Learning Design

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/.
References
Foreword
Fernandez, C. (2002). Learning from Japanese approaches to

professional development: The case of lesson study.
Journal of Teacher Education, 53(5), pp. 393–405.
Or e, O. (1948). Number theory and its history. New York,

NY: McGraw-Hill.
1 The Larnaca Declaration on Learning
Design—2013
AUTC Learning Design (2002). Predict-Observe-Explain:

Designer’s voice—context.
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 educational 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
collaborative 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.
K oper, E.J.R. (2001). Modelling units of study from a

pedagogical perspective: The pedagogical metamodel behind
EML. Heerlen: Open Universiteit Nederland. http://eml.
ou.nl/introduction/docs/ped-metamodel.pdf.
Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching: A

con versational 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
constr uctionist learning environment for teachers to model
learning designs. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,
29(1), pp. 15–30.
Laur illard, D., & McAndr ew, P. (2002). Virtual teaching

tools: Bringing academics closer to the design of
e-learning.
Littlejohn, A., & P egler, 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.
McAndr ew, P., Goodyear, P. & Dalziel, J. (2006).

Patterns, designs and activities: Unifying descriptions of
learning structures. International Journal of Learning
Technology, 2, pp. 216–242.
Pr ieto-Santos, L. P., Dimitriadis, Y. &

Villagrá-Sobrino, S. L. (2011). Representing learning
design and classroom orchestration through atomic patterns.
Proceedings of the Art and Science of Learning Design
International Workshop, ASLD 2011, London, UK, October.
Walker, S., & K errigan-Holt, M. (2012). Map My Programme.

www.mapmyprogramme. com/.
2 Theoretical Underpinnings of Learning
Design
Barab, S. (2006). Design-based research—a methodological

toolkit for the learning scientist. 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. Ev ans, et al. (2004). Activity

theory as a lens for characterizing the participatory 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 technologies. Educational Media
International, 45(1), pp. 3–15.
Bo yle, T. & Cook, J. (2004). Understanding using

technological affordances: A r esponse to Boyle and Cook.
ALT-J, 12(3), pp. 301–308. Available online at
http://oro.open.ac.uk/6980/.
Clough, G., & F erguson, 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 laboratory of comparative
human cognition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Collis, B., & Margar yan, A. (2005). Merrill Plus: Blending

corporate strategy and instructional 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.

New York, NY: Springer.
Conole, G., & Dyk e, 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 Development 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: Cambridge University
Press.
Dewey, J. (1916). Experience and nature. New York, NY:

Dover.
Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an

activity-theoretical reconceptualization. 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.
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 environment: 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.
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 languages 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
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 environments. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 52(3), pp. 47–66.
K olb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the

source of learning and development. Englewood Clifffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Le win, 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/
Merill, D. (2002). First Principles of instruction, ETR&D,

Vol. 50, No. 3, 2002, pp. 43–59. Available online at
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. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. (2005). Design-based research

and technology-enhanced learning 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
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), Internet 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 learning using IMS Learning
Design. International Journal on Advanced Technology for
Learning, Special Session on Designing Learning
Activities: From Content-based to Context-based Learning
Services, 2(4).
Griffiths, D., Blat, J., Garcia, R., Vogten, H., & Kw ong,
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-A vi, B. (2006). COLLAGE: A
collaborative 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 management (BPM). Crossroads,
15(4), p. 4.
Littlejohn, A., & P egler, C. (2007). Preparing for

blended e-learning. London: Routledge.
Martínez-Ortiz, I., Sierra, J. L. & F ernández-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.
McAndr ew, P., Goodyear, P. & Dalziel, J. (2006).

Patterns, designs and activities: Unifying 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.
Ster n, D. (2009). Shall the twain meet? Metaphor,

dissociation and coocurrence. Psychological Inquiry, 29(1),
pp. 79–90.
T akayama, Y., Ghiglione, E., Wilson, S. & Dalziel, J.
(2007). Human collaborative workflow and business process
and services computing. In BPSC (pp. 152–168).
T akayama, Y., Ghiglione, E., Wilson, S. & Dalziel, J.

(2009). Human activities in distributed BPM. In BPSC (pp.
139–154).
W alker, S., & K errigan-Holt, M. (2012). Map My

Programme. www.mapmyprogramme. com/.
4 Learning Design in the New Digital Age
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. Available at The
Digital Studio:
http://jiscdesignstudio.pbworks.com/w/page/69725309/
Bryant, P., & Walker, S. (2013). The modern university in

the digital age. Available at ARV 13 Crisis Forum:
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).
London: SHRE, Routledge.
Hinrichsen, J., & Coombs, A. (2014). The five resources of

critical digital literacy: A framework 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 communication: 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
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
technology 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: Providing choices for learners and
learning. Proceedings ascilite Singapore 2007, Singapore.
Bower, M. (2012). A frame work for developing pre-service

teachers’ Web 2.0 Learning Design capabilities. In D.
Polly, C. Mims & K. A. P ersichitte (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
Brantley-Dias, L., Kinuthia, W., Shoffner, M. B., de

Castro, C., & Rigole, N. J. (2007). Developing 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.
Camer on, 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. & Camer on, 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., & Camer on, 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.
Ca vanagh, 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.

