Reusable Learning Designs: information
and communication technologies and
their role in flexible learning
Core Team: Barry Harper, Ron Oliver, John Hedberg &
Sandra Wills
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

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
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
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
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
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
our learning process






learning designs
quality indicators
developing a common language
a framework for learning designs
describing learning designs
describing generic forms
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?
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)
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

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
project participation
52 learning designs submitted
 diversity of learning outcomes
 variety of ICT
 range of discipline areas
 documented quality
 64 volunteer evaluators

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

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?
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

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.
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.
tools
Software tools: Generic software tools (with
accompanying documentation for use)
developed to facilitate the reuse of
particular learning designs.
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
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
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.
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
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

a learning design sequence
resources
tasks
supports
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
illustrating the design
web overview file:///less/beta5/index.html
Role Play guideline suite
 Demo of tool: Investigate eShell
 Example of a guideline

Credits
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
role play guidelines
Products (1)
 Design Decision Points
 Designers Guide
 Designers Template
 Moderators Checklist
 Moderators Guide
 Teacher Checklist
 Platforms Checklist
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
illustrating the design
web overview file:///less/beta5/index.html
Role Play guideline suite
 Demo of tool: Investigate eShell
 Example of a guideline

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?
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.