The Case for Multiple Representations in the Learning Design Life Cycle

  • Francesca Pozzi
  • Juan I. Asensio-Pérezc
  • Donatella Persico
Part of the Lecture Notes in Educational Technology book series (LNET)


This chapter draws a picture of the variety of representations that have been proposed to support the learning design life cycle. The intent is to show that such representations have different features and serve different purposes and that designers may find it useful to adopt one or the other according to their objectives and/or at different stages of their work. The argument is sustained throughout this chapter based on an example, concerning a learning activity, which is represented through several types of representations. The conclusion is that the quest for a single representation serving all purposes is vain, while the efforts of researchers should better be directed toward the aim of building tools that allow for interoperability of these representations and integration of the tools that make use of them, so to facilitate sharing and reuse of the half-fabricates of the learning design life cycle, as well as implementation of existing designs in different virtual learning environments (VLEs).


Learning design Representations Conceptualization Authoring Implementation Learning design life cycle 



This research has been partially funded by the Castilla y León (Spain) Regional Project VA277U14, the Spanish Project TIN2011-28308-C03-02, and the European Project 531262-LLP-2012-ES-KA3-KA3MP.


  1. Agostinho, S. (2009). Learning design representations to document, model, and share teaching practice. In L. Lockyer, S. Bennett, S. Agostinho & B. Harper (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning design and learning objects: Issues, applications, and technologies (pp. 1–19). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. doi: 10.4018/978-1-59904-861-1.ch001
  2. Asensio-Pérez, J. I., Dimitriadis, Y., Prieto, L. P., Hernández-Leo, D., & Mor, Y. (2014). From idea to VLE in half a day: METIS approach and tools for learning co-design. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality (pp. 741–745). Salamanca, Spain: ACM. doi: 10.1145/2669711.2669983
  3. Berggren, A., Burgos, D., Fontana, J. M., Hinkelman, D., Hung, V., Hursh, A. et al. (2005). Practical and pedagogical issues for teacher adoption of IMS learning design standards in Moodle LMS. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 1, doi: 10.5334/2005-2
  4. Bergin, J., Eckstein, J., Volter, M., Sipos, M., Wallingford, E., Marquardt, K. et al. (Eds.) (2012). Pedagogical patterns: Advice for educators. New York: Joseph Bergin Software Tools. Retrieved from
  5. Botturi, L., & Stubbs, T. (2008). Handbook of visual languages for instructional design: Theories and practices. Hershey, New York: Information Science Reference. doi: 10.4018/978-1-59904-729-4
  6. Conole, G. (2010). An overview of design representations. In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, V. Hodgson, C. Jones, M. de Laat, D. McCOnnell, & T. Ryberg (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Networked Learning 2010 (pp. 482–489). Lancaster, UK: University of Lancaster. Retrieved from:
  7. Conole, G. (2012). Designing for learning in an open world. New York: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-8517-0Google Scholar
  8. Conole, G. (2014). The 7Cs of learning design a new approach to rethinking design practice. In S. Bayne, C. Jones, M. de Laat, T. Ryberg & C. Sinclair (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Networked Learning 2014 (pp. 502–509). Edinburgh, UK. Retrieved from:
  9. Dalziel, J. (2003). Implementing learning design: The learning activity management system (LAMS). In G. Crisp, D. Thiele, I. Scholten, S .Barker & J. Baron (Eds.), Interact, Integrate, Impact: Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (ASCILITE’03) (pp. 593–596). Adelaide, December 7–10, 2003. Retrieved from:
