‘Designing for Learning’

1. ‘Designing for Learning’ Key questions, some answersand recommendations

2. Aims • Provide evidence and information about effective practice in e-learning • Promote application and development of e-learning tools and standards to support effective practice

3. Definingeffective practice • What ‘practice’? • designing, planning, orchestrating and supporting learning activities as part of a learning session or programme = ‘designing for learning’ • What makes it ‘effective’? • outcomes for learners (in terms of attainment, motivation, participation, enjoyment, relevance, progression…) • processes for staff (in terms of acceptability, time-efficiency, relevance, resourcing…) • capacity building (opportunities to share, evaluate, develop and reflect…)

4. Key questions • What significant decisions do practitioners make in designing for learning? • What features of the learning situation should they take into account? • What alternatives are available to them? • What is the relative effectiveness of the different alternatives? • How can we best represent those alternatives (i.e. what kinds of ‘evidence and information’ are needed)? • What support do practitioners need to make good decisions (i.e. what kinds of ‘tools and standards’)?

5. Projects funded to date • E-learning models study • led by Chris Fowler at the University of Essex • E-learning practice study • led by Martin Oliver at UCL • E-learning case studies • led by Netskills, Andrew Ravenscroft at LTRI/London Met, and Agnes Kukulska-Hulme at the OU • LAMS evaluation project • now led by Stuart Lee at the University of Oxford • Various review and synthesis studies • individual consultants

6. So what do we know? • Some (tentative) answers • More on these from the project teams

7. Significant decisions • General approach (Mayes & de Freitas) • models may be associative, constructive or situative • different implications for learning, teaching and assessment • illustrative range of e-learning approaches within each category • Specific activities and sequences (Fowler & Mayes) • generic learning activities and sequences • classified under the three types of model • mapped to key features of the learning situation (e.g. locus of control) • potential for mapping to appropriate tools and resources…

8. Curriculum context subject area mode of delivery pre-requisites intended learning outcomes Learners number attributes access competence QCL roles Environment social setting physical setting tools resources Activity generic task specific domain and technique locus of control type of feedback sequences of activity scenarios Significant features of the learning situation

9. Learner(s)needs, motives, prior experience of learning, social and interpersonal skills, learning styles and approaches Prior subject knowledge and skills of learner(s), prior conceptions, motivation to achieve specific outcomes, match of style/ approach to content Prior experience of learner(s) with tools, environments, services; match of learning style and approach to affordances of learning environment Curriculumsubject/discipline area, target knowledge/skillsintended outcomes Environmentavailable tools, facilities, services, resources, environments etc Knowledge represented in specific media and formats; skills facilitated through specific tools; impact of learning environments on the meaning of knowledge and skills Activity ‘interaction of learner with environment, leading to planned outcome’ A specification for learning activities (H.Beetham, Feb ‘04)

10. Significant features:where identified • columns of Fowler and Mayes’ matrix • features are conceptually linked (across rows) in scenarios of appropriate practice • fields of case study template • developed in dialogue with case study teams • ‘summary’ tables • uses fields from the case study template • features conceptually linked in smaller-scale mappings • draws on Fowler and Mayes and other descriptive systems (e.g. Dialog+ taxonomy, Bloom’s taxonomy, BET) and standards (IMS LOM, LIP and LD)

11. Alternatives available to practitioners • ‘menus’ for each feature • examples given by Mayes and Fowler • typologies for tools and resources developed by the practitioners project • case study template now has suggested vocabularies for many features • scenarios relating several features • around 20 provided by Mayes and Fowler • more developed from case studies • case study exemplars • 30 funded within the e-learning programme • 35+ available via LAMS evaluation • increasing use of the template (mapping to key features) • development of the template to ensure consistency and usability… • … across a range of case study resources??

12. Effectiveness of different alternatives • Fowler and Mayes suggest appropriate scenarios • conceptually sound rather than evidence-based • could provide hypotheses for testing actual cases • Mayes and de Freitas offer criteria for evaluating effectiveness of approaches • See Oliver: Implications for Evaluators • Case studies evaluate effectiveness of specific instances • LAMS evaluation deals with effectiveness of different ‘learning designs’ • Practitioner project offers criteria for choosing tools and resources in different contexts

13. Representing alternatives to practitioners • Models project offers system-based planning tool • Case studies suggest alternative forms of representation • Narrative text • Formalised data (text-based table or data fields) • Video clips (interviews, observations) • Consultation with practitioners found conflicting demands • Rich, narrative, expressive representations (e.g. case studies, discussion forums) • Contextualised, bite-sized representations (e.g. toolkit) • Possible need for both, linked thru metadata? • Practitioner study suggests representations should be • available, adaptable, contextualised for and owned by communities of practice, developmental (oriented towards professional learning), focused on learning design • how representations are embedded and used is of more significance than format • need for focus on people and processes in the context of practice

14. supporting practice through tools and standards • Practitioner study suggests features of effective interventions (tools and services) • available, adaptable, contextualised for and owned by communities of practice, developmental, focused on learning design • LAMS evaluation and parallel studies will define features of effective LD tools • Work with CETIS will provide input to developing LD standard • Work with DfES, BEI, TLRP and CETIS will provide input to developing vocabularies • Collaborations with Frameworks, Innovations and Dist-eL strands will ensure practitioner needs are paramount in tools development

15. Recommendations: embedding outcomes • Models project – develop: • paper-based planning tool (workshop pack) • software planning tool (Dist-eL) • Practitioners’ project – develop: • planning/evaluation tool for service providers • targeted recommendations for JISC projects/services • practitioner planning tool (or tool elements) • Case studies projects: • further develop case study template in collaboration with other resource providers and standards bodies • use to illustrate ‘Effective Practice with e-learning’ • evaluate impact of case studies • Synthesise and disseminate outcomes to relevant audiences

16. Recommendations: further investigation • Assess impact of different interventions • including active and interactive resources for practitioners • and different types of case study • Elicit current expert practice in ‘designing for learning’ • including use of any software tools • and of any support and guidance • Validate modelling frameworks • through mapping to existing standards • through consultation with user groups • through development and user testing of component tools (paper- and system-based) • Review range of case study materials available • for different approaches and models cited • for opportunities to apply and further develop the template