based on actions taken by individual members
(Dron & Anderson, 2007). This could be referred to as collective intelligence, and
it manifests as emergent behaviour. At this level, the social interaction between
members is rich and fluent and strong relationships are formed between members
based on interests, likes, professional affiliation, location and type of institution.
It is too early to say how a network of teachers sharing learning designs could
evolve, and if it will evolve in a fashion similar to Facebook, Google +, Quora,
Twitter or other current social networks.
Deep penetration of innovation requires substantial professional and technical
support (Moore, 2002). If the experience of any other products and services with
large-scale adoption can be used as an indication, support needs to have centres of
dedicated human resources who will ensure the efficient operation of the Learn-
ing Design platform within educational organizations.
Social Adoption of Ideas and Influence in the

Field of Learning Design
Researchers working in the new field of Learning Design are themselves inno-
vators adopting new ideas. They are influenced by the work of others, and they
process a large amount of information to create highly advanced knowledge.
According to the social adoption model discussed in the previous section, they
would work with other members who share similar professional interests in social
structures that can be described as communities of practice: local academic collab-
oration groups, international projects, voluntary associations, publications, work-
ing with the industry in various programmes, educational initiatives etc.
Although collaboration is an important aspect of research, it relies on indi-

vidual effort to search for information, find facts and systematically gather data,
analyze findings and generate original ideas to contribute to the creation of a
larger body of knowledge. It is tempting to simplify the research activities and say
that directions of research are based on methodical processes in which structured
information systems are used to find sources of knowledge in an institutional
context using well-defined research questions and queries.
The social adoption of innovation model suggests that the diffusion of ideas
has a strong social component that complements the institutional medium and in
which sources of information, new concepts and ideas are found through social
contacts with direct enquiries or through serendipity. If this is true, then if we
analyze citations of research publications theoretically, it would be possible to
gauge a high level of social relationships between authors overlapping their pro-
fessional relationships over an extended period of time, even if the members of
these relationships live and work at different institutions and are separated by vast
geographical distances.
This study used social networks to represent the author relationships based on
citations. The resulting networks identify the most influential authors based on
the number of citations that refer to their publications. The resulting citation net-
works also represent a social map of collaborations built around personal
relationships, shared projects and interests.
The raw data was extracted from 30 publications generating more than 10,000
citations (not including self-references) that link more than 900 related authors.
The publications were selected from a list compiled by the authors of the Larnaca
Declaration, who considered them significant contributions to the development of
Learning Design. A process was developed to extract citations from each publication
and use them as links between authors.The resulting data has been stored in a data-
base and used to generate nodes and edges defining several citation social networks.
This method of citation analysis was designed to highlight the relationships
between the authors. The resulting networks have nodes that represent authors,
not publications. The study looked into the characteristics of clusters of relation-
ships to identify patterns that could indicate the existence of stronger social ties
between the authors in the form of either personal networks or communities of
practice.
In the network diagrams, the size of each node is directly proportional to
the frequency by which that particular author represented by the node is cited
by others. This is a measure of influence. The edges, links between authors, are
based on citations. The more citations exist between two authors, the thicker the
line representing the edge is. This indicates the relationship between the pair of
authors connected by the edge (see Figure 10.2 and Figure 10.3). The selected
publications cover a period of 10 years, the duration of the timeline as represented
in the Larnaca Declaration on Learning Design.
FIGURE 10.2 Learning Design Citation Network
FIGURE 10.3 Learning Design Citation Social Network—details

After organizing the network layout to highlight the authors’ input, the analy-
sis identified several patterns that suggest that the social relationships between
authors influence the transmission of ideas and the creation of conceptual subsets
of Learning Design. The use of references to studies published over a period of
10 years also provided a view into how the field evolved over time.
The layout makes it easy to identify collaborations on writing research papers.
Because of the relatively large citation data it was possible to differentiate between
weak and strong links connecting pairs of authors. This study used the strong
links to research the work of the identified authors during their career and the
relationships between the authors in other circumstances such as education, jobs,
participation in conferences and collaborating on books and papers.
Figure 10.2 shows the overall authors’ relationship network based on citations
over a span of 10 years.
The authors with higher influence have larger nodes coloured in darker shades
(see Figure 10.3 for a detailed view).
Dominant Influencers
Creating citation networks for each year in which the items in the publication
lists were published revealed that authors who established an early lead in influ-
ence in general see their influence increase over time.
The citation network shows that new authors bring original views into the
field and link them to existing research ideas. This is due not only to a natural
intellectual process, but to social relationships as a mechanism for transmission of
ideas.The network layout has a fan-out type of structure that reaches to new ideas
from neighbouring fields and schools of thought, but it also has a core network of
relationships between existing authors with a history in this field.
The distribution of influence is a long-tail distribution which is typical of
social networks. Figure 10.4 shows how rapidly the strength of influence decreases
from the top five most influential authors to those who have a weak individual
influence.
The history of the citation network over time shows that overall influence
forms through strong relationships that spread influence as a group, helping
leaders in the group to gain influence over time. Learning Design had an ini-
tial strong technical background through the work of Koper and Tattersall and
related research groups. As the field developed and more educational institutions
became interested in the application of technology in teaching and learning, the
pedagogy-focused researchers started to gain more influence (see Figure 10.3). An
extended research would be interesting as it could reveal with more clarity the
influence of various schools of thought and disciplines through social connec-
tions. Learning Design draws on resources from many disciplines, as shown in the
FIGURE 10.4 Influence distribution
map created by the HoTEL project (Holistic Approach to Technology Enhanced

Learning—http://cmapspublic3.ihmc.us/rid=1LNV3H2J9-HWSVMQ-13LH/
Learning%20Theory.cmap).
Social Adoption of Ideas

Patterns in which citations cluster around publications where multiple authors
are linked with strong edges (reflecting a large number of references from one
to another) indicate stronger social relationships between the authors. All of the
19 clusters exhibiting this pattern have been randomly selected for an in-depth
analysis of the social relationships that the associated authors have cultivated over
the years. Some of the authors have worked at the same institution for a number
of years as part of a research programme team, other share interests, and, although
they work and live in different countries, they have collaborated over the years
on multiple projects and research papers. Others have studied together or worked
temporarily on the same projects.
Over time, collaboration clusters built around long-term relationships lead
to the formation of new specialized topics within the field. Figure 10.5 shows
for example the focus of research interest in Visual Instructional Design and The
FIGURE 10.5 Learning Design specialized research areas
Learning Federation Australia. The individual members of these clusters may not
have a dominant influence, but as a group they do.
The citation network analysis shows that although in some cases physical local-
ity matters, in most cases the concentration of research is facilitated by social con-
nections based on personal and professional affinities. In the case of The Learning
Federation Australia, the researchers are based in western Australia, while in the
case of Visual Instructional Design, researchers are spread across a large geographi-
cal area from Canada to Europe.
Conclusions
The findings of these two studies suggest that a successful adoption of new meth-
odologies and concepts is significantly helped by social structures that are appro-
priate for each adoption stage. The transition from the earliest stage to the full
adoption of an idea, a methodology or a product involves different types of social
structures that facilitate the transmission of influence and diffusion of the new
concepts. The other two dimensions, cognitive and professional, are also impor-
tant and they need to be considered synchronously for each stage.
There are implications that organizations attempting to adopt Learning Design
methodology should consider.While the goal of adopting a new system is to have
it deployed across the entire organization, even when the adoption is supported
with a strong case based on the initial assessment, conviction of the leadership
team and examples of successful adoption elsewhere, the organization would be
wise to plan the adoption validating its merits through each stage with appropri-
ate social, cognitive and professional structures.
Adopting Learning Design at the Innovator stage requires the initial pilot to
involve a team of highly skilled members connected by strong personal relation-
ships, with experience of collaborating on projects (typical of close communities
of practice), and who need little support for acquiring in-depth knowledge in
Learning Design, and experimenting with the implementation of the new meth-
odology within their organization. This team needs to evaluate the methodology
hands on, collaborate and be able to use its knowledge in creative ways to produce
new models that are applicable to its organization.
The second stage, the Early Adopter, requires the involvement of a larger num-
ber of people. Some of them have loose connections with each other, and some of
them have strong relationships. Those involved have to be comfortable with using
new tools, and although they need support, they are passionate and willing to invest
personal effort in taking the use of the new models to a higher level that can be
shared and replicated elsewhere. The social structures that connect them are those
typical of quasi-communities. This group of adopters needs to have adequate sup-
port to facilitate effective social interactions. While overall the adoption project is
coordinated to provide formal support, the social structures should allow the mem-
bers of this community to help each other and share their experience and work
outputs.This is a key aspect of this adoption stage.The social structures should allow
the natural emergence of patterns of interactions, promoting those who are produc-
tive and helping them build their reputation based on the quality of their creations,
and their willingness and ability to share their knowledge with others, even with
those outside the early adopters group. The artefacts created during the first two
stages, the positive view of those involved and the apparent evidence of the benefits
of using the new methodology set the ground for the next two major stages of
adoption.This stage is not only a validation stage, but a stage where the interest and
the enthusiasm towards the adoption of the innovation is ignited across the organi-
zation by communicating its values and sharing working models and its successes.
The Early Majority and Late Majority take the adoption of Learning Design
to the rest of the organization. The Learning Design processes at this stage are
well known and well established. Training programmes and dedicated support
ensure the most efficient use of the methodology in a standardized fashion. This
is the typical outcome of adoptions in a traditional sense. However, this is not like
adopting an Office software suite. Using Learning Design in teaching and learn-
ing requires constantly a fresh approach, a continuous improvement. Strong social
infrastructures supporting active networks allowing sharing and communication
of ideas are necessary for effective and innovative use of Learning Design.
The social adoption of innovation is a rich exploration area. Future research is

planned to examine in more detail the impact of social interactions on the adop-
tion of innovation and how it influences the transition from awareness to habit
formation at the personal and institutional levels.
The second study shows that long-term personal relationships have a signifi-
cant influence on the adoption of new ideas and directions of research. The deci-
sion to follow a particular research path is not based entirely on rational and
intellectual reason. The method of citation network analysis applied in this study
reveals interesting collaboration patterns based on social preferences.
Further research could expand the analysis to explore the formation of sub-
domains within Learning Design, the contribution of other disciplines and the
collaboration of institutions around the world from a social perspective. It is pos-
sible that citation network analysis could highlight collaboration maps that can be
used for planning future research initiatives and improve the quality of research
publications.
Both studies suggest that the traditional top-down approach in an organization
to the adoption of innovation is giving way to a system in which its members
can inform the leadership and proactively participate in the process, providing
feedback and suggesting new ideas that may differ from the original plan through
personal social networks and that collectively aggregated can nudge the organiza-
tion to pursue new directions.
References
Badilescu-Buga, E. (2011). Adopting learning design with LAMS: Multi-dimensional, synchro-
nous large-scale adoption of innovation. Paper presented at the 6th International LAMS &
Learning Design Conference 2011, Sydney.
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2002). The social life of information. Boston, MA: Harvard Business
School Press.
Cameron, L. (2010). Planner tools—Sharing and reusing good practice. In J. Dalziel, C.
Alexander & J. Krajka (Eds.), LAMS and Learning Design (Vol. 1, pp. 47–58). Nicosia:
University of Nicosia Press.
Christensen, C. M., Horn, M. B. & Johnson, C. W. (2008). Disrupting class. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Cohen, D., & Prusak, L. (2001). In good company: How social capital makes organizations work.
Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Dalziel, J. (2010). Prospects for learning design research and LAMS. In J. Dalziel, C. Alexan-
der & J. Krajka (Eds.), LAMS and Learning Design (Vol. 1, pp. 1–6). Nicosia: University
of Nicosia Press.
Dron, J., & Anderson, T. (2007). Collectives, networks and groups in social software for e-learning.
Paper presented at the World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government,
Healthcare, and Higher Education 2007. Available at www.editlib.org/p/26726.
Engeström, J. (2005). Why some social network services work and others don’t—Or: the
case for object-centered sociality. Available at www.zengestrom.com/blog/2005/04/
why-some-social-network-services-work-and-others-dont-or-the-case-for-object-
centered- sociality.html.
Hung, D., & Nichani, M. (2002a). Bringing communities of practice into schools: Implica-
tions for instructional technologies from Vygotskian perspectives. International Journal of
Instructional Media, 29(2), pp. 171–183.
Hung, D., & Nichani, M. (2002b). Differentiating between communities of practices (CoPs)
and quasi-communities: Can CoPs exist online? International Journal on e-Learning, 1(3),
pp. 23–29.
Ingwersen, P. (1996). Cognitive perspectives of information retrieval interaction: Elements
of a cognitive IR theory. Journal of Documentation, 52(1), pp. 3–50.
Ljubojevic, D., & Laurillard, D. (2010). Theoretical approach to distillation of pedagogical patterns
from practice to enable transfer and reuse of good teaching. Paper presented at the European
LAMS & Learning Design Conference.
Masterman, L., Manton, M. & Balch, D. (2008). JISC Design for Learning Programme Phoebe
Pedagogy Planner Project Evaluation Report: Oxford, UK: Oxford University.
Moore, G. A. (2002). Crossing the chasm. New York, NY: Harper.
Polanyi, M. (1962). Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy. London: Rout-
ledge & Kegan Paul.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.
Walker, S., & Masterman, L. (2010). Learning designs and the development of study skills:
Reuse and community perspectives. In J. Dalziel, C. Alexander & J. Krajka (Eds.), LAMS
and Learning Design (Vol. 1, pp. 23–38). Nicosia: University of Nicosia Press.
Wenger, E. (2009). Communities of practice. Available at http://neillthew.typepad.com/
files/communities-of-practice.pdf.
11
A FRAMEWORK FOR ADAPTIVE
LEARNING DESIGN IN
A WEB-CONFERENCING
ENVIRONMENT
Matt Bower
Introduction
Adaptation in e-learning can be defined as “a method to create a learning experi-
ence for the student, but also for the tutor, based on the configuration of a set of
elements in a specific period aiming to increase the performance of pre-defined
criteria” (Burgos, Tattersall & Koper, 2007, p. 162). The source of adaptation can
vary in nature from being invoked by the machine (adaptivity) to being enacted
by users (adaptability) (Burgos et al., 2007). There are several benefits of adapta-
tion in e-learning that primarily centre around the ability to personalize learning
to meet the requirements of individuals, especially in light of increasing student
diversity, at times massive student numbers and the large array of modalities con-
temporary learning technologies afford (Paramythis & Loidl-Reisinger, 2004).
Adaptation can take many forms, including interface-based, learning
flow–based, content-based, interactive problem-solving support, adaptive infor-
mation filtering, adaptive user grouping, adaptive evaluation and changes on the
fly (Burgos et al., 2007). A considerable amount of work has been undertaken
to address the way e-learning standards can support adaptivity so that adaptive
learning systems are interoperable and adaptive learning resources are reusable (for
example, see Paramythis & Loidl-Reisinger, 2004).
However there has been less work examining how learning designers (humans)
might adapt the environment and tasks during lessons to support emergent learn-
ing needs. In fact, historically there has been a degree of vagueness about whether
learning design is something that only occurs before a class or whether it can
take place during lessons. This chapter argues that learning design can and should
happen during live lessons, in order to optimize the learning experience of stu-
dents. Always relying on pre-emptive design fails to acknowledge the true nature
224 Matt Bower
of learning and teaching, in which teachers need to modulate the environment