  10. Dalziel, J., Conole, G., Wills, S., Walker, S., Bennett, S., Dobozy, E. et al. (2013). The Larnaca declaration on learning design. Retrieved from:
  11. De Liddo, A., Buckingham, S., Derntl, M., Neumann, S., & Oberhuemer, P. (2011). Community support for authoring, sharing, and reusing instructional models: The Open graphical learning modeller (OpenGLM). In Proceedings of 10th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, ICALT 2011 (pp. 431–435). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE computer society.Google Scholar
  12. Dimitriadis, Y., & Goodyear, P. (2013). Forward-oriented design for learning: illustrating the approach. Research in Learning Technology, 21, 20190. doi: 10.3402/rlt.v2li0.20290
  13. Earp, J., & Pozzi, F. (2006). Fostering reflection in ICT-based pedagogical planning. In R. Philip, A. Voerman & J. Dalziel (Eds.), Proceedings of First International LAMS Conference 2006: Designing the future of learning (pp. 35–44). Sydney: LAMS Foundation.Google Scholar
  14. Emin, V., Pernin, J. -P., & Guéraud, V. (2009). Model and tool to clarify intentions and strategies in learning scenarios design. In U. Cress, V. Dimitrova & M. Specht (Eds.), Learning in the Synergy of Multiple Disciplines. Proceedings of the European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning 2009 (ECTEL 2009) (pp. 462–476). LNCS 5794. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  15. Gibbons, A. S., Botturi, L., Boot, E., & Nelson, J. (2008). Design languages. In M. Discoll, M. D. Merill, J. V. Merrienboer, & J. M. Spector (Eds.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technologies (pp. 633–645). Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  16. Goodyear, P., & Dimitriadis, Y. (2013). In media res: Reframing design for learning. Research in Learning Technology, 21, 19909. doi: 10.3402/rlt.v21i0.19909
  17. Hernández-Leo, D., Chacón, J., Prieto, L. P., Asensio-Pérez, J. I., & Derntl, M. (2013). Towards an integrated learning design environment. In D. Hernández-Leo, T. Ley, R. Klamma & A. Harrer (Eds.), Scaling up Learning for Sustained Impact. Proceedings of the ECTEL 2013 (pp. 448–453). LNCS 8095. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  18. Hernandez-Leo D., Harrer A., Dodero J. M., Asensio-Perez J. I., & Burgos D. (2007). A framework for the conceptualization of approaches to “Create-by-Reuse” of learning design solutions. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 13(7), 991–1001. doi: 10.3217/jucs-013-07-0991
  19. Katsamani, Μ., & Retalis, S. (2012). Designing a Moodle course with the CADMOS learning design tool. Educational Media International, 49(4), 317–331. doi: 10.1080/09523987.2012.745771
  20. Laurillard, D., Charlton, P., Craft, B., Dimakopoulos, D., Ljubojevic, D., Magoulas, G. et al. (2011). A constructionist learning environment for teachers to model learning designs. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(1), 15–30. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00458.x
  21. Maina, M. (2012). Developing a method for the design of sharable pedagogical scenarios. In N. Alias & S. Hashim (Eds.), Instructional technology research, design and development: Lessons from the field (pp. 86–101). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. doi: 10.4018/978-1-61350-198-6.ch006
  22. Mor, Y., & Craft, B. (2012). Learning design: Reflections upon the current landscape. In Research in Learning Technology—Supplement ALT-C 2012 Conference Proceedings, 20:19196 (pp. 85–94). doi: 10.3402/rlt.v20i0.19196
  23. Mor, Y., & Mogilevsky, O. (2013). Learning design studio: Educational practice as design inquiry of learning. In D. Hernández-Leo, T. Ley, R. Klamma & A. Harrer (Eds.), Scaling up Learning for Sustained Impact. Proceedings of the ECTEL 2013 (pp. 233–245). LNCS 8095. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  24. Muñoz-Cristóbal, J. A., Prieto, L. P., Asensio-Pérez, J. I., Jorrín-Abellán, I. M., & Dimitriadis, Y. (2012). Lost in translation from abstract learning design to ICT implementation: A study using Moodle for CSCL. In A. Ravenscroft, S. Lindstaedt, C. D. Kloos & D. Hernández-Leo (Eds.), 21st Century Learning for 21st Century Skills. Proceedings of the European Conference on Technology-Enhanced Learning (ECTEL2012) (pp. 264–277). LNCS 7563. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  25. Olimpo, G., Bottino, R. M., Earp, J., Ott, M., Pozzi, F., & Tavella, M. (2010). Pedagogical plans as communication oriented objects. Computers and Education, 55(2), 476–488. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.02.011
  26. Ott, M., Dagnino, F. M., & Pozzi, F. (2014). Intangible cultural heritage: Towards collaborative planning of educational interventions. Computers in Human Behavior. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.039
  27. Pérez-Sanagustín, M., Santos, P., Hernández-Leo, D., & Blat, J. (2012). 4SPPIces: A case study of factors in a scripted collaborative-learning blended course across spatial locations. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 7(3), 443–465. doi: 10.1007/s11412-011-9139-3
  28. Persico, D. (1997). Methodological constants in courseware design. British Journal of Educational Technology, 28(2), 111–124. doi: 10.1111/1467-8535.00015
  29. Persico, D. (2006). Media selection from the teacher’s point of view. In A. Cartelli (Ed.), Teaching in the knowledge society: New skills and instruments for teachers (pp. 286–301), Hershey, PA, USA: Information Science Publishing. doi: 10.4018/978-1-59140-953-3.ch019
  30. Persico, D., Pozzi, F., Anastopoulou, S., Conole, G., Craft, B., Dimitriadis, Y. et al. (2013). Learning design Rashomon I—supporting the design of one lesson through different approaches. Research in Learning Technology, 21, 20224. doi: 10.3402/rlt.v21i0.20224
  31. Pozzi, F., & Persico, D. (2013). Sustaining learning design and pedagogical planning in CSCL. Research in Learning Technology, 21, 20224. doi: 10.3402/rlt.v21i0.17585
  32. Pozzi, F., Persico, D., & Earp, J. (2015). A multi-dimensional space for learning design representations and tools. In Y. Mor, B. Kraft, & M. Maina (Eds.), The art and science of learning design. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  33. Prieto, L., Asensio-Perez, J., Munoz-Cristobal, J., Dimitriadis, Y., Jorrin-Abellan, I., & Gomez-Sanchez, E. (2013a). Enabling teachers to deploy CSCL designs across distributed learning environments. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technology, 6(4), 324–336. doi: 10.1109/TLT.2013.22
  34. Prieto, L. P., Dimitriadis, Y., Craft, B., Derntl, M., Émin, V., Katsamani, M. et al. (2013b). Learning design Rashomon II—exploring one lesson through multiple tools. Research in Learning Technologies, 21, 20057. doi: 10.3402/rlt.v21i0.20057
  35. San Diego, J. P., Laurillard, D., Boyle, T., Bradley, C., & Ljubojevicb, D. (2008). Towards a user-oriented analytical approach to learning design. Research in Learning Technology, 16(1), 15–29. doi: 10.3402/rlt.v16i1.10882
  36. Villasclaras-Fernández, E., Hernández-Leo, D., Asensio-Pérez, J. I., & Dimitriadis, Y. (2013). Web Collage: An implementation of support for assessment design in CSCL macro-scripts. Computers and Education, 67, 79–97. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2013.03.002
  37. Weinberger, A., Kollar, I., Dimitriadis, Y., Mäkitalo-Siegl, K., & Fischer, F. (2009). Computer-supported collaboration scripts. In N. Balacheff, S. Ludvigsen, T. de Jong, A. Lazonder, & S. Barnes (Eds.), Technology-enhanced learning (pp. 155–173). Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Francesca Pozzi
    • 1
  • Juan I. Asensio-Pérezc
    • 2
  • Donatella Persico
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Educational Technology (ITD)—National Research Council of Italy (CNR)GenoaItaly
  2. 2.Universidad de ValladolidValladolidSpain

Personalised recommendations