1 Frameworks for Learning Design Gráinne Conole National Institute for Digital Learning, Dublin City University [email protected] Introduction Digital technologies offer a wealth of ways in which students can interact with rich multimedia resources, and mechanisms to communicate and collaborate. Despite this, technologies are not been used extensively; most Learning Management Systems (LMS) for example are primarily used as content repositories (Conole, 2004). Academics say that they do not have the time or skills to effectively use technologies in their teaching. Learning Design has emerged over the last ten years or so as a means of addressing this gap between the promise and the reality of the use of digital technologies. Fundamentally Learning Design is about helping practitioners make pedagogically informed design decisions that make appropriate use of digital technologies (Conole, 2013). At the heart of this are three facets: guiding the design process, providing a mechanism for visualising design (in essence an educational design language), and enabling sharing and discussing of designs. The chapter connects with the two themes of the book (open and global). Open practices and, in particular, the rise of Massive Open Online Courses, are challenging traditional education and require a rethinking of how to design learning interventions. Traditional institutions need to think carefully about their educational offering and what is distinctive about being a student at their institution. Particularly through the use of social media, students are now part of a global community of peers, meaning that they can augment their formal education with informal and non-formal learning. The chapter describes a range of frameworks for Learning Design, the focus or theoretical lens of each is described, along with how it can be used. Frameworks are important because they can provide academics with a structured approach to guiding their designs. Frameworks can be adopted in practice in a number of ways: paper- based, process-based (workshops for example) or system-based (i.e. as online planning tools). The focus of this chapter is on the first two; the resources section at the end of the chapter lists a number of tools. Ultimately the aim of Learning Design frameworks is to help academics create engaging learning interventions that enhance the learner experience. However, establishing a direct causal link between Learning Design and student learning outcomes is notoriously difficult (Brown, Conole and Beblavy, forthcoming). No matter how good the Learning Design, teachers still matter most (Patrick, n.d.). Some argue that there is a need to create a universal Learning Design pedagogical pattern language (Goodyear, 2005; Laurillard, 2012). However this chapter argues that we are nowhere near that stage and in reality may never be. Conceptual underpinnings for Learning Design Learning Design concerns the processes involved in creating learning activities for students to interact with. Beetham defines a learning activity as: An interaction between a learner or learners and an environment (optionally including content resources, tools and instruments, computer systems and 

2 services, 'real world' events and objects) that is carried out in response to a task with an intended learning outcome. (Beetham, 2004) Conole and Fill (2005) list three main components of a learning activity (Figure 1): • The context within which the activity occurs, this includes the subject, the level of difficulty, the intended aims, learning outcomes, skills, prerequisites. time and the environment within which the activity takes place. • The learning and teaching approaches adopted, including the theories and models. • The tasks undertaken, which specifies the types of tasks, the techniques used, the associated tools and resources, the interaction, sequence and roles of those involved and the assessments associated with the learning activity. Figure 1: A Learning Activity Taxonomy The essence of a learning activity is that it must have one or more learning outcomes associated with it. Learning outcomes are what the learners should know, or be able to do, after completing the learning activity; e.g. understand, demonstrate, design, produce, appraise, etc. In order to achieve the intended learning outcomes there is a sequence of tasks that must be completed. Examples of tasks include: reading paper(s), discussing ideas, accessing database(s), extracting or manipulating data, answering questions, or making decisions. Mora (2017) has extended Conole’s learning activity taxonomy, a visualisation of this is provided at the end of her thesis. This visualisation shows the complexity of a learning activity and the myriad of elements associated with it, all of which an academic needs to make design decisions about. To illustrate this, learning activity consists of the following elements: learning outcomes, resources, learning outputs, assessment, educational context, tools, models of teaching, educational modelling, quality assessment, interactions, competencies, roles, and tasks. Each of these elements then have sub-components associated with them, as Mora’s visualisation shows. Each of the frameworks described in this chapter foreground or focus on different aspects of designing a learning activity. The focus might be on tools, the nature of the tasks the learner engages with, or the different facets of learning the learner undertakes. 

