Evolution of design for learning#

Design frameworks#

Numerous frameworks have been proposed to aid educational designers engaged in design for learning. Each embodies a particular theoretical conceptualisation of the problem.

Design framework	Focus
7Cs of Learning Design	Scaffolds the process of design (conecptualise, create, communicate, collaborate, consider, combined, consolidate)
Conversational Framework	Focuses on the underlying process of learning (acquisition, collaboration, discussion, investigation, practice, and production)
Curriculum Design Coherence Model	Knowledge-centered model focused on supporting students develop capacity to make informed judgments and carry them out in line with shared values

Difficulty applying frameworks in practice#

Carvahlo et al (2023, p. 343) note that while frameworks are useful, they are difficult to apply in practice due to their abstract nature, lack of consideration for pedagogy, and difficulty of applicaton to contextual design problems

However, educators often have difficulty putting them to work due to their abstract nature or a failure to consider the underlying pedagogical aspects of design (Bower & Vlachopoulos, 2018). While educational designers may welcome theoretical contributions to situate their work, they too struggle to apply them in context to specific design problems (Yanchar, South, Williams, Allen, & Wilson, 2010) .

ACAD's approach#

Distinguish between "design time" and "learn time" - explicitly move into "design for learning"

Once this key distinction is grasped, educators are better able to establish connections between what has been designed (planned) and what learners actually do (learn), and these reflections provide meaningful and actionable feed forward into future (re)designs. (Carvahlo et al, 2023 p. 344)

ACAD card decks with four colour coded sets allow for a focus on:

A range of valued pedagogies; and,
ACAD's three dimensions of design
Set,
Epistemic,
Social.

These cards combined with the ACAD wireframe (figure below) and case studies to help educational designers engage in identifying designable elements.

Carvahlo (et al, 2023) report on what educational designers engaged in this process valued. First round focused on

how does the ACAD toolkit support educational designers in tracing connections between learning theories, educational design, and teaching and learning practice? and a subsequent second round of analysing critical incidents with the following themes emerging.

Round 1 global thematic exploration	Round 2 exploring critical incidents
Theme 1— naming benefits of using the ACAD cards in the session or in possible future settings	Theme 1— encouraging dynamic engagement with key elements and valued concepts
Theme 2 — telling stories about personal practice prompted by terms on the ACAD cards	Theme 2 — visualising (dis)connection and (in)coherence in designs
Theme 3 — remarks about the nature or utility of current terms on the Spanish ACAD cards	Theme 3 — prompting critical reflection on past practices and contexts
	Theme 4 — stimulating discussions about future teaching and learning practices and contexts

What's still missing?#

Muñoz-Cristóbal et al (2018) introduces 4FAD as a framework for mapping the evolution of artefacts during the learning design process and suggests that the utility for 4FAD arises due to

the learning design community is turning from a focus on learning design as a representation (Koper, 2005) to considering learning design as a process (Conole, 2013; Mor et al., 2015), or even as a design practice (Laurillard, 2012; Mor et al., 2015).

A shift matched by a shift in learning design tools from supporting the creation of design representations to tools that support "different or multiple design dimensions", including: - designing across physical spaces; - sharing learning designs; - helping in specific stages of the design process: conceptualisation, analysis, or authoring; - pedagogical decisions of design.

Reflecting on observations within Australian higher education, there are some current needs that appear to be missing around design for learning. Perhaps suggesting that there needs to be further evolution of design for learning - at least in terms of practice.

Different types of design - forward-oriented design#

Much of this apparent need appears to have already been signposted by the idea of forward-oriented-design which suggests that design for learning is only one part of the design process. Australian higher education is facing increasing calls to stretch the iron triangle by growing access, reducing costs, and improving quality. Emphasising long-standing challenges with which common long used strategies are not capable of addressing.

Phase	Reality
design for learning	Frameworks like ACAD and abc-learning-design-explained can help with this. However, too many courses, not enough design expertise to ensure it's done effectively for all courses. It also means that (most?) education design work involves tinkering around the edges (redesigning assessment tasks, adopting a new tool etc) rather than complete design for learning.
design for configuration	Post-pandemic sees increasing calls for effective use of technologies for learning. Institutional educational technologies are increasingly complex and yet generic/consistent. Meaning configuration for specific learning contexts is difficult and time consuming. Hence quality often suffers.
design for orchestration	Increasingly generic tools provide little specific assistance for orchestration. Especially if learning occurs across tools supplied by different vendors. However, the growing importance of retention and the challenges created by generative AI all suggest a much greater need for a focus on the process of learning. Perhaps by implication a much greater need for effective orchestration from teaching staff.
design for reflection	Ditto
design for re-design	In order to stretch the iron triangle, institutions are increasingly seeking to re-design courses and their components for different contexts, modes, and purposes. For example, re-used of components in micro-credentials, using the same course for on-campus and online students. The assumption being that this is done without engaging in design for learning

Crossing boundaries - shared languages, activity systems#

Fawns (2022) argues that "we must look beyond isolated ideas of technologies or teaching methods, to the situated, entangled combinations of diverse elements involved in educational activity" (p. 711). But much of the institutional and design practice around learning and teaching uses top-down decomposition to break down the complexity of learning and teaching into manageable chunks (Jones and Clark, 2014). Organisationally, expertise in pedagogy is separate from expertise in technology, sometimes curriculum design from learning design and then in the above you can see separation into macro, meso, micro levels, and ACAD's separation between the dimensions of set, epistemic, and social.

There is value to this decomposition, however, experience suggests growing need to be able to more effectively cross those boundaries

For example, consider the situation where the task is to re-design a course for migration between a synchronous, on-campus mode to an asynchronous online mode. Working on increasing pressure to "stretch the iron triangle" this work can't involve a new round of design for learning. Instead, it is more focused on design for re-design. As cheaply as possible, retain the same basic epistemic task, perhaps re-use lessons learned from the on-campus offering, and tinker with the set and social dimensions to retain a similar quality of learning experience. This appears to require a re-weaving of the disparate ACAD dimensions into a different assemblage.

While this work can be done at the micro-level, with a specific course. In this context, it is also required to work across multiple course within the same program. Moving from the micro-level to the meso-level. As an indicator of a growing organisational need it may well be that it also needs to ascend to the macro-level.

References#

Carvalho, L., Castañeda, L., & Yeoman, P. (2023). The "Birth of Doubt" and "The Existence of Other Possibilities": Exploring How the ACAD Toolkit Supports Design for Learning. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research, 12(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.7821/naer.2023.7.1494

Fawns, T. (2022). An Entangled Pedagogy: Looking Beyond the Pedagogy---Technology Dichotomy. Postdigital Science and Education, 4(3), 711--728. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-022-00302-7

Muñoz-Cristóbal, J. A., Hernández-Leo, D., Carvalho, L., Martinez-Maldonado, R., Thompson, K., Wardak, D., & Goodyear, P. (2018). 4FAD: A framework for mapping the evolution of artefacts in the learning design process. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 34(2). https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.3706

Stage	Rationale	Description
Instructional design	US army needing to effectively train soldiers etc at scale	Psychologist and educators developing an instructional design approach "mostly reflected behaviourist views of learning, using systematic approaches to the development of tasks and resources to support complex problem-solving and the efficient completion of specific tasks (Gibbons et al., 2014; Reiser, 2001)" (Carvahlo et al, 2023). Generally requiring a team of experts performing "waterfall" design: analysis, design, development, implementation, evaluation. Instructional design somewhat narrow failing to grapple with complexity of contemporary learning environments (4C/ID seen as exception)
Learning design	Increased use of technologies, changes in how knowledge is created, shared and represented. Also need to extend beyond cognitive focus with an increased focus on the learner, rather than instruction. Moving from behaviourist to more constructivist perspectives.	New models/frameworks evolve with a focus on what the learning does and the resources and technologies required to support that activity. A more ecological framing.
Design for learning	A tweak mostly made to make explicit that learning cannot be designed, only designed for. Only the task can be designed, actual learner activity will emerge and cannot be designed for.	Arguably inclusive of learning design, just a (important) tweak in language