approaches to learning design

8/7/2019 Approaches to learning design

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/approaches-to-learning-design 1/22

Distance Education

Vol. 30, No. 2, August 2009, 179–199

Approaches to learning design: past the head and the hands to theHEART of the matter

Claire Donalda*, Adam Blakea, Isabelle Giraultb, Ashwini Datta and

Elizabeth Ramsaya

aeLearning Design and Development Group, Centre for Academic Development, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand; bUniversity of Grenoble – LIG – MeTAH Team (models and technologies for human learning), 46 avenue Felix-Viallet, 38031Grenoble, France

Taylor and FrancisCDIE_A_402491.sgm

(Received 30 October 2008; final version received 16 February 2009)10.1080/01587910903023181Distance Education0158-7919 (print)/1475-0198 (online)Original Article2009Open and Distance Learning Association of Australia Inc.302000000August [email protected]

Digital technologies have been used increasingly in open, distance, and flexiblelearning to both facilitate learning and depict learning designs. While the portablenature of a learning design once captured in digital form appears to offer limitlesspossibilities for sharing and reuse, dissemination initiatives have failed to thrive.This may be due in part to a view of learning design as a product rather than as acontextualised process driven by individual pedagogical beliefs. We havedeveloped a support strategy for the learning design process, called HEART(HEaring And Realising Teaching-voice). HEART aims to enhance educators’learning design awareness and capability by eliciting and depicting thepedagogical beliefs underpinning a course or learning design. We describe theconceptual framework for the HEART strategy, design and development of aprototype, early results of the first trial with a small user group, and implicationsfor future research.

Keywords: learning design; pedagogical dimensions; teacher beliefs;visualisation; reusability

1. Introduction

Over the past 15 years, open, distance, and flexible learning has increasingly utilised

technology-supported teaching, learning (e-learning ), and assessment, leading to

significant investment in developing learning technologies, systems, and resources.

Associated developments in learning design research seek ways to support the reuseand sharing of high quality learning designs created by teachers and learning design-

ers. With the limited uptake and sharing of learning designs ‘not invented here’ (Philip

& Cameron, 2008) researchers’ attention has turned to finding effective means toportray and communicate the pedagogical frameworks and relevant contextual infor-

mation to support this reuse (Bennett et al., 2007; Philip & Cameron, 2008).

In parallel with these international trends, our research has focused on developing

a learning design support strategy called HEART (HEaring And Realising Teaching-

voice). Our support strategy aims to draw together two powerful drivers of effectivelearning: the external world of teaching practice in the learning context , and the

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]



180 C. Donald et al.

inner world of teachers’ and learning designers’ underlying educational beliefs

(referred to collectively as belief/practice dimensions later in this article). Severalresearchers report the challenges of incorporating these complex and multidimen-

sional external and internal drivers in the sharing and reuse of learning designs

(Boyle, 2006; Dalziel, 2008; Philip & Cameron, 2008).

The term learning design is variously defined by different authors as (a) the

process of, and for, designing learning experiences, and (b) the product , or outcome,of the design process (Agostinho, 2008). Learning design-as-process is what teachers

and learning designers do, while learning design-as-product is what they produce as

the outcome of this process (Masterman, 2009). To capture this dual meaning, we

define learning design as follows:

A learning design (product ) documents and describes a learning activity in such a waythat other teachers can understand it and use it (in some way) in their own context.Typically a learning design includes descriptions of learning tasks, resources and supports

provided by the teacher. Learning design is also the process by which teachers design for learning, when they devise a plan, design or structure for a learning activity. (adapted fromBeetham & Sharpe, 2007, p. 7; Conole, 2008, p. 201; Masterman, 2008, p. 211)

The HEART support strategy does not seek to depict the learning activities,

resources, or supports that constitute a learning design (product). Rather, HEART is aprocess to help teachers and designers select and work with existing learning designs,

by helping them reflect on and articulate the educational beliefs underlying their own

and others’ teaching and learning design practice. The HEART strategy involves

using a questionnaire, a visualisation tool, and facilitated face-to-face and onlinediscussion. This strategy is based on the assumption that an ability to articulate,

defend, or modify one’s pedagogical standpoint is fundamental to success in adaptingone’s work to different environments and working in the teams that so often collabo-

rate in open, flexible, and distance learning contexts.

In recognition of the way teachers function as learning designers when creatingcourses and learning activities, and learning designers take an indirect teaching role in

design projects, we have adopted the term teacher-designers (Goodyear & Yang,

2009, p. 176) for users of the HEART strategy.

Our work challenges the common assumption that to facilitate reuse in differentcontexts, designs must describe learning activities or depict key attributes using a

systematic form of notation. While not dismissing the potential value of consistent

categorisation, our premise is that teacher-designers who develop conscious aware-ness of how their beliefs about teaching and learning influence their solution to a

learning design challenge will be better prepared to consider what existing learningdesigns might be employed or repurposed to solve that challenge.

In Sections 2 and 3 of this article we describe the theoretical basis for our research.

Section 4 describes the HEART strategy, and Section 5, our research approach, ques-

tions, and methods. Section 6 outlines the results of the first trial of HEART. Plans for further research are outlined in the conclusion of the article.

2. Teachers’ educational beliefs and their teaching practice

We must find an approach to teaching that respects the diversity of teachers and subjects,



Distance Education 181

In conducting our research we have taken a great deal of guidance from the writing of

Parker Palmer (2007). Much of Palmer’s writing on teaching as a vocation is based onthe premise that ‘good teaching comes from the identity and integrity of the teacher’

(p. 10), or the ‘inner terrain’ (p. 6) of the teacher’s world. We see woven into this

notion of the teacher’s identity and integrity, the range of tacit beliefs, personal theo-

ries, intuition, attitudes, values, and assumptions: the heart of a teacher’s experience.

In the professional practice of teachers and learning designers, the heart is seldomglimpsed, but it is a powerful driving force.

In our collaborations with teachers and other learning designers, we observe a rich

diversity of approaches to teaching, to learning design, and the use of learning tech-

nologies. Similarly, Bain and McNaught (2006), in interviews with academicsinvolved in 22 technology-based learning development projects, noted the variety of

teaching approaches and underpinning educational and epistemological beliefs they

encountered. These tacit assumptions and beliefs about the learning process are

seldom discussed.