based on the conceptions (and misconceptions) that their students present (Lau-
rillard, 2012). A failure to adapt lessons during runtime increases the possibility
that the learning design does not meet student learning requirements.
For the purposes of this chapter, adaptive learning design is defined as follows:
Adaptive learning design is the process whereby educators strategically

modify a learning design during lessons in order to meet the emerging
requirements of learners.
This definition implies that providing direct answers to student questions in class
would not constitute adaptive learning design because it is part of the learn-
ing sequence and is not strategic in nature. On the other hand, responding to a
student question by re-configuring the learning environment or switching the
type of task that students complete would be considered adaptive learning design
under this definition.
The live nature of adaptive learning design requires that teachers rapidly and
appropriately adjust the environment, which increases the importance of having
context-specific design patterns and heuristics from which they can draw. Teach-
ers can often identify that students are experiencing difficulty with certain con-
cepts or processes or tasks, yet are unable to dynamically and strategically adapt
the environment because they do not possess pedagogical schema that relates
design patterns to student ability levels or knowledge types. Adaptive design can
be challenging in technology-mediated learning environments because educa-
tors not only need to know how to adjust the nature of the task and associated
explanations, but also how to redesign and deploy the technological resources at
their disposal.
That adaptive design occurs in real time is a consequence of adaptations need-
ing to be made within lessons that are being enacted, and thus it relates more to an
“activity” level of granularity. This implies that “atomic patterns” which contain
more specific information about the enactment of an activity or part of activity
(Prieto, Dimitriadis & Villagrá-Sobrino, 2011) may often be of more use than
many well-established learning design patterns that typically span across lessons
or modules of work. For instance, as part of an adaptive redesign of the environ-
ment it may be appropriate to change the layout of an interface or a task that
students complete, rather than embarking on an entirely new Think-Pair-Share or
Predict-Observe-Explain learning design. Thus adaptive learning design does not
imply teachers will replace an entire lesson with a new one, but redesign parts of
a lesson based on emergent needs.
Some learning technologies have foreseen the educational importance of
adaptive learning design, and have incorporated it into their functionality. For
instance, LAMS (LAMS International, 2014) not only allows teachers to design
collaborative learning experiences for their classes and monitor their students’
Learning Design and Web-Conferencing 225
contributions, but also enables teachers to dynamically adjust the learning design
during the lesson via the “Live Edit” feature in light of unfolding student responses.
Web-conferencing systems are another class of learning technologies that allow
“on-the-fly” adaptation, and are the focus of this study. Adobe Connect (Adobe Sys-
tems Inc., 2014), Blackboard Collaborate (Blackboard Inc, 2014) and WebEx (Cisco
Inc, 2014) allow a range of media-rich tools to be integrated on demand, offering pre-
viously unavailable possibilities for instantiating synchronous online learning experi-
ences.Voice-over IP, text-chat, whiteboards, screen sharing, communal note areas and
so on provide a powerful suite of tools with which to present information, model
processes and share concepts. Tools can be inserted, resized and removed during a
live learning episode. However, the flexibility of Web-conferencing systems raises a
raft of design questions. If teachers can adjust the size and placement of the tools in
a Web-conferencing environment, on what basis should they do so? What factors
should influence the tools that are selected? How should the tools be arranged?
Approaches to applying a transmissive or “teacher-centred” style of teaching
in Web-conferencing environments are self-evident. A low level of interpretation
is required to understand how teachers can use such systems to present informa-
tion to students because this is a typical use for which these systems are designed.
However, solely applying transmissive teaching approaches is insufficient because
to learn effectively people need to engage in learning activities (Britain, 2007).
Contemporary technologies afford the potential to improve the quality of learn-
ing by engaging students in an interactive dialogue (Laurillard, 2012) and facilitate
collaborative problem solving ( Jonassen, Lee,Yang & Laffey, 2005).
This chapter presents findings from a three-semester design-based research
study that investigated how to adaptively design an online multimodal
(Web-conferencing) environment to meet the evolving cognitive and collabora-
tive requirements of learning activities. Capturing and sharing successful patterns
of collaboration and meaning making in Web-conferencing environments is par-
ticularly useful because compared to single-modality technologies (such as discus-
sion boards or straight text-chat) design possibilities are more complex, and thus
leave greater possibility for suboptimal design by novice designers.While the study
related to teaching graduate students computing through a Web-conferencing
platform, the outcomes of the study provide a framework to make sensible adap-
tive learning design decisions for a variety of learners, subject areas and multi-
modal learning systems.
Background Literature
Designing online environments to facilitate context-sensitive learning requires
consideration of the type of information being presented, the type of pedagogy
being applied and interface design principles to mediate these concept representa-
tions and interactions. The literature reviewed later provides a conceptual frame
and nomenclature for analysis and results to follow.
226 Matt Bower
Knowledge Representation in Web-conferencing Environments

Web-conferencing systems offer a wide array of modalities for facilitating col-
laboration and meaning making. Chat tools and notes areas can be used to
communicate written text, Voice-over IP enables audio-based discussion, and
screen-sharing and whiteboard tools allow visual information to be exchanged.
Kress, Jewitt, Ogborn and Tsatsarelis point out the importance of a deliberate
approach to deciding on the modality of representation because of its impact on
the effectiveness with which meaning is shared:
Making a representation now goes well beyond simple encoding. It has

become a matter of active, deliberate design, and meaning making becomes
a matter of the individual’s active shaping and reshaping of the resources
that he or she has available, in the wish to make representations match
intentions as closely as possible.
(2001, p. 2)
Several types of knowledge may be represented in online environments:
1. Factual (declarative) knowledge—discrete pieces of elementary infor-

mation, required if people are to be acquainted with a discipline and
solve problems within it
2. Procedural knowledge—the skills to perform processes, to execute algo-
rithms and to know the criteria for their appropriate application
3. Conceptual knowledge—interrelated representations of more complex
knowledge forms, including schemas, categorization hierarchies and
explanations
4. Metacognitive knowledge—knowledge and awareness of one’s own
cognition as well as that of other people.
(Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001, pp. 27–29)
If there are several available modes by which to represent knowledge and they
each have different characteristics, the decision needs to be made about which
modes to use for different types of knowledge. Note that metacognitive knowl-
edge may be represented in factual, procedural or conceptual forms, and as such
will be subsumed into the other levels for the purposes of this chapter.
Interactive Patterns
Just as there is a variety of knowledge that may be represented, there is also a range
of interactive patterns that may be instantiated. Ruth Clark (2005) identifies three
types of collaborative designs for e-learning:
1. Teacher-centred (receptive)—transmission-based information delivery

approaches, where the teacher communicates a stream of information to
students. For instance, the expert modelling approaches encompassed by
Collin, Brown and Holums’ cognitive apprenticeship model (1991) applies a
teacher-centred pedagogy.
2. Teacher-led (directive)—small chunks of content, examples or demon-
strations presented by the teacher, followed by periods of student activity
including practice, feedback and interaction with the teacher and peers. This
is more in line with Laurillard’s (2002) Conversational Framework, a vari-
ant of which has been successfully applied in the field of computing (Waite,
Jackson & Diwan, 2003).
3. Student-centred (guided discovery)—more inductive learning environ-
ments in which learners complete a series of goal-related tasks. Collaborative
learning pedagogies are often based on this approach, whereby student-to-
student flow of concept-forming discourse is central and the teacher adopts
a more facilitatory role ( Jonassen et al., 2005).
Clark suggests that different approaches to instruction may be appropriate for

different levels of knowledge and understanding:
[T]he effectiveness of any one e-learning lesson is shaped by the context in

which it is deployed.Thus a given lesson that is effective for novice learners
who need to build specific procedural skills will be less effective for more
experienced learners who need to build mental models that they can apply
to diverse situations.
(2005, p. 594)
A critical aspect of designing the environment is ensuring the interface can facili-
tate the type of collaboration intended. If the mediating technology cannot support
the frequency or type of communication, then a form of “distributed process loss” may
result, which can render collaboration ineffective (Neale, Carroll & Rosson, 2004).
Interface Design
Because in education the interface is responsible for supporting the “forming”
of concepts rather than merely “informing” existing ones, some researchers have
posited that educational user interface design requires its own approaches and
specialized theoretical HCI frameworks (Rappin, Guzdial, Reallf & Ludovice,
1997; Sedig, Klawe & Westrom, 2001). A range of research in the field of educa-
tion informs the effective design of interfaces for learning.
228 Matt Bower
Educational interfaces that engage students at the level of concepts rather than
just operations on objects can result in more effective learning (Sedig et al., 2001).
This supports the development of more generic problem-solving skills, allowing
students to apply their learning beyond the specific context in which they are
being used ( Johnson & Hyde, 2003; Salomon, 1992). Providing students with
spatial flexibilities to resize and rearrange icons, objects and emergent structures
allows students to align the interface to meet the changing requirements of their
thinking processes and intersubjective activities (Hollan, Hutchins & Kirsh, 2000).
The interface should also match the level of user ability, for instance by sup-
porting more deconstructed, sequential operation for novice users as opposed to
top-down composite operations for more experienced users (Vu, Hanley, Stry-
bel & Proctor, 2000).
Multimedia learning principles provide a scientifically grounded point of ref-
erence for designing interfaces in multimodal learning environments. Principles
particularly relevant to dynamic design of the Web-conferencing environment
include:
• The multimedia principle—people learn more effectively from words and pic-
tures than from words alone (Fletcher & Tobias, 2005)
• The modality principle—presenting some of the instructional content in visual
mode and other parts of the material in auditory mode can lead to more
effective learning than using text to supplement the visual information
(Low & Sweller, 2005)
• The split-attention effect—people learn less effectively when words and pic-
tures are physically and temporally separated (Ayres & Sweller, 2005; Mayer,
2005b)
• The redundancy effect—information should not be unnecessarily repeated in
different forms, for instance by including textual explanations with a visual
presentation that already incorporates an auditory explanation of the same
content (Mayer, 2005b, p. 184; Sweller, 2005)
• Symbol System Theory—matching the modality to the nature of the informa-
tion being communicated can reduce the level of elaboration and recoding
required for learner comprehension (Salomon, 1994).
As well as efficiently representing knowledge, interfaces are responsible for

supporting interaction and collaboration. Collaborative learning approaches are
espoused to increase effort in selecting, organizing and integrating information
in order to promote greater transfer of problem-solving capacities (Mayer, 2005c).
Interface designs can influence collaborations by determining the extent to which
loose or tightly coupled interactions are possible (Neale et al., 2004) and the type of
information that is exchanged (Kress et al., 2001; Salomon, 1994). Key principles for
educational user interface design derived from socio-constructivist theory include:
• The interface should be a mediator for social construction of artefacts and

meanings (“Situated Cognition Theory”,Wilson & Myers, 2000). In this way
the interface should allow for integration of levels of scale—viewing indi-
vidual cognition within the larger physical and socially constructed context
of interactions, tools and meanings (Wilson & Myers, 2000).
• Interfaces should be designed to support development at the level of learn-
ers’ abilities (their “zone of proximal development”, Vygotsky, 1978). Thus
scaffolding such as cues, heuristics, hints, examples etc. should be provided
through the interface when required and without interrupting the flow of
learning.
• In identifying understanding as being shared between people and artefacts
rather than residing entirely within the minds of individuals, interfaces should
allow for cognitive processes to be distributed across group members and
facilitate interactions between internal and external knowledge represen-
tations (in alignment with “Distributed Cognition Theory”, Hollan et al.,
2000).
• Interfaces should allow participants to gauge the orientation and frame of
reference of others as a way to coordinate more effective interaction with
peers and the environment (Luff et al., 2003).
Elaboration of these educational user interface design issues with relation to

