Pedagogical Planners

  • Gráinne Conole
Part of the Explorations in the Learning Sciences, Instructional Systems and Performance Technologies book series (LSIS, volume 4)


This chapter reviews and discusses the range of pedagogical planners that have been developed in recent years to guide and support practitioners in making informed learning design decisions. It will begin by discussing the rationale and perceived benefit behind the development of these planners and then focus on a number of specific planners, namely, DialogPlus, Phoebe, the London Pedagogical Planner and the Learning Design Support Environment (LDSE). It compares and contrasts these.


Learning Activity Social Networking Site Design Practice Learning Design Pedagogical Belief 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Bailey, C., Zalfan, M. T., Davis, H. C., Fill, K., & Conole, G. (2006). Panning for gold: Designing pedagogically-inspired learning nuggets. Educational Technology and Society – Special Issue (January 2006), Theme: Learning Design 9(1), 113–122. Available online at
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beetham, H. (2008). Review: Design for learning programme, Phase 2, JISC commissioned report. Available online at Accessed 21 Sept 2011.
  4. Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for quality learning at university. Buckingham: Society for Research in Higher Education/Open University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Cameron, L. (2011, July 7–9). Could pedagogical planners be a useful learning design tool for university lecturers? Paper presented at the international conference on information communications technologies in education, Rhodes, Greece.Google Scholar
  6. Conole, G. (2008). Capturing practice, the role of mediating artefacts in learning design. In L. Lockyer, S. Bennett, S. Agostinhi, & B. Harper (Eds.), Handbook of learning designs and learning objects. Hershey: IGI Global.Google Scholar
  7. Conole, G., & Fill, K. (2005). A learning design toolkit to create pedagogically effective learning activities. Journal of Interactive Multimedia Education, Special issue on learning design (August 2008). Available online at Accessed 11 Aug 2011.
  8. Conole, G., Littlejohn, A., Falconer, I., & Jeffrey, A. (2005). Pedagogical review of learning activities and use cases, LADIE project report, JISC e-learning programme. Southampton: University of Southampton.Google Scholar
  9. Donald, C., & Blake, A. (2009, December 6–9). Reviewing learning designs with HEART: A learning design support strategy. Paper presented at the ASCILITE 2009 (pp. 1211–1213). Auckland, New Zealand. Available online at Accessed 11 Aug 2011.
  10. Donald, C., Blake, A., Girault, I., Datt, A., & Ramsay, E. (2009). Approaches to learning design: Past the head and the hands to the HEART – Of the matter. Distance Education 30(2), 179–199. Google Scholar
  11. Earp, J., & Pozzi, F. (2006, December 6–8). Fostering reflection in ICT-based pedagogical planning. In R. Philip, A. Voerman, & J. Dalziel (Eds.), Proceedings of the first International LAMS conference 2006: Designing the future of learning (pp. 35–44). Sydney, Australia.Google Scholar
  12. Fill, K., Conole, G., & Bailey, C. (2008). A toolkit to guide the design of effective learning activities. In P. Rees, L. Mackay, H. Durham, & D. Martin (Eds.), E-learning for geographers. Hershey: IGI Global.Google Scholar
  13. IBM. (n.d.). Many Eyes. from Accessed 11 Aug 2011.
  14. Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching: A conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies (2nd ed.). London: RoutledgeFalmer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Laurillard, D., & Masterman, L. (2010, July 15). Implementing a constructionist approach to collaboration through a learning design support environment: Balancing users’ requirements with researchers’ theory-informed aspirations. Paper presented at the European LAMS and Learning Design Conference, Wolfson College, Oxford University.Google Scholar
  16. Laurillard, D., & San Diego, J. P. (2007). Development and testing of a ‘Pedagogic Planner’. Paper presented at the Center for Distance Education (CDE) fellows conference, Institute of Education, University of London.Google Scholar
  17. Masterman, L. (2008a). Activity theory and the design of pedagogic planning tools. 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. 209–227). Hershey: Information Science Reference.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Masterman, L. (2008b). Phoebe pedagogy planner project: Evaluation report, JISC E-learning and pedagogy programme. Oxford: Oxford University.Google Scholar
  19. Mayes, T., & De Freitas, S. (2004). Review of e-learning frameworks, models and theories, JISC e-learning models desk study. Available online at Accessed 11 Aug 2011.
  20. San Diego, J. P., Laurillard, D., Boyle, T., Bradley, C., Llubojevic, D., Nuemann, T., et al. (2008). Toward a user-oriented analytical approach to learning design. ALT-J, 16(1), 15–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Van Ed, R., & Koper, R. (2006). Testing the pedagogical expressiveness of IMD LD. Educational Technology and Society 9(1), 229–249.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gráinne Conole
    • 1
  1. 1.Beyond Distance Research AllianceUniversity of LeicesterLeicesterUK

Personalised recommendations