Learning Design: a framework for modelling elearning activities

1
Learning Designa framework for modelling
(e-)learning activities?

• Helen BeethamProgramme Consultant,e-Learning
  and Pedagogy

2
This morning I will

• Suggest a rationale for the present interest in
  learning design and modelling (e-)learning
  activities
• Offer some working definitions
• Consider learning design as an approach to
  modelling learning activities
• Describe how this work is being taken forward
  though the JISC e-Learning and Pedagogy programme
• Outline some of the challenges

3
Why the interest inlearning design?

• Widespread adoption of designed, standards-based
  learning environments and tools
• Pedagogical issues appear to have been of
  secondary concern until now. JISC/UCISA (2003)
• First generation VLEs do not obviously support
  innovative or diverse learning activities They
  are strongly based around information
  transmission .. with little consideration given
  to the activities that the learners themselves
  might engage inBritain and Liber (2004)
• Convergence of pedagogical research and
  practitioner education around ideas of
• learner-centredness, active, constructive
  learners, outcomes-based teaching with emphasis
  on relevant tasks

4
Why the interest inlearning design?

• Practitioner demand (from consultation)
• curriculum design, practical examples of
  learning activities, designing activities
  within VLEs
• (note the popularity of Salmons (2003)
  e-tivities)
• a means of describing practice, a means of
  mapping theory onto practice a means of mapping
  activities onto outcomes, a common set of terms
  for all of this
• E-learning strategy
• Engaging teachers and lecturers through simple
  e-learning design tools would bring them closer
  to experimenting with pedagogical design DfES
  (2003)

5
Therefore

• Learning activities are central to learning
• Designing/selecting and orchestrating tasks
  (designing for learning) is a challenge
• especially in computer-based learning
  environments
• which focus on content and highly constrained or
  stereotyped interactions (access, post, submit
  etc)
• where everything has to be represented explicitly
• There is a need for conventional ways of
  representing activities and tasks, so
• effective activities/tasks can be shared
• practitioners can make informed decisions about
  activities and approaches (including e/non-e)
• evaluators can compare outcomes of different
  approaches
• practitioners, researchers and developers of
  systems can communicate about what is effective
  for learners
• learners themselves can reflect more effectively
  and critically on their learning activities

6
At this point you might like to consider

• What are the advantages of a conventional
  framework to describe (e-)learning activities?
• Do we have one already? Is it any good?
• What are the difficulties and risks of trying to
  develop (a better) one?

7
Existing frameworks

• Theoretical frameworks (mainly explanatory)
• systems theory, activity theory, situated
  learning, cognitive/constructivist, individual
  differences (learning styles) etc
• Practice frameworks (descriptive/prescriptive)
• CSALT networked learning model, Britain and
  Liber, Salmon, Laurillard, Peters, PangHung, ID
  protocols
• Taxonomies
• LTSN, DialoguePlus, CANDLE, SESDL, (Bloom,
  Reeves, Biggs etc)
• Standards and specifications
• technical standards e.g. IMS LOM, LD (may be
  hidden)
• practice standards e.g. QA procedures, CPD
  frameworks
• Useful accounts that dont fit neatly into
  frameworks
• case studies, action research reports
• project findings FDTL, TLTP, X4L, JISC, NLN
  evaluation, 5/99, ScotCIT, Europa, other EU
  projects
• guidelines and staff development materials FPP,
  ELT, NetSkills courses
• models in use, rules of thumb, non-articulated
  expertise

8
A pragmatic way forward

• Descriptions/models should meet specific users
  needs
• taking account of factors relevant to their
  activities
• using appropriate language and conventions
• Users in first instance are learning and teaching
  practitioners engaged in designing for learning
• practitioner planning perspective
• Needs to be complemented by (and ideally mapped
  to) alternative perspectives, e.g.
• developer (designing standards and systems)
• manager (planning the implementation of systems)
• researcher (explaining outcomes, developing
  paradigms)
• learner (reflecting on previous learning
  activities and planning future learning
  activities PDP strand)
• Need to work with communities of practice
• To encourage sharing, adoption, adaptation,
  evaluation and further development of
  descriptions (may be v local)
• To help build bridges with other CoPs (may be v
  narrow)