Conole, G., Dyke, M., Oliver, M., & Seale , J. (2004).

Mapping pedagogy and tools for effective learning design.
Computers & Education , 43(2004), pp. 17–33.
Conole , G., & K oskinen, 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.practicaleteachingstrategies.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
Dobozy, E., Dalziel, J. & Dalziel, B. (2013). Learning

Design and Transdisciplinary Pedagogical 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 . Bartholomew
(Eds.), Technology enhanced learning in higher education.
Dobozy, E., & Re ynolds, 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. & Ramsa y, 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. &
Llo yed, 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 Pedagogical Content Knowledge
(TPACK). Computers & Education, 57(3), pp. 1953–1969.
Graham, C., Burgoyne, N., Cantrell, P., Smith, L., St.

Clair, L., & Harris, R. (2009). Measuring the TPACK
confidence of inservice science teachers. TechTrends,
53(5), pp. 70–79.
Gruber, T. (1993). A translation appr oach to portable

ontologies. Knowledge Acquisition, 5(2), pp. 199–220.
Guer rero, S. (2005). Teacher knowledge and a new domain of

expertise: Pedagogical technology 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 long itudinal study of preservice
teachers in a secondary MA ed. program. Journal of Research
on Technology in Education, 45(1), pp. 83–106.
Ho ward, S. (2013). Risk-aversion: Understanding teachers’

resistance to technology integration. Technology, Pedagogy
and Education, 22(3), pp. 357–372.
Ho ward, S., & Maton, K. (2011). Theorising knowledge

practices: A missing piece of the educational technolo gy
puzzle. Research in Learning Technology, 19(3), pp.
191–206.
International Academy Research and Industry Association.

(2012). International Conference, Curtin University, Perth,
Australia, 28–30 November. Available at http://its-
conf.org/.
International Council for Educational Media. (2013). 63rd

Annual Conference. NTU Singapore, 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. & Bir evu, M. P. (2014).

Adoption of the SAMR model to asses ICT pedagogical
adoption: A case of Mak erere 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 Educational 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.
K oehler, 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 technology? The development of
technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of
Educational Computing Research, 32(2), pp. 131–152.
K oehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPCK. In

AACTE Committee on Innovation 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/

Ljubojevic, D. & Magoulas, G. (2011). A constr uctionist
learning environment for teachers to model learning
designs. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(1), pp.
1–16.
MENSA Education and Resear ch 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., & K oehler, M. J. (2006). Technological

pedagogical content knowledge: A ne w 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.
P amuk, S. (2012). Understanding preservice teachers’

technology use through TPACK framework. Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning, 28(5), pp. 425–439.
Pier son, 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.
Sv eiby, K., Grippenberg, P. & Seger crantz, P. (Eds.).

(2012). Challenging the innovation paradigm. 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.
W ard, G., & Ov erall, T. (2013). Technology integration

for preservice mathematics teacher: A time-series study.
In R. McBride & M. Searson (Eds.), Proceedings of Society
for Information Technology & Teacher Education
International Conference 2013 (pp. 4878–4884).
Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
W illiams, 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
Armellini, A., G. Salmon, et al. (2009). The Carpe Diem

journey: Designing for learning 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.
Br uce, 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.
Laur illard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching. New

York: Routledge.
Lyman, F. (1981). The Responsive Classroom Discussion: The

Inclusion of All Students. Mainstreaming 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
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
Technology, 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. & Har

per, 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 examination 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 Computers in
Learning in Tertiary Education.
Agostinho, S., Harper, B. M., Oli ver, R., Wills, S. &

Hedberg, J. (2008). A visual lear ning 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: Information Science
Reference.
Angus, M., & Gray, J. (2002). Description of a situated

learning approach in a research methods 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. & Har per, 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). Understanding 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 presented at 26th Annual
ascilite International Conference. Auckland: The University
of Auckland, Auckland University of Technology, and
Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary
Education.
Bennett, S., Agostinho, S. & Locky er, L. (2005). Reusable

learning designs in university education. In T. C.
Montgomerie and J. R. Parker (Eds.), Proceedings of the
IASTED International 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
learning designs and learning objects. IADIS International
Journal on WWW/Internet, 4(1), pp. 15–25.
Br ierley, G., Hillman, M., Devonshire, E. & Funnell, L.

(2002). Description of round table exercise: Environmental
decision-making about water resources in physical
geography. Available at
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 activities 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 learning 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. & Camer on, L. (2010). Teachers, technology
and design. In C. H. Steel, M. J. Keppell, P. Gerbic & S.
Housego (Eds.), Curriculum, technology & tr ansformation
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 multimedia. Available at
Kolodner, J. L., Owensby, J. N. & Guzdial, M. (2004).

Case-based learning aids. In D. H. Jonassen (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 delivering networked
education and training. Berlin: Springer.