the design of Web-conferencing environments are outlined in an earlier paper
(Bower & Hedberg, 2009).While they operate at a more micro level than some of
the “higher-order” issues confronting the Learning Design field (for instance, the
way learning design systems can be best structured to assist educators), the results
and effects described earlier provide an evidential basis for the creation of specific
Web-conferencing interface patterns.
This design-based research study traces how the level of knowledge being
represented, the type of pedagogy being applied and a variety of interface design
principles were used to form an integrated framework for adaptive design in a
Web-conferencing environment.
Methodology
A Design-Based Research Approach
Design-based research is a methodology advocated by many researchers to attend
to the complex and messy nature of real-world learning design problems (Barab &
Squire, 2004; Cobb, Confrey, diSessa, Lehrer & Schauble, 2004; Lesh, 2003).While
design-based research is not strictly considered a Learning Design concept or prac-
tice, its typical focus on improving learning and teaching in technology-enabled
environments means that it is often used in learning design contexts. Through
230 Matt Bower
iterative cycles of theory-based reflection, analysis and refinement, design research

aims to produce guidelines and principles to address authentic e-learning prob-
lems (Herrington, Reeves & Oliver, 2010). A design-based research methodology
was adopted in this study for its ability to:
• incorporate the influence of authentic settings and the potentially multifac-

eted nature of outcomes (Barab & Squire, 2004; Lesh, 2003)
• provide insights into the complexity of learning processes not just learning
products (The Design-Based Research Collective, 2003)
• integrate the teacher as participant researcher, removing the artificial line
between researcher and subjects (Lesh, 2003) and promoting greater meth-
odological alignment (Hoadley, 2004)
• align with the cyclic and iterative nature of authentic design of learning envi-
ronments (Lesh, 2003)
• encourage theory generation about teaching and learning (The Design-Based
Research Collective, 2003)
• value all types of data to arrive at an effective design, for instance reflections
of teachers as designers and lessons learnt from ineffectual designs (Gorard,
Roberts & Taylor, 2004; Wilson, 2004).
Enactment of the Iterations

Data for this study were based on teaching an introductory computer program-
ming subject to graduate students through a Web-conferencing environment over
three semesters from Semester 2 of 2005 to Semester 2 of 2006. At the risk of
oversimplification, the strategic redesigns across semesters can be summarized as
follows:
• Iteration 1: Predominantly instructive approaches primarily based on stan-

dard graphical user interface designs. These included presentation of tutorial
solutions and demonstration of programming processes. The teacher used
audio and student contributions were limited to text chat responses. Changes
to the layout were not premeditated or designed on a principled basis. The
main way the interface was adjusted to meet the needs of the learning episode
was by switching between the three default layouts. This iteration offered a
baseline for the design-based research analysis.
• Iteration 2: Use of more student-centred learning approaches requir-
ing students to contribute and collaborate. For instance, several activities
required students to perform collaborative programming processes using
the Web-conferencing tools. In these cases the environment was redesigned
to meet the collaborative requirements of the learning episodes. Dynamic
design attempted to draw on principles identified in the literature as well as

emerging needs evidenced by activity in the learning environment. As well,
student feedback (either solicited or unsolicited) regarding the efficacy of
interfaces was often utilized to apply these dynamic redesigns.
• Iteration 3: Frequent spontaneous integration of whiteboards to support
conceptual understanding. Audio was used pervasively in an attempt to pro-
mote more cognitively efficient interaction through the use of multimedia
learning principles (Mayer, 2005a). Iteration 3 was also an attempt to refine
adaptive design approaches adopted in Iteration 2 and to repeat designs in
order to gauge the consistency of their effects.
Twelve two-hour classes (sessions) were conducted for each of the three semes-
ters using the same curriculum materials. The same textbook, recorded lectures
and tutorial and practical sheets were used across the three semesters in order to
provide a consistent curriculum across the three iterations and hence reduce the
possibility of intervening environmental effects. In order to avoid persistent effects
of interactions between particular individuals, an effort was made to mix the
membership of any groups as far as possible throughout each semester.
Observations both between lessons and iterations informed the refinement
of redesigns. By providing students with the access control they could also
dynamically redesign the interfaces based on their perceived needs. In such cases
the teacher could then question students as to the rationale for their changes,
providing a more complete body of evidence for how interface designs in the
Web-conferencing environment affected learning. Note that no redesigns
occurred in the first week of Iteration 2 and Iteration 3 to provide a means of
calibration between iterations and allowing the consistency of collaborations for
the same learning designs across different cohorts of students to be confirmed.
Approach to Analysis
Throughout the study a project database was maintained that included recordings
of all sessions, artefacts arising from the learning activities, student feedback (both
anecdotal and from structured surveys) and a reflective journal. All observations
relating to cause-and-effect relationships occurring within the learning episodes
were noted, with particular emphasis on how different designs engaged different
levels of interaction and enabled concepts to be more effectively represented.
Both successes and failures were documented, with the failures seen as mak-
ing an important contribution to understanding teaching and learning in the
Web-conferencing environment.
The analysis contained in the reflective journal notes along with lesson artefacts
and student feedback were then used as a basis for redesign. Strategic redesigns
occurred across iterations as described in the “Enactment of Iterations” subsection,
232 Matt Bower
while tactical redesigns occurred within iterations by focusing on incrementally

improving the way the affordances of the Web-conferencing environment were
applied. The influence of both strategic and tactical redesigns on collaboration
and learning were added to the project database through their inclusion in the
reflective journal. Particular attention was dedicated to the way theories of mul-
timedia and collaborative learning could inform the redesign of the environment.
Examples and explanations of this reflective analysis and redesign process are pro-
vided in the Results section.
Reliability in this study was promoted through empirically based explana-
tion building involving prolonged engagement and persistent observation. The
three-semester design-based research process as well as the multiple instances of
implementing designs within each iteration allowed explanations for effects to be
constructed and validated via repeated observation. In order to promote validity,
multiple sources of data were used to form conclusions (lesson recordings, teacher
observations, student feedback) and the analysis was critically reviewed by a num-
ber of national and international experts as part of a doctoral programme.
Characteristics of the Learning Environment (Context)

The Learning Domain
This study is conducted in the context of teaching and learning introductory
computer programming as part of an online Graduate Diploma of Information
Technology (GDIT) at Macquarie University. As part of the semester-long sub-
ject, students completed a two-hour weekly online class where they learnt the
fundamentals of writing computer programs (in Java). As a four-credit-point
graduate course, the pace and amount of content covered was greater than an
undergraduate introduction to programming course, covering basic programming
syntax and semantics, objects and classes, polymorphism and inheritance, Applets
and GUIs, arrays and ArrayLists, as well as error handling and file operations.
The Students
Students who undertook the online GDIT were graduate students (or students
with commensurate professional experience that qualified them to enter the
course) from a discipline other than computing who wished to extend their IT
knowledge and skills.Twenty-six students enrolled across the three semesters were
analyzed in this study, of which 20 completed the unit. Of the 20 students who
completed the subject, 10 were enrolled in 2005 Semester 2, 7 in 2006 Semester
1 and 3 in 2006 Semester 2.This decline in enrolments across semesters was com-
mensurate with other courses at the university and other universities generally
(Cassel, McGettrick, Guzdial & Roberts, 2007). Of the 26 students, 9 were female
and 17 were male.
The Web-conferencing Environment

The Adobe Connect Meeting platform (Adobe Systems Inc, 2014) was the
Web-conferencing system used in this study. Adobe Connect includes a range of
tools through any Flash-enabled browser including those to present documents,
to broadcast webcam and voice, to screen share, to exchange text chat and files,
to vote, as well as those providing a shared notes space and whiteboard. Each
of these tools (or “pods”) can be instantly resized, drag-and-dropped, created or
deleted. This provides the session host with ultimate choice over the tools pro-
vided within an interface and the way they are arranged, allowing the interface
to be dynamically redesigned to meet the evolving requirements of the learning
episode. A default layout is shown in Figure 11.1.
Each room comes with three predefined layouts, which the host can switch
between by toggling tabs at the bottom of the browser window. As well, new
layouts can be created so that a room can have several pre-designed layouts or
layouts can be added on the fly.The meeting “host” (or super-user) can spontane-
ously adjust the access control of “presenters” and “participants” to each of the
tools. Copies of room designs can be created with relative ease and several rooms
can run at once, providing separate working spaces for collaborative group work.
Finally, all sessions have the capacity to be recorded, on which basis the data for
this study has been harvested, analysis performed and results derived.
Results
Results have been derived by organizing and describing key observations from
the three semesters in order to demonstrate the evolving understanding of how
adaptive design could be used to cater to the emerging cognitive and collaborative
requirements of the learning episodes. Based on these observations, principles for
design of multimodal synchronous online learning environments and the frame-
work for adaptive learning design are described in the Discussion section.
Iteration 1
Even though predominantly transmissive approaches were adopted in Iteration
1, there were still times when reasonable levels of student contribution arose, for
instance in the form of responses to questions from the teacher. In cases where the
number of contributions was high it was sometimes necessary to adapt the inter-
face to better accommodate the amount of text-chat arising, even if individuals
were only making short factual contributions. For example, in Figure 11.1 the
teacher is presenting the solutions to tutorial questions using direct instruction
approaches. Then at one point a degree of student participation was encouraged
by asking students to contribute their answers to the factual-style questions by
typing responses in the text-chat pod.
234 Matt Bower
Note that the small size of the text-chat pod reduced the capacity of students’
text-chat contributions to be reviewed and monitored because of the small num-
ber of comments visible at any one time. As a result the teacher chose to enlarge
the chat pod and place it along the bottom section of the browser window (see
Figure 11.2).
In the lesson students indicated that enabling more text-chat contributions
to be viewed at once represented an improvement to the interface. One student
also made the suggestion to elongate the attendee pod in the interface shown
in Figure 11.2 to utilize the empty space and to allow students to immediately
see who else was in the room. This suggestion was subsequently enacted, again
improving the ability for participants to interact.This episode not only illustrated
how the size of pods could influence collaboration in the learning environment,
but also how the students (as the end-user of the interface) could be critical
sources of in situ interface design ideas. Student observations and design sugges-
tions were derived from their actual attempts and experiences using the interface
rather than from estimating the student experience in advance (as is the tradi-
tional context of the educational designer).
To facilitate the practical activities, the interface was often changed to desktop
broadcasting mode so that the teacher could model programming processes (as
exemplified in Figure 11.3). This allowed students to observe programming pro-
cesses such as editing, compiling and debugging program code, offering them a
“cognitive apprenticeship” (Brown, Collins & Duguid, 1989). The screen-sharing
provided a modality that was able to dynamically represent the process information
FIGURE 11.1 Iteration 1 Topic 1 “Sharing” interface

FIGURE 11.2 Iteration 1 Topic 1 Text-chat pod enlarged
FIGURE 11.3 Iteration 1 Topic 2 Using screen-sharing to communicate programming

process knowledge
being shared, again representing information in a “cognitively efficient” form (in

accordance with Symbol System Theory, Salomon, 1994).
By switching to the screen-share layout at times when students had questions
about programming processes, the teacher was able to show them a range of
236 Matt Bower
practical skills relating to writing and running computer programs. This allowed
students to efficiently develop their procedural knowledge in cases where they
had little or no previous understanding of how to program. The teacher could
use audio to provide insight into underlying thought processes in a more cogni-
tively efficient manner than if text-chat was being used. However, the transmissive
nature of the approach meant that students had little opportunity to practise their
programming skills, and as such the teacher could not accurately diagnose student
problems or provide remedial instruction.
Iteration 2
Iteration 2 was characterized by redesigning the environment to facilitate more
student-centred pedagogies. For instance, during the second online tutorial, stu-
dents were divided into two rooms and asked to construct a group answer identi-
fying the classes, objects, instance fields, methods and local variables in a program.
The interface was redesigned to provide the program in the middle column of the
window, a communal solution space in the top right note-pod and a text-chat pod
at the bottom right of the interface. A shared solution space was provided in order
to allow activity to centre around students rather than the teacher (see Figure 11.4).
Students in both groups were able to complete this exercise in their teams,
negotiating collaborative solutions to the factual knowledge task.The teacher was
able to review the group-work room note pods and text-chat transcripts to iden-
tify any misconceptions and then attend to these once students had returned to
the main room. As opposed to the teacher delivery approach adopted in Itera-
tion 1, the redesign of the environment had enabled far greater levels of student
engagement and collaboration about the foundational subject matter knowledge.
In other instances, students were provided with authentic programming pro-
cess tasks that required them to build solutions in teams. In order to accomplish
this, the environment was redesigned to provide each group with its own room
and increased permissions so that they could add and share their computer codes.
For instance, in Figure 11.5 students were divided into group-work rooms and
asked to complete the following task:
Write a class TinCan that creates cylindrical TinCan objects and has a method to
return the volume.Write a class TinCanTest to test your class.
Instructions were provided as part of the interface design to avoid split atten-
tion. The teacher selected the two most capable students as the “facilitators” to
be guided by the other team members. However, these two students had not
been given prior instruction on how to facilitate such an activity, and as a con-
sequence they lacked some skills relating to effectively collaborating while using
screen sharing. As well, the teacher had not considered that without audio they
FIGURE 11.4 Iteration 2 Topic 2 Purpose built interface to facilitate student-centred
sharing of declarative knowledge
FIGURE 11.5 Agroup-work room with students using screen-sharing to perform

