1. The evolution of Learning Design: From pedagogic neutrality to good teaching ideas James Dalziel Professor of Learning Technology and Director, Macquarie E-Learning Centre Of Excellence (MELCOE) Macquarie University Keynote Presentation for 2009 European LAMS and Learning Design Conference, Open University, UK, July 7th, 2009
This presentations is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License

2. Overview Why did we need Learning Design?
LD Goal 1: Pedagogic neutrality
LD Goal 2: Sharing good teaching ideas
LAMS V2.3
The LAMS Activity Planner
Conclusion

3. Why did we need Learning Design?
It was only 5-10 years ago when many experts saw e-learning as only single-learner, self-paced content
Collaborative learning just wasn’t discussed
Education technical standards reflected this blind spot
“SCORM is not for everyone” was vigorously rejected by some
Most uses of collaboration in e-learning were marginal
How many people used “Chat” in their LMS?
(But Forums did achieve some significance)

4. Why did we need Learning Design?
The deeper problem wasn’t simply that we needed to “tack on” a bit more collaboration
We needed a “larger” theory of e-learning that provided a framework for many different educational approaches
Including single learner and collaborative methods
Learning Design was a significant theoretical advance by providing a “meta-model” for many approaches
EML and IMS LD were key technical standards contributions
LAMS, JISC Design 4 Learning, etc, illustrated the wider LD idea without needing to adhere to IMS LD specifics

5. Goal 1: Pedagogical Neutrality
The aspiration of Learning Design theory to “pedagogic neutrality” is widely misunderstood
But worth defending once properly stated
LD attempts to provide a notational framework for educational activity structures that is rich enough to model many different pedagogical approaches
It is not a pedagogical theory like constructivism, or a teaching approach like Problem-Based-Learning
It is more like the notation system used to write down music

6. Goal 1: Pedagogical Neutrality
There is further work to be done on Goal 1:
Revise the technical standards and underlying ontologies
Develop Learning Design tools integration
Address less linear approaches like “spiral” pedagogies
Further develop the representation of time
etc
However, I think the field of Learning Design has made remarkable progress on a challenging idea
For some, Goal 1 is legitimate end on its own

7. Goal 2: Sharing Good Teaching Ideas
For many, the “real” reason for their interest in LD is to foster wider sharing of good teaching ideas
But we needed Goal 1 so we had a common language
Goal 2 means explicit discussion of different pedagogical approaches (both theories & instantiations)
(But hopefully using the common language)

8. Goal 2: Sharing Good Teaching Ideas
Goal 2 raises a different set of challenges:
How do we identify good teaching ideas?
How do we describe them (both metadata & activity structures)?
How do we best share good ideas?
What factors enable/inhibit adoption of good ideas?
What is the balance between generic & content-specific ideas?
etc
For me, I think we now need more effort on Goal 2
While still progressing on Goal 1

9. LAMS V2.3
Released in May 2009:
Major speed and stability improvements (375% faster on a quarter of the memory!)
New tools: Assessment, Image Gallery, MindMap, Video Recording and Pixlr (image editing)
New editing options for all tools: LaTeX, Video Recording, Drawing
New Authoring option: “Support” activities
Other features: Instant messaging; Gradebook; Time Graphs
Many others – see:

10. LAMS 2.3 Assessment Tool (Learner View)

11. LAMS 2.3 Instant Messaging (Learner View)

12. LAMS 2.3 Image Gallery (Learner View)

13. LAMS 2.3 Mindmap (Learner View)

14. LAMS 2.3 Video Recording (Learner View)

15. LAMS 2.3 Support Activity (Learner View)

16. LAMS 2.3 Time Graph (Line Graph)

17. LAMS 2.3 Time Graph (Pie Chart)

18. The LAMS Activity Planner
LAMS itself provides a platform for creating, implementing and sharing content & collaboration
But does not provide advice on choosing appropriate methods, or provide templates for specific methods
The LAMS Activity Planner is a new layer above LAMS to provide advice on choosing pedagogical methods, and simplified editing of pre-built templates
Initial release will be as a hosted website with free access for individual teachers; future plans yet to be finalised

19. Top Level of Activity Planner – choose a template category

20. Selecting from among different pedagogical approaches

21. Overview of an approach (role play), with links to example & templates

22. Specific Role Play example, with links to student Preview & simple editor

23. Specific Role Play example, showing student Preview in pop-up window

24. Specific Role Play example - Simple one page editor for content in the template

25. One page editor of generic template with highlighted text for suggested editing

26. One page editor showing contextual help via “Editing Advice”

27. One page editor showing Full Author, Export, Save & Preview options

28. The LAMS Activity Planner
Going further, expert designers can create their own activity planners, based on their own categories and advice
And incorporate their own Learning Design templates built in the normal LAMS Authoring environment, but written to suit the layout of the Activity Planner simple one page editor
Goes beyond sharing single Learning Designs to sharing whole activity planners and sets of templates

29. Creating an Activity Planner – editing a “node” + adding a sequence template

30. Conclusion
We needed Learning Design, and the aspiration of pedagogic neutrality, to take e-learning forward
But the greatest benefit of Learning Design would be mass sharing and adoption of good teaching ideas
So we need research on enabling and inhibiting factors
LAMS V2.3 & the LAMS Activity Planner are the latest iteration of our work towards these goals