Transcript XINSTIT 2

Design for Learning programme:
developments & future directions
Helen Beetham
e-learning consultant
Joint Information Systems Committee – David Kernohan – eLearning
Learning Design and Design for Learning
 IMS LD was developed from the Educational Modelling
Language, originating at the OU NL (since 2000)
 A specification-first approach?
 A mass distance-education, largely online learning context
 Interoperability goal: outputs from design process can be run in real
(learning) time
 D4L emerged in response to practitioners’ demands for
support and guidance in designing for virtual environments
(since 2005)
 A practice- or use-first approach
 Largely mainstream UK HEIs, blended learning contexts
 Interoperability goal: the design process can be linked with other
curriculum processes and with relevant support and guidance
Joint Information Systems Committee
D4L: the premise
 Teaching is a human skill that can be
enhanced by technology
 Teaching is a different skill to learning,
though in close dialogue with it, i.e.
oriented towards guiding others to learn
 Teachers’ intentions can be articulated and
enacted with the support of technology
(‘design’ or ‘planning’)
 Learners will continue to see (f2f?) teaching,
as at the heart of the HE experience
Joint Information Systems Committee
Evidence
 ‘While the students expect to be able to set themselves up,
technologically… they will not expect … the technology to encroach
on what they see as the key benefits from university – interaction and
learning.’
 ‘I prefer to learn face to face with a teacher helping
me understand any problems that I have.’
 ‘Traditional teacher/pupil learning methods are preferred as the
backbone for everyday learning. Technology needs to be used as a
tool to complement this way of learning.’
(JISC Student Expectations study, November 2007)
 Consultations carried out with children, parents and other citizen
juries to determine preferred scenarios for education in 2025 and
beyond (‘Beyond Current Horizons’) find a strong preference for
‘relationships with teachers’ to remain at the heart of the learning
experience. (FutureLab, February 2008)
Joint Information Systems Committee
The promise
 Tutors have tools for course design… access to information
about the materials available, and support to adopt/adapt/
improve them.
HEFCE e-learning strategy (2005): key measure of success
 We want to support you in enhancing the learning
experience for students and the teaching experience of staff
by building the capacity and capability of your institution to a
point where informed use and application
of technology to provide a high quality
experience has become the norm.
Enhancing Learning and Teaching through
Technology: a Strategy for Higher
Education in Wales (HEFCW 2007)
Joint Information Systems Committee
Design for Learning 2005-06
 ‘a set of practices carried out by learning professionals…
defined as designing, planning and orchestrating learning
activities which involve the use of technology, as part of a
learning session or programme’
 The idea of ‘design’ embraced:
 New educational roles
 New ways of guiding others to learn
 The need to represent and share educational ideas more explicitly
 Design-type professional practices: innovation, (re)interpretation in new
contexts, iterative approach to solutions, continuous evaluation
 Design-based systems to support practice
Joint Information Systems Committee
Lessons learned: phase 1
 Existing design practice is very varied, depending on departmental
and personal preferences and historical precedents
 Educational design tools are rarely experienced by practitioners as
pedagogically neutral or as flexible enough to accommodate their
existing practice
 There is a need for tools that support collaborative design,
contingent/responsive design, and effective sharing of design
processes and outcomes
 Practitioners want rich (e.g. graphical, narrative) expressions of their
pedagogical intentions, but also bite-sized curriculum elements (e.g.
LOs) that can easily be re-purposed and re-used
 Design processes need to be integrated with other processes and
resources (e.g. LORs, VLEs, learner-related data) if design practice is
to be transformed
Joint Information Systems Committee
Design for learning 2006-08
professionals
 a set of practices carried out by learning professionals…
defined as designing, planning and orchestrating learning
technology as part of a
activities which involve the use of technology,
learning session or programme
 with the progressive
involvement of learners
 and structuring
with the use of
Joint Information Systems Committee
courses
sessions
activities
objects
Design for learning 2006-08
 Exploring the use of existing tools
(LAMS, Moodle) in different
contexts
course design
 Adding functionality to existing
tools (LAMS, ReLoad)
 Building shareable outcomes of the
design process (‘designs’, GLOs)
 Developing shareable
representations of the design
process (DialogPlus toolkit,
Phoebe wiki)
 Building an integrated planning tool
to support design at the course and
session level (LPP, Phoebe
planning component)
Joint Information Systems Committee
session planning
activity design
LO development
The pedagogy planning tools
 proof of concept(s)
 testable prototypes
 evaluation data from pilots
 gather requirements
 expose technical and
conceptual challenges
 explore with partners
the feasibility of future
development and usage
Joint Information Systems Committee
MODULE MODULE
1
MODULE
1
LEARNING
1
DESIGN
Allocate
Two planners
LPP
Phoebe
Intended for regular use to support
course and session planning
Intended primarily for use during ITT,
CPD, prof review…
Scaffolded support for decisionmaking process
Design and guidance separate but
linked systems
(Some) educational values built in to
system e.g. using checklists
Educational values fluid, owned by
communities of users
Supports decision making through
embedded relational model
Information model allows for
maximum flexibility
Some typologies embedded to
support decision-making
Typologies minimised – extensible
flat lists, web 2.0 tagging
Java enterprise
TRAC wiki
Joint Information Systems Committee
 The London Pedagogy Planner (LPP) is a
prototype collaborative online planning and design
tool that supports lecturers in developing and
sharing learning designs.