group programming
238 Matt Bower
FIGURE 11.6 Iteration 2 interface layout for Combine Applets task
would not be able to respond to their peers using text-chat without switch-
ing focus from the IDE that they were broadcasting. If the teacher would have
anticipated the collaborative requirements of the learning episode in advance,
then students could have been trained in the use of audio and directed to
use it. Students in both groups were highly engaged by the student-centred
task. However their collaborative efficiency was compromised by the interface
design and their incomplete technological skills, which were in turn rectified
in future lessons by enabling student audio and providing students with prior
practice in using it.
In order to allow students to more effectively work between multiple pro-
gramming files the interface was often redesigned to incorporate several program
files at once. For instance, in the activity shown in Figure 11.6, students were
required to combine a resize circle program and re-centre circle program into one
applet so that a circle could be both re-centred and resized.
For this interface, the resize and re-centre programs were displayed in note-pods,
and a third note-pod column was provided for students to write their combined
program. The layout allowed all the relevant information to be accessed from the
one interface, resulting in less split attention than when the IDE is used. Once
again the text-chat discourse allowed the teacher to easily review collaborations
that had transpired in each room. The interface supported high levels of student
FIGURE 11.7 Iteration 2 Topic 8 student adjustment of interface
contribution by providing spaces for people to collaboratively problem solve and

discuss concepts. In this exercise, Group 1 contributed 52 comments and Group 2
contributed 78 comments, which was several times more than in the more trans-
missive approach adopted in Iteration 1.
Once the relevant code from the re-centre and resize program had been incor-
porated into the solution space, the pods containing the code became redundant.
This led to Group 2 also spontaneously deciding to maximize the pod containing
the integrated program to cover the other obsolete note-pods (see Figure 11.7).
“This is an example of interface flexibility affording the capacity to dynami-
cally adjust the interface to suit the changing collaborative and cognitive require-
ments of the activity” (Hollan et al., 2000), and by virtue of repeatedly using the
Web-conferencing tool throughout the semester students intuitively appreciated
the changes that should be made.
While these approaches enabled more efficient collaboration for programming
processes, they did not directly respond to conceptual difficulties that students
were experiencing.
Iteration 3
In Iteration 3 whiteboards were used, often spontaneously, to support concept
development. Whiteboards allow persistent visual presentation and interrelation
240 Matt Bower
of several items of information. For instance, for the “Circle Combine” activ-
ity described in Iteration 2, the starting programs were once again shown in
note-pods, however students were slow to make progress on this task. The poor
progress was partially due to their difficulty understanding mathematical concepts
relating to centring the circle. In order to provide a clearer explanation of the
coordinate geometry underlying the task, the teacher chose to spontaneously use
a whiteboard to represent the situation (see Figure 11.8).
The whiteboard allowed audio explanations to be supported by visual means,
leveraging the cognitive gains the multimedia principle afforded (Fletcher &
Tobias, 2005). The audio modality was easier to use in conjunction with the
visual solution space and diagram than the text-chat modality (modality principle,
Low & Sweller, 2005), and as such the text-chat pod was not used. Having the
whiteboard next to the note-pod enabled the programming code to be directly
compared to the concept being addressed, allowing students to interrelate the
syntax of the programming language with its semantic meaning. As a result of the
adaptive redesign, students could better understand the programming concepts
with which they were working and henceforth completed the programming pro-
cess expeditiously.
Whiteboards were often introduced to represent dynamic concepts. They
allowed the teacher and students to step through programs and emulate their
operations. For instance, at one point in the subject students were required to
FIGURE 11.8 Iteration 3 Topic 8 Spontaneous inclusion of a whiteboard to support

discussion of visual concepts
write a program that produced random permutations of the numbers from 1 to

10. Some students struggled with the activity, and a student’s erroneous program
was run using screen-broadcasting to demonstrate how it was (incorrectly) repeat-
ing certain numbers. Students still indicated uncertainty about the underlying
logic of the program, so the teacher chose to use a whiteboard to allow the group
to emulate the operation of the code (see Figure 11.9).
The whiteboard allowed the process of element extraction from a random
position in anArray (originally containing numbers zero to nine in ascending
order) and placed in a second array (while the last element in anArray is shifted
to the gap created by the extraction). Students could perform the next step in
the program in order to demonstrate their level of understanding. The numerous
pieces of information could be represented and interrelated in a way that would
have most likely caused cognitive overload (van Merriënboer & Ayres, 2005) if
students were required to follow a purely auditory explanation. The public solu-
tion space allowed cognition to be offloaded to the environment (Hollan et al.,
2000). The approach allowed the program and general process of using arrays to
perform selections to be comprehended by students whereas in previous itera-
tions explanations had been poorly understood.
At other times in Iteration 3 learning commenced with conceptual discus-
sion and progressed to more practical application of processes that applied those
concepts. In such cases, whiteboards could be used as a starting point to represent
FIGURE 11.9 Iteration3 Topic 11 Second use of whiteboard to support dynamic rep-

resentation of conceptual information
242 Matt Bower
the conceptual information before transitioning to screen sharing to perform pro-

gramming processes. For instance, in order to develop students’ understanding of
the concept of polymorphism the teacher broadcasts a whiteboard containing the
four files of the Polymorphism program (see Figure 11.10). Having the four files
in the program (interface, main method, and two classes implementing the inter-
face) on the whiteboard enables students to relate the features of the code that
reference between files, reducing split attention (Ayres & Sweller, 2005). Initially,
a transmissive approach was adopted, but midway through the explanation the
teacher asked if students had any questions.This resulted in a number of questions,
for instance about whether variable names needed to correspond between pro-
grams, whether constructors could be different for the two classes implementing
the interface, and general questioning relating to strategic interface design.
In order to demonstrate their understanding the students were required to add
a colour interface to the original polymorphism example. This was conducted as
a teacher-led programming activity, which differed from Iteration 1 and Itera-
tion 2 where it was an independent activity and group-work activity, respectively.
A standard sharing interface was used with the teacher broadcasting the IDE (see
Figure 11.11), and students were required to instruct the teacher what to do next
to solve the problem. The teacher-led approach elicited a considerable amount
of student questioning and contribution, thus allowing the teacher to gauge that
students ultimately understood the concept.
FIGURE 11.10 Iteration 3 Topic 7 Retest of whiteboard to interrelate source code files

In Iteration 3 students were also provided with the opportunity to collabora-

tively negotiate concepts as a way of taking ownership over them. For instance,
Figure 11.12 shows how students were handed control of the whiteboard and
required to visually represent the programming concept of a “deep copy” after
being provided with a diagram of a “shallow copy”. The approach encouraged
students to collaborate with one another and the productive nature of the task
allowed their mental models to be revealed. From the diagram they provided, the
teacher could immediately assess that students had negotiated a correct visual
representation of the “deep copy” construct. The fact that a diagram of a “shallow
copy” had already been provided meant that students did not need to spend time
discussing how to depict objects and references (as Or-Bach & Lavy, 2004 conjec-
tured). Students indicated that the approach clarified their understanding of the
difference between shallow and deep copying.
In Iteration 3 students were given more guidance on how to share their screens
and were encouraged to use audio throughout. This enabled students to demon-
strate their programming process capabilities and collaboratively solve program-
ming problems. For instance, in an activity requiring the development of a program
that allows users to select the input file at runtime using a JFileChooser, initially
students used a notes-pod approach much like that depicted in Figure 11.6 and
Figure 11.7.This allowed students to rapidly combine their ideas with equal access
FIGURE 11.11 Iteration 3 Topic 7 Teacher-led programming for in-class practical

activity
244 Matt Bower
to the solution space. However, the approach did not enable them to collabora-
tively test their program and resolve errors in their code.
Subsequently a student volunteered to lead the debugging process, changing
the interface so as to broadcast his screen (see Figure 11.13).
FIGURE 11.12 Iteration 3 Topic 9 Student-centred use of whiteboard to share concep-

tual information
FIGURE 11.13 Iteration 3 Topic 12 Student broadcasting desktop to complete class

programming exercise
This allowed students to represent their procedural understanding through the

activity performed as part of the negotiated desktop sharing process, as well as
their conceptual understanding through their collaborative programming discus-
sions. The teacher could perceive the extent of student understanding, and that
together they had mastered the ability to apply the concepts to solve a real-life
problem.The task was completed with the student leading the exercise, the group
responding and the teacher contributing occasionally.
While these descriptions and examples cannot fully explicate the design-based
research process, observations and results, they do provide an indication of the
nature of the data collected and the type of analysis conducted. A more complete
portrayal is available online for readers who may be interested (Bower, 2008).
Discussion
The ability to select the combinations of modalities that will be used to facilitate
interaction and knowledge representation in many synchronous learning environ-
ments means educational designers have a strong influence over the collaboration
and learning that transpires. The ability to adaptively design some of these multi-
modal learning environments affords the potential to tailor the interface to meet the
evolving collaborative and cognitive requirements of the learning episode.
On the basis of the observations and analysis conducted in this study, principles
for design of multimodal synchronous learning environments are outlined later.
This is followed by a framework for adaptive learning design, based on the level
of interaction anticipated and the type of knowledge represented.
Principles for Design of Multimodal Synchronous Environments

Select Modalities that Best Suit the Desired Form of
Information Representation
Different modalities afford different representational possibilities. Evidence from
this study suggested that the modality of representation should be selected to match
the cognitive and collaborative requirements of the learning episode as follows:
• Text-chat—effective for simultaneous sharing of short pieces of factual

information among a large group of contributors (for instance, when several
participants are making suggestions about what to do next when writing a
computer program)
• Audio—affords more rapid contribution of extensive descriptions by one
person (for instance, a team leader) or a small group of users (who are col-
laboratively designing) where turn-taking is occurring
246 Matt Bower
• Note-pods—useful for organizing textual information between multiple

users where sequencing, editing, copying and deletion are required (for
instance, collaborative authoring of a solution such as a computer program
• Screen-sharing—useful for sharing process-based information with relation
to computer usage, for instance when sharing how to perform a program-
ming process or collaborative authoring on the fly
• Whiteboard—effective for supporting shared representation and develop-
ment of conceptual knowledge (for instance, drawing diagrams to represent
the schematic design of a program)
Designing Multimodal Clusters According to Multimedia Learning

Principles to Improve Cognitive Efficiency
Different modalities not only offer different individual possibilities for repre-
senting, but also different possibilities in combination as “multimodal clusters”
(Baldry & Thibault, 2006). The design of effective multimodal clusters was
observed to rely on application of multimedia learning principles (Mayer, 2005a).
Examples include:
• Use of audio (rather than text-chat) in combination with visual modali-

ties (such as note-pods, whiteboards or screen-sharing) during group-work
processes to avoid having to monitor two visual modalities at once (Low &
Sweller, 2005).
• Using diagrams to embellish audio explanations to support clearer sharing
and formation of mental models (Fletcher & Tobias, 2005).
• Placing related information in the same interface to avoid fracturing students’
attention (Ayres & Sweller, 2005).
• Removing irrelevant pods to allow greater attention to be placed on the
material being learnt (Mayer, 2005b; Sweller, 2005)
• Using combinations of modalities that most closely resemble the different
types of information being represented (Salomon, 1994).
Using multimedia learning principles to design the shared cognitive space

allows representations to be shared in way that lowers the load on peoples’ work-
ing memory.
Design Tasks That Require Students to Be Productive

in Order to Increase Their Involvement and More Fully Reveal
Their Mental Models
Because students were discussing curriculum matter more extensively and produc-
ing solutions in student-centred tasks during Iteration 2 and Iteration 3 their mental
models were more fully revealed. This provided the teacher with greater insight
into the accuracy of student schema and the form of remediation that may be
required. Students were able to practise subject-specific processes and co-construct
understandings with one another. Successful learning may depend on having a bal-
ance of transmissive, interactive and collaborative activities; however, the efficacy
of lessons where student contributions are not made on a frequent basis should be
carefully considered. In such circumstances, it is not possible to ascertain the level
of student engagement or understanding. This is particularly pertinent in online
environments because of the lack of nonverbal cues such as body language. Rel-
evant tasks require students to integrate different levels of knowledge and encour-
age collaboration through their goal-oriented and problem-solving nature.
As the Major Influence on the Types of Activity That Transpire,

Teachers Need to Take Responsibility for Establishing the
Environment and Guiding Collaboration
Establishing clear expectations about the nature of the collaboration required
allows students to concentrate on the task rather than how to interact using the
mediating technology. Strategies include providing clear task specifications, allo-
cating students to roles, ensuring students have the required technological com-
petencies to perform the task and suggesting ways to represent concepts using the
technology. By pre-empting areas where students will require explicit instructions
on how an exercise should be performed or providing support in situ, students
can dedicate more time to developing their design and problem-solving abilities
unimpeded by overheads incurred by trying to learn collaboratively in online
mode. Providing collaborative space (both virtual and temporal) increases the
amount of contribution students can make during a learning episode. Along with
providing student-centred authentic tasks, providing students with adequate col-
laborative space was critical to revealing their mental models so that the teacher
could more accurately diagnose misconceptions and provide appropriate feedback.
Environment Should be Adaptively Redesigned to Meet the Emerging

Cognitive and Collaborative Needs of Learning Episodes
In conversational approaches to learning, the direction of discourse is negotiated
(Laurillard, 2012). This means that the cognitive and collaborative requirements
of the interface may change based on the interpretations, actions and feedback
of participants. This makes it imperative that the interface is redesigned during
learning episodes in order to meet the evolving representational and interactional
needs wherever possible. Examples include using whiteboards to represent emerg-
ing requirements for conceptual discussion, using screen broadcasting to perform
group programming processes and using note-pods to work with larger quantities
248 Matt Bower
of factual information. At times, text-chat sufficed for a few students to contribute

factual responses; however, for more extended, tightly coupled interactions involv-
ing intensive use of another visual medium then audio was more suitable to allow
more rapid contribution and more cognitively efficient information processing.
Students Can Play an Important Role in Adaptive Redesign of

Learning Environments
Students can prove an excellent source of redesign ideas, often contributing sug-
gestions and adjusting the interface themselves when given the opportunity. For
instance, in Iteration 2 and Iteration 3 of the student-centred Circle Applets pro-
gramming activity, students decided to enlarge the note-pod of the main program.
Once the other programs are integrated into the main program they become
obsolete, and enlarging the combined program allowed a more complete view of
the code. Resizing pods allowed their relative level of importance in the shared
cognitive process to be represented. The fact that students are frequent users of
the environment for learning means that they can often generate environmental
adaptations that the teacher had not considered.
While these principles have been derived from studying teaching and learning
via Web-conferencing, it is proposed that they can be transferred to some extent
to other online learning environments.
Framework for Adaptive Learning Design in the

Web-conferencing Environment
The analysis conducted in this study implies a framework for adaptive design in
Web-conferencing environments based on the level of interaction to be facili-
tated and the level of knowledge being addressed. Table 11.1 contains thumbnail
summaries of the techno-pedagogic patterns that comprise the Web-conferencing
learning design framework. The summaries are patterns insofar as they provide a
description of how the learning environment may be redesigned depending on
certain attributes (knowledge and interaction type) but generalizable to a range of
learning situations (for instance, different domain of study).The patterns are atomic
insofar as they operate at the level of individual learning activities rather than larger
session, module or program patterns. By defining a series of nine design patterns
for different types of activity and different levels of knowledge, the framework sup-
ports rapid redesign based on the emerging requirements of the learning episode.
Some of the patterns such as the “Question-Response” and the “Instructed
Teacher” were used from the first iteration of this study, while others such as the
“Teacher-led Representation” and the “Student Representation” did not evolve
until the end of the design research process.These nine patterns are not an exhaus-
tive set of learning designs for teaching in Web-conferencing environments, but
rather an essential collection of atomic patterns which can form the basis of a
teacher’s adaptive design repository. They reflect the accumulated understand-
ing derived by the end of the three iterations analyzed in this study. The patterns
could also be used to inform the design of more extensive learning designs that
occur across an entire lesson or module of work.
If students have no or weakly formed understanding of content matter, then a
teacher-centred approach allows fundamental mental model forming information
to be transmitted. If students have acquired an understanding of individual items
of information, then a teacher-led approach allows students to learn other knowl-
edge chunks and observe how the pieces may be synthesized. If students under-
stand components of knowledge, then student-centred group-work approaches
allow them to collaboratively interrelate knowledge by negotiating solutions with
their peers. While it is acknowledged that amongst a class or even within an
individual student the level of knowledge cannot be precisely defined at a single
level, this fading approach to scaffolding provides a general framework for con-
sidering how to redesign the environment to accommodate appropriate levels of
student-centeredness.
As the level of student control is increased, students are provided with greater
collaborative space; transmissive interfaces provide a small text-chat area, interac-
tive interfaces increase the text-chat area and provide audio for more substantive
discursive contributions, and collaborative interfaces provide audio to enable stu-
dents to hold discussions at the same time as they construct solutions.
The level of knowledge influences which representational modality is included
in the interface.Text (prepared documents, text-chat or note pods) is provided when
working with factual knowledge. Screen-broadcasting is used to share procedural
knowledge (with note pods providing an alternative at early stages of co-authoring
processes), and whiteboards are used to share conceptual representations.
Transitioning to the optimal interface design is a matter of diagnosing the level
of knowledge to be addressed and the degree of interaction that will take place,
and then adapting the interface accordingly. To some extent, this can be antici-
pated in advance based on the prescribed learning activities and an appreciation of
the students’ level of ability. At other times the levels of interaction and knowledge
may unexpectedly change based on student questions, activity or feedback, in
which case the framework in Table 11.1 provides a guide for rapid adaptive rede-
sign to meet the emergent collaborative and cognitive needs.Thus the framework
provides support for Learning Design Pedagogy, but also relies on the pedagogical
insights of the teacher to appropriately improvise.
It should be noted once again that this framework provides standard
techno-pedagogic patterns for different levels of interaction and knowledge lev-
els. It is anticipated that there are many other possible designs depending on the
specific collaborative and cognitive needs of the specific context. As well, it may
be possible to represent hybrids of the aforementioned designs in order to support
TABLE 11.1 Framework to support adaptive design in the Web-conferencing environment
Factual Procedural Conceptual
Transmissive Fact-Share Modelling Process (e.g. Explanation

(Teacher-Centred) The teacher uses audio and presents Programming) Teacher uses audio and pre-prepared
pre-prepared artefacts in a large The teacher uses audio and a large diagrams (either on documents
share pod to provide students screen-sharing pod to describe how or whiteboard) to explain
with factual knowledge. Students to perform a process. Students concepts. Students comment
comment using a small text-chat comment using the small text-chat using a relatively small text-chat if
pod if required. See Figure 11.1. space if required. See Figure 11.3. required. See Figure 11.10.
Interactive Question-Response Instructed Teacher Teacher-Led Representation
(Teacher-Led) The teacher uses audio and visual The teacher uses audio and The teacher uses audio to guide
stimulus to prompt students for screen-sharing to prompt students students through the construction
responses to factual questions. for directions about how to perform of a conceptual representation
Students are provided with an a process. Students are offered an on the whiteboard. The concept
enlarged text-chat pod to respond enlarged text-chat pod to respond may be static (see Figure 11.8)
(or use audio for more extensive (or use audio for more extensive or dynamic (see Figure 11.9).
responses). See Figure 11.2. discursive contributions). See Students use audio to interact
Figure 11.11. but may choose to use text-chat
to contribute thoughts while the
teacher is speaking.
Collaborative Collaborative Definitions Collaborative Process (e.g. Student Representation
(Student-Centred) Students use note-pods and audio Programming) The students use a whiteboard and
to collaboratively compose sets of Students use note-pods with audio to audio to collaboratively construct
definitions or factual information. perform a co-constructive process a conceptual representation. The
The teacher uses audio to address (e.g. write a computer program). See teacher uses audio to address the
the class or a particular group (or Figure 11.6 and Figure 11.7. As the class or a particular group (or
text-chat to address individuals product approaches finality it can text-chat to address individuals).
within a group). See Figure 11.4. be further refined using specialized See Figure 11.12. A note-pod may
software and screen-sharing (see be used instead of a whiteboard if
Figure 11.13). The teacher uses audio the information is textual rather
to address the class or a particular than visual.
group (or text-chat to address
individuals).
integration of different levels of knowledge or types of collaboration. The way

a whiteboard is integrated into the interface shown in Figure 11.8 to facilitate
interrelation of procedural and conceptual knowledge is a case in point.
More detailed descriptions of each of the patterns are provided in earlier work
(Bower, 2008).
Conclusion
Adaptive design of learning environments can enable more effective interaction
and knowledge representation, which in turn enables the teacher to more accu-
rately gauge student understanding and provide appropriate intervention. As the
technologies at educators’ disposal become more flexible, frameworks to guide
adaptive design will become increasingly important.
This study derived a framework for adaptive redesigning of a Web-conferencing
environment to more effectively cater to the level of knowledge addressed and
the type of interaction that transpired. Text was used to support factual knowl-
edge, screen-sharing and notes areas supported sharing of procedural knowledge,
and whiteboards were used to exchange conceptual knowledge. As the degree of
student contribution increased, the size of the text-chat area was enlarged, and in
the case of student-centred collaborative tasks students used audio to enable them
to exchange larger amounts of text while working on their co-constructive tasks.
As they are provided with greater control over the learning experience, students
(as end users of the environment) may become important participants in this
dynamic design process.
The design-based research methodology allowed the effect of different
interface designs to be gauged and validated over several cycles of iterative
refinement (both within semesters and between them). Rather than being
prescriptive or exhaustive, the nine patterns in the framework provide a
design repository that teachers can use to support rapid interface redesign and
context specific adjustment. By including teacher-led and student-centred
approaches to developing procedural and conceptual understanding, it is
hoped that the framework encourages educators to transition from more
transmissive approaches to more effective application of interactive and col-
laborative pedagogies in online multimodal synchronous environments. Thus,
while the framework contains a degree of pedagogical neutrality insofar as it
does not prescribe how teachers should use it, the Learning Design Pedagogy
that teachers apply when using the framework will determine the extent to
which it positively affects student learning.
The field of technology-based learning is continually evolving, and if teach-
ers are expected to move to new technologies and rapidly redesign the environ-
ment to facilitate more effective learning, then frameworks will be needed to
252 Matt Bower
support this process. These frameworks could take the form of guides for teach-
ers, either within or external to learning technology systems. In the future, it is
possible that a level of intelligence could be integrated into educational tech-
nologies that processes participant contributions and provides educators with
advice about how to adapt the environment in light of emerging requirements.
“Big data” and learning analytics may mean that the adaptation of learning
environments may be informed by collective analysis of learning episodes across
a wide range of institutions and contexts. As learning technologies become
more refined, knowledge derived from this analysis may be presented to teach-
ers in the form of a simple option to “apply” a redesign, or even be automati-
cally implemented.
In each instance, the development and deployment of adaptive design frame-
works will require an analysis of the affordances of the technologies, the types
of activity desired and the types of knowledge addressed, as was the case in this
study. The development of adaptive design frameworks for a variety of technolo-
gies will also allow the field to determine more general principles for adaptive
technology-based learning design.
References
Adobe Systems Inc (2014). Web conferencing software—Conferencing services—Adobe
Connect 9. Available at www.adobe.com/au/products/adobeconnect.html.
Anderson, L., & Krathwohl, D. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revi-
sion of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York, NY: Longman.
Ayres, P., & Sweller, J. (2005). The split-attention principle in multimedia learning. In R. E.
Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 135–146). New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.
Baldry, A., & Thibault, P. J. (2006). Multimodal transcription and text analysis. London: Equinox
Publishing Ltd.
Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. The
Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), pp. 1–14.
Blackboard Inc (2014). Blackboard online collaboration platform—Blackboard Collabo-
rate. Available at www.blackboard.com/platforms/collaborate/overview.aspx.
Bower, M. (2008). Designing for interactive and collaborative learning in a web-conferencing
environment (PhD thesis). Available at http://hdl.handle.net/1959.14/26888.
Bower, M., & Hedberg, J. (2009). Educational user interface design. In Proceedings of World
Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2009, Honolulu,
HI, 22–26 June (pp. 963–972). Chesapeake,VA: AACE.
Britain, S. (2007). Learning design systems. In H. Beetham & R. Sharpe (Eds.), Rethinking
pedagogy for a digital age: Designing and delivering e-learning (pp. 103–114). Oxford, UK:
Routledge.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A. & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.
Educational Researcher, 18(1), pp. 32–42.
Burgos, D., Tattersall, C. & Koper, R. (2007). How to represent adaptation in e-learning
with IMS learning design. Interactive Learning Environments, 15(2), pp. 161–170.
Cassel, L., McGettrick, A., Guzdial, M. & Roberts, E. (2007). The current crisis in computing:
What are the real issues? In 38th SIGCSE technical symposium on computer science education,
Covington, Kentucky (pp. 329–330). New York, NY: ACM Press.
Cisco Inc (2014). Cisco WebEx web conferencing, online meetings, desktop sharing, video
conferencing. Available at www.webex.com/.
Clark, R. C. (2005). Multimedia learning in e-courses. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge
handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 589–616). New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press.
Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R. & Schauble, L. (2004). Design experiments in
educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), pp. 9–13.
Collins, A., Brown, J. S. & Holum, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking
visible. American Educator, 6(11), pp. 38–46.
Fletcher, J. D., & Tobias, S. (2005). The multimedia principle. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The
Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 117–133). New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Gorard, S., Roberts, K. & Taylor, C. (2004). What kind of creature is a design experiment?
British Educational Research Journal, 30(4), pp. 577–590.
Herrington, J., Reeves,T. & Oliver, R. (2010). A guide to authentic e-learning. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Hoadley, C. M. (2004). Methodological alignment in design-based research. Educational
Psychologist, 39(4), pp. 203–212.
Hollan, J., Hutchins, E. & Kirsh, D. (2000). Distributed cognition: Toward a new founda-
tion for human-computer interaction research. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact., 7(2),
pp. 174–196.
Johnson, H., & Hyde, J. (2003). Towards modeling individual and collaborative construc-
tion of jigsaws using task knowledge structures (TKS). ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Inter-
act., 10(4), pp. 339–387.
Jonassen, D. H., Lee, C. B., Yang, C.-C. & Laffey, J. (2005). The collaboration principle in
multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning
(pp. 247–270). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Kress, G., Jewitt, C., Ogborn, J. & Tsatsarelis, C. (2001). Multimodal teaching and learning:The
rhetorics of the science classroom. London: Continuum.
LAMS International (2014). LAMS: Learning Activity Management System home page.
Available at www.lamsinternational.com/.
Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching—a framework for the effective use of learning
technologies. Oxford, UK: RoutledgeFalmer.
Laurillard, D. (2012). Teaching as a design science—building pedagogical patterns for learning and
technology. New York, NY: Routledge.
Lesh, R. (2003). Research design in mathematics education: Focusing on design experi-
ments. In L. English (Ed.), International handbook of research design in mathematics education.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Low, R., & Sweller, J. (2005). The modality principle in multimedia learning. In R. E.
Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 147–158). New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.
254 Matt Bower
Luff, P., Heath, C., Kuzuoka, H., Hindmarsh, J., Yamazaki, K., & Oyama, S. (2003). Frac-
tured ecologies: Creating environments for collaboration. Human-Computer Interaction,
18(1/2), pp. 51–84.
Mayer, R. E. (2005a). Introduction to multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cam-
bridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 1–17). New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press.
Mayer, R. E. (2005b). Principles for reducing extraneous processing in multimedia learn-
ing: Coherence, signaling, redundancy, spatial contiguity, and temporal contiguity prin-
ciples. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 1–17).
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E. (2005c). Principles of multimedia learning based on social cues: Personalisa-
tion, voice, and image principles. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multi-
media learning (pp. 201–212). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Neale, D. C., Carroll, J. M. & Rosson, M. B. (2004). Evaluating computer-supported cooperative
work: Models and frameworks. In 2004 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative
work, Chicago, IL (pp. 112–121). New York, NY: ACM Press.
Or-Bach, R., & Lavy, I. (2004). Cognitive activities of abstraction in object orientation: An
empirical study. SIGCSE Bull., 36(2), pp. 82–86.
Paramythis,A., & Loidl-Reisinger, S. (2004).Adaptive learning environments and e-learning
standards. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 2(1), pp. 181–194.
Prieto, L. P., Dimitriadis, Y. & Villagrá-Sobrino, S. (2011). Representing learning design and
classroom orchestration through atomic patterns. Paper presented at the Art and Science of
Learning Design. 13–14 October. London.
Rappin, N., Guzdial, M., Reallf, M. & Ludovice, P. (1997). Balancing usability and learn-
ing in an interface. In ACM conference on human factors in computing systems, Atlanta, GA,
March 22–27 (pp. 479–486): New York, NY: ACM Press.
Salomon, G. (1992).What does the design of effective CSCL require and how do we study
its effects? ACM Special Interest Group on Computer Uses in Education Outlook, 21(3),
pp. 62–68.
Salomon, G. (1994). Interaction of Media, Cognition, and Learning. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Sedig, K., Klawe, M. & Westrom, M. (2001). Role of interface manipulation style and scaf-
folding on cognition and concept learning in learnware. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum.
Interact., 8(1), pp. 34–59.
Sweller, J. (2005). The redundancy principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.),
The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 160–167). New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
The Design-Based Research Collective (2003). Design-based research: An emerging para-
digm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), pp. 5–8.
van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Ayres, P. (2005). Research on cognitive load theory and its
design implications for e-learning. Educational Technology Research & Development, 53(3),
pp. 5–13.
Vu, K.-P. L., Hanley, G. L., Strybel,T. Z. & Proctor, R. W. (2000). Metacognitive processes in
human-computer interaction: Self-assessments of knowledge as predictors of computer
expertise. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 12(1), pp. 43–71.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Waite, W. M., Jackson, M. H. & Diwan, A. (2003). The conversational classroom. In 34th
SIGCSE technical symposium on computer science education, Reno, NV (pp. 127–131). New
York, NY: ACM Press.
Wilson, B. G. (2004). Designing e-learning environments for flexible activity and instruc-
tion. Educational Technology Research & Development, 52(4), pp. 77–84.
Wilson, B. G., & Myers, K. M. (2000). Situated cognition in theoretical and practical con-
text. In D. H. Jonassen & S. M. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
12
LEARNING DESIGN: WHERE DO
WE GO FROM HERE?
James Dalziel, Sandra Wills, Gráinne Conole, Simon
Walker, Sue Bennett, Eva Dobozy, Leanne Cameron,
Emil Badilescu-Buga, Matt Bower and Chris Pegler
Introduction
This chapter explores some implications of the concepts discussed in the book
Learning Design: Conceptualizing a Framework for Teaching and Learning Online. For
those in teaching roles, it encourages greater reuse and adoption of Learning
Design, and a shift from focussing primarily on learning content towards learning
activities. For those in educational leadership, it stresses the importance of appro-
priate rewards and recognition for educators who adopt learning designs, and the
importance of fostering and supporting sharing and reuse at an institutional level.
For those in educational research, it notes the benefits of using Learning Design
to conduct more fine-grained comparisons in educational investigations, and the
potential benefits of a learning design for Instructional Design. It concludes with
the need for Learning Design theory to keep trying to develop a broadly accepted
representational framework(s).
Overview
This book has provided a new synthesis of foundational concepts for Learn-
ing Design (LD-F, LD-CM and LD-P), followed by a range of chapters that
explore the theoretical and practical implications of these concepts. In this
final chapter, we briefly consider some of the implications of these ideas for
our educational colleagues—those in teaching, those in leadership and those
in research. We then conclude with reflections on next steps for the field of
Learning Design itself.
Where Do We Go from Here? 257
Implications for Teaching

Our initial reflections are relevant to those who have a role in teaching, whether
they are university lecturers, schoolteachers or trainers in vocational and corpo-
rate settings.We would encourage our teaching colleagues to investigate the reuse
of existing educational resources. Many educators re-invent the wheel when pre-
paring resources and activities for teaching—often without investigating whether
someone else may have done similar work and shared it for others to use.
Educators are familiar with reusing educational resources created by others in
the form of the textbook, but there are so many other kinds of resources (often
freely available online) they could use to improve educational quality and reduce
preparation workload—particularly the types of learning designs discussed in this
book. Examples of collections of learning designs include:
• AUTC Learning Design project (www.learningdesigns.uow.edu.au/),

• LAMS Community (www.lamscommunity.org/),
• Cloudworks (http://cloudworks.ac.uk/),
• Project Enrole (http://enrole.uow.edu.au/) and others.
While all of these initiatives are relatively small, they are pointers to a future
where learning designs are widely shared and reused.
If the field of Learning Design is to transform education globally, then one
of the shifts needed is a change of mind-set among educators from creating all
resources themselves, to starting to investigate whether pre-existing resources
could be used or adapted for local use. This switch in educators’ minds from
“default self-creation” to “default searching for existing resources” may yet be the
most important change needed for broad transformation.
Just as searching and reuse are important, so too is sharing. While some educa-
tors are willing to share widely, others have concerns that inhibit their sharing.
The use of appropriate copyright approaches for sharing and reuse, such as the
Creative Commons licences, can help remove certain concerns. For some edu-
cators, it is the thought of sharing with people they don’t know (who might
potentially criticize their contributions) that inhibits them (Masterman & Wild,
2011). Where broad sharing isn’t acceptable, a practical approach to this concern
is to encourage limited sharing among a smaller group (across a university, or
a school or group of schools), with the hope that following an initial positive
experience of sharing, there will be greater willingness to consider wider sharing
in the future. Furthermore, sharing between educators should not stop at formal
educators themselves. The important shift towards involving students as partners
in the learning process means that students can be used as educational researchers;
they may explore others’ designs and propose more appropriate designs for their
post-digital education which are agreed and implemented through staff-student

partnerships; these are then re-shared through new networks (for an example, see
www.jisc.ac.uk/rd/projects/change-agents-network).
Another implication for educators is the growing importance of learning activi-
ties, not just learning content. Educators no longer live in an age of “information
scarcity”, where it was difficult to acquire knowledge from hard-to-access books or
lecturers. Rather, the Internet provides people with “anytime, anywhere” access to
rich and multifaceted resources, which means that information scarcity is itself scarce
in an age of knowledge abundance (Honan, 2015), and yet many classroom experi-
ences still focus primarily on content transmission when content is no longer scarce.
The “flipped classroom” is just one example of a growing shift towards using
the classroom (or live online) experiences for activities that foster learning, fre-
quently through collaborative interactions. This is possible because basic content
knowledge can often be obtained via reading a textbook or watching an online
video—neither of which require classroom time.We are not suggesting that class-
room time should abandon knowledge acquisition, but educators should at least
investigate the productive use of modern technologies so that classroom time is
most effective in fostering learning, coupled with other useful learning activities,
such as online activities before and after a face-to-face class. In many cases, the
kind of learning designs discussed in this book can be central to the shift from a
content focus to an activity focus. And the rise of mobile devices and “blended
learning” approaches demonstrates how technology can be a useful part of the
classroom experience, not just something for before and after class.
Implications for Educational Leaders

Perhaps the greatest challenge to educators adopting a reuse approach is the lack
of incentives to do so—and this is something that educational leaders can address.
Institutions could establish institutionally relevant (and endorsed) learning design
collections, templates and tools for educators or course teams to follow, and this
could both save time and improve educational quality. Facilitation of reuse of
quality educational material should be an institutional concern and no longer
seen as the responsibility of a few early adopters of innovative educational prac-
tices. Scale up requires an institutionally supported response, which means recog-
nition and reward for reuse and open sharing of quality educational resources and
practices (Armellini & Nie, 2013).
Course design based around reuse, such as now happens with the emergence
of MOOCs (massive open online courses) can be complemented by ensuring that
reuse practices are written into job descriptions for academics, teachers, trainers
and teaching-related support staff. Performance reviews/appraisals then provide a
direct line of sight from job descriptions to actual sharing and reuse practice plus
recognition and reward of exemplary practice.
There are few examples to date of formal reward and recognition to encourage
change in mainstream sharing and reuse practice. In 2010/2011 Leeds Metropoli-
tan University introduced recognition of Open Educational Resource (OER) use
and release as an optional measure within annual academic performance review
(Thomson, 2010). That model may be adopted elsewhere, but meanwhile active
engagement with reuse is, unless project-funded, commonly left to the discretion
of the individual.
In universities, academics are rewarded for sharing and reconfiguring their
research work in a format that assists in research dissemination (e.g. journal pub-
lication). But there is no widespread equivalent process to reward educators for
undertaking extra activity to prepare their educational resources for wider dis-
semination and reuse. This is a key area where educational leaders can provide
recognition and reward for something that many educators would like to do (if
given support).
Another step that educational leaders can take to help transform reuse and
sharing is through establishing central teaching support positions or groups.
Many schools and universities have centrally supported positions to assist
educators—these positions could be given a much greater focus on encouraging
reuse and the adoption of learning designs. For example, colleagues in university
educational development centres, as part of the services they already provide for
sharing good teaching practice, could provide targeted support to improve uptake
of learning designs.
Implications for Education Research

Two particular areas where Learning Design could assist educational research are
in structuring experimental comparisons, and in broadening the focus of Instruc-
tional Design theory. In terms of experimental comparisons—many educational
research investigations operate at a fairly coarse level of detail about student
experiences—that is, comparisons are made on whole programs of study, or insti-
tutional or national differences. While there is a place for these kinds of research,
the field of Learning Design could assist with more detailed “granular” research
by providing tools to structure and analyze individual components of the teaching
process—that is, “which teacher and student activities were occurring when?”—
in a way that would allow for much more fine-grained comparison of educational
interventions.
While this approach could be used to better analyze education where no
technology was used, it would have its greatest impact where learning design
software systems have been used to implement an educational intervention
because these systems have the potential to record much greater detail about
the activities of each individual student at each step in the learning process.
Where this data can be collected, it provides a rich starting point for Learning
Analytics—one of the promising new areas of educational research. Learn-

ing Design student data may yet prove a treasure trove for Learning Analytics
(Dobozy, 2015).
The second area where Learning Design could assist educational research (and
theory) is in the field of Instructional Design.While a full exploration of this topic
goes beyond the scope of the current discussion, it is worth noting that some
versions of Instructional Design theory and practice have been strong on struc-
tured learning processes, but weak (or silent) on the role of collaborative learning.
By comparison, Learning Design has always had a strong collaborative learning
focus, but it has also incorporated the benefits of structured processes for learning
(whether they be linear, branched, cyclical or other). Further, the work conducted
jointly between teacher-designers and instructional designers (as occurs particu-
larly in higher education) offers a point of intersection where the theories and
practices of both might be fruitfully explored.
Too often there has been an unbridgeable divide between Instructional Design
theory on one hand, and constructivist theory on the other (see for example Gib-
bons, 2014). While important theoretical disagreements remain to be considered
between these approaches, there are possibilities for Learning Design to act as a
bridge between these two areas. Further research and implementation will be
needed to investigate how Learning Design and Instructional Design might use-
fully interact (Dalziel, 2013).
Next Steps for Learning Design

