Reusable Learning Designs: information and communication technologies and their role in flexible learning

1. Reusable Learning Designs: information and communication technologies and their role in flexible learning Core Team: Barry Harper, Ron Oliver, John Hedberg & Sandra Wills

2. project aims • to maximise opportunities for university teachers to create high quality, flexible learning experiences for students • to create reusable resources based on generic learning designs • to facilitate uptake of the learning designs by Australian university teachers by offering these resources via a web site

3. project strategies • identify learning designs which contribute to high quality learning experiences • select learning designs which have potential for redevelopment as reusable templates • produce a redevelopment plan and costing • undertake the development of some learning designs in a generic form • develop a series of guidelines for good practice in the use of the templates in new contexts

4. project participants • core team • Barry Harper, Ron Oliver, John Hedberg, Sandra Wills, and Shirley Agostinho (project manager) • research team • Jan Herrington, Catherine McLoughlin, Lori Lockyer, Gary Hoban • international reference group • Tom Reeves, Betty Collis, John O'Donoghue, Peter Twining, Erik Duval, Chuck Schneebeck, Curtis Bonk • AUTC steering committee • Shirley Alexander, Diana Laurillard, David Rich, Sue Johnston

5. project overview • learning designs student learning experiences: may be at the level of a whole course, program, subject, or modules • high quality learning experiences experiences which encourage students to seek understanding and which encourage the development of lifelong learning skills • flexible learning meets the diverse needs of students, focuses on how ICT can be used for flexible opportunities for students

6. project deliverables • Milestone One (May 2001) • development of the evaluation and redevelopment framework (ERF) • Milestone Two (November 2001) • identification and documentation of learning designs that foster high quality learning experiences • Milestone Three (June 2002) • development of a selected number of learning designs in a generic form to at least prototype stage. • Milestone Four (December 2002) • development of learning designs in a generic form, development of good practice guidelines in Web format

7. the project challenges • to understand learning designs • to articulate these ideas • removing context whilst retaining the essence • learning designs and learners • creating guidelines for non-expert teachers • managing one size fits all

8. our learning process • learning designs • quality indicators • developing a common language • a framework for learning designs • describing learning designs • describing generic forms

9. constructing the ERF • David Boud and Michael Prosser wrote a background document with four focus areas: • how do learning activities support learner engagement? • how does the learning design acknowledge the learning context? • how does the learning activity seek to challenge learners? • how does the learning activity provide practice?

10. constructing the evaluation framework • workshops were held with key members of the project to: • review the application of the principles to a real evaluation task • revise the question list to make it usable as an evaluation instrument (v1) • several groups applied the instrument to two learning designs to refine the instrument • a second workshop was held with a role play of the review process (v2) • a third version of the instrument was produced for distribution to groups of evaluators (v3)

11. modifications to the ERF • the original version started with many questions as Boud and Prosser had provided 5-6 questions under each topic • missing elements were: • assessing the technology and • how technology was employed • each reviewer was asked to identify the key attributes of the learning design

12. final version of the ERF • a three stage process — • submission — some of the attributes are identified and documentation is collated • review process — conducted by a team of two or more evaluators who seek to define the attributes and reusable 'pieces' of the design • decision to redevelop the 'pieces' — new knowledge domains, new components, new combinations, templates or guidelines

13. project participation • 52 learning designs submitted • diversity of learning outcomes • variety of ICT • range of discipline areas • documented quality • 64 volunteer evaluators

14. step through of process • identify the key attributes which make it a good example • identify what can be shared with others • two examples Virtual Records a web-based simulation for communications students and Mathematics Assessment a CD-ROM that can be used as a common web shell

15. challenges at this point • isolating learning design from context? • level of granularity? • particular teacher dependent? • design reusability? • identifying key attributes? • generic templates or shells? • judging transferability to other domains? • dissemination and supporting change?