 “we are trying to fashion a support tool that helps lecturers
take a self-managed approach to innovation, and in a way
that makes it easy for them to collaborate and build on the
work of others.”
Diana Laurillard, personal email Sept 2007
http://www.wle.org.uk/d4l/
Joint Information Systems Committee
MODULE 4
WEEK 1
Attributes
Sequence
Learners’ needs
Learning theory
MODULE 3
WEEK 2
MODULE 2
WEEK 3
Critique design
Critique
Add in Learner need
Given your analysis of your learners’ likely needs, please select from
the list below those that correspond most closely to your analysis
Add in a Learning design
Select Learning Designs (Link to examples, cases)
Understanding meaning of terms, special words
Understanding, explaining processes within a system
Provide a glossary online which can either display the
matching terms and definitions, or display each term with all
definitions and ask learner to select the matching one, and v.v.
Motivation to do thorough research
Understanding how properties of elements in a system relate to each other
Justifications for key principles or relationships
Seeing the familiar as problematic
Provide a concordance tool for a relevant document repository,
set a task to use this to generate their own definition of a term,
submit it, and ask student groups to debate whose is best,
alongside existing expert definitions
Understanding the value of new concepts
At the session level, the decisions
made at Module level for that Week are
carried through, and a similar analysis
begins at the next level.
Then the user is conducted through
their own ideas of learner needs, then
is asked to select from a given list, to
Joint Information Systems Committee
continue
the scaffolded design.
Ask student groups to research and generate a ‘trivial pursuit’
style card on one term each, then challenge each other on the
full set of terms
Develop a set of inappropriate uses in context of each term,
taken from student assignments and exams, ask students to
‘mark’ them alongside expert uses in context, and discuss
results.
LEARNING DESIGN
WEEK 4
 Phoebe is a wiki-based pedagogic planner
to promote innovative practice in Design for
Learning
 Phoebe is being seen (at staff development
events) as a complement to LAMS… providing the
up-front and contextual planning that it currently
doesn’t support
Liz Masterman, personal email Sept 2007
http://phoebe-project.conted.ox.ac.uk/
Joint Information Systems Committee
Joint Information Systems Committee
Gathering requirements
 Customisability for different users and contexts of use
 Planning/design at the levels of course, module, session, activity,
learning object
 Flexibility to take different starting points and to iterate between different
levels
 Alternative forms of interface according to the nature of the task
 To make explicit the underlying educational rationale for design
decisions, and the consequences in terms of learner experience
 To represent the context for design in a way that is easily understood
and shared
 Support for constructive alignment among the components of the
curriculum such as topics, outcomes, methods, tools, staff resource and
student workload
Joint Information Systems Committee
Gathering requirements
 Support for collaboration and for meaningful sharing of designs with
others
 Outputs of different types to suit learners, practitioners, and institutional
systems and processes
 runnable instantiation of a design as a sequence of learning activities
in a virtual learning environment may be one important output
 outputs consumed by institutional processes such as module
validation and publication, module selection, assessment,
timetabling, LR management.
 Ability to link with repositories of e.g. exemplary designs and curriculum
resources, as well as context-relevant guidance
 Ability to link with learner-related information systems to allow planning,
adaptation and instantiation of designs for specific cohorts and even
individuals.