3 The Larnaca Declaration on Learning Design (Dalziel et al., 2016; Dalziel, 2016) provides an authorative text on the nature of Learning Design as a research field. It outlines the following as factors of importance for the need to have more effective and robust design decisions: Educators face many changes – such as expectations of adopting innovative teaching approaches, alignment of teaching to external standards, growing requirements for professional development and difficulties in balancing a complex range of demands from different stakeholders (Larnaca Declaration on Learning Design, 2016). The Larnaca Declaration on Learning Design argues that Learning Design seeks to develop a descriptive framework for teaching and learning activities (i.e. an educational notation) and to explore how this framework can assist educators to share and adopt teaching ideas. Figure 2 shows a Learning Design conceptual map. This is adapted from the Larnaca Declaration on Learning Design (2016). The figure shows that the challenge addressed by Learning Design is to create learning experiences that align to particular pedagogical values and objectives. The educational philosophy describes the explicit or implicit pedagogical theories that underlie decisions about teaching and learning. A wide range of theories and methodologies can guide decisions about teaching and learning. The context for learning affects the design of teaching and learning activities. The figure also shows the teaching lifecycle, which consists of preparation, teaching, reflection and professional development. Learning Design can occur at a range of levels of granularity; from the design of individual tasks right up to whole programme design. The core concepts of guiding the design, visualisation and sharing are implemented through a set of resources and activities. Finally, the diagram indicates the importance of taking account of the learners’ response to the design through: reaction to teaching, assessment, evaluation and use of learning analytics. 

4 Challenge Creating learning experience aligned to a particular pedagogical approach and learning objectives Educational Philosophy All pedagogical approaches Theories and Methodologies Learning environment Institution Educator Learner Teaching lifecycle Preparation Teaching Post-teaching reflection Professional Development Level of Granularity Programme Module Learning Activities Tasks Core Concepts Guidance Visualisation Sharing Implementation Tools Resources Learner Responses Reaction to teaching Assessment Learning Analytics Evaluation Figure 2: A Learning Design Conceptual Map The Community of Inquiry framework (Figure 3) shows that a learning event has three types of presence: social, cognitive and teaching (Garrison et al., 2000). There are four pedagogical approaches to learning: learning by listening – instructionist, learning by sharing – connectivist, learning by doing – constructivist and learning by making – constructionist. Figure 3: Models of Interaction (reproduced with permission) The TPACK (Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge) framework (Mishra and Koehler, 2006) focuses on the three elements of good design: knowledge of the subject, what is good for learning and effective use of technology (Figure 4). 

5 Figure 4: The TPACK Framework Content knowledge (CK) is knowledge about the actual subject matter that is to be learned or taught. Teachers need to know their subject, including knowledge of the central facts, concepts, theories and procedures. It focuses on the following questions: what are you teaching and what is your knowledge of the subject? Pedagogical knowledge (PK) is knowledge about the processes and practice of teaching and learning. A teacher with pedagogical knowledge understands how students construct knowledge, acquire skills, and develop habits of mind and positive dispositions towards learning. Technology knowledge (TK) is knowledge about how technologies can be used. Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) is about knowing what teaching approach fits the content and knowing how the elements of the content can be arranged for better teaching. Technology content knowledge (TCK) is knowledge about how technology and content are reciprocally related. It is concerned with how technologies can enhance the content, how it is delivered to the students and how the students interact with it. Technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK) is knowledge of how technologies can be used in teaching and learning settings and how teaching might change as a result of the use of technologies. It focuses on what digital technologies are available, how they can be used and which are most appropriate for a particular learning intervention. In other words understanding how to use digital technologies to achieve particular learning outcomes. Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) is the intersection of technology, pedagogy and content. Mishra and Koehler argue that TPACK is the basis of good teaching with technology and requires an understanding of the representation of concepts using technologies; pedagogical techniques that use technologies in constructive ways to teach content; knowledge of what makes concepts difficult or easy to learn and how technology can help redress some of the problems that students face; knowledge of students’ prior knowledge and theories of epistemology; and knowledge of how technologies can be used to build on existing knowledge and to develop new epistemologies or strengthen old ones. The question of what type of design and facilitation of learning interventions is most efficient and effective is highly contested and contextually situated. It depends on 