Ljubojevic, D., Magoulas, G., Masterman, E., Pujadas, R.,
Whitley, E. A. & Whittlestone, K. (2013). A constructionist
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 at
McAndrew, P., & Goody ear, 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. & Hir sch, P.

(2002). Description of Mekong e-Sim: An online role-play
simulation about international natural resource management
issues. Available at
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
8 A Deeper Understanding of Reuse:
Learning Designs, Activities, Resources
and Their Contexts
Bissell, A.N. (2011). OER and open licenses: The dual-pub

solution. Blog Post. http://
Boyle, T. (2003). Design principles for authoring dynamic,

reusable learning objects. Australian 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.
Oli ver, R., Harper, B., Hedberg, J., Wills, S., &
Agostinho , S. (2002). Formalising the description 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 definition, 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
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 Education. 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/.

Cognitive Approaches to Learning. (2008). Definition.

Available at www.sparkplug9.com/
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 lear ned. 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 pedagogical templates (TPTs).
In C. Nygaard, J. Branch & C. Holtham (Eds.), Learning in
university education—contemporary standpoints (pp. 59–76).
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/
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., & F enwick, 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 system? Instructivism,
constructivism, or connectivism? Blog post. Available at
http://
Munz, P. (1993). Philosophical Darwinism: On the origin of

knowledge by means of natural selection. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Oliver, R. (2004). Factors impeding institutional design

and the choice of learning designs in online courses.
Available at
Pansiri, J. (2005). Pragmatism: A methodolo gical approach

to researching strategic alliances in tourism. Tourism and
Hospitality Planning & Dev elopment, 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. & Sotir ion, S. (2011). COSMOS: A

Web-based r epository of learning 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., & Zimbar do, 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
Badilescu-Buga, E. (2011). Adopting learning design with

LAMS: Multi-dimensional, synchronous large-scale adoption
of innovation. Paper presented at the 6th International
LAMS & Lear ning 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. Alexander & 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/
Hung, D., & Nichani, M. (2002a). Bringing communities of

practice into schools: Implications 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.
Ingw ersen, P. (1996). Cognitive perspectives of

information retrieval interaction: Elements of a cognitive
IR theory. Journal of Documentation, 52(1), pp. 3–50.
Ljuboje vic, D., & Laur illard, 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 & Lear ning 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: Routledge & K egan P
aul.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.).

New York, NY: Free Press.
Walker, S., & Master man, 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
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 revision 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.
Blackboar d Inc (2014). Blackboard online collaboration

platform—Blackboard Collaborate. 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. & Schaub le,
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.
Her rington, J., Reeves, T. & Oli ver, 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. & Kir sh, D. (2000). Distributed

cognition: Toward a new foundation for human-computer
interaction research. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact.,
7(2), pp. 174–196.
J ohnson, H., & Hyde , J. (2003). Towards modeling

individual and collaborative construction of jigsaws using
task knowledge structures (TKS). ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum.
Interact., 10(4), pp. 339–387.
J onassen, 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
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 experiments. In L. English (Ed.),
International handbook of research design in mathematics
education. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Low, R., & Sw eller, 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.
Luff, P., Heath, C., Kuzuoka, H., Hindmarsh, J., Yamazaki,

K., & Oyama, S. (2003). Fractured ecologies: Creating
environments for collaboration. Human-Computer Interaction,
18(1/2), pp. 51–84.
Ma yer, R. E. (2005a). Introduction to multimedia

learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of
University Press.
Mayer, R. E. (2005b). Principles for reducing extraneous

processing in multimedia learning: Coherence, signaling,
redundancy, spatial contiguity, and temporal contiguity
principles. 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: Personalisation, voice, and image
principles. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook
of multimedia 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., & La vy, I. (2004). Cognitive activities of

abstraction in object orientation: An empirical study.
SIGCSE Bull., 36(2), pp. 82–86.
P aramythis, A., & Loidl-Reisinger , S. (2004). Adaptive

learning environments and e-learning standards. Electronic
Journal of e-Learning, 2(1), pp. 181–194.
Pr ieto, 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. & Ludo vice, P. (1997).

Balancing usability and learning 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 scaffolding on cognition
and concept learning in learnware. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum.
Interact., 8(1), pp. 34–59.
Sw eller, 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 paradigm for educational inquiry.
Educational Researcher, 32(1), pp. 5–8.
v an Merriënboer, J. J . G ., & Ayres, P. (2005).

Research on cognitive load theory and its design
implications for e-learning. Educational Technology
Research & Dev elopment, 53(3), pp. 5–13.
V u, K.-P. L., Hanley, G. L., Strybel, T. Z. & Pr

octor, 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 instruction. Educational
Technology Research & Dev elopment, 52(4), pp. 77–84.
W ilson, B. G., & Myers, K. M. (2000). Situated cognition

in theoretical and practical context. 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?
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 lear ned. In H. Carter, M. Gosper & J. Hedberg
(Eds.), Electric Dreams: Proceedings ascilite 2013 Sydney
(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 International 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
Technology (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://
Masterman, E., & W ild, 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

Learning Design

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Learning Design

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

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

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