The impact of teachers’ educational beliefs on their practice is well documented,and supported by extensive research evidence (see reviews by Ertmer, 2005;

Pajares, 1992). Pratt (1997) has suggested, ‘Our beliefs about knowledge determine

what we will teach and what we will accept as evidence that people have learned’

(p. 21).With reference to teaching innovation, technology-supported teaching, and flexible

learning, several authors have observed how teachers’ beliefs govern their ideas and

decisions about what is possible, relevant, and achievable (Combs, 1982; Errington,

2004; Ertmer, 2005; Haigh, 1998). Ertmer (2005) has cited substantial evidence tosuggest that if the use of educational technologies is considered to be teaching

innovation, then teachers’ beliefs significantly influence whether and how these tech-nologies are used.

If we are to develop, share, and reuse learning designs effectively, we need to

be able to identify, articulate, and discuss the beliefs that underpin the learningdesigns that we use. Such discussion can be strengthened significantly when we

also continually reflect on the theories that underpin our teaching and design prac-

tice and the learning designs that we use (Conole, Dyke, Oliver, & Seale, 2004;

Mayes & de Freitas, 2007). Barker (2000) has encouraged us as teachers to uselearning theories either to inform our daily practice, or in hindsight, to justify it.

Other researchers have acknowledged the importance of providing support for

teacher-designers to reflect on learning theory and their own practice (Sharpe &Oliver, 2007), and the dearth of strategies to support the learning design process

(Wills & McDougall, 2009).For most teachers, planning teaching strategies, interacting with students, and

generating content are all part of a seamless whole (Oliver, 2002). In a study of

academics’ descriptions of their practice, Oliver (2002) reported how course

creation involved a complex interplay between a myriad of factors related to thenature of the discipline, departmental issues, student interest, curriculum structures,

comparisons with other institutions, and resources to be used. Academics viewed

the curriculum itself as being a multilayered entity of syllabus and content , with

attitudes, beliefs, and departmental style beneath, each layer in dynamic interaction

when engaging with students. Treating any of these separately grossly oversimpli-fies the complex array of factors that impact academics’ everyday course design and




3. Learning design and teaching voice

An array of projects and initiatives to support the reuse of quality digital learning

designs has accompanied the increasing use of educational technologies. Low levels

of reuse, however (e.g., see Carey & Hanley, 2008; Dalziel, 2008), may be due, in

part, to a view of learning design as a product rather than as a contextualised processdriven by individual pedagogical beliefs.

Technical solutions: viewing learning design as a product

Access, interoperability, and notational formats for learning design repositories have

formed the predominant focus in seeking to achieve sharing and reuse of digitalresources for enhancing learning (Bennett et al., 2007). However, there is acknowl-

edgement that this focus on ‘technical and supply-side issues’ (Bennett et al., 2009,

p. 610) neglects user needs and contexts of use. It is perhaps unsurprising then that

despite substantial investment in tools for sharing and reuse of learning activities, littleheadway appears to have been made in enhancing educational practice (Falconer &

Littlejohn, 2009). Nevertheless, the central concern for most researchers – as

evidenced by the majority of the chapters in a very recent compendium of research in

the field (Lockyer, Bennett, Agostinho, & Harper, 2009) – remains the representation,storage, and accessibility of learning designs.

It appears that most researchers in the field may be employing a ‘conduit’

(Griffiths & Garcia, 2003) or ‘transmission’ (Wills & McDougall, 2008) conception

in approaching e-learning and reuse of learning materials. As such, no barriers are seen

to successfully transmitting a learning resource from one environment or user toanother. Such a ‘cut and paste’ approach to teaching (Wills & McDougall, 2009,

p. 766) proceeds on the premise that a resource exists independently, rather than being

‘constituted by its use’ (Griffiths & Garcia, 2003, ‘Abstraction of Learning Resources’

section). In terms of the definitions of learning design described above, there appearsto be a strong identification with learning designs as discrete products, able to be

unplugged , stored, selected, and plugged in again within a different teaching and learn-

ing context. A recent trend has been to add pedagogical commentaries to the learning

resources stored in digital repositories (Carey & Hanley, 2008; Dalziel, 2008; Philip

& Cameron, 2008) in order to better enable users to determine the adaptation requiredfor their own context. While helpful, this can be seen as enhancing the product label-

ling without challenging the underpinning design-as-product metaphor. We share the

views of Falconer and Littlejohn (2009) that this metaphor is fundamentally flawed:

We would argue that the current metaphor of learning design is ill-equipped … Themetaphor is of design as a product … Even the components [of a design] are seen not tohave constant, specifiable properties when we consider that the meaning attached to themvaries from individual to individual according to their pre-existing conceptual frame-work. (p. 29)

The teacher-designer and the process of learning design

There is a thread running through the research literature on reusing learning designs

that can be glimpsed occasionally through the dense weave of writing on design andrepository specifications. In this thread we can discern the human factors that may




the technology underpinning e-learning creation offers enormous potential for reuse if

one views learning design as a product, this tends to ignore the human process of learning design as a means of serving teacher and learner needs in context . Whether a

teacher is seeking to implement an existing learning design or create an entirely new

one, either individually or as part of a project team, ‘[d]esigning a learning experience

involves creativity and rationality, but also deep understanding of human beings, of

their cognitive and emotional processes’ (Garzotto & Retalis, 2009, p. 135). Thosewho engage in learning design must engage with the complexities of the ill-structured

knowledge domain that each individual teaching and learning context presents.

An ill-structured knowledge domain has been defined as one in which ‘ individual

cases of knowledge application are typically multidimensional and there is consider-able variability in structure and content across cases of the same nominal type’

[emphasis added] (Spiro, Feltovich, & Coulson, 1996, p. 51). The process of learning

design is classically ill-structured. Yet, as Spiro et al. (1996) have noted, learning and

problem-solving in ill-structured domains is commonly constrained by ‘a reductive

world-view … an inappropriate lessening or oversimplification of complexity’ (p. 52).In our view, the design-as-product metaphor oversimplifies learning design practice

and the sound dissemination of learning designs. Design for learning may benefit from

systematic procedures, but it is ‘pervaded by intuition [and] tacit knowledge’ and is ‘a

creative activity that cannot be fully reduced to standard steps’ (Winograd, as cited inMasterman, 2009, p. 211).

This view of design for learning is borne out by research. Interviews with

academic staff indicate that ‘rational, structured curriculum design processes’ are

rarely used (Oliver, 2002, p. 10). Rather, teacher-designers engage in the ‘real, messyprocess of design’ (Conole, 2008, p. 203) in which their personal values and beliefs

about teaching, their discipline, and their students’ needs hold central place (Pajares,1992). Harley’s research (2008) into academics’ attitudes to the use of digital

resources, confirms this: ‘The degree to which personal teaching style and philosophy

influences resource use was striking’ (p. 201). Further, Harley found that more than70% of faculty members maintain their own personal collections of digital resources,

and like to easily break apart, rebuild, and integrate items into their teaching practice.