Learning Design is already a rich field of research and practice as this book illus-
trates. Nonetheless, a number of key challenges await for the future if Learning
Design is to reach its full potential. Many of these are practical challenges related
to human behaviour and rewards, sometimes coupled with society-wide changes
(such as changing attitudes to sharing and developing partnerships with students).
Some of these have been considered earlier in this volume, and some relate to the
slow changes that occur with any major innovation.
However, one central challenge for Learning Design theory deserves high-
lighting at the end of this book—the need to develop a more widely used lan-
guage or framework (or languages or frameworks) for sharing learning designs.
As the first chapter notes, there has been progress on this challenge in the past
decade, particularly with visualizations of teaching and learning processes. But
there is further to go with this idea and its implementation, and the field would
benefit from ongoing innovation in representational approaches until education
develops something like modern music notation—not just in its representational
effectiveness, but more importantly in its breadth of adoption.
References
Armellini, A., & Nie, M. (2013). Open educational practices for curriculum enhancement.
Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 28(1), pp. 7–20. www.tand
fonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02680513.2013.796286.
Dalziel, J. (2013). Implementing learning design: A decade of lessons learned. In H.
Carter, M. Gosper & J. Hedberg (Eds.), Electric Dreams: Proceedings ascilite 2013 Syd-
ney (pp. 210–220). www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/sydney13/program/papers/Dal
ziel,%20James.pdf.
Dobozy, E. (2015). Lurking and learning or nowhere to hide? Keynote address, 13th Inter-
national Innovations in Education Colloquium, “Personalisation: Who do you think
you are?”, 23–26 April, Brescia, Italy. http://unibs.prod.cineca.it/sites/default/files/
ricerca/allegati/brochure_2015-%20V11%2017–4–15.pdf.
Gibbons, A. S. (2014). Eight views of instructional design and what they should mean to
instructional designers. In B. Hokanson & A. Gibbons (Eds.), Design in Educational Tech-
nology (pp. 15–36). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. Retrieved
from http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978–3–319–00927–8_2.
Honan, D. (2015). Are we ready for the coming “age of abundance”? Available at: http://
bigthink.com/think-tank/are-we-ready-for-the-coming-age-of-abundance.
Masterman, E., & Wild, J. (2011). JISC Open Educational Resources Programme: Phase 2.
OER Impact Study: Research Report. http://www.icde.org/filestore/Resources/
Reports/OERImpactStudyResearchReport.pdf.
Thomson, S. (2010). A sustainable model for institutional implementation of OER. OpenEd
2010, 2–4 November, Barcelona.
This page intentionally left blank
CONTRIBUTORS
Shirley Agostinho is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Education at the Univer-

sity of Wollongong, Australia.
Emil Badilescu-Buga is a researcher at the Macquarie E-Learning Centre of

Excellence, Macquarie University, Australia.
Sue Bennett is a Professor in the Faculty of Education and a Deputy Coordinator

of the Centre for Research in Interactive Learning Environments at the Univer-
sity of Wollongong, Australia.
Matt Bower is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Education at the University of

Wollongong, Australia.
Leanne Cameron is a Lecturer in educational studies at Australian Catholic Uni-

versity, Australia.
Chris Campbell is a Lecturer in the School of Education at the University of

Queensland, Australia.
Gráinne Conole is a Professor of Learning Innovation and Director of the Insti-

tute of Learning Innovation in the School of Education at the University of
Leicester, UK.
James Dalziel is a Director of the LAMS Foundation Ltd and LAMS Interna-
tional Pty Ltd.
264 Contributors
Eva Dobozy is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Education at Curtin University,

Australia.
Mark J. P. Kerrigan is the Director of Teaching, Learning and Assessment for

Anglia Ruskin University, UK.
Diana Laurillard is a Professor of Learning with Digital Technologies and Assis-

tant Director for Open Mode Learning in the Institute of Education at University
College London, UK.
Lori Lockyer is a Professor, Vincent Fairfax Family Foundation Chair in Teacher

Education and Head of the School of Education at Macquarie University,Australia.
Chris Pegler is a UK National Teaching Fellow and formerly a Senior Lecturer in

the Institute of Educational Technology at the Open University, UK.
Simon Walker is a Higher Education Academy National Teaching Fellow and

Head of Educational Development at the University of Greenwich, UK.
Sandra Wills is a Professor and Pro Vice-chancellor (Student Learning) at Charles

Sturt University, Australia.
INDEX
Page numbers in italic format indicate figures and tables.
abstract conceptualization 135, 136 classroom activities see teaching and

active experimentation 135, 136 learning activities
activity profile view 137, 140 cognitive structures 53, 56, 210, 211, 212
Activity Theory 46 – 7, 54, 57 cognitivism 187 – 9, 199
adaptive learning design 224, 225, 248 – 51 cognitivist/constructivist approach/
Adobe Connect Meeting platform 233 perspective 52, 53, 56 – 7
adoption see social adoption Collaborate C concept 131 – 3
affordances: concept of 48 – 51; defined collaborative designs 167, 169, 176, 226 – 7,
48; digital technologies 49, 59, 118; 247, 250
learning experience and 128 – 9; types collaborative learning: educational interfaces
of 49 – 51 and 228; IMS Learning Design and
assessment and feedback practices 53, 54, 65 – 6; introduction to 56, 57; learning
120, 121, 133, 134 environment and 247 – 8; students and 65,
associative category/perspective 52–5, 53 66, 243;Web-conferencing environments
asynchronous learning environments 69 and 232 – 3
audio, use of 231, 236, 245, 246 COLLAGE project 7, 9, 12
Australian Universities Teaching Council Combine C concept 136 – 42
(AUTC) Learning Design project 6 – 9, Communicate C concept 128 – 31
23 , 148, 159 communication and collaboration, 25, 26,
49, 118, 122, 137 – 9
behavior diagrams 72 communities of practice 51, 54, 57,
behavior modification 52, 53 210 – 12, 215, 220
“bring your own device” (BYOD) Community of Framework (COI)
initiative 93 framework 56 – 7
Business Process Modelling (BPM) 73 – 4 Conceptualize C concept 120 – 6
concrete experience 135, 136
Cascade project 92 connectivist learning 52, 54, 185, 191, 205
CDL skills 84, 87, 91 connectivist perspective 58 – 9
citation networks 209, 215, 216, 217, 221 Consider C concept 133 – 6
266 Index
Consolidate C concept 142 – 3 educational patterns 12, 23, 74, 75

content and activities 137 – 9 educational philosophy 17 – 19, 31, 32,
content delivery 53, 184 60, 191
content knowledge 5, 100, 184, 190, 258 educational research: design thinking
contextual factors, reuse and 167, 168, 169 and 146, 148; implications for 259 – 60;
Conversational Framework 29 – 32, 56, Instructional Design and 259, 260;
128 – 30 TPACK and 97, 99, 102, 111; see also
course features view 120, 121, 122, 123 Learning Design
Course Map template 25, 26 educational technology 66, 81, 103, 163, 164
course map view 137 – 9 educational theory and practice 29 – 32, 43
CPD provisions 84, 89 educational workflows 73, 74
Create C concept 126 – 8 educators: challenges related to 1;
Creative Commons licences 27, 257 characteristics and values 20; decision
“creative leap” concept 26, 74, 75 making of 19, 20, 22, 34; design
critical digital literacy (CDL) 82, 84, thinking of 146 – 59; implications for
87 – 92 258 – 9; LD-F and 36–7; learning design
curriculum content 191, 203 and 18, 28, 150; play/act metaphor and
66; role for 4; sharing between 257; see
decision making: of educators 19, 20, 22, also reuse and repurpose; teachers
34; pedagogical 109, 111, 112, 183, 190, e-learning application 53 – 4
205 e-learning environments 56
design-based research 229 – 32 eLearning/eTeaching 97, 98, 100
design context factors, reuse and 168, 169 e-learning model: adaptation in 223 – 4;
design factors, reuse and 166, 167, 168, 169 collaborative designs for 226 – 7; online
Digital Literacy Learning Design (DLLD): resources 163; reuse activity and 164;
CDL and 87, 89; introduction to 84, 86; stages of 58
logics statements 92; zones 87, 91 evaluation rubric 142 – 3
digital literacy/technologies: affordances
49, 59, 118; application of 88 – 92; face-to-face education/interaction 69, 72,
conclusion about 93 – 4; educational 88, 210, 211, 212
institutions and 79 – 80; importance of feedback and assessment principles 54, 120,
93–4; introduction to 78 – 9; Larnaca 121, 133, 134
Declaration and 81; Learning Design Fibonacci numbers 105 – 7, 191, 203
and 79 – 87; MOOCs and 80; putting “five first principles” model 55
into practice 92 – 3; teachers and 118
digital online resources 163, 170, 180 generic design 190, 191
dominant influencers 217 – 18 graduate attributes 5, 20
guidance, representation and sharing 33,
early adopters 211 – 12, 220 59, 118, 147, 159, 208
early majority adopters 212 – 14, 220 guidance and support 25, 26, 122, 137, 138
ecological perspective 48 – 51 Guitar Hero music games 68, 69
education: challenges related to 1; teacher
or learner centered 35–6 HoTEL project 51, 218
educational institutions: challenges related
to 1; digital literacy and 79 – 80; formal identity formation 211, 213
and informal structures in 19 IMS Learning Design: collaborative
educational interfaces 227 – 31, 234 learning and 65 – 6; foundational project
Educational Modelling Language (EML) for 6 – 9; learning design definitions
6, 7 and 12–13; metaphors and 64 – 7, 73;
educational notation 3 – 6, 38 research study and 147, 156 – 7
educational paradigms 107, 127, 187, information and communications
188 – 9, 204, 205 technology (ICT) 80, 103, 148
Index 267
information representation 245 – 6 learning activity sequence 184, 186