Joint Information Systems Committee
Exposing conceptual challenges
MODULE 4
WEEK 1
Attributes
Sequence
Learners’ needs
Learning theory
MODULE 3
WEEK 2
MODULE 2
WEEK 3
LEARNING DESIGN
WEEK 4
Critique design
Critique
Add in Learner need
Given your analysis of your learners’ likely needs, please select from
the list below those that correspond most closely to your analysis
Add in a Learning design
Select Learning Designs (Link to examples, cases)
Understanding meaning of terms, special words
Understanding, explaining processes within a system
Provide a glossary online which can either display the
matching terms and definitions, or display each term with all
definitions and ask learner to select the matching one, and v.v.
Motivation to do thorough research
Understanding how properties of elements in a system relate to each other
Complexity and nonlinearity of educational
decision-making
Justifications for key principles or relationships
Seeing the familiar as problematic
Understanding the value of new concepts
At the session level, the decisions
made at Module level for that Week are
carried through, and a similar analysis
begins at the next level.
Then the user is conducted through
their own ideas of learner needs, then
is asked to select from a given list, to
Joint Information Systems Committee
continue
the scaffolded design.
Joint Information Systems Committee
Provide a concordance tool for a relevant document repository,
set a task to use this to generate their own definition of a term,
submit it, and ask student groups to debate whose is best,
alongside existing expert definitions
Ask student groups to research and generate a ‘trivial pursuit’
style card on one term each, then challenge each other on the
full set of terms
Develop a set of inappropriate uses in context of each term,
taken from student assignments and exams, ask students to
‘mark’ them alongside expert uses in context, and discuss
results.
04/03/2008 | slide 15
Exposing conceptual challenges
Diversity of existing
approaches to design
Joint Information Systems Committee
Exposing conceptual challenges
General terms
Activities
Pedagogic approaches/contexts
Technologies
Materials/media
access
accessibility
assessment
benchmarking
blended learning
case studies
community (ofPractice)
confidence
differentiation
distance learning
dyslexia
e-assessment
e-learning
engagement
(giving)feedback
guidance
innovation
infrastructure
instructional design
interface
IT/ICT skills
learning activity
learning dialogue
learning difficulty
learning experience
learning outcome
learning pathway
learning preference
learning resource
learning strategy
learning style
learning theory
literacy
mark(ing)
media
mentor(ing)
metadata
modelling
monitoring
motivation
Joint Information
navigation
network
numeracy
Access(information)
Analyse
Answer
Apply
Assess
Challenge
Chat
Collaborate
Comment
Compare
Contribute
Create
(be)Critical
Defend
Define
Demonstrate
Describe
Design
Discover
Discuss
Do
Document
Draw
Elaborate
Evaluate
Explore
(receive)Feedback
Gather(information) (set)Goals
(do)Groupwork
Identify
Illustrate
Interpret
Justify
Learn
Map
Observe
Orientate
Participate
Plan
Post
Committee
Predict
Present
Practice
8LEM
Associative
Autonomous learning
Blended learning
Bloom
Behaviourism
Cognitive apprenticeship
Collaborative learning
Constructivism
Conversational framework
Diagnostic testing
Experiential learning
Flexible curriculum
Independent learning
Informal learning
Inquiry-based learning
Instructional design
Interactive learning
Peer-to-peer learning
Personalised learning
Practice-based learning
Problem-based learning
Project work
Professional learning
Self-directed learning
Social constructivism
Visual learning
Work-based learning
Assistive software
Audio tool
Blog
Blojsom
Breeze
Chat
Computer
Conferencing tool
cocoalicious
CMS
CSS template
database
delicer
del.icio.us
Digital camera
Discussion board
Dreamweaver
e-portfolio
email
First Class
Flash
forums
games
graphic software
html
iMovie
Inspiration
interactive whiteboard
internet
iTunes
iPod
LAMS
Laptop
Mindmapping
Mobile
Moodle
MP3 player
MS Powerpoint
MS Producer
MS Word
PLE
Planner
Projector
Animation
Assignment
Audio
Blog
Catalogue
database
diagram
game
Glossary
Graphic
Hyperlink
Image
Index
Interactive task
Keyword list
Learning object
MCQs
Multimedia
pdf
online tutorials
Photograph
Photo-story
Podcast
Powerpoint presentation
Reading list
reference
RDN
RLO
RSS feed
Scenario
Simulation
Task
txt
URL
Video
Voice
Web page
Web site
Wiki
Written text
Diversity of educational
activities and tools
Systems
Exposing conceptual challenges
Admission
Stats
Learner
Trails
Course
Details
Course
Advertising
Entry
Requirements
E-Application
Entry
Profiles
Course
Provisioning
LMS
Learner
Goals
Personal
Statements
References
Evidence of
Achievement
Course
Reporting
Course
Approval
Joint Information Systems Committee
Course
Search
Acquired/Required
Competence
Curriculum
Management
Pathways
Advice
Applicant
Feedback
Range of institutional
processes involved
Course
Modification
E-Admission
Student
Records
Transcripts
Assessment
Results
Portfolio
Personal
Development
Planning
16/07/2015 | XCRI Briefing | Slide 21
Representational,
metadata and
interoperability
barriers to sharing –
(even with social
software solutions!)