16. learning designs • fifteen learning design exemplars identified from ERF for redevelopment • documentation of designs for access by higher education instructors- • exemplars, (aprox 30 rich descriptions) • Guidelines and templates • Tools (to support learning design implementation) • representation of elements of a design • frameworks to conceptualise and represent designs • represent as web environment

17. exemplars • rich descriptions of learning designs incorporating the “voice” of the designer/s and the evaluators • context of Boud and Prosser principles embedded • each accompanied with its own learning design sequence. • descriptions can serve as implicit guidelines.

18. guidelines The generic learning design abstracted from the exemplar and described in detail. Implementation tips and advice on how to develop a similar learning design are included.

19. tools Software tools: Generic software tools (with accompanying documentation for use) developed to facilitate the reuse of particular learning designs.

20. learning design frameworks Purpose- • to ensure coverage of range of strategies, investigate clustering of similar designs from our exemplar pool and to facilitate user access Process • Grounded learning design categorisation • Literature review of learning design categorisation • Development of learning design categorisation frameworks

21. learning design frameworks • A framework for representing problem based strategies • Rule focussed learning design: The focus is to apply standard procedures and rules in a solution. • Incident focussed learning design: The focus is to reflect and make decisions based on actions and events. • Strategy focussed learning design: The focus is to develop strategy; tasks require strategic planning. • Role focused learning design: The focus is to understand and appreciate the issues, processes and interactions of complex, non-predictive situations by participating as a player in a setting which models a real world application. • Outcome- enabled project team to ensure breadth of examples & identify ‘gaps’ in exemplars, BUT not effective for access

22. learning design access • Discipline/ focus/author-designer/ICT’s used • Learning design focus • Problem Based Learning focus:emphasis on the process of students solving a real world problem. • Project/Case Study focus: emphasis on creating a product or artefact.- process may be supported by case materials. • Role Play focus: emphasis on subrogation: “walking in the shoes of others”. • Collaborative focus: emphasis on interacting and collaborating with peers to facilitate construction of knowledge. • Concept/Procedure Development focus: emphasis on understanding and/or consolidating learning about concepts and/or procedures.

23. critical elements of learning designs • Analysis of variety of designs (Oliver and Herrington) • Learning tasks as basis for learner experience • Resources and supports as discrete components

24. representation of a learning design • learning sequence as a representation of a learning design • designer identification of task, supports and resources • visual representation of tasks/ supports and resources

25. a learning design sequence resources tasks supports

26. products of the project • the Boud and Prosser principles for high quality student learning in Higher Education • the Evaluation and Review Framework (ERF) • the Learning Design construct • the Learning Design Sequence construct • a Learning Design Classification Framework • rich descriptions of learning design exemplars • four generic software tools • explicit generic guidelines for design, development and implementation of learning designs

27. illustrating the design web overview file:///less/beta5/index.html • Role Play guideline suite • Demo of tool: Investigate eShell • Example of a guideline

28. Credits

29. role play guidelines Process of development • 7 LDs submitted with role play focus - built matrix • formed online role play expert reference group of 20 • 2 email icebreaker activities - collected 46 tips - agreed 16 word statement “why we use role play in teaching” • 1 day national summit on online role play design - share role play learning designs, discuss draft documents, outline what other teachers would need in order to adopt role play • video interviews of 11 teachers and 3 classes • literature review

30. role play guidelines Products (1) • Design Decision Points • Designers Guide • Designers Template • Moderators Checklist • Moderators Guide • Teacher Checklist • Platforms Checklist

31. role play guidelines Products (2) • Flat Tyre on High Street Demo Role Play • John’s Quick Start Role Play • Maureen’s Quick Start Role Play • Email Role Play Templates • Tips List • Video Clips List • Learning Design Descriptions & Matrix

32. illustrating the design web overview file:///less/beta5/index.html • Role Play guideline suite • Demo of tool: Investigate eShell • Example of a guideline

33. how should we define reusability? • isolating learning design from context? • level of granularity? • particular teacher dependent? • design reusability? • identifying key attributes? • generic templates or shells? • judging transferability to other domains? ? dissemination and supporting change?

34. Credits The authors would like to acknowledge that this project was made possible through participation in the 2000-2002 Australian Universities Teaching Committee project funded through the Higher Education Innovation Programme (HEIP) via the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.