Design Thinking and Learning Design

This chapter unpacks ‘design thinking’ as it relates to educational design, and highlights how developments in the field of Learning Design may be of assistance to educators. Design is defined as a creative, scientific, and complex process, underpinned by several design thinking qualities. Teaching, it is argued, should be positioned as a design science, based on its nature, practice, and intentions. Learning to design is characterized as a challenging pursuit that is supported through practice, refection, examples, and expert guidance. Based on the literature, the pursuit of designing for learning is explained as a process involving the creation of accessible and aligned designs that cater to students in order to achieve desired learning outcomes. Educational design models by Laurillard, Siemens, and Conole are contrasted and evaluated in order to critically reflect on the general utility of such models. The field of Learning Design is introduced as a discipline area that aims to help educators develop and share great teaching ideas. Six approaches that support the description and sharing of learning designs are briefly described (technical standards, pattern descriptions, visualizations, visualization tools, pedagogical planners, and the Learning Activity Management System) so as to illustrate how the Learning Design field has evolved and how educators can capitalize upon it. Directions forward are recommended, which center around reflection, collaboration, and a design orientation.

[1]  Eva Dobozy,et al.  Transdisciplinary Pedagogical Templates and Their Potential for Adaptive Reuse. , 2016 .

[2]  Denise Whitelock,et al.  #Design4Learning: Designing for the Future of Higher Education , 2016 .

[3]  David Griffiths,et al.  Why has Ims Learning Design not Led to the Advances which were Hoped for , 2015 .

[4]  Nigel Cross,et al.  Expertise in Design: an overview , 2004 .

[5]  Peggy A. Ertmer,et al.  Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship , 2012, Comput. Educ..

[6]  Agneta Ståhl,et al.  Accessibility, usability and universal design—positioning and definition of concepts describing person-environment relationships , 2003 .

[7]  Cameron Tonkinwise,et al.  A taste for practices: Unrepressing style in design thinking , 2011 .

[8]  Beatrice Hope Benton-Borghi.  A Universally Designed for Learning (UDL) Infused Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) Practitioners' Model Essential for Teacher Preparation in the 21st Century , 2013 .

[9]  Peter Goodyear,et al.  Educational design and networked learning: Patterns, pattern languages and design practice , 2005 .

[10]  David Boud,et al.  Appraising New Technologies for Learning: A Framework for Development , 2002 .

[11]  Ching Sing Chai,et al.  Seven design frames that teachers use when considering technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) , 2016, Comput. Educ..

[12]  Min Kyu Kim,et al.  Teacher Beliefs and Technology Integration. , 2013 .

[13]  Matthew J. Koehler,et al.  Teachers Learning Technology by Design , 2005 .

[14]  Brock Craft,et al.  A constructionist learning environment for teachers to model learning designs , 2013, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[15]  Jörgen Holmberg,et al.  Studying the process of educational design – revisiting Schön and making a case for reflective design-based research on teachers’ ‘conversations with situations’ , 2014 .

[16]  Daniel Burgos.  A Critical Review of Ims Learning Design , 2015 .

[17]  Samantha G. Daley,et al.  Universal Design for Learning in Postsecondary Education: Reflections on Principles and their Application , 2006 .

[18]  Elizabeth Masterman,et al.  Teachers’ perspectives on digital tools for pedagogic planning and design , 2011 .

[19]  Richard E. Clark,et al.  Blueprints for complex learning: The 4C/ID-model , 2002 .

[20]  Chin-Chung Tsai,et al.  A survey to examine teachers’ perceptions of design dispositions, lesson design practices, and their relationships with technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) , 2015 .

[21]  Joel Sadler,et al.  Team Cognition and Reframing Behavior: The Impact of Team Cognition on Problem Reframing, Team Dynamics and Design Performance , 2014 .

[22]  Simon Cross,et al.  Reflections on Developing a Tool for Creating Visual Representations of Learning Designs , 2015 .

[23]  Scott R. Klemmer,et al.  Early and Repeated Exposure to Examples Improves Creative Work , 2012, CogSci.

[24]  Nigel Cross,et al.  Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem–solution , 2001 .

[25]  E. Dobozy.  Learning design research: advancing pedagogies in the digital age , 2013 .

[26]  N. Cross.  Designerly Ways of Knowing: Design Discipline Versus Design Science , 2001, Design Issues.

[27]  Kees Dorst,et al.  Design Problems and Design Paradoxes , 2006, Design Issues.

[28]  Claire Maree Wyatt-Smith,et al.  Using and creating knowledge with new technologies: a case for students‐as‐designers , 2006 .

[29]  Tom Boyle,et al.  Context and deep learning design , 2012, Comput. Educ..

[30]  Matthew J. Koehler,et al.  Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge , 2006, Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education.

[31]  Joke Voogt,et al.  Exploring teachers' use of TPACK in design talk: The collaborative design of technology-rich early literacy activities , 2015, Comput. Educ..