9
Key tasks (from review e-learning models)

• The e-learning and pedagogy programme will seek
  to define a range of practice models, i.e.
  distinct but comparable approaches among which
  practitioners, working in a specific context, can
  make an informed choice.
• Any framework or terminology used must have a
  high degree of recognition and usability in the
  practitioner communities
• The programme will be concerned with theoretical
  (explanatory) models insofar as these provide
  general frameworks for discussing, comparing and
  evaluating practice models (especially in
  relation to learner experience).
• Where possible, practice models will be mapped to
  technical standards and specifications to ensure
  that future systems are compatible with the needs
  of learners and teachers.
• The focus will be on learning activity/task as
  the basic unit of modelling
• fits with conclusions from UKeU, CANDLE, Dialog
  and work at the OU (eLTN)

10
At this point you might like to consider

• An effective technology-supported learning
  activity that you have experienced as a learner
  or a teacher.
• How would you explain what was effective about it
  so that another teacher, working in another
  context, could decide whether to use or adapt it?
• How you would describe the activity so that the
  other teacher could reproduce the important
  elements for his/her own learners?

11
What is Learning Design?

• Broadly
• The planning and ordering of learning activities
  in a course or session (vb)
• A practitioner planning view on a learning
  situation, e.g. a lesson plan or a LAMS design
  (n)
• In this broad sense, designing for learning
  will be the focus of our programmes work in the
  first year.
• Narrowly
• A new IMS specification for sequences of
  interaction between learners and system
  components (compare LOM for content, PDPs/LR for
  learner data)
• A sequence of activities specified according to
  LD
• Is Learning Design in this narrow sense a good
  candidate for the modelling framework we need?

12
Learning Design spec

• Based on Educational Modelling Language (OUNL)
• Specifies learning activities according to roles
  and resources
• Activities are coordinated within an overall
  activity structure or learning flow, analagous to
  a workflow
• Potentially allows expression of different
  pedagogical approaches as different structures or
  flows of activities
• User-tested for both generality and
  expressiveness

13
theoretical approach
Levels of description (activity/approach)
(H.Beetham, Feb 04)
14
Approaches translated into activity
structures/flows (HB)

• Problem-based learning(1) present problem (2)
  learner elaborates problem (e.g. through
  analysis, discussion) (3) learner seeks
  information (4) learner analyses and evaluate
  information for relevance (5) learner applies
  information to problem (6) learner presents
  solution(s)
• Conversational model (Laurillard)(1) set task
  goal (2) describe conception of subject (3)
  learner describes conception of subject (4)
  re-describe in light of learner action or
  description (5) adapt task goal in light of
  action or description (etc)
• Cognitive scaffolding (Piaget)(1) present
  content (2) learner engages in content-related
  task (3) test comprehension (4) present next
  content in scaffolded sequence (5) next
  content-related task (etc)

15
Advantages of LD

• Focus is on interactions rather than on content
• specifies collective as well as individual
  activities
• Two distinct levels of representation
• activity (specific interaction between users and
  system components) and use case (sequence of
  interactions)
• Use cases can be expressed in machine-readable
  terms
• an EML player and the LAMS software are already
  being piloted by practitioners to develop
  sequences
• interoperable with VLEs and other standards-based
  educational software
• Use cases can also be expressed in ways readily
  understood by practitioners (e.g. graphically)
• Approachsequence escapes use of loaded and
  poorly-defined terms e.g. learner-centred,
  constructivist
• Potentially enables re-use of activity
  sequences/flows with different subject content
• NB this is what LD spec is designed to do!

16
Problems with LD as a framework for modelling

• Most theoretical models use more than two levels
  of description for approach/activity
• in fact the number of levels required may vary
  widely in different contexts (e.g. read this
  extract)
• Sequencing sets limits on learner autonomy as
  well as practitioner improvisation
• but without sequencing its unclear how the
  specification is an advance on existing schema
• Terms used are unfamiliar to practitioners
• Need an intermediary e.g. software tool
• Activities are defined only thru interactions
  between users and content resources
• How do activities support learning outcomes?
• What are the specific relations between
  resources, tasks and goals (i.e. what makes
  interactions meaningful for learning?)

17
Activity interaction of learner with
environment, leading to planned outcome
A specification for learning activities
(H.Beetham, Feb 04)
18
Implications for modelling (e-)learning

• Useful to differentiate learning activities/tasks
  from learning approaches ( sequences or
  clusters)
• But may be variable no. of steps between these,
  e.g.
• Approach activity structure activity
  activity
• Philosophy approach strategy tactic (CSALT)
• Activity cluster activity micro-activity
  (Dialog)
• Approaches to learning may be described
• in terms of sequences of activity (workflows)
• or structures/clusters of activity
  (parallel/branching)
• Activities defined as interactions between a
  learner and an environment with a planned
  learning outcome
• May not be analysable into smaller components
• Means there are an infinitely large number,
  poorly classified
• May be difficult to re-use except in very similar
  contexts

19
Taking this forward current eLaP projects

• Desk study (e-learning models)
• Produce tool for describing learning activities
  and approaches in conventional terms
• Suggest possible mappings to standards-based and
  to theory/research-based means of description
• Provide examples and guidelines
• Produce complementary tool for evaluating
  described activities (e.g. in relation to learner
  experience)
• Research study (practitioners)
• Describe forms of representation/representational
  practice relevant to e-learning practitioners
• Assess which are most effective at supporting
  practitioner change
• Recommend the form(s) that outcomes of the
  programme should take

20
Further projects

• Develop series of described and evaluated
  instances
• different learning activities and approaches
• different subject areas
• different educational sectors and learner needs
• Develop representations of practice that are of
  proven value to practitioners
• lesson plans/learning designs for different
  environments
• representations (e.g. video) of different
  approaches in use
• a toolkit or planning tool for practitioners
• a database of activities indexed to learning
  outcomes or needs
• re-usable activity sequences e.g. for use in a
  LAMS-type system
• an online knowledge garden in which
  participants contribute, refine and link
  e-learning concepts
• materials for use in staff development and/or
  reflection, e.g. integrated into FPP modules
• new digital library/portal functions
• other ideas??

21
Holistic view of eLaP(year one designing for
learning)
Developing e-learning models
Descriptive framework(modelling tool)
22
Your role

• Please take part in the consultation exercise by
  filling in one of the forms available today
• Return it to me now (Helen Beetham) or to the
  programme manager (Sarah Knight) at the address
  on the form
• Visit the programme web-site and download some of
  the documents referred to
• www.jisc.ac.uk/index.cfm?nameelearning_pedagogy
• Get involved via our email discussion list and
  ongoing consultation activities
• Bid for funds under forthcoming invitations to
  tender!

23
An idea from activity theory

• A model is rooted in a particular view of the
  world (discourse, paradigm, modelling
  language)
• e.g. instructional design, systems design and
  engineering, activity theory, constructivism
• certain aspects are seen as important
  (abstraction)
• It also has particular affordances for use in the
  world
• e.g. it can be used to structure future
  activities such as systems design, learning,
  planning, research
• A model is both an artefact and a tool
• As an artefact it is a product of the culture
  that made it (it is not true but constructed,
  partial and conventional)
• As a tool it is a guide to future action, again
  in specific cultural contexts
• We can develop frameworks for modelling either by
  making a commitment to a particular paradigm of
  production (likely to be contentious) or by
  determining how the models can best be used as
  tools

24
We need

• Representations of (e-)learning
• activities/tasks
• overall approach (orchestration of
  activities/tasks)
• that can be
• shared
• compared (including use/non-use of computer-based
  technologies)
• generalised (to some degree)
• applied to new contexts
• within a common framework
• e.g. taxonomy, modelling language, plain
  English etc

25
We might want to differentiate

• What needs to be represented/modelled in
  e-learning systems
• i.e. according to technical standards/specs
• highly interoperable BUT representationally poor
• conventions widely agreed by designers but hidden
  from users
• What needs to be represented/modelled outside the
  system
• i.e. according to shared conventions between
  people
• richer representations BUT not easily
  generalised Which conventions (whose)? How
  widely accepted?
• can be openly expressed, shared and critiqued
• What cannot be represented/modelled
• i.e. no standard or conventional terms exist
• may need to be experienced for real, played
  out, given v rich (e.g. multimedia)
  representations

26

• What is represented/modelled in e-learning
  systems
• i.e. according to technical standards/specs
• can be designed and formally agreed
• likely to be hidden from end-users
• What is represented/modelled outside the system
• i.e. according to shared conventions between
  people
• can be openly expressed and critiqued
• But which conventions (i.e. whose)? How do they
  gain acceptance? How general are they really?
• What cannot be represented/modelled
• i.e. cannot be expressed in standard or
  conventional terms
• aspects of learning interaction which may need to
  be experienced for real, played out, enacted etc