innovations: adoption of 209, 210, 211, 215, learning and teaching: pedagogical
221; of Learning Design 13, 16 approaches and 53 – 4; technology-
innovators stage 210 – 11, 220 enhanced 78, 98, 102, 110, 112, 127
Instructional Design: educational research learning content 105, 184, 186, 190, 191, 203
and 259, 260; introduction to 30; learning cycle: aspects of 135 – 6;
Larnaca Declaration and 59; phases of cognitivist/constructivist perspective
55 ; principles 52 56; experiential 135 – 6; Kolb’s 53, 56;
instructionism 15, 19, 186 – 9 reflective 121, 134
intellectual property rights (IPR) 164 Learning Design: Activity Theory and
interactive approach/patterns 226 – 7, 250 46 – 7; adaptive 224, 225, 248–51;
interface design 227 – 31, 234, 236, 238, areas of growing field of 7; associative
248 – 9, 251 perspective 52 – 5; citation networks
iterations: enactment of 230 – 1; results 209, 215, 216, 217, 221; cognitivist/
related to 233 – 45 constructivist perspective 56 – 7;
complementary nature of 104 – 5, 111;
jigsaw pedagogical pattern 132 components of 37; conclusion about
37 – 8; connectivist perspective 58 ; core
knowledge economy 1, 5, 184 concepts of 17, 31, 60, 159; customizing
knowledge gap 97, 102 149 – 50; defined 39; definition problem
knowledge representation 226, 229, 245, 251 12, 13 – 15, 36 – 7; development in 9;
Kolb’s’ learning cycle 53, 56, 135 – 6 digital literacy and 79 – 92; ecological
perspective 48 – 51; educational
laggards 214 research and 259 – 60; example of 8 – 12;
Larnaca Declaration: digital literacy and innovations of 13, 16; Instructional
20, 81; Instructional Design and 30–1, Design and 30; integrating technical
42, 52, 59, 66, 154; on Learning Design standards in 156–7; introduction to 1 – 2;
1–2, 6–12, 13, 15–38, 75, 98 – 100, learning objectives and 72; Mediating
185 – 6; summary of 39 ; TPTs and 75, Artefacts and 45 – 6; musical notation
183, 185 – 6 analogy and 2 – 3, 15; next steps for
late majority adopters 214, 220 260; notational framework 2, 3, 33, 34;
Laurillard’s Conversational Framework ontology 99; origins of 6 – 7; pedagogical
29 – 32, 56, 128 – 30 neutrality and 15 – 16; pedagogical
Learner Analytics 17, 28 – 32, 60 theories and 32 – 4; principles 185 – 6;
learner responses 28 – 9, 33, 131, 208 purpose and goal of 1 – 2; representation
learners: CDL and 82; characteristics and 29, 30, 31, 154 – 6, 162; research areas
values 20; Consider C concept and 219; research study 146 – 59; scope of 36;
133 – 6; effective teaching and learning shared 18, 27, 150, 212, 213; situative
and 35 – 6; interactions between teachers perspective 57 – 8; social adoption of
and 128; Kolb’s learning cycle and 135 – 6; 208 – 21; sociocultural perspectives
Learning Design software system and 13; 42 – 5; support tools 146 – 8, 154, 156 – 9;
Persona activity and 122 – 5; structured symbolic languages and 47 – 8; table
debates and 129 – 30; Think-Pair-Share formats 70, 71, 72; underpinnings of
activity and 130 – 1 42, 58 – 60; written format 12; XML-
learning activities see teaching and learning based descriptions of 11–12, 67, 73; see
activities also Larnaca Declaration; teaching and
Learning Activity Management System learning activities; Web-conferencing
(LAMS): Authoring environment of environments and 248–51
10 – 12, 23; for Learning Design 6 – 7, 13, learning design: 9, 11–13, 15,18–19, 23, 26,
15, 209 – 14; TPACK and 105, 109; TPTs 27, 36, 39, 48, 68, 71, 74–5, 83–94, 99,
and 191, 199; see also Learning Design 104, 126, 142, 148–51, 154–9, 185, 190,
Conceptual Map (LD-CM) 214, 242, 259
268 Index
Learning Design Conceptual Map and 72; learning experiences and 31,
(LD-CM): challenge related to 18; 32, 60; pedagogical approaches and 18
defined 39; educational philosophy and learning outcomes: course map view and
18–19; educational theory and 29 – 32; 138; Fibonacci numbers and 203; lesson
implementation of 2 8; introduction plans 105, 107, 110; storyboarding
to 16–17; learner responses and 28 – 9; concept and 142
learning environment and 17, 19, 31, learning resources, reusable 163 – 5, 169,
32, 33, 60; level of granularity and 21 – 2, 175, 176, 181, 223
75; overlays to 31 – 2; Teaching Cycle learning theories: pedagogical clarity and
and 21 ; theories and methodologies 19 187; types of 51
Learning Designer 7, 22, 23, 25 lesson plans: introduction to 3, 6, 12, 29; for
Learning Design Framework (LD-F): mathematics lesson 105; as a metaphor
7Cs of 118 – 20, 144; defined 39; 70 – 1; number sequences in context
educators and 36–7; introduction to 16; 108 – 9; readjusted 107; teaching and
pedagogical theories and 33; TPACK learning activities and 71;TPACK and 110
and 112 local design 190, 191
Learning Design metaphors: Business lock-step tools 158
Process Modelling 73 – 4; conclusion London Planner see Learning Designer
about 75 – 6; introduction to 63 – 4;
lesson plans 70 – 1; music notation “Map My Programme” project 68
67 – 70; patterns 74 – 5; play/act 65 – 7; massive open online courses (MOOCs):
types of 64 – 5; Unified Modelling classification schema 141;
Language 71 – 3 designing 140; digital literacy and 80;
Learning Design Practice (LD-P): introduction to 1, 29; proliferation of 117
description of 36–7, 39; pedagogical mathematics lesson, lesson plans for 105
clarity and 186 – 9; shared LD media forms 128, 129
conceptualization and 99; TPACK and mediated activity concept 44 – 5
104; TPTs and 191, 205; in unbalanced Mediating Artefacts: introduction to 43;
lesson 106 Learning Design and 45 – 6; role of 45,
Learning Design Research (LDR) 97, 98, 99 46; types of 43, 44
Learning Design software system 11, 13, metaphors: Business Process Modelling
28 – 9, 67, 71 73 – 4; IMS Learning Design and
Learning Design Support Environment 64 – 7, 73; introduction to 63; lesson
(LDSE) project 147, 214 plans 70 – 1; musical notation 67 – 70,
learning environment: adaptive redesign of 75; patterns 74 – 5; play/act 65 – 7, 75;
248; asynchronous 69; characteristics and purpose of 63 – 4; Unified Modelling
values 19 – 20; collaborative learning and Language 71 – 3
247 – 8; effective 55; features of 232 – 3; mobile devices 117, 258
LD-CM and 17, 19–20, 31, 32, 33, 60; mobile learning 80, 107
mixed-media 50; structured 53; students modality principle 228, 240
and 232, 234, 236, 248; teachers Motivation factors, reuse and 171, 175
and 247; Web-conferencing multimedia learning 228, 246
environments and 232 – 3 multimedia principle 228, 240
learning experiences: affordances and multimodal synchronous environments
128 – 9; design thinking and 146, 154, 245 – 8, 251
159; learning objectives and 31, 32, 60; musical notation: educational notation
pedagogical approaches and 18 and 3 – 6, 38; examples of 12, 14; as
Learning Management System (LMS) 13, foundational metaphor 67 – 70, 75;
15, 28, 149 – 51, 157 Learning Design and 2 – 3, 15
Learning Object concept 163, 165, 169, 190
learning objectives: Conversational New Digital Age,The (Schmidt) 79
Framework and 128; Learning Design note-pods 238 – 40, 246 – 8, 250
Index 269
online communities 54, 58, 213 reuse and repurpose: comparing factors
online environment 10, 225, 226, 247 about 175, 176; conclusion about
online role play 164 – 7, 169, 175, 177 180 – 1; course design issues 258;
Open Educational Resource (OER) 117, e-learning model and 164; factors for
126, 163, 164, 165, 259 and against 166 – 9; introduction to 163 – 4;
Open University Learning Design Initiative nuances of 175 – 8; Pegler study 170 – 4;
(OULDI) approach 25 proximity zones and 178 – 80; role plays
and 166 – 7; studies on 164 – 5; terms and
patterns as a metaphor 74 – 5 concepts related to 163;TPTs and 204 – 5;
pedagogical approaches/theories: course types of 177;Wills study 165 – 9
features view and 122; examples of 19; role plays: CDL integration in 88;
Learning Design and 32 – 4; learning description of 9; example of 10;
objectives and 17 – 18; technologies and implementation of 10; interactive
51 – 2 whiteboards 11; narrow types of 9;
pedagogical clarity, need for 186 – 9 online 164 – 7, 169, 175, 177; phases of
pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) 9; reuse of 166 – 7; teaching and learning
100, 101, 102 activities for 11; transfer of 165 – 6
pedagogical neutrality, Learning Design roles, concept of 66
and 15 – 16
pedagogical technology integration SCORM courseware 30, 31, 32
content knowledge model (PTICK) screen-sharing layout 226, 234, 235, 237,
110 – 11 246, 250
pedagogical theories 32 – 4 self-reflection process 9, 104
pedagogy profile 137, 140 7Cs framework 59, 117–44; see also
Pegler study 170 – 4, 178 – 80 Learning Design Framework (LD-F)
Persona activity 122 – 5 Shareable Content Object Reference
Personal Inquiry project 57 Model (SCORM) 30, 31, 32
play/act metaphor 65 – 7, 75 sharing and reuse of learning design 23,
“Predict-Observe-Explain” teaching 121, 213, 256 – 9
method 23, 24, 224, 255 signs as tools 43, 44
pre-emptive design 223, 247 situative category/perspective 52, 54,
Problem-Based Learning 5, 22, 52, 53, 57 – 8
56 – 7, 67 six design frames 123 – 6
professional development 5, 21, 23, 90, 91 sociability and usability 58, 59
proximity zones 178 – 80 social adoption: conclusion about
pyramid pedagogical pattern 120, 133 219 – 21; of ideas and influence 214 – 19;
introduction to 208 – 9; of Learning
Quality factors, reuse and 170, 175 Design 209 – 14
quasi-communities 211, 212, 213 social constructivism/connectivism
187 – 9, 204
REAP project 134 social network system 213, 215, 216
redundancy effect 228 sociocultural perspectives: design
reflection and demonstration 137 – 9 guidelines 46; Learning Design and
reflective journal 231, 232 42 – 5
reflective learning 134 – 6 SoURCE project 6, 7
reflective observation 135, 136 split-attention effect 228
representational approaches 23 – 7 staff digital literacy: DLLD model and
Resource Audit concept 126 – 8 89 – 90; impact of 83, 85; visualizing 86
reusable learning activity 163, 169, 176, storyboarding concept 140 – 2
186 structured debates 129 – 30
Reusable Learning Objects (RLO) 163, structure diagrams 72
164, 165, 170 student-centered design 227
270 Index
student-centered pedagogies 236, 237, 108; teachers and 96, 100 – 4, 110 – 12;
246 – 7 unbalanced 106; unrealistic expectations
student digital literacy: DLLD model and of 102 – 4
89 – 90; impact of 83, 85; visualizing 86 technology: LDR and 98; learning and
students: collaborative learning and 65, teaching enhanced by 78, 98, 102, 110,
66, 243; learning environment and 232, 112, 127; pedagogical approaches and
234, 236, 248; see also digital literacy/ 51 – 2
technologies; teaching and learning techno-pedagogic patterns 248, 249
activities text-chat 225, 233 – 6, 238, 240, 245,
symbolic languages 47 – 8 249 – 51
Symbol System Theory 228, 235 Think-Pair-Share activity 130 – 1, 224
synchronous learning environments 245 – 8 timeline and pie chart 23, 25
tools and signs 43, 44
teacher-centered approach/design 227, transdisciplinary pedagogical templates
249, 251 (TPTs): cognitivist 195 – 9; conclusion
teacher-led programming activity 242, 243 about 205; curriculum content of 203;
teachers: interactions between learners instructionist 192 – 4, 199; introduction
and 128; Learning Design and 59, 224; to 183 – 5; LAMS and 191, 199; Larnaca
learning environment and 247; TPACK Declaration and 185 – 6; LD-P and 191,
and 96, 100 – 4, 110 – 12; see also digital 205; models of 191 – 204; pedagogical
literacy/technologies; Learning Design clarity and 186 – 9; reuse philosophy and
Framework (LD-F) 204 – 5; schools of thought related to
teacher training 10, 20, 23, 67, 71 190 – 1; social constructivist/connectivist
teaching, implications for 257 – 8 200 – 2
teaching and learning: learner centered transmissive approaches 233, 236, 239, 242,
35 – 6; practices 97, 112, 184 250, 251
teaching and learning activities: descriptive
framework for 6, 12, 16; different Unified Modelling Language (UML) 6,
representations of 45; educator’s role 27, 71 – 3
in 35; growing importance of 258; Unit of Learning 65, 133
guidance and 22–3, 36–7; introduction unit of study 150, 151
to 1; Learning Design software system usability and sociability 51, 58, 59
and 13; lesson plans and 71; level of
granularity in 21 – 2; for role plays 11; Voice-over IP 225, 226
theories and methodologies 19
Teaching Cycle 21 , 30, 37 Web-conferencing environments:
teaching strategy, defined 39 conclusion about 251 – 2; interactive
Teaching Teachers for the Future (TTF) patterns and 226 – 7; interface design
project 102, 103, 108 and 227 – 9; introduction to 225;
Technical factors, reuse and 170, 171, iterations enactment and 230 – 1;
175, 178 knowledge representation in 226, 229,
technological affordances see affordances 245, 251; learning design and 248 – 51;
Technological Pedagogical and Content learning environment and 232 – 3;
Knowledge (TPACK): balanced 110; multimodal synchronous environments
complementary nature of 104 – 5, 111; and 245 – 8; principles for design of
components of 100 – 2; conclusion about 228; research study 229 – 32, 251
112; educational research and 97, 99, Western music notation 68, 69
102, 111; Fibonacci numbers and 105 – 7; whiteboards 226, 231, 233, 239 – 44, 246,
future research in 111; introduction to 249 – 51
30, 96 – 8; LAMS and 105, 109; LD-F Wills study 165 – 9, 175 – 8
and 112; LD-P and 104; lesson balancing
108; for number sequences in context XML-based approaches 12, 67, 73

9781315693101

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

9781315693101

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LEARNING DESIGN

Edited by James Dalziel

Foreword by Diana Laurillard vii

1 The Larnaca Declaration on Learning Design—2013 1

2 Theoretical Underpinnings of Learning Design 42

3 Reflections on Metaphors for Learning Design 63

4 Learning Design in the New Digital Age 78

5 The Complementary Nature of Learning Design and TPACK 96

6 The 7Cs of Learning Design 117

7 Investigating University Educators’ Design Thinking

8 A Deeper Understanding of Reuse: Learning Designs,

9 The Use and Usefulness of Transdisciplinary Pedagogical

10 Social Adoption of Learning Design 208

11 A Framework for Adaptive Learning Design in a

12 Learning Design: Where Do We Go from Here? 256

List of Contributors 263

Teaching is a profession that deserves some attention.We stopped conceptualizing

decisions of educators (“Learning Design Conceptual Map”). Then it turns to

An Analogy from Music

Part 1: Educational Notation?

group debate, whole-class discussion, individual reading, practical tasks etc.) or

Part 2: Learning Design

Areas of Application of Learning Design Early Examples

Foundation projects EML/IMS Learning Design, SoURCE,

Part 2.1: Example of a Learning Design

1) A description of the scenario and the roles within it.

To give a concrete example of a Role Play in a school-based teacher training

1) The scenario is about the adoption of interactive whiteboards in a typi-

We still need to consider many practical issues in implementing this Role

FIGURE 1.2 LAMS Authoring view of interactive whiteboards adoption Role Play,

Part 3: Definition Problems

the musical analogy, a running learning design is equivalent to the performance of

Part 3.1: Pedagogical Neutrality and Learning Design

instance of any one of these styles could be a beautiful or mediocre example of

Part 4: A Learning Design Conceptual Map

Educational Philosophy Teaching Cycle

All pedagogical approaches Level of Granularity

Core Concepts of Learning Design

Guidance Representation Sharing

FIGURE 1.4 A Learning Design Conceptual Map

as government education departments or professional bodies) can also affect edu-

Theories and Methodologies

Learning Environment: Characteristics and Values

a degree differs from a focus on practical abilities/competencies, such as the ability

• workshop processes for guiding groups of educators in reflective planning of

Given Learning Design’s focus on sharing and reuse, an important aspect of

Pairs discuss and predict outcome

Groups of pairs explain any

Teacher facilitated class

FIGURE 1.5 A “Predict-Observe-Explain” teaching method described using the AUTC

Individual or initial group

Design research if agreement on a set of pedagogical descriptors can be achieved.

Guidance and Support Content and Experience

Reflection and Demonstration Communication and Collaboration

as a LAMS sequence) is that a pattern provides ideas/guidance for a teaching

In summary, Learning Design projects have developed a number of different

as course surveys, which may play an important role in future improvements to

Part 4.1: Applying the Learning Design Conceptual

Perhaps most significant for a single-learner Instructional Design approach

Educational Philosophy Teaching Cycle

All pedagogical approaches Level of Granularity

Core Concepts of Learning Design

Guidance Representation Sharing

Feedback Assessment Learner Analytics Evaluation

Foreword by Diana Laurillard vii

1 The Larnaca Declaration on Learning Design—2013 1

2 Theoretical Underpinnings of Learning Design 42

3 Reflections on Metaphors for Learning Design 63

4 Learning Design in the New Digital Age 78

5 The Complementary Nature of Learning Design and TPACK 96

6 The 7Cs of Learning Design 117

10 Social Adoption of Learning Design 208

12 Learning Design: Where Do We Go from Here? 256

List of Contributors 263