Joint Information Systems Committee
Conclusions?
 The design processes we have explored involve a wide range of
different actors with different roles, responsibilities and
preferences
 Different approaches to student learning may require different
approaches to design: there is no one technology that can
support all of these activities effectively
 Educational design may need to be conceptualised as a set of
teacher- or teaching-centred tools and services
 LD – or a version of LD (‘lite’?) – may provide the ‘glue’ to stick
such services together
 These ‘teaching-centred’ tools/services, aggregated at different
points and for different purposes in the curriculum lifecycle, have
to intersect with learner-centred tools/services, aggregated at
different points and for different purposes in the learning lifecycle
(HOW???)
Joint Information Systems Committee
 www.cetis.
Joint Information Systems Committee
The problem
 Learning increasingly means learning for a technology-enabled
economy and society
 Learners are personally enabled and supported (and identified?) by
their own technologies
 Institutions are seeking to make more strategic
use of technology
 Efficiencies in core processes e.g. teaching
 Capitalising on assets e.g. VLEs, LOs
 Market share and new markets
 Dealing with more (more diverse) students
 New educational roles are emerging
 Many teachers feel disempowered in relation to these agendas
 Investment in teachers as enablers of transformation has been poor
Joint Information Systems Committee
Evidence
 In too many cases, teaching staff did not appreciate fully the potential
of ICT to change the ways in which they promoted effective learning
through their classroom activities…
Improving Scottish Education: ICT in learning & teaching (HMIe 2007)
‘Need to move staff beyond sticking Word docs on the VLE’
‘New technologies are being used to deliver old
pedagogical models’
‘There is often little support within institutions to fundamentally change
learning and teaching’
JISC e-learning programme consultation, ALT-C2007
‘I think our teachers have IT lessons: I think maybe once a year’
‘The teachers don’t know how to use them – their understanding of
computers is behind ours’
JISC student expectations survey, November 2007
Joint Information Systems Committee
Planning, design and intentionality
 A design should be generalisable across different situations
 A plan must ‘work’ in one situation (e.g. one institution, one cohort, one
individual)
 Different decisions are taken:
 Before real learners are enrolled (in practice also before any ‘real’
times/spaces are allocated for learning)
 After real learners are enrolled (characteristics of a cohort)
 As learners are actually engaged in learning
 NB these differences are products of the mass higher education system
 Plans and designs must in practice be contingent and relatively flexible
 Because learning is a contingent, responsive and highly personal activity
 So there is a spectrum of educational design/planning, or ‘educational
intentionality’, within which we need to ask…
Joint Information Systems Committee
Planning, design and intentionality
 What kinds of intention are valuable to learners?
 (How) should they be represented to learners? To other educators? In the
learning systems which support learners?
 i.e. what should we ‘design’ when we ‘design for learning’?
 What balance of scaffolding (design for learning) and flexibility (design
in/as learning), are productive:
 For different kinds of learner?
 For different kinds of curriculum?
 To support different kinds of learning and development?
 When and how should intentions be made explicit, and what are the
relationships among different intentional decisions?
 What constraints/relationships are logistical, technical or administrative?
 What relationships are educationally meaningful?
Joint Information Systems Committee
Joint Information Systems Committee
Joint Information Systems Committee
Models of learning and teaching
 All approaches emphasise:
 Constructive alignment of curriculum elements e.g. activities with
outcomes and assessment tasks
 The importance of feedback (intrinsic or extrinsic)
 Integration across activities, e.g.
 Associatively (building component skills and knowledges into
extended performance)
 Constructively (integrating skills and knowledges, planning, reflecting)
 Situatively (developing identities and roles)
 They differ in:
 The role and importance of other people in mediating activity
 The authenticity of the activity
 The balance of scaffolding (routines, structures and protocols) with
flexibility (exploration and responsive support)
 The locus of control
Joint Information Systems Committee