Philip and Cameron (2008) facilitated sharing and reuse of learning designs

amongst preservice teachers and their tutors over a two-year period. From their moni-toring and analysis of user behaviour, the researchers derived six key enablers to

reuse and sharing. Only one of these related to the way a learning design was repre-

sented within a digital repository. All of the others related to the process of teachers’learning design practice, including collaboratively documenting and reflecting on

pedagogical designs, engaging in iterative critique and evaluation of learning designsas they are developed, and facilitating a collegial and supportive environment to

support collaboration and critique.

It is our view then that the internal beliefs of teachers about teaching and learning

in their own context exert a powerful influence over the way they create or reuse learn-ing designs. However, in the field of dissemination of learning designs, the elicitation

of these beliefs remains largely unexamined in research and unsupported in practice.

Teaching beliefs and learning design: the notion of teaching voice

Knowledge systems are open to evaluation and critical examination; beliefs are not …




determining how individuals organize and define tasks and problems and are stronger predictors of behavior. (Pajares, 1992, p. 311)

We have described opposing conceptions of learning design: a conduit/transmission/design-as-product approach vs. an ill-structured/belief-driven/design-as-process

approach. These conceptions find parallels in research into the role of epistemology(beliefs about knowledge and what it means to know) and its impact on teaching and

learning.Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, and Tarule (1986) developed an epistemological

framework with a continuum for intellectual development based on Perry’s scheme

(Hill, 2000, 2004; Hofer, 2001; Hofer & Pintrich, 1997) using the metaphor of

‘voice’ (see Hofer & Pintrich, 1997, p. 95). This continuum proceeds from ‘silence’

– ‘a passive, voiceless existence listening solely to external authority’ (Hofer &Pintrich, 1997, p. 95) – through to ‘constructed knowledge’ (knowledge and truth are

contextual and the individual constructs knowledge based upon her own frame of

reference).We have already noted the nature of learning design as a complex, contextualised

process; an ‘ill-structured domain’ (Spiro et al., 1996). Kitchener (as cited in Hofer,

2001) proposed three levels of progressively higher thinking: cognition, metacogni-

tion, and epistemic cognition. Each builds on the level(s) below, and epistemic

cognition is crucial for solving problems in ill-structured domains. ‘Yet the evidence

gathered to date suggests that most individuals do not achieve a level of epistemo-logical understanding that makes possible genuine critical thinking … or a level of

reflective judgment essential to the solving of ill-structured problems’ (Hofer, 2001,

p. 365). In terms of the framework of Belenky et al. (1986), such individuals are not

able to give voice to their own frame of reference in order to solve problems in their own context.

Educational design, a term favoured by Goodyear (2005) and Goodyear and Yang

(2008), has been conceptualised as comprising four levels: pedagogical philosophy,

high-level pedagogy, pedagogical strategy, and pedagogical tactics (Goodyear, 2005).

The pedagogical philosophy contains the beliefs about epistemology and teaching andlearning that powerfully influence the practice of teacher-designers. Pedagogical

tactics are what the teacher-designer actually uses when implementing a learning

design, but the middle ground of educational design is ‘the difficult territory in which

philosophy and pedagogical tactics have to be aligned’ (Goodyear, 2005, p. 85). Thisis where belief and practice converge, or where pedagogical beliefs find voice as

pedagogical practice. It is this confluence of belief and practice that we have termedteaching voice.

Helping teacher-designers discern their teaching voice

In the context of the ill-structured domain of learning design, teacher-designers needsupport in learning ‘how to judge, that is, how to think in context, weigh alternatives,

and seek adequate solutions on the basis of evidence’ (Hill, 2004, p. 31). Rather than

placing faith in the external authority of learning design representations and reposito-

ries, and acting as passive consumers of others’ pedagogical products, ‘practitioners

should be encouraged to interrogate and engage with their own understanding in order to externalize and make explicit the “knowing how”, so that it can be shared and learnt




It appears then that supporting learning design-as-process in an individualised and

reflective yet collaborative and collegial manner promises to empower the individualteacher-designer to understand his or her own teaching perspectives and context and

to design for learning accordingly. However, teacher-designers working in higher

education are frequently employed for their research abilities rather than their teach-

ing skills or pedagogical understanding, and may have little inclination or ability to

engage in the pedagogical reflection required. ‘University teachers do not typicallyhave such tools and sensibilities … Nor is there a community of university teachers

with a common pedagogical language or shared set of robust pedagogical constructs’

(Goodyear & Yang, 2009, pp. 173–174).

There is a need for support strategies and tools to help teacher-designers discover and reflect upon the pedagogical beliefs and practice that form their teaching voice.

As learning designers (and academic developers) we have a key role to play in devel-

oping such strategies and facilitating their use (Sharpe & Oliver, 2007). Hill (2000,

2004) has described the use of a community of inquiry approach to help teachers deal

with pedagogical complexity. Bain and McNaught (2006) have recommended thatresearch-led staff development be provided, recognising the importance of teacher-

designers reflecting on their educational beliefs and teaching practice in relation to

how learning technologies may enhance student learning.

It is against this background that we have developed the HEART strategy.

4. Description of the HEART learning design support strategy

The HEART strategy has three principal components: a questionnaire, a visualisationtool, and support for face-to-face and online discussion between teachers, learning

designers, and other members of course or learning design teams, as depicted inFigure 1.Figure 1. Principal components of HEART.

The strategy may be used in parallel with a learning design representation, such

as a lesson plan, case study, pattern language, or other visual representation. Thearrows in Figure 1 illustrate the sequence in which we have used the strategy so far,

working individually with a small number of learning designers and university

teachers.

The questionnaire

First: Teacher-designers complete the HEART questionnaire addressing their educa-tional beliefs and practice in relation to a particular learning activity, course, or

project. The learning activity or course itself, with all artefacts, examples, and relateddocumentation and data, are demonstrated and described during this first step, so that

all those attending the session are fully informed about the details of the course (or

learning activity), its content, and its context. The derivation and construction of the

questionnaire is described in Section 5. In our research so far, the questionnaire hasbeen completed in a meeting situation similar to what would occur during a typical

project meeting (further possible audiences and contexts of use are listed in Table 1).

The visualisation tool

Second: The teacher-designers see their responses to the questionnaire in a diagram,




rated their educational beliefs and practice in relation to the particular learning activity

or project under discussion. The teacher-designers can change their responses to the

questionnaire if necessary and regenerate the diagram as many times as required. Notethat the diagram does not illustrate or represent the learning design itself, but the peda-

gogical belief/practice dimensions that underpin the design. This is similar to theprocess of ‘convergent participation’ (Nesbit & Leacock, 2009) where groups review

learning objects in teams. The goal of this process is not for the group to agree on one

rating, but ‘to increase each participant’s understanding of the reasoning that underlies

their judgment about a particular feature’ (Nesbit & Leacock, 2009, p. 581).

Discussion and reflection

Third: Teacher-designers discuss and reflect on the diagram and questionnaire state-

ments. The diagram, and the responses to the questionnaire, are recorded for further

reflection, development, evaluation, or research purposes. In future, we intend

Figure 1. Principal components of HEART.




planning, or reflection generated during this process in either private or collaborative

discussion areas online.

A Web-based prototype of the questionnaire, visualisation tool, and discussionspaces is being developed.

Audience and contexts of use

As already discussed, the learning design process is complex, varied (Oliver, 2002),

and ‘messy’ (Conole, 2008). Our support strategy is intended to accommodate this

complexity and diversity by being used in a variety of ways to support a collaborativeprocess which a group of learning designers or teachers would undertake to share or

repurpose learning designs, but could also be used by teacher-designers working

alone. As listed in Table 1, our strategy caters for three main audience types, who mayuse the strategy at various stages of a course design or learning design process, or while teaching a course or implementing a learning design.

Our early trials of the strategy, reported in this article, involved using the HEART

strategy as described in points 6 and 8 in Table 1, that is, to support reflection by

learning designers on their own learning designs (at early and late stages of design and

implementation) and to support teachers’ reflections on their own course at an earlystage of the course creation.

5. Research approach and methods

Research goal and research approach

Our research goal is to determine how the pedagogical beliefs and practice dimensions,

Table 1. Audience and contexts of use of the HEART strategy.

Audience Context of use

Project development team (e.g., learningdesigner, academic, Web developer,

graphic designer).

1. Project development process, either at the earlystages of project scoping or at completion of the

first version.2. Evaluations of the project (at whichever stage

they occur).

3. Debriefs of first implementations of a learningdesign.

4. Preparation of a second phase of developmentof a project.

Learning designers (individuals or groups), either dispersed acrossinstitutions, or in one department or institution.

5. When responding to a request for advice andreviewing a range of existing learning designsfor possible adaptation and repurposing.

6. Reflective practice: learning designers reflecton their own learning designs at a number of different stages of the development process.

Teachers, lecturers, tutors workingindependently with learningtechnologies (e.g., LMSs, Web 2technologies, or their own Web sites).

7. Review of a range of existing learning designsor completed resources for possible adaptationand customising.

8. Reflect on own lesson planning or course design.




be discerned, articulated, and represented to support the development, review, and

reuse of learning designs. From the literature reviewed above, our research is basedon the premise that if designers and teachers can inspect, convey, and discuss the

teaching voice that underpins their own and others’ learning designs, they can create

or repurpose those learning designs on an informed, critical basis. Our research activ-

ities have focused on developing and trialling the components of the HEART strategy.

Our results at this very early stage can only provide preliminary evidence, which wewill build upon as the research continues. We have taken an iterative research

approach, using qualitative research methods to obtain feedback from a very small user

group (i.e., two expert reviewers, three learning designers, and one lecturer). We have

used this feedback to inform further development of the prototype in iterative cyclesof design, testing, and re-development, in preparation for more trials with a wider audi-

ence in 2009.

Research methodsOur research methods to date have included:

(1) constructing a questionnaire on pedagogical dimensions of a course or learn-

ing design;

(2) adapting an existing visualisation tool to represent the pedagogical dimensions

rated by the questionnaire;

(3) conducting initial trials of the HEART strategy (i.e., use of the questionnaireand visualisation tool to discuss the pedagogical dimensions of a particular

course or learning design) to elicit feedback from learning designers and

teachers on the questionnaire and the visualisation tool, and, more importantly,to monitor the emerging discussions provoked by the use of these instruments.

Construction of the questionnaire

Using our review of the literature we have proceeded on the basis that teachers’ educa-tional beliefs play a key role in defining teaching behaviour, that beliefs must be

inferred, and that inferences about teachers’ educational beliefs must take into account

the congruence between their teaching behaviour in relation to a particular belief

(Pajares, 1992). These assumptions are evident in the teaching perspectives inventory

(TPI), developed by Pratt, Collins, and Selinger (2001), where respondents’ dominantand recessive teaching perspectives are reflected in scores that indicate the consis-

tency (or lack thereof) between actions, beliefs, and intentions for each teaching

perspective. The inventory is described on the Teaching Perspectives website (http://

teachingperspectives.com/).We considered using the TPI for the first stage of the HEART strategy, as a means

of making explicit the educational beliefs relating to learning design practice. We tried

using the TPI with a range of learning design projects we had previously worked on.

This process held parallels for us with attributes of signature pedagogies described byShulman (2005): the ‘habits of the mind [intentions], … heart [beliefs], and … hand

[actions]’ (p. 59) of the range of disciplines we encounter in our daily practice as

learning designers.

While the inventory was useful in highlighting inconsistencies and aspects that




p. 327) calls ‘it depends’ thinking. The list of beliefs we were responding to were not

relevant to the educational actions of the learning designer’s role. The differences inscale, level, granularity, and discipline of the projects and courses we considered

made a vast difference to the way we answered the questions.

We then traced the progressive development of ‘pedagogical dimensions’ and

‘belief/practice orientations’ of Reeves and Harmon (1994), Reeves and Reeves

(1997), Bain, McNaught, Mills, and Lueckenhausen (1998), Hautakangas and Ranta(2001), and Bain and McNaught (2006).

Bain et al. (1998) added epistemological belief dimensions and curriculum belief

dimensions to Reeves and Reeves’ pedagogical dimensions (1997) and separated a set

of practice dimensions related to computer-aided learning. These were based onextensive research from 24 computer-facilitated learning projects in the mid-1990s.

Subsequently, Bain and McNaught (2006) derived 13 belief/practice dimensions to

investigate the relationship between academics’ beliefs and practice when using tech-

nology in teaching and learning.

To select pedagogical dimensions best suited to our research aims, we applied thedimensions proposed in these different studies to projects that we were involved in as

learning designers. We found the 13 belief/practice dimensions of Bain and

McNaught (2006), listed in Table 2, best suited our research purposes. We used these

belief/practice dimensions to construct a questionnaire as the first component of theHEART support strategy.

The belief/practice dimensions proposed by Bain and McNaught (2006) are

expressed in theoretical and abstract terms, as they are intended to be used as a

Table 2. Bain and McNaught’s 13 belief/practice dimensions (2006, p. 102) and what they are

intended to measure or represent.

Pedagogical dimensions What the dimensions measure

Epistemological beliefs

1. Nature of discipline knowledge Abstract and/or situated knowledge

2. Origin of to-be-learned knowledge Influence of discipline and/or openness of knowledge to interpretation

Pedagogical beliefs

3. Pedagogical philosophy Constructivist and/or instructivist approach

4. Accommodation of students’ conceptions Absent, pre-emptive, and/or conversational

Curriculum beliefs

5. Learning goal orientation Focused and/or unfocused

6. Role of student collaboration Absent, social, and/or cognitive

‘CAL’ (technology-supported teaching,learning, and assessment) practices

7. Task orientation Abstract and/or authentic

8. Task structure Constrained and/or open-ended

9. Interactivity Navigational and/or manipulative

10. Learning framework Structured, guided, and/or facilitated

11. Learning control Teacher managed and/or student managed12. Learning process Construction and/or reproduction

13 Feedback to students Minimal fixed and/or individualised




descriptive research tool by the educational community. In order to operationalise the

dimensions, we generated a set of statements for teacher-designers to rate, using afive-point Likert scale. We tried to make each statement as concise, unambiguous, and

jargon-free as possible, while adhering to Bain and McNaught’s titles and descriptions

of their dimensions for purposes of establishing validity.

Bain and McNaught (2006) used a teacher-centred to learner-centred scale to

represent the academics’ belief codes. We were aware that this dichotomy may implyjudgement in our statements concerning purportedly more acceptable or better

teaching approaches (if they were constructivist or learner-centred). We considered

adopting a different dichotomy for the dimensions, such as, for example, the acquisi-

tion vs. participation metaphors for learning proposed by Sfard (1998), but decided toadhere to the teacher vs. student-centred scale of Bain and McNaught (2006) for this

first phase of our research.

Some statements have a teacher-centred orientation. For example, in Table 3, for

dimension 5, Learning goal orientation, ‘Students follow or adopt the goals set out in

the learning materials,’ a rating of 5 means that the teacher plays an important role.Other statements have a student-centred orientation. For example, in the same dimen-

sion, ‘The learning design allows the students to define their own goals,’ a rating of 5

means that the student has an active role. For each of the 13 dimensions, we initially

created four statements for respondents to rate a learning design (two statementsrepresenting each extreme of a dimension), which made the questionnaire too long.

We reduced this to two statements per dimension. Examples are shown in Table 3.

Respondents could provide written comments in addition to quantitative ratings

for each dimension. Although the reduction in the number of statements may limit

Table 3. Two of the 13 pedagogical dimensions, each with two statements for users to rate alearning design.

StatementsAlmostnever Seldom Sometimes Often

Almostalways

I don’tknow

Dimension 5: Learning goal orientation (focused and/or unfocused)

The learning design allows thestudents to define their own goals.

Comments:

Students follow or adopt the goals setout in the learning materials.

Comments:

Dimension 13: Feedback to students (minimal, fixed, and/or individualised)

The learning design provides for pre-determined feedback responses that are built intolearning tasks.

Comments:

The learning design provides for

responsive and individualisedfeedback.

Comments:




our opportunities to cross-check and validate respondents’ ratings, the need for the

questionnaire to promote reflection and discussion by teacher-designers is paramountif it is to meet the goals of the HEART strategy.

Visualisation of the pedagogical dimensionsThe scores from the rating scales of each statement in the questionnaire were used to

generate a visual representation of respondents’ ratings. This diagram illustrates the

pedagogical dimensions of the learning design. The diagram is thus intended to help

make explicit the teacher-designer’s beliefs and actions that influenced the learningdesign of a particular learning activity or course: their teaching voice.

In this initial phase of our research we used Many Eyes (IBM, n.d.) to generate

visualisations because it offers many options for viewing data. We experimented with

two visualisation options: the Tree map (Figure 2) and the Bubble chart (Figure 3).Figure 2. Pedagogical dimensions of a learning design as a Tree map.Figure 3. Pedagogical dimensions of a learning design as a Bubble chart .

Obtaining these visualisations required some modification of statement ratings.

The mixed student- and teacher-centred orientation of statements meant that visualisedratings had to be adjusted (a rating of 5 does not mean the same thing in each case).

We therefore represented all the statements according to a student-centred scale. We

retained the variety of student-centred and teacher-centred statements, but used theformula x = 6 – x for all teacher-centred statement ratings to transform, for example,

a rating of 5 for a teacher-centred statement to a rating of 1 on a student-centred scale.

Creating visual representations with Many Eyes’ Tree map and Bubble chart

can yield complex visualisations. We experimented with different display parame-ters to generate the most meaningful representation of the respondents’ ratings of

the statements.

Trial of the HEART strategy

The first trial involved two stages. First, we sought feedback on the clarity of wording

in the statements we had generated for each dimension, and how closely they adhered

to what the dimension was intended to measure. We asked two expert reviewers who




are senior colleagues and experienced academic developers for this feedback. Second,we asked three learning designers (LD1, LD2, and LD3) and one lecturer (L1) to trial

the HEART strategy using the statements with the visualisation tool. Although a very

small sample, this suited our need for detailed feedback on a very early prototype. At

this initial stage of our research, we needed to trial the HEART strategy with individ-uals rather than course teams, to pilot the questionnaire and the visualisation tool, and

monitor the ensuing discussion with a small group from our intended audience. Our aim was to get feedback from users in preparation for more comprehensive trials

in 2009.

We interviewed the learning designers and the teacher separately, using semistruc-tured interviews. Our goal was to provoke and support, by means of the questionnaire

and diagram, ‘good talk about good teaching’ (Palmer, 2007, p. 149) and in our case,

good talk about good learning design. Palmer has suggested that one of the elements

essential to this type of conversation is the topics we discuss.

We rarely talk with each other about teaching at any depth – and why should we whenwe have nothing more than ‘tips, tricks, and techniques’ to discuss? That kind of talk

fails to touch the heart of a teacher’s experience. (p. 12)

When teaching is reduced to technique, we shrink teachers as well as their craft – andpeople do not willingly return to a conversation that diminishes them. (p. 149)

We aimed to encourage teacher-designers to discuss, openly and honestly, what

their learning design aimed to achieve, how they structured teaching and learning to

achieve this, and why they taught this way.

