Abstract
The area of Learning Design research holds interesting thoughts and conceptualisations for networked professional development. This chapter identifies some tensions within the broad landscape of Learning Design and more specifically the Larnaca Declaration. Arguing that there are two distinct ideas underpinning the notion of sharing Learning Designs, the terms ‘plans for action’ versus ‘resources for reflection’ are introduced. Further different voices in the field alternating between seeing Learning Design as a means for ‘effectiveness’ versus a means for ‘reflexiveness’ are identified, and two different views of how to empower and support teachers in developing Learning Designs are suggested. Discussing contemporary challenges for networked professional development and asking whether the notions of Learning Design have a tendency to assume that researchers and teachers are designing for relatively well-known problems and contexts. Drawing on conceptualisations from Engeström, it is suggested that Learning Designs also can be viewed as ‘springboards for development’. It is concluded that design and Learning Designs should not only be thought of as predefined design ideas or as incremental exploration based on retrospective reflections on existing courses but also can conceptualise Learning Designs as dynamic, experimental opportunities for the collective design of new practices or what we term ‘springboards for development’.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., & Silverstein, M. (1977). A pattern language. New York: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/1574526
Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1–14.
Conole, G. (2007). Describing learning activities – Tools and resources to guide practice. Rethinking Pedagogy for a Digital Age: Designing and Delivering Elearning, 81–91. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.452.8020
Conole, G. (2013). Designing for learning in an open world. New York: Springer.
Conole, G., Dyke, M., Oliver, M., Seale, J., & Seale, J. (2004). Mapping pedagogy and tools for effective learning design. Computers & Education, 43(1–2), 17–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2003.12.018
Dalziel, J. (2003). Implementing learning design: The Learning Activity Management System (LAMS). Proceedings of the ASCILITE 2003 conference, Adelaide.
Dalziel, J. (2013). The larnaca declaration on learning design — Implications for the future. In 2013 IEEE 63rd annual conference International Council for Education Media (ICEM) (pp. 1–1). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/CICEM.2013.6820135
Dalziel, J. (Ed.). (2015). Learning design: Conceptualizing a framework for teaching and learning online. Routledge.
Dalziel, J., Conole, G., Wills, S., Walker, S., Bennett, S., Dobozy, E., et al. (2016). The larnaca declaration on learning design – 2013. Faculty of Social Sciences – Papers. Retrieved from http://ro.uow.edu.au/sspapers/2322
Davidsen, J., & Konnerup, U. (2016). Revitalisering af PBL i videregående uddannelser gennem learning design. Tidsskriftet Læring Og Medier (LOM), 9(15). https://doi.org/10.7146/lom.v9i15.23126
Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L., Jones, C., & Lindström, B. (2009). Analysing networked learning practices in higher education and continuing professional development (Technology enhanced learning) (Vol. 4). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Disalvo, C. (2012). Spectacles and tropes: Speculative design and contemporary food cultures. Fibreculture Journal, 20, 109–122.
Dohn, N. B., & Hansen, J. J. (2016). Didaktik, design og digitalisering. In Didaktik, design og digitalisering. Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur.
Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Orienta-Konsultit Oy: Helsinki. Retrieved from http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Paper/Engestrom/expanding/toc.htm
Engeström, Y. (2004). New forms of learning in co-configuration work. Journal of Workplace Learning, 16(1/2), 11–21. https://doi.org/10.1108/13665620410521477
Engeström, Y., Sannino, A., & Virkkunen, J. (2014). On the methodological demands of formative interventions. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 21(2), 118–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2014.891868
Engeström, Y., Lompscher, J., & Rückriem, G. (2016). Putting activity theory to work: Contributions from developmental work research (Vol. 13). Lehmanns Media.
Gleerup, J., Heilesen, S., Helms, N. H., & Mogensen, K. (2014). Designing for learning in coupled contexts. In V. Hodgson, M. de Laat, D. McConnell, & T. Ryberg (Eds.), The design, experience and practice of networked learning (pp. 51–65). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01940-6_3
Goddard, T., Griffiths, D., & Mi, W. (2015). Why has Ims learning design not led to the advances which were hoped for? In M. Maina, B. Craft, & Y. Mor (Eds.), The art & science of learning design (pp. 121–136). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-103-8_9
Goodyear, P. (2005). Educational design and networked learning: Patterns, pattern languages and design practice. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 21(1), 82–101.
Goodyear, P. (2015). Teaching as design. HERDSA Review of Higher Education, 2(2), 27–50. Retrieved from http://www.herdsa.org.au/wp-content/uploads/HERDSARHE2015v02p27.pdf
Goodyear, P., Carvalho, L., & Dohn, N. B. (2014). Design for networked learning: framing relations between participants’ activities and the physical setting. Ninth international conference on networked learning 2014, 137–144. Retrieved from http://www.networkedlearningconference.org.uk/abstracts/pdf/goodyear.pdf
Goodyear, P., & Retalis, S. (2010). Technology-enhanced learning. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Goodyear, P., Retalis, S., Bartoluzzi, S., & Ronteltap, F. (2004). Towards a pattern language for networked learning. Networked Learning, 449–455. Retrieved from http://www.cs.rug.nl/paris/papers/NL04.pdf
Heskett, J. (2002). Design very short introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hodgson, V., McConnell, D., & Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L. (2012). The theory, practice and pedagogy of networked learning. In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, V. Hodgson, & D. McConnell (Eds.), Exploring the theory, pedagogy and practice of networked learning (pp. 291–305). New York: Springer.
Jensen, H.-C. (2005). Fra velfærd til designkultur. Ph.D.-afhandling – Institut for Litteratur, Kultur og Medier – Syddansk Universitet.
Jones, C. (2015). Networked learning: an educational paradigm for the age of digital networks. Berlin, The Netherlands: Springer.
Jones, C., Ryberg, T., & de Laat, M. (2015). Networked learning. In Encyclopedia of educational philosophy and theory (pp. 1–6). Singapore: Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-532-7_129-1
Konnerup, U., Ryberg, T., & Sørensen, M. T. (2018). The teacher as designer? What is the role of ‘learning design’ in networked learning? IN B. Milan, N. B. Dohn, M. de Laat, P. Jandric, & T. Ryberg (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th international conference on networked learning, The Zagreb University of Applied Science, 2018 (pp. 331–339).
Koper, R. (2006). Current research in learning design. Educational Technology & Society, 9(1), 13–22. http://www.ifets.info/journals/9_1/3.pdf
Laurillard, D. (2012). Teaching as a design science. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203125083
Markauskaite, L., Freebody, P., & Irwin, J. (Eds.). (2011). Methodological choice and design. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-8933-5
Mason, M. (2008). Complexity theory and the philosophy of education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 40(1), 4–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2007.00412.x
McAndrew, P., & Goodyear, P. (2007). Representing practitioner experiences through learning design and patterns. In H. Beetham & R. Sharpe (Eds.), Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age: Designing and delivering e-learning (pp. 92–102). New York: Routledge.
McKenney, S. E., & Reeves, T. C. (2012). Conducting educational design research. London: Routledge.
Ross, J. (2016). Speculative method in digital education research. Learning, Media and Technology, 42(2), 214–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2016.1160927
Ross, J., & Collier, A. (2016). Complexity, mess, and not-yetness. In G. Veletsianos (Ed.), Digital learning: foundations and applications emergence and innovation in digital learning (pp. 17–34). Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press. Retrieved from http://www.aupress.ca/books/120258/ebook/02_Veletsianos_2016-Emergence_and_Innovation_in_Digital_Learning.pdf
Sannino, A., Engeström, Y., & Lemos, M. (2016). Formative interventions for expansive learning and transformative agency. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 25(4), 599–633. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2016.1204547
Sheets-Johnstone, M. (2011). The primacy of movement (Vol. 82). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/aicr.82
Weller, M. (2007). Virtual learning environments: effective development and use. London: Routledge.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Konnerup, U., Ryberg, T., Sørensen, M.T. (2019). Designs for Learning as Springboards for Professional Development in Higher Education. In: Littlejohn, A., Jaldemark, J., Vrieling-Teunter, E., Nijland, F. (eds) Networked Professional Learning. Research in Networked Learning. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-18030-0_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-18030-0_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-18029-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-18030-0
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)