The web-site is now in readonly mode. Login and registration are disabled. (28 June 2019)

Learning design symposium

Symposium at CAL 09 conference, Brighton

Cloud created by:

Gráinne Conole
31 March 2009

Layered learning design – Tom Boyle
  • Why layers of design?
  • Designs operate at many levels of granularity from small to very large
  • We need to make pedagogical design of this design space
  • LDSE aims to produce a set of tools and to support the full range of activity across this design space
  • Explore productive relationships – with learning object aggregation models
  • Delineating the layers – work from 50 years ago design futures of language – why is language so powerful?
  • Concerns – conceptual accuracy and adequacy and usability


JISC D4L framework
1.    Course design,
2.    Session planning,
3.    Activity design,
4.    Learning object development

Articulating the layers:
Module and sessions: simple session (class), module of 12 lectures, but also compound session (lecture plus labs)
Session and learning activity – base-level learning activity, LAMS tools for orchestration of sequences of activities
Where does dialogue based learning fit into this? At the compound level?

Basis of any dialogue is exchange – question, answer, feedback as a base interaction

Can also have compound sessions

ALCOM abstract reference model for aggregating learning objects – Verbert et al.
Series of levels: .1. Learning object designs (GLOs) 2. session plans 3. module design

A learning object is an instantiation of a learning design

Helen Beetham – designing for learning: educational sense in digital contexts

  • JISC Design for learning programme
  • Extrinsic design – educational meaning
  • In a teaching context are working within a designed context – the space has been designed, the books have been designed, the tools the students use – many of these artefacts were not explicitly designed for an educational context
  • Move to intrinsic design – through the digital environment , can take more control of the design you are using than we could in the past

Why design for learning?

  • Is intentional purposeful approach to learning (of others)
  • Represents intention so that it can be communicated and acted on in new contexts
  • Supports structure or scaffolds actions
  • Relies on general principles or rules of thumb but leaves room for contingent responses
  • Is a skilful reflective evidence-based practice

Pedagogic intention can be articulated and enacted with the support of technology
These articulations can be shared with other people and systems involved in the learning process
•    The people are adopting new roles
•    The systems are likely to be digital
•    The learning process takes place in a TEL context

Communicating educational meaning through design
Designer with a design intention who designed something – a mediating object which is delivered to a learner
•    OpenContent, OpenCourseware, OpenLearn
•    RLOs, GLOs, widgets
•    IMS Learning Design, TENCompetence, ReCourse

But in reality this design is usually mediated by some other person, different kinds of representation might be needed for this level
•    Communities of practice, Community tools, rules/protocols
•    Ontologies, folksonomies, taxonomies
•    Patterns and patter languages

Existing design practice is very varies
Tools are rarely experienced by practitioners as pedagogically neutral

Design tools must enable collaborative design
Tensions – diff levels of design, design for learning/design for teaching, representation, structure/flexibility of designs, aggregation/orchestration approaches and tools, the role of face to face interaction
Orchestrating technologies – VLEs etc course or module as base unit, focus on purposes of the designer/institution. Top-down management
But there has been a shift in recent years towards aggregating technologies
Aggregating technologies – feeds, aggregators, drawing on web services, RLOs, widgets and applets, small scale learning outcomes, object or activity as base unit, focus on needs of user, modularity, reusability and interoperability, self-organising systems
•    Old educational users – user requirements, text book ets tv, curriculum,
•    Users 2.0 – agile development – tell us what you want today, searchers, wikis, youtube etc learners are doing the designing

Liz Masterman and Marion Manton
Pedagogy theory and pedagogic planning in digital worlds
•    What is the value of theory to teachers?
•    Pedagogical planners
•    What do we mean by theory?
•    How has theory has been embedded into three areas?
(Lawes, 2004) Theory gives a framework of understanding that ultimately improves the quality of practice and leads to the transformation of subjective experience

Theory can provide a glue between technology and practice
Teachers need help with using technology; the Trojan mouse effect (Sharpe and Oliver 2007). Planner tools can help with this providing advice and guidance about going about the design process
How might we use theory in these planners?
•    Theories – Cook, 2002 a means of understanding and predicting explanatory power
•    Models – such as Kolb’s leaning cycle
•    Frameworks – such as Laurillard’s Conversational

Framework: a structure and vocabulary that support concepts
What theories? Whole load of them –range of names, don’t correspond to each other
What power do we endow their theories – strongly directly or just for device
Comparison of three pedagogical planner tools – DialogPlus, phoebe, LPP
•    DialogPlus – followed Mayes and De Freita classification of learning theories – associative, cognitive and situative. Learning outcomes related to Blooms and linked to tool type Laurillard. Provided context sensitive guidance for creation of learning activities
•    Phoebe – context-sensitive guidance’s planning tool alongside a guidance tool provides just general guidance
•    LPP Distilled theories and principles based on conversational framework

Practitioner’s responses to using these tools
•    Many see theory as a cornerstone of professional practice
•    But do teachers consciously espouse formal theories or are they more driven by prior experience and reflective practice?
•    Distinction between theories of learning and e-learning is contentious
•    Volume of explicitly material on theory on Pheobe could be daunting particularly for novice teachers
New work in the TLRP TEL LDSE project
•    Aim is to assemble a web-based environment for teachers – will be researching and trialling a number of tools
•    Theories – Bloom’s taxonomy, Briggs CA, Laurillard CF and Kolb’s learning cycle
•    Show uses how different models result in different kinds of learning experience
•    Challenges – how do we deal with intuitive theories based on reflective practice, local institutional models, what kind of pedagogy model underpins the tool – need to shift from ‘present, practise, produce’ towards. ‘activate, engage, contribute’

Extra content

Embedded Content