Each interview session was similar to a typical focus group meeting, when teachersand learning designers review a learning activity under development. Each session

lasted between 1 hour 20 minutes and 3 hours. We asked each research participant to

rate the statements in relation to a selected learning design project or course he/she

was familiar with. LD1 and LD2 reviewed distance, flexible courses they had designed.

Figure 3. Pedagogical dimensions of a learning design as a Bubble chart .




course he was preparing. Further, we asked them to comment on the visualisation that

was generated based on their questionnaire scores. We used a rapid prototypingapproach, where feedback from each participant was used to modify the tools and the

session format in preparation for the next interview.

6. Results and discussion of the first trial of the HEART strategy

Feedback on the questionnaire

Research question 1: are the statements clearly understood by the respondents?

Based on the feedback we received from our two expert reviewers on the wording

of the statements, we modified the questionnaire in preparation for the interviews withthe three learning designers and the lecturer. Most modifications involved simplifying

the wording and removing theoretical terminology, while remaining faithful to Bain

and McNaught’s descriptions of the pedagogical dimensions (2006). We asked each

respondent to rate the pedagogical dimensions of a learning design project or coursethat they had been directly involved in.

Feedback from the respondents related to the clarity and length of the question-

naire. Suggestions were made for useful inclusions to clarify what the dimensions

were measuring in relation to the learning goals of the course being reviewed.

Changes were progressively made to the questionnaire as the trials proceeded.The feedback from LD2 revealed that some of the statements were still ambiguous

due to theoretical terminology, and we further rephrased these.

Research question 2: do the statements address the key pedagogical dimensions of a

learning design, or have some key dimensions been omitted?

Each of our respondents said that the dimensions did cover all the critical features that

a review/planning tool for a learning design should. L1 (the lecturer) went further to

say that the pedagogical dimensions extended his thinking, not only about how to

teach aspects of the course that he had not yet considered, but also about how studentswould respond to his teaching, and important aspects of their learning that he had not

considered before.

LD3 said she would prefer that the dimensions represent the acquisition vs. partic-

ipation learning metaphors (Sfard, 1998) as an alternative to the teacher/student-

centred dimensions: ‘It’s more orientated to the design itself rather than the personwho’s teaching the course.’ With the current student/teacher-centred dimensions she

felt she was second-guessing what the course lecturer would say.

LD1 and LD2, who reviewed skills-based learning activities during the interview

session, said that it would be advantageous if the pedagogical dimensions were moreadaptable to skills-based courses as well as courses in the more traditional academic

disciplines.

Feedback on the visualisation tool

Our participants needed help to understand the Tree map (Figure 2) and Bubble chart

(Figure 3) that illustrated the results of the questionnaires. We expected this as we

were using Many Eyes as an off-the-shelf tool for trialling purposes and were aware




complexity, we chose one set of parameters (e.g., size, colour) for each visualisation,

and limited how much the user could manipulate these parameters. The Bubble chart was preferred by all three learning designers, while the lecturer found the Tree map

easier to understand.

All our participants indicated that, despite the visualisations being complex, they

did reflect the pedagogical dimensions of their learning design projects fairly, that

they served to indicate design strengths and weaknesses, and areas they wanted tofocus on during ongoing development work. LD1 stated, ‘I think the questionnaire

and the visual representation of the results are invaluable for reflecting on a particular

learning design.’

Feedback on the discussion session

Feedback about the discussion revealed (a) the potential benefits of a team approach

to using the HEART strategy, and (b) the value of the discussion for reflection on

beliefs underlying the course design.

The potential benefits of a team approach to using of the HEART strategy

Observing the learning designers using the HEART strategy during the trials was illu-minating. During each of the four trial sessions it was clear to us that to facilitate good

talk about good learning design we needed to create a positive atmosphere to encour-

age frank discussion about the teacher-designer’s project and to avoid any feelings of

defensiveness. We need to ‘speak openly and honestly about our struggles as well asour successes’ (Palmer, 2007, p. 151).

Two of the learning designers, as well as the lecturer, commented that it wouldhave been beneficial if the whole course design team had participated in the session,

for a variety of reasons:

● LD1 found it intensive and uncomfortable at times. She felt this would have

been alleviated if the whole development team had taken part, particularly the

subject matter experts and tutors who would actually teach the course:

My beliefs around these dimensions were not necessarily realised in the actions of theteacher/SME [subject matter expert] when he/she taught/facilitated the course. This,to me, reflects the immense potential/strength of this tool and I think it will be best

utilised to stimulate/generate discussions with the SME around the legitimate/reason-able grounds identified by the pedagogical dimensions both in the planning stage andthe evaluation/implementation stage. (LD1)

● LD3 also expressed unease at responding to some statements without beingfully aware of how the course lecturer was teaching the course.

The value of the discussion for reflection on beliefs underlying the course design

LD2 commented that the questionnaire could serve as a useful reflective tool, and

would be very useful for professional development purposes. LD3 also noted the

reflective value of the process: ‘[D]oing the test helped me think about what was

underneath … if you are a teacher or learning designer who has a vested interest in a




discomfort we observed in one of the learning designers when she was asked to

express personal beliefs about knowledge and teaching subsided as she continuedreflecting on how these beliefs influenced her learning design practice. The support-

ive, collegial discussion during the session brought new insights on some of the design

issues she faced.

Observing the contrasting ways that the teacher-designers engaged with the ques-

tionnaire and visualisations raised questions about how the review sessions could run.We have begun to explore the forms that a collegial environment may take to support

dialogue and peer review regarding learning designs, both face-to-face and online.

Important elements for the format of the sessions emerged, such as the value of creat-

ing a positive atmosphere in which participants were able to demonstrate their courseor learning design, and be encouraged about their achievements thus far. We are well

advised to incorporate the collegial, collaborative, documentary, reflective, evaluative

enablers of good learning design communities described by Philip and Cameron

(2008), and likewise the communal dialogue advocated by Hill (2000, 2004) and

Falconer and Littlejohn (2009).Most encouraging was feedback from the lecturer (L1) about the value of being

able to see a diagrammatic representation of the pedagogical dimensions of his course.

The diagram served as a valuable focal point, he said, to clarify his thinking about the

variety of course components, how they related to his personal teaching philosophyand to his teaching team. This supports the findings of Falconer and Littlejohn (2009),

who explored different types of learning design representation and their ability to repre-

sent practice models. They found that the process of engaging with a learning design

representation within a peer community, rather than the representation itself, was key.

7. Conclusion and future directions

So far the HEART strategy shows potential to support the learning design process atmany stages – whether planning a new design, reviewing an existing design, repur-

posing a learning design, or developing and evaluating an emerging design. Our initial

trial of the strategy with teacher-designers of distance, flexible, and blended courses

suggests that the HEART strategy may effectively support the learning design processin flexible, open, and distance learning contexts.

In the next phase of our research we intend to develop and refine the HEART strat-

egy, and to gather the evidence required to support these tentative claims. Our

research will involve:

● revisiting the pedagogical dimensions (what educational orientations should

they attempt to portray?);● clarifying and validating the statements, both quantitatively and qualitatively;

● customising the visualisation tool to simplify display parameters and build in

process instructions;

● establishing more clearly the requirements for facilitating the discussion and

reflection process provoked by use of the questionnaire and visualisation; and● trialling the online collaborative and private spaces.

We will seek feedback and participation from a larger reference group as we estab-lish the validity of the questionnaire and develop a robust visualisation and communi-




The HEART strategy does not purport to be a solution to the challenges of reuse

and sharing of learning designs. There will always be a limited number of teachers,particularly at the higher education level, who are prepared to engage in examina-

tion of personal beliefs about teaching and learning in the way that our strategy

encourages. In short, we do not believe there is any easy answer to the sharing and

reuse challenge that faces practitioners and researchers in open, distance, and flexi-

ble learning. However, we propose that efforts are more productively directed atpromoting subjective awareness and communities of practice amongst teacher-

designers than on developing the perfect learning design representation or digital

repository.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge colleagues at the University of Auckland for their help andadvice. Dr Helen Sword provided a thorough and thoughtful critique of the HEART question-

naire. Dr Cathy Gunn, Dr Hamish Cowan, and Pauline Cooper gave much of their time andprofessional advice as we developed the HEART strategy. Associate Professor Miles Barker atthe University of Waikato reviewed an earlier version of this paper in detail. His advice andencouragement at various stages of this research have been greatly appreciated.

Notes on contributors

Claire Donald has a background in science education, and has been involved in research, teach-ing and elearning development in both tertiary education and industry. Alongside her activeinvolvement in a variety of elearning developments across the university, her current researchinterests include concept development during learning, evaluation, and the learning designprocess.

Adam Blake has managed projects for staff orientation to elearning, learning managementsystem development and implementation, creation of blended and fully-online courses, andimplementation of elearning initiatives across a range of university programmes. Adam’sresearch interests span learning design, knowledge visualisation, and professional developmentand change management for elearning.

Isabelle Girault’s fields of interest are primarily in e-learning, inquiry-based learning, andlaboratory work. Her research focuses on giving students responsibility for the design of exper-imental procedures as part of the inquiry process, to help students link theory and practice.

Ashwini Datt has worked in a variety of roles as an educational technologist and learning

designer at tertiary level, where she has been involved in elearning integration and professionaldevelopment projects. Her research interests are in educational design, online interaction, andapplication of multimedia, 3D modelling and virtual reality in education.

Liz Ramsay has had a long association with the University of Auckland in various roles.Currently she is a learning designer and editor of aCADemix, the biannual departmentalmagazine, aimed at keeping the university abreast of the Centre for Academic Development’swork.

References

Agostinho, S. (2009). Learning design representations to document, model and share teachingpractice. In L. Lockyer, S. Bennett, S. Agostinho, & B. Harper (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning design and learning objects: Issues, applications and technologies




Bain, J., & McNaught, C. (2006). How academics use technology in teaching and learning:Understanding the relationship between beliefs and practice. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22(2), 99–113.

Bain, J., McNaught, C., Mills, C., & Lueckenhausen, G. (1998). Understanding CFL practicesin higher education in terms of academics’ educational beliefs: Enhancing Reeves’ analysis.In R. Corderoy (Ed.), Proceedings of Ascilite 98 Conference (pp. 49–58). Wollongong,Australia. Retrieved October 29, 2008, from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/wollongong98/asc98-pdf/bain0089.pdf

Barker, M. (2000). Learning theories in science teaching – Hindsight or master plan? NewZealand Science Teacher, 94, 32–39.

Beetham, H., & Sharpe, R. (2007). An introduction to rethinking pedagogy for a digital age.In H. Beetham & R. Sharpe (Eds.), Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age (pp. 1–10).Abingdon: Routledge.

Belenky, M.F., Clinchy, B.M., Goldberger, N.R., & Tarule, J.M. (1986). Women’s ways of knowing: The development of self, voice and mind. New York: Basic Books.

Bennett, S., Agostinho, S., Lockyer, L., Kosta, L., Jones, J., Koper, K., et al. (2007). Learningdesigns: Bridging the gap between theory and practice. In R.J. Atkinson, C. McBeath,S.K.A. Soong, & C. Cheers (Eds.), Providing choices for learners and learning. Proceed-

ings Ascilite Singapore 2007 (pp. 51–60). Singapore: Centre for Educational Develop-ment, Nanyang Technological University. Retrieved October 29, 2008, from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/singapore07/procs/bennett.pdf

Bennett, S., Parrish, D., Lefoe, G., O’Reilly, M., Keppell, M., & Philip, R. (2009). A needsanalysis framework for the design of digital repositories in higher education. In L. Lockyer,S. Bennett, S. Agostinho, & B. Harper (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning designand learning objects: Issues, applications and technologies (Vol. 2, pp. 607–628). Hershey,PA: Information Science Reference.

Boyle, T. (2006). The design and development of second generation learning objects. In E.Pearson & P. Bohman (Eds.), World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hyperme-dia & Telecommunications. Orlando, FL. Retrieved October 29, 2008, from http://www.rlo-cetl.ac.uk/dissemination/events/second%20generation%20learning%20objects.doc

Carey, T., & Hanley, G.L. (2008). Extending the impact of open educational resourcesthrough alignment with pedagogical content knowledge and institutional strategy:Lessons learned from the MERLOT community experience. In T. Iiyoshi & M.S.V.Kumar (Eds.), Opening up education: The collective advancement of education throughopen technology, open content, and open knowledge (pp. 181–195). Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.

Combs, A. (1982). A personal approach to teaching: Beliefs that make a difference. Boston:Allyn and Bacon.

Conole, G. (2008). Using Compendium as a tool to support the design of learning activities.In A. Okada, S. Buckingham Shum, & T. Sherborne (Eds.), Knowledge cartography(pp. 199–221). London: Springer-Verlag.

Conole, G., Dyke, M., Oliver, M., & Seale, J. (2004). Mapping pedagogy and tools for

effective learning design. Computers & Education, 43(1/2), 17–33.Dalziel, J. (2008). Learning design: Sharing pedagogical know-how. In T. Iiyoshi & M.S.V.Kumar (Eds.), Opening up education: The collective advancement of education throughopen technology, open content, and open knowledge (pp. 375–387). Cambridge, MA: MITPress.

Errington, E. (2004). The impact of teacher beliefs on flexible learning innovation: Some prac-tices and possibilities for academic developers. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 41(1), 39–47.

Ertmer, P. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technologyintegration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25–39.

Falconer, I., & Littlejohn, A. (2009). Representing models of practice. In L. Lockyer, S. Bennett,S. Agostinho, & B. Harper (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning design and learning objects: Issues, applications and technologies (Vol. 1, pp. 20–40). Hershey, PA: Information

Science Reference.Garzotto, F., & Retalis, S. (2009). A critical perspective on design patterns for e-learning. In L.

Lockyer S Bennett S Agostinho & B Harper (Eds ) Handbook of research on learning




design and learning objects: Issues, applications and technologies (Vol. 1, pp. 113–143).Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.

Goodyear, P. (2005). Educational design and networked learning: Patterns, pattern languagesand design practice. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 21(1), 82–101.Retrieved April 22, 2009, from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet21/goodyear.html

Goodyear, P., & Yang, D.F. (2009). Patterns and pattern languages in educational design.In L. Lockyer, S. Bennett, S. Agostinho, & B. Harper (Eds.), Handbook of researchon learning design and learning objects: Issues, applications and technologies (Vol. 1,pp. 167–187). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.

Griffiths, D., & Garcia, R. (2003, April). Commentary on R. Koper, ‘Combining re-usablelearning resources to pedagogical purposeful units of learning.’ Reusing online resources:A sustainable approach to eLearning [Special issue]. Journal of Interactive Media inEducation, 1. Retrieved April 3, 2009, from http://www-jime.open.ac.uk/2003/1/JIME-2003-1.html

Haigh, N. (1998). Staff development: An enabling role. In C. Latchem & F. Lockwood (Eds.),Staff development in open and flexible learning (pp. 182–192). London: Routledge.

Harley, D. (2008). Why understanding the use and users of open education matters. In T. Iiyoshi& M.S.V. Kumar (Eds.), Opening up education: The collective advancement of education

through open technology, open content, and open knowledge (pp. 197–211). Cambridge,MA: MIT Press.

Hautakangas, S., & Ranta, P. (2001, June 25–30). Integrated pedagogical profile and thedesign of web-based learning environments. Paper presented at the ED-MEDIA 2001World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications,Tampere, Finland.

Hill, L. (2000). What does it take to change minds? Intellectual development of preserviceteachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(1), 50–62.

Hill, L. (2004). Changing minds: Developmental education for conceptual change. Journal of Adult Development, 11(1), 29–40.

Hofer, B.K. (2001). Personal epistemology research: Implications for learning and teaching.Journal of Educational Psychology Review, 13(4), 353–383.

Hofer, B.K., & Pintrich, P.R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefsabout knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67 (1), 88–140.

IBM. (n.d.). Many eyes. Retrieved April 4, 2009, from http://services.alphaworks.ibm.com/manyeyes/homeproject

Lockyer, L., Bennett, S., Agostinho, S., & Harper, B. (Eds.). (2009). Handbook of research onlearning design and learning objects: Issues, applications and technologies. Hershey, PA:Information Science Reference.

Masterman, E. (2009). Activity theory and the design of pedagogic planning tools. In L. Lockyer,S. Bennett, S. Agostinho, & B. Harper (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning designand learning objects: Issues, applications and technologies (Vol. 1, pp. 209–227). Hershey,PA: Information Science Reference.

Mayes, T., & de Freitas, S. (2007). Learning and e-learning: The role of theory. In H. Beetham& R. Sharpe (Eds.), Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age. Abingdon: Routledge.Nesbit, J.C., & Leacock, T.L. (2009). Collaborative argumentation in learning resource evalu-

ation. In L. Lockyer, S. Bennett, S. Agostinho, & B. Harper (Eds.), Handbook of researchon learning design and learning objects: Issues, applications and technologies (Vol. 2, pp.574–588). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.

Oliver, M. (2002). Creativity and the curriculum design process: A case study. RetrievedOctober 29, 2008, from http://www.palatine.ac.uk/files/1037.pdf

Pajares, M. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messyconstruct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–332.

Palmer, P.J. (2007). The courage to teach: Exploring the inner landscape of the teacher’s life(10th anniversary ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Philip, R., & Cameron, L. (2008). Sharing and reusing learning designs: Contextualising

enablers and barriers. In Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia,Hypermedia and Telecommunications (pp. 453–462). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computers in Education (AACE)




Pratt, D.D. (1997). Five perspectives on teaching in adult and higher education. Malabar, FL:Krieger.

Pratt, D.D., Collins, J.B., & Selinger, S.J. (2001). Development and use of the Teaching Perspectives Inventory (TPI). Paper presented at the Annual Congress of the AmericanEducational Research Association. Retrieved April 22, 2009, from http://www.one45.com/teachingperspectives/PDF/development1.pdf

Reeves, T.C., & Harmon, S.W. (1994). Systematic evaluation procedures for interactive multi-media for education and training. In S. Reisman (Ed.), Multimedia computing: Preparing for the 21st century (pp. 472–505). Harrisburg, PA: Idea Group.

Reeves, T.C., & Reeves, P.M. (1997). Effective dimensions of interactive learning on theWorld Wide Web. In B.H. Khan (Ed.), Web-based instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Educational Technology Publications.

Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one.Educational Researcher, 27 (2), 4–13.

Sharpe, R., & Oliver, M. (2007). Supporting practitioners’ design for learning: Principles of effective resources and interventions. In H. Beetham & R. Sharpe (Eds.), Rethinking peda-gogy for a digital age (pp. 117–128). Abingdon: Routledge.

Shulman, L. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134(3), 52–59.

Spiro, R.J., Feltovich, P.J., & Coulson, R.L. (1996). Two epistemic world-views: Prefigurativeschemas and learning in complex domains. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10(7), 51–61.

Wills, S., & McDougall, A. (2009). Reusability of online role play as learning objects or learning designs. In L. Lockyer, S. Bennett, S. Agostinho, & B. Harper (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning design and learning objects: Issues, applications and technologies(Vol. 2, pp. 761–776). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.

approaches to learning design

Documents