6 how the session has been design, how it is delivered and facilitated, the dynamics of the participants and the nature of the subject material. A recent report (Poulin and Straut, 2017) provides a comprehensive summary of research on the cost and effectiveness of online learning. The report concludes that there is great variability in online practices and policies. Different philosophies and technologies can have a tremendous impact on price and cost. For example, video can be used in a variety of ways from simple streaming of a presentation to highly produced videos and animations, coupled with opportunities for participant interaction. The report also stated that there is much mythology, unrealistic expectations and unfilled promise regarding the economics of online learning. Frameworks for Learning Design In recent years a number of frameworks for Learning Design have emerged. This chapter will critique these, considering their benefits, along with underpinning assumptions, and will also consider the similarities and differences of the frameworks. Frameworks can be grouped as follows: • Frameworks for guiding the use of technology/media/materials (SAMR, SECTIONS, COACT) • Workshop approaches aimed mainly at promoting general good practice. i.e. social constructivist assumptions (7Cs, 8LEM, ABC) • Approaches based on specific theory of learner engagement (ICAP) These frameworks represent useful tools to conceptualise new activities or reconceptualise existing approaches. They prompt the designer to think about the impact of technology adoption, teacher and student digital capabilities, and the nature of the engagement that the use of technology might facilitate. Frameworks for guiding the use of technology/media/materials The SAMR model The SAMR model consists of four levels of technology integration (Puentedura, 2013; Romrell, Kidder and Wood, 2014): • Substitution: The technology provides a substitute for other learning activities without functional change. • Augmentation: The technology provides a substitute for other learning activities but with functional improvements. • Modification: The technology allows the learning activity to be redesigned. • Redefinition: The technology allows for the creation of tasks that could not have been done without the use of the technology. It provides a framework for designers to create optimal learning experiences. Learning activities that fall within the substitution and augmentation classifications are said to enhance learning, while learning activities that fall within the modification and redefinition classifications are said to transform learning. Table 1 provides examples of how SAMR can be used. Portnoy (2018) provides practical examples of how each of the four levels of SAMR can be implemented. 

7 Table 1: Examples is use of SAMR Substitution Augmentation Modification Redefinition Making workshop materials available online or via a website. Providing resources in a variety of media to meet different needs, allowing participants to choose which works best for them. Participants brainstorming ideas together on a topic or potential solutions to a problem. Collation of resources on a topic using a collaborative tools such as Google Drive. Use of social media such as Twitter to be part of a broader community and use this to ask questions or gain access to interesting resources of relevance to their professional practice. Participants create their own Personal Learning Network using a variety of tools and work with others to collaborate, share ideas and resources, and reflect on their practice. Keeping a reflective blog of their practice and commenting on the blogs of other participants. Replacing a hand written flipboard with written content. Written content is made available online so that others can see it. Content is made available on a blog so that others can review and comment. Participants collaboratively develop and comment on content in a collaborative tool such as Google Drive. An oral presentation is supplemented with a Powerpoint presentation. Flipped classroom techniques where participants work through materials in advance of a face-to- face session, allows to work through content on their own and then bring questions to the workshop for clarification. Participants connect with each other using social media so that they can talk to each other about their understanding of the materials they are reviewing in advance of the face- to-face session. Following their discussions of the materials they have reviewed in advance of the face-to-face session, they use a collaborative tool such as Google Drive to develop a set of joint questions to ask the facilitator in the face-to-face session. Concept mapping software is used to replace a paper- based concept map. Concept maps can be annotated and links added. Concept maps and associated links are made available as part of a blog post so that others can see and comment on. All the group concept maps are collated and made available online, along with comments, facilitators comment on the concept maps. The SECTIONS framework Bates (2015) argues that the SECTIONS framework can be used to make effective decisions about the choice and use of media for teaching and learning. It stands for: 

8 Students, Ease of use, Costs, Teaching functions, Interaction, Organisational issues, Networking, and Security and privacy. Three issues are related to students when choosing media and technology: student demographics, access, and differences in how students learn. In terms of ease of use, both teachers and students need digital literacies to make effective use of digital technologies. There has been a dramatic reduction in the cost of media in recent years. Cost can be broken down into costs associated with development, delivery, maintenance, and overheads. A number of factors are associated with the teaching functions, such as the coherence of the materials (in terms of the mix of text, images, sound and video, the need for clear signalling, avoiding redundancy, and segmenting). Moore (1989) identifies three types of interaction: student-content, student-teacher, and student-student. Hillman et al. (1994) added a fourth; student-interface. Factors to consider in relation to organisational issues include: the way in which institutions structure teaching activities, the types of technologies available and the nature of the technologies that are supported. The rise of social media has led to the increasing importance of taking account of networking when designing learning interventions. Social media can supplement institutionally support technologies such as a Learning Management System and enable students to be part of a global community of peers. Finally, it is important when designing to give due consideration to security and privacy issues. Bates lists the following questions to guide the design process: Who are the students? What are the desired learning outcomes? What instructional strategies will be used? What are the unique educational characteristics of each technology and how well do these match the learning and teaching requirements? What resources are available? Bates and Poole (2003) argue that the framework has a number of benefits. Firstly, it will work in a variety of learning contexts. Secondly, it allows decisions to be taken at both a strategic, institution-wide level and at a tactical instructional level. Thirdly, it gives equal attention to educational and operational issues. Fourthly, it will identify critical differences between different media and technologies, this enabling an appropriate mix to be chosen for a given context. Fifthly, it is easily understood, pragmatic and cost effective. Sixthly, it will accommodate new developments in technology. The COACT framework Hibernia College in Dublin has development the COACT pedagogical principles that they use as the basis for the development of their learning material (Breakwell and Cassidy, 2013). The model breaks the learning experience down into five stages, which represent a progression from lower-order towards higher-order learning from ‘seeking meaning’ through to interpretation, critical analysis and application of knowledge. The five stages are: • Concept: describe and contextualise main concepts • Overview: summarise expectations, including objectives and outcomes • Active discovery: facilitate active and collaborative discovery • Critique: empower students to construct evidence-based criticisms • Think: encourage reflection on relevance and importance of concepts. 

9 The COACT model is a theoretical framework that forms the basis of lesson design and structure, with a view to ensuring that higher-order learning and reflection is embedded within the learning process. The framework builds on Säljö’s hierarchy of learning (1979, 2004, 2010) and the ETL Project at the University of Edinburgh (Enwistle, 2004). The definition of the word ‘CO-ACT’ is at the heart of the student learning experience: COACT = ‘CO’: ‘together’ + ‘ACT’: ‘to take action, do something’. This definition, upon which the framework is based, represents a mutually constructed, active approach to learning. Table 2 maps learning tools to different types of learning. Activities can be instructor led (asynchronous or synchronous) or participant lead. Table 2: mapping learning tools to different types of learning Type of learning Instructor-led learning (asynchronous) Instructor-led learning (synchronous) Participant-led learning Knowledge acquisition Text, graphics or animation, podcasts Workshops Participant presentations, blogs Communication Forums, emails Webinars, Skype Email, forums, social media tools Sharing practice Online presentations Face-to-face presentations Participant presentations, case studies or sharing of practice Feedback Surveys Question and answer Quizzes Reflection Summary list of main learning Discussion session to assess understanding Journal reflections Breakwell and Cassidy (2013) compared student feedback and grades across two cohorts of graduate students enrolled on the same ITE programme for primary school graduate students teachers. Evaluation was positive and included increasing satisfaction with tutor performance. They argue that this finding suggests that a model of online content development and delivery that is specifically designed to encourage interaction, or COACTion, between learner and facilitator and between learner and learner, can significantly enhance students' impressions of tutor interaction and tutors' teaching quality. Workshop approaches The 7Cs of Learning Design framework The 7Cs of Learning Design framework emerged from empirical data on how academics design learning interventions. Interviews were held and academics were asked: how they went about designing learning interventions, where they got inspiration and guidance, and how they represented and shared their designs. The data informed the development of the 7Cs of Learning Design framework. Figure 5 shows the 7Cs framework, each C has associated with it a set of resources and activities to guide the design process (Conole, 2016). 

10 Figure 5: The 7Cs of Learning Design The first C, Conceptualise, is about creating a vision for the course or module being designed. It helps the teacher/designer think about the nature of the learners who are likely to take the course or module, their age range, diversity, characteristics, skills, perceptions and aspirations. It is also about articulating the core principles associated with the course or module. The next four Cs are concerned with designing the resources and activities that the learners will engage with. The Create C helps the teacher/designer articulate what learning materials need to be created, whether these are text-based, interactive materials, podcasts or videos. In addition, it covers the use or repurposing of Open Educational Resources. Finally, the teacher/designer might also create some activities, which require the learners to create their own content. The Communicate C is concerned with methods to facilitate communication, between the learner and the tutor, the learner and their peers, and the broader community through social media. This might range from effective mechanisms for fostering discussion in a forum, through effective moderation, or looser communication through social media. Similarly, the Collaborate C is about fostering mechanisms to enable collaboration or group work. Finally, the Consider C, is concerned with ways in which reflection and demonstration of learning achievements can be promoted. Assessment might be diagnostic, formative, summative or peer reviewed. The Combine C enables the teacher/designer to step back and reflect on the design process to date and look at the design from different perspectives. Finally, the Consolidate C is about implementing the design in a real-life context and evaluating its effectiveness. When designing learning interventions, academics typically focus on content; the 7Cs framework enables them to think beyond content to the learning activities the students will engage with and the student experience. The 7Cs framework has been used now in hundreds of workshops. Conole (2014) describes some early evaluation of the framework. This consisted of observations of the workshops and gathering of data from participants around four main questions: What three words best describe the workshop? What did you like? How could the workshop be improved? And what action plans would participants do as a result of participation? Overall the evaluation was positive, participants found the workshops engaging, useful and inspiring. 

11 Participants state that the workshop helps them to be more creative and innovative in their design practice. Working in teams means that participants can build on each other’s knowledge. More details of the evaluation and some illustrative quotes can be found in the paper. The 8LEM framework The 8Learning Events Model (8LEM) describes 8 key teaching and learning activities: receive, imitate, practice, explore, create, experiment, debate and meta- learn (Verpoorten et al., 2005). It proposes a set of 8 specific ways, referred to as Learning Events, of learning/teaching that an academic can use to describe any point in the development and analysis of learning activities. Each of these considers what the students and teachers do. For example, for ‘explore’, the student activity would be ‘let me browse’ and the teacher activity would be ‘here are some possible resources’. The 8LEM framework can be used as a descriptive aid to analyse an existing teaching sequence or as a prescriptive aid for creating new teaching sequences. Receive refers to traditional didactic transmission of information such as reading or lecturing. Debate refers to learning through social interaction, collaboration, and discussion. Experiment refers to the student manipulating data to test a hypothesis. Create refers to the student creating something new, such as writing an essay. Explore refers to the student for example doing a literature review or searching for resources on the Internet. Practice refers to the student applying a theory and receiving feedback. Imitate refers to learning through observation and imitation. Finally, meta- learn refers to student self-reflection on their learning process. Ulster University has adapted this to create the Hybrid Learning Model and produced a set of flash cards for each of the 8 learning events. On one side the role of the teacher and the student is described, on the other a set of relevant verbs for the teacher and student roles are described. An example of one of the flashcards (experiment) is illustrated in Figure 6. It shows that the teacher’s focus is on providing the students with a micro-world to manipulate, whilst the student using this to test their hypothesis. On the back of the flashcard are the verbs the teachers and students can used to facilitate experimentation. Villina et al. (2008) carried out an evaluation of the hybrid learning model with 51 academic staff, through interviews, focus groups and workshops. Four main benefits of using the model emerged, that it: helped articulate practice, supported self- reflection, acted as a design aid, and provided an awareness of the learner roles. 

12 Experiments Reactivity/Experimentation (Simulation, Testing, Transformation) Teacher Here is a micro-world you can manipulate Learner Let me check my hypothesis Practical, workshops, problem solving Experiments Teacher Learner Assess Coach Construct/Produce/Create Critique Explain Justify Monitor Observe Perform Present Question React/Respond Access Analyse Apply Construct/Produce/Create Decide Describe Design Evaluate Explain Explore Justify Monitor Observe Perform Predict Present Question Reflect/Respond Refine Reflect Report Research Resolve Review Figure 6: An example of an 8LEM flashcard The ABC Learning Design framework The ABC Learning Design framework is a workshop where participants work together in a game format to create a visual storyboard outlining the types and sequence of learning activities against a set of learning outcomes. It is based on six types of learning activities: acquisition, collaboration, discussion, investigation, practice and production (Laurillard, 2012). Learning through acquisition is what learners are doing when they are listening to a lecture or podcast or reading. Learning through collaboration is concerned with discussion, practice and production. It is about the process of knowledge building. Learning through discussion gets the students to articulate their ideas and question and to challenge and respond to the ideas and questions from the teacher and/or their peers. Learning through investigation guides the student to explore, compare and critique texts or resources that reflect the concepts and ideas being taught. Learning through practice enables the students to adapt their actions to a task and use the feedback to improve their next actions. Learning through production enables the student to consolidate what they have learnt by articulating their current conceptual understanding and how they use it in practice. For each type of activity examples of how this can be achieved through conventional methods and use of digital technologies are provided. For example, for acquisition, conventional methods would include reading papers or listening to presentations, whereas acquisition through digital technologies might include reading websites, listening to podcasts or watching videos. Figure 7 shows the card for ‘production’. The front of the card indicates that ‘production’ is about enabling the students to consolidate what they have learnt, for example by writing an essay. The back of the 

13 card provides examples of how this can be achieved by conventional and digital methods. Learning Type: Production Learning through production is the way the teacher motivates the learner to consolidate what they have learned by articulating their current conceptual understanding and how they use it in practice Learning type: Production Conventional method Digital technology Producing articulations using: • Statements • Essays • Reports • Accounts • Designs • Performances • Artefacts Producing and storing digital documents Representations of designs Performaces, artefacts Animations Models Resources Slideshows Photos Videos Blogs E-portfolios Figure 7: The Production Card In the workshops, participants begin by writing a short description of the course that is being designed. They then agree on the balance of each type of learning activity and the mix of face-to-face and online activities. Finally, they think about the formative and summative assessment needed to achieve the learning outcomes. Young and Perovic (2016) list a number of benefits of the ABC framework. Firstly, it can help develop richer learning designs for blended learning. Secondly, it can integrate strategic initiatives such as digital skills or employability. Thirdly, it can connect learning outcomes/assessment to practice. Fourthly, it can facilitate cross- team communication and sharing. A short video (http://blogs.ucl.ac.uk/digital- education/2015/04/09/abc-arena-blended-connected-curriculum-design/) of participants’ evaluation of the workshop is available. Participants’ state the following: the workshop was very useful in terms of mapping out objectives, it enabled them to see the broader picture, what actual activities can be used, and identify opportunities for formative assessment. Approaches based on a specific theory of learner engagement The ICAP framework ICAP stands for Interactive, Constructive, Active, and Passive. It defines cognitive engagement activities on the basis of students’ overt behaviours and proposes that engagement behaviours can be categorised and differentiated into one of four modes: Interactive, Constructive, Active, and Passive (Chi and Wylie, 2014). Student engagement refers to whether students are: • Motivationally engaged (interest in content domain, pursue degree), • Behaviourally engaged (attend classes, do homework: broad behaviour), • Cognitively engaged (refers to use of strategies or to motivational constructs). 

14 They propose four modes of behaviour: • Attending mode (or passive mode): Students are paying attention, oriented toward and receiving instruction, but they are not doing anything else overtly, i.e. they are not producing anything. Examples include: listening to lectures without taking notes, watching videos, observing a demonstration, or reading a worked-out example. • Manipulating behaviour (active mode): Students are paying attention and physically manipulating the instructional materials, but not adding any new information. Examples include: copying the solution from the board, underlining important sentences, agreeing in dialogue, selecting an option, moving a slider, measuring quantities, recording amount, pointing and gesturing, repeating definitions. • Generating behaviours (constructive mode): Students are producing some additional information that may contain (incidentally or intentionally) small (or large) pieces of knowledge that is not in the instructional materials. Constructive does not mean that students are discovering knowledge/principles novel to the domain. Rather students are adding minute pieces of knowledge beyond what was presented in the instructional materials, literally. Cumulatively, they end up constructing an understanding. Examples include: drawing, explaining, posting, taking in one’s words, providing, comparing and contrasting, evaluating, predicting, reflecting, monitoring. • Collaborative behaviour (interactive mode): Behaviour of working with a peer (commonly through dialogues): Taking turns, sharing attention. Sometimes this has been referred to as transactive dialogues. Examples include: explaining jointly, debating with a peer, or discussing. There are four knowledge processes: storing (new information), activating (relating to prior knowledge), linking (new information with prior knowledge) and inferring (a new piece of information). Chi and Wylie describe the ways in which the ICAP framework can be used to improve: lecturing, discussion, worksheet activities, enabling co-constructive collaboration and using digital tools. Chi and Wylie argue that the ICAP hypothesis predicts that as activities move from passive to active to constructive to interactive, students undergo different knowledge-change processes and, as a result, learning will increase. This hypothesis has been validated through a number of classroom and laboratory studies. Two examples of how ICAP can map to presentation of information or communication are provided in Table 1. Table 1: Mapping Presentation Tools and Presentation of Information of Communication to the ICAP Framework ICAP level Passive attentive Active manipulative Constructive generative Interactive co- generative Tool PowerPoint Instructor presents information on PowerPoint Instructor can pause and ask questions 

15 Video Watching videos without taking any actions Pause and rewind or fast forward Watch video with others, pause and discuss issues ICAP level Passive attentive Active manipulative Constructive generative Interactive co- generative Tool Discussion forum Reading other people’s posts Answering others questions or comments Answering questions or elaborating on comments with explanations Co-editing an answer to a question with peers Google docs Reading other people’s posts Summarising a post Revising a post with new information Re-revising other people’s posts Conclusion The framework foregrounds a number of benefits in terms of the use of technologies. These include: freeing up time for face-to-face contact, allowing students to study at times which are most conducive to their learning, providing opportunities for self- testing to reinforce factual knowledge, facilitating the collection of and feedback on assignments, encouraging peer support and greater participation from students, enabling effective learning within and across different groups of learners, and fostering the development of key skills and attributes, including collaborative skills, autonomous learning and digital literacy. The frameworks provide academics with a different set of ways of thinking about design. Masterman (this volume) argues that design tools support teachers’ current design practice and simulate them to innovate. SAMR focuses on progressive integration of digital technologies. SECTIONS also focuses on the choices and use of media, in relation to a set of questions guiding the design process. COACT focuses on how different types of learning, such as knowledge acquisition, communication and reflection can be instantiated through both face-to-face teaching and use of technologies. The 7C provides a practical set of resources and activities to guide the design process. 8LEM foregrounds the 8 ways in which learners can learn and considers the associated activities of each for both teachers and learners. ABC adopts a similar approach but is based on six types of learning activities derived from Laurillard (2012). ICAP adopts a different approach focusing on learner engagement. The choice of which framework to use is dependent on a number of factors: the academics’ pedagogical beliefs, their level of expertise in design and in the use of technologies, and the perceived ease of use. It was stated at the beginning of this chapter Learning Design consist of three facets: guidance and visualization (which the frameworks described in this chapter can provide) and sharing. Masterman (this volume) highlighted the importance of informal conversations about teaching and learning, which Thomson and Trigwell (2016) refer to as ‘corridor conversations’. Masterman research on teachers’ design practice paints a complex, composite picture of design practice that has to do with the proclivities of individual practitioners and a 

