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/ICTs used
• Learning design focus
• Problem Based Learning focusemphasis 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
• Johns Quick Start Role Play
• Maureens 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.