Advertisement

Learning Design Studio: Educational Practice as Design Inquiry of Learning

  • Yishay Mor
  • Orit Mogilevsky
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8095)

Abstract

Recently we are urged to transform education into an evidence based profession, and promote scientific standards or practice. These calls are not new – they seem to emerge every few years. We do not argue with their goal, but we contend that the suitable frame of reference is the paradigm of design science, rather than the common metaphor of medical research. This paper proposes Design Inquiry of Learning as a projection of educational design science into a professional domain, and offers the Learning Design Studio as a pedagogical manifestation of this approach. The learning design studio is a collaborative, blended, project based framework for training educators in effective and evidence-based use of educational technology. We present its theoretical underpinnings, note its fundamental principles and structures, and review three independent cases where it has been trialed. The results show that this model is effective in developing learners’ theoretical knowledge as well as their practical skills, and allows them to link the two. However, it requires a considerable commitment of both learners and tutors, and may not be applicable in more casual settings.

Keywords

Learning design teacher training professional development inquiry based learning learning design studio 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Anastopoulou, S., Sharples, M., Ainsworth, S., Crook, C., O’Malley, C., Wright, M.: Creating Personal Meaning through Technology-Supported Science Inquiry Learning across Formal and Informal Settings. International Journal of Science Education 34(2), 251–273 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beetham, H., Sharpe, R.: Rethinking Pedagogy for a Digital Age: Designing for 21st Century Learning. Routledge (2013)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    BERA: Research and Teacher Education: The BERA Inquiry (2013)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cox, C., Harrison, S., Hoadley, C.: Applying the studio model” to learning technology design. Educating Learning Technology Designers: Guiding and Inspiring Creators of Innovative Educational Tools 145 (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Clark, W., Luckin, R., Jewitt, C.: Deliverable D5.1 Methods and Specifications for TISL Components V1. NEXT-TELL Consortium, EU (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cross, S.: Evaluation of the OLDS MOOC curriculum design course: Participant perspectives, expectations and experiences, Technical report, the Open University (2013)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cross, S., Conole, G., Clark, P., Brasher, A., Weller, M.: Mapping a landscape of learning design: Identifying key trends in current practice at the Open University. In: 2008 European LAMS Conference (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Davies, P.: What is evidence-based education? British Journal of Educational Studies 47(2), 108–121 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    DfE: The Importance of Teaching (White Paper). DfE, London (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Goldacre, B.: Building Evidence into Education. DfE (2013), https://www.gov.uk/government/news/building-evidence-into-education
  11. 11.
    Hargreaves, D.: Teaching as a research-based profession: Possibilities and prospects (The teacher training agency lecture 1996). Educational Research and Evidence-based Practice, pp. 3–17 (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    James, M.: New (or not new) directions in evidence-based practice in education (2013)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kali, Y., Ronen-Fuhrmann, T.: Teaching to design educational technologies. International Journal of Learning Technology 6(1), 4–23 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kali, Y.: Collaborative knowledge building using a design principles database. IJCSCL 1, 187–201 (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Korthagen, F.A.J., Kessels, J., Koster, B., Lagerwerf, B., Wubbels, T.: Linking practice and theory: The pedagogy of realistic teacher education. Lawrence Erlbaum (2001)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Laurillard, D.: The teacher as action researcher: Using technology to capture pedagogic form. Studies in Higher Education 33, 139–154 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Laurillard, D.: Teaching as a Design Science: Building Pedagogical Patterns for Learning and Technology (Paperback) - Routledge. Routledge (2012)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mellar, H., Oliver, M., Hadjithoma-Garstka, C.: The role of research in institutional transformation, . In: Mayes, T., Bullen, P., Mellar, H., Oliver, M. (eds.) Transforming Higher Education through Technology-Enhanced Learning. Higher Education Academy, York (2009)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mor, Y.: SNaP! Re-using, sharing and communicating designs and design knowledge using Scenarios, Narratives and Patterns. In: Luckin, R., Goodyear, P., Grabowski, B., Puntambekar, S., Winters, N., Underwood, J. (eds.) Handbook of Design in Educational Technology. Routledge (2013)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mor, Y.: Context is what we take for granted: addressing context in design-centric teacher training (2011)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mor, Y., Mogilevsky, O.: The Learning Design Studio: Collaborative Design Inquiry as Teachers’ Professional Development, Research in Learning Technology (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mor, Y., Winters, N.: Design approaches in technology enhanced learning. Interactive Learning Environments 15, 61–75 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    OECD: Lessons from PISA for the United States: strong performers and successful reformers in education (2011), http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/32/50/46623978.pdf
  24. 24.
    Ronen-Fuhrmann, T., Kali, Y.: The role of concretization in acquiring design knowledge. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the Learning Science, vol. 1, pp. 468–475 (2010)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ronen-Fuhrmann, T., Kali, Y., Hoadley, C.: Helping Education Students Understand Learning Through Designing. Educational Technology 48, 26–33 (2008)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Simon, H.A.: The Sciences of the Artificial, 3rd edn. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1996)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Voogt, J., Westbroek, H., Handelzalts, A., Walraven, A., McKenney, S., Pieters, J., De Vries, B.: Teacher learning in collaborative curriculum design. Teaching and Teacher Education 27(8), 1235–1244 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yishay Mor
    • 1
  • Orit Mogilevsky
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of Educational TechnologyThe Open UniversityUK
  2. 2.Technologies in Education ProgramUniversity of HaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations