designing for inquiry-based learning with the lams

8/2/2019 Designing for Inquiry-based Learning With the Lams

1/14

Designing for inquiry-based learning with theLearning Activity Management System

P. Levy,* O. Aiyegbayo & S. Little**Centre for Inquiry-based Learning in the Arts and Social Sciences, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK

Beyond Distance Research Alliance, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK

Abstract This paper explores the relationship between practitioners pedagogical purposes, values and

practicesin designing for inquiry-based learning in higher education, and the affordances of the

Learning Activity Management System (LAMS) as a tool for creating learning designs in this

context. Using a qualitative research methodology, variation was identified in participants con-

ceptions of inquiry-based learning pedagogy and in their approaches to inquiry-based learningdesign. LAMS was found to offer design affordances that are compatible with more strongly

teacher-led conceptions of, and approaches to, inquiry-based learning pedagogy. The paper

draws some implications for the further development and use of design tools for inquiry-based

learning. The authors suggest that, in addition to tools created for teachers, there may be a valu-

able role for tools that explicitly support students as designers of their own inquiry processes

and activities.jca_309 238..251

Keywords design for learning, inquiry-based learning, LAMS, Learning Activity Management System,

students as designers.

Introduction

Learning technologies have not, in the main, had much

transformational impact on pedagogic practice in uni-

versities (Selwyn 2007). It has been argued that reasons

for this include a lack of understanding about how

technologies can be used to afford particular learning

advantages, and a lack of appropriate guidance to prac-

titioners at the design stage (Conole & Weller 2008).

This paper reports on research that explored the practice

of design and the potential developmental role of

design for learning technology; specifically, it exam-ined the relationship between educational practitioners

pedagogical purposes, values and practices in designing

for inquiry-based learning (IBL) in higher education

and the affordances of the Learning Activity Manage-

ment System (LAMS, Macquarie University, Sydney,

Australia) as a tool for creating learning designs.

IBL

The term IBL is used in this paper to refer to pedagogic

approaches in which student exploration, investigation

or research drives the learning experience, with all

learning and teaching activities and resources designed

to support the inquiry process. The fundamental point of

departure for IBL is the question, whether established

by students, teachers or by negotiation among them.With theoretical roots in the work of John Dewey and

Jerome Bruner, IBL is advocated as an approach that

engages students explicitly with the processesof knowl-

edge creation and co-creation, and that develops dispo-

sitions and capabilities of particular relevance to life

and work in a highly complex and challenging world

(Brew 2006). While some forms of IBL focus on ques-

tions to which answers already exist, IBL is often

Accepted: 11 November 2008

Correspondence: Philippa Levy, CILASS, Information Commons, Uni-

versity of Sheffield, 44 Leaveygreave Road, Sheffield S3 7RD, UK.

Email: [email protected]

doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2008.00309.x

Original article

238 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Journal of Computer Assisted Learning (2009), 25, 238251
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/14

conceived as a means of engaging students with the

contested nature of knowledge and with authentically

messy, open-ended problems and lines of inquiry.

Questions provide the stimulus for student learning

through an emergent process of exploration and discov-

ery, with the teacher working in a facilitative role. In

some cases, the term IBL is used to refer specifically to

teacher-guided investigations of student-generated

questions (e.g. Justice et al. 2007). In this paper, it is

taken to encompass a range of approaches, including

those in which the teacher may set the questions and

offer a great deal of guidance on the inquiry process as

well as those in which students have a greater degree of

control in relation to both their questions and inquiry

activities.

There is no single design protocol for IBL, and con-

ceptions and practices of inquiry-based pedagogy varywithin and between subject areas. Discipline- or

practitioner-based approaches to research and scholar-

ship are modeled in students experience, based on

structured or more flexible inquiry tasks that may be

small or large in scale and carried out offline or online,

or in a blended combination of both of these; tasks

include problem or case scenarios, fieldwork investiga-

tions, experiential learning projects and research

projects of different kinds (Kahn & ORourke 2005).

Students often work collaboratively and use digital

technologies to interact with peers and tutors, access

information, and produce and share outputs.

Design for learning

The research discussed in this paper was motivated by

an interest in the potential that computer-based design

for learning tools might offer in the further develop-

ment and support of IBL pedagogy. Design for learning

is not a new concept (Britain 2004) and need not be

linked only with e-learning. However, it has become

closely associated with this field as interest has grown

since the late 1990s in utilizing digital technology tocreate shareable representations of the learning and

facilitative activities that take place during formal

learning events (Koper 2006), thereby supporting the

development and dissemination of practice in teaching.

The term design for learning has been adopted within

this field to foreground the role of activity design and

facilitation in pedagogic practice, signaling a relatively

recent shift of emphasis in e-learning development and

research away from a primary focus on digital content

creation. A range of different definitions has been

offered. Among them, the Joint Information System

Committee (JISC) (2006) describes it as the process of

designing, planning and orchestrating learning activi-

ties. Beetham and Sharpe (2007, p. 6) offer a some-

what less encompassing definition that excludes the

element of orchestration: the process by which teach-

ers and others involved in the support of learning

arrive at a plan or a structure or design for a learning

situation. Falconer and Littlejohn (2007, p. 42) explic-

itly include the aspect of documentation, explaining

that it is the planning and documentation of a learning

activity, session or curriculum in advance of delivery

and that a learning designis the documented outcome

of the design for learning process. For the purposes of

this paper, we use the term to refer to the planning anddocumentation of activities, and preparation of associ-

ated content-resources, for a learning event of any

scale. We understand design for learning as a situated

action that is, influenced by the beliefs and values

held by designers in specific contexts of practice and

as an evolutionary, iterative process subject to continu-

ous modification in response to experience (Jones &

Asensio 2002) that potentially occurs during, as well as

prior to, orchestration. We also see an important role

for students as (co)designers of their own learning and

inquiry processes in higher education and therefore

understand design for learning as a concept that might

be applied equally to students as to teachers and learn-

ing support professionals.

Design for learning systems and LAMS

As discussed by Masterman and Vogel (2007), general-

purpose software such as word-processing, mind-

mapping and presentation tools are frequently used by

teachers in higher education to author designs for learn-

ing; virtual learning environments (VLEs) may also be

used as design environments (Vogel & Oliver 2006).Recent years have witnessed the emergence of software

specifically intended to support teacher-designers to

create, share and re-purpose representations of designs

for learning; Britain (2004, 2007) provides an overview

of a range of such software and differentiates between

two types of relevance to the focus of this paper:

authoring environments and integrated environments.

Authoring environments, such as the prototype

Designing with the LAMS 239

2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd


3/14

CompendiumLD system (Open University, Milton

Keynes, UK) described by Conole et al. (2008),

provide scaffolding tools for the design of learning

activities that might take place online or offline. Inte-

grated environments offer combined authoring and

run-time (i.e. orchestration) functionality. Integration

of authoring and orchestration reduces complexity for

users because design is based on the use of pre-

specified, computer-based learning activity tools

(Britain 2007), but closely coupled design and run-time

functionality may also serve to constrain design possi-

bilities. LAMS is an example of an integrated design

for learning environment; described by Britain (2004)

as the most comprehensive implementation of the

concept of Learning Design available to date, it

remains the leading software of its kind and for this

reason was selected for the study reported in this paper.Described in more detail by Dalziel (2003, 2007a), it is

an open source tool that enables the design, orchestra-

tion and sharing/reuse of sequences of learning activity,

placing special emphasis on collaborative and group

processes. The focus of this paper is on the creation of

designs for learning, rather than on the orchestration of

designs with students or the sharing of designs with

other practitioners. The visual, drag-and-drop LAMS

design interface offers a range of activity types com-

bined with the means to arrange these into sequences

and embed, or connect to, associated content; in

enabling visualization of linked steps, the system offers

a similar feature to course of action or authorware

systems as developed from the 1980s onwards. System-

level integration between authoring and orchestration

allows the designer to see the running design from the

students point of view during the iterative process of

authoring. Drawing from the activity tools available, a

LAMS sequence might, for example, be designed to

start with a small-group discussion, followed by Web

research and resource sharing, followed by a large-

group discussion of the results in relation to the mate-

rial provided by the teacher, then ending withindividual reflection and note-making. Figure 1 shows

a designer view of a simple sequence. The left-hand bar

lists available activity tools and the central frame shows

selected activities linked in a sequence.

Much of what LