As a follow on to my previous article, I’m going to share some approaches to how to conceptualise learning design. If last week’s post was about experimenting with using a blended approach to design a workshop, this post starts to explore the question, ‘With all that stuff out there, how do we use it to create an engaging experience for our learners?’
In 2007, Dr Steve Warburton conceptualised a model which explores how technologies are used, rather than just their functionality. It considers not only what each technology allows the learner to do, but also whether the learning is an individual or social activity and whether it requires the learner to be active or passive in the learning process. So, it’s not just about what the app, platform or website offers but also how it used. His model is constructed around three dimensions; is the learner active or passive in the process, do they learn alone or with others (i.e. socially), and is the learning a formal or informal activity?
By assessing what you have chosen to include as technologies and teaching practices, and then locating each into the three-dimensional space proposed by the model, you can begin to look at the overall style of the course and also monitor the impact of each element as the course progresses. This is a much more fluid conceptualisation, the benefit of which is that a learning designer can examine an activity and move technologies around the space to suit the learning objectives. For example, if learners are asked to create a Wiki page, this can be an individual or social activity or it could be an instructed exercise or a ‘discovery’ activity. In this way, the learning designer can change how the technologies are used to create a more effective learning experience. Find out more about his framework.
Conole and colleagues had proposed a similar model in 2004 in their paper ‘Mapping Pedagogy and Tools for Effective Learning Design’. The paper is wide ranging but the bit that is most relevant to us, here, are the dimensions they used. Like Warburton, the model uses three axes; Individual/Social, Reflection/Non-reflection and Information/Experience.
The model enables the learning designer to map learning activities and approaches. (Their paper includes some examples). Their assertion is that the approach:
‘enables the practitioner to consider the elements of their e-learning design and map these to particular theories and appropriate activities….Practitioners can iteratively reuse the model and reflect upon its impact on practice, using it therefore, both to inform design and evaluate practice.’
So, what does this mean for us?
Models like we have discussed here, have their roots in education, but they also have relevance for independent trainers/facilitators. We may not always get to choose what technologies and practices we use; sometimes the client will set these as part of the initial brief. When we do have the choice, we can add value during the design process by looking at options and the rationale for making a particular selection. But even in those circumstances, where the client sets the parameters, models like these allow us to challenge and recommend alternatives or at least, explore the implications of a particular selection. We can also offer them as a framework for monitoring the effectiveness of the course/programme as it rolls out. And remember, it could be a simple change that is required. It might not require a change of application or migration to a different platform, but instead, a re-think on what we are asking our learners to do. A simple change from individual to social or from passive to active learning might make all the difference.
In April 2021 I attended a webinar, hosted by the University of Kent. One of the speakers, Andrew Clegg, from the University of Portsmouth, warned of the concerns of becoming overwhelmed by the sheer variety of applications and platforms that were available. His concerns were not just for the student experience; he also wanted to highlight that those feelings of overwhelm can be felt by tutors too, and this would lead to a lack of engagement in moving to blended approaches. He advocated keeping things simple. His university uses one Virtual Learning Platform (Moodle) and three applications around which they design their programmes, (Nearpod, Padlet and Vevox). Other applications could be used, but these three formed the core of the design.
I would also add, from my own experience, that within any app, you can experience those feelings of overwhelm just because there are so many options, settings and functions. I recommend starting simple and adding in the extras as you become more familiar with the app. For example, if you are recording your first asynchronous session, just go for a professional delivery; you can add scrolling graphics, multi-camera views and all the other whistles and bells as you grow in expertise and confidence. And there is something to be learned from getting started. Don’t wait to be perfect. Do something, gain the experience, learn from it and go for a bigger stretch next time. (Every time I engage with an app I try to set myself a personal learning goal which I can focus on, while still keeping the programme objectives at the centre of my efforts). The same is true for programme design. Until you launch your programme, you can never know how your learners will actually appropriate it. Models like those described here allow you to monitor and adjust your programme as learners interact with it.
Conole, Dyke, Oliver and Seale published in 2004; Warburton’s blog post is from 2007. In the intervening time we have seen an explosion of apps and technologies that can be used for learning design. If you are feeling slightly overwhelmed with all that’s on offer and want to keep up to date with what is being used, who by and what for, to access a list of the Top 200 Tools for Learning, compiled by Jane Hart, click here. There is a very interesting analysis section, with some informative infographics.
Of interest to independent trainers and facilitators is the infographic, ‘Top 100 Tools for Workplace Learning' , which groups the tools into categories of Formal, Informal, Experiential and Social Learning. You may also want to subscribe to the section on Modern Workplace Learning.
Photos:
'Back to School' Photo by Deleece Cook on Unsplash (deleece-cook-zzjLGF_6dx4-unsplash)