16 range of intellectual and sociocultural influences, along with the nature of the process itself. She also argues that a number of barriers to effective design remain, including the challenge of facilitating thinking processes that may be both tacit and idiosyncratic to individual teachers, disciplines and institutions. The Learning Design frameworks described in this chapter provide mechanisms to help academics rethink their design practice to create pedagogically informed design decisions that make appropriate use of digital technologies. Given the gap between the promise and reality of digital technologies for learning and teaching described in the introduction, such frameworks are important in terms of providing support for academics to enable them to create engaging learning interventions that enhance the student experience. Whilst some of the frameworks are purely conceptual, others have been incorporated into Learning Design tools. Resources The 7Cs of Learning Design workshop: The workshop outline and associated resources and activities is available online https://www.slideshare.net/GrainneConole/learning-design-workshop- 2017 The 8LEM resources from Ulster University http://cetl.ulster.ac.uk/elearning/documents/About-HLM.pdf The Learning Activity Management System (LAMS): https://www.lamsinternational.com/ The Integrated Learning Design Environment (ILDE): https://ilde.upf.edu/about/ The Learning Design Support Environment (LDSE): https://sites.google.com/a/lkl.ac.uk/ldse/ References Bates, A.W. (2015), Teaching in a digital age: guidelines for designing teaching and learning, BC Open Textbooks, available online at https://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/, last accessed 30th May 2018. Bates, A.W. and Poole, G. (2003), A framework for selecting and using technology, in effective teaching with technology in higher education: foundation/or success, pp 75-105, San Francisco: John Wiley and Sons. Beetham, H. (2004), Review: developing e-learning models for the JISC practitioner communities, e-pedagogy programme report, available online at http://www.jisc.ac.uk/epedagogy, last accessed 29th May 2018. Breakwell, N. and Cassidy, D. (2013), Surviving the avalanche: improving retention in MOOCs, available online at https://linc.mit.edu/linc2013/proceedings/Session3/Session3Breakwell.pdf, last accessed 29th May 2018. Brown, M., Conole, G. and Beblavy, M. (forthcoming), Education outcomes enhanced by the use of digital technology: what are the conditions for success?, EU-Commissioned report. Chi, M.T.H. and Wylie, R. (2014), The ICAP Framework: Linking Cognitive Engagement to Active Learning Outcomes, Educational Psychologist, 49:4, 219- 243. 

17 Conole, G. (2017), Key trends in Technology Enhanced Learning, blog post on e4innovation.com, 22nd July 2017, available online at http://e4innovation.com/?p=952 Conole, G. (2016), The 7Cs of Learning Design, in J. Dalziel (Ed.), Learning Design – state of the art of the field, London: Routledge. Conole, G. (2014), The 7Cs of Learning Design- a new approach to rethinking design practice, Networked Learning Conference, available online at http://www.networkedlearningconference.org.uk/past/nlc2014/abstracts/pdf/conole .pdf, last accessed 12th October 2018. Conole, G., (2013), Designing for learning in an open world, in M. Spector and S.P. Lejoie (Eds.), Explorations in the Learning Sciences, Instructional Systems and Performance Technologies, New York: Springer. Conole, G. and Fill, K. (2005), A learning design toolkit to create pedagogically effective learning activities, Journal of Interactive Media in Education (Advances in Learning Design. Special Issue, eds. Colin Tattersall, Rob Koper), 2005/08, available online at http://oro.open.ac.uk/11725/1/conole-2005-08.pdf, last accessed 29th May 2018. Conole, G. (2004). E-learning: The hype and the reality. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2004(12). http://www-jime.open.ac.uk/2004/12/ Dalziel, J., Conole, G., Wills, S., Walker, S., Bennett, S., Dobozy, E., Badilescu- Buga, E. and Bower, M. (2016), The Larnaca Declaration on Learning Design, Special issue of the Journal of Interactive Multimedia Design, available online at https://jime.open.ac.uk/articles/10.5334/jime.407/, last accessed 11th October 2018. Dalziel, J. (2016), Learning Design – state of the art of the field, London: Routledge. Entwistle, N. (2004). Approaches to learning and levels of understanding: influences and responsibilities In Enhancing Learning Skills at University, University College Dublin. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., and Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87−105. Goodyear, P. (2005), Patterns, pattern languages and education design, Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 21 (1), available online at https://www.ascilite.org/conferences/perth04/procs/pdf/goodyear.pdf, last accessed 11th October 2018. Hibbitts, P. D., & Travin, M. T. (2015). Learning + technology development process model. Hillman, D.C.A., Willis, D.J. and Gunawardena, C. N. (1994) Learner interface interaction in distance education: An extension of contemporary models and strategies for practitioners. The American Journal of Distance Education, 8 (2), 30- 42. Larnaca Declaration on Learning Design (2016), The Larnaca Declaration on Learning Design, available online at https://larnacadeclaration.wordpress.com/, last accessed 11th October 2018. Laurillard, D. (2012). Teaching as a Design Science: Building Pedagogical Patterns for Learning and Technology, New York and London: Routledge. Mishra, P. and Koehler, M.J. (2006), Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: a framework for teacher knowledge, Teachers College Record, Vol. 108, No. 6, 1017 – 1054, available online at http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.523.3855&rep=rep1&ty pe=pdf, last accessed 29th May 2018. 

18 Moore, M.G. (1989), Three types of interaction, American Journal of Distance Education, Vol. 3, No. 2., 1 – 6. Mora, A.C.F. (2017), Poster of a taxonomy of elements for learning and instructional design, Ph.D. thesis, available online at http://tecfa.unige.ch/tecfa/maltt/memoire/Forero2017.pdf, last accessed 29th May 2018. Patrick, S. (n.d.), Why teachers still matter most in the digital age, available online at https://www.amplify.com/viewpoints/why-teachers-still-matter-most-digital-age, last accessed 11th October 2018. Portnoy, L. (2018), How SAMR and Tech can help teachers truly transform assessment, Feb. 1 2018, available online at https://www.edsurge.com/news/2018- 02-01-how-samr-and-tech-can-help-teachers-truly-transform-assessment, last accessed 12th October 2018. Poulin, R. and Straut, T. (2017), Distance education price and cost report, WCET report, available online at https://wcet.wiche.edu/sites/default/files/Price-and-Cost- Report-2017_0.pdf, last accessed 29th May 2018. Puentedura, R.R. (2013), SAMR and TPCK: an introduction, available online at http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/2013/03/28/SAMRandTPCK_AnIntr oduction.pdf Romrell, D., Kidder, L.C. and Wood. E. (2014), The SAMR model as a framework for evaluating mLearning, Journal of Asynchronous Networks, V. 18, N. 2, available online at https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1036281.pdf, last accessed 12th October 2018. Säljö, R. (1979), Learning in the learner's perspective I: Some common-sense conceptions, No. 76 In Institute of Education, University of Gothenburg. Säljö, R. (2004), Learning and technologies, people and tools in co-ordinated activities, In International Journal of Educational Research, vol. 41 (pp. 489-494) Säljö, R. (2010), Digital tools and challenges to institutional traditions of learning: technologies, social memory and the performative nature of learning, In Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, Vol. 26, i.1 (pp. 53-64) Thomson, J. and Trigwell, K.R. (2016), The role of informal conversations in developing university teaching? Studies in Higher Education, 1 – 12. Verpoorten, D., Poumay, M. and Leclercq, D. (2005). The 8 Learning Events Model (8LEM): A Pedagogic Conceptual Framework for the Design of Dedicated (and Generic?) Scenarios. 503-508. Villina, R., Murphu, C., MacNeill, A. and Masson, A. (2008), The Hybrid Learning Model – a framework for teaching and learning practice, International Journal of Emerging Technologies in learning, available online at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26537091_The_Hybrid_Learning_Model _-_A_Framework_for_Teaching_and_Learning_Practice, last accessed 12th October 2018. Young, C. and Perovic, N. (2016), Arena Blended Connected (ABC) curriculum design, EDEN conference presentation, available online at https://www.slideshare.net/cply/abc-learning-design-eden16-version, last accessed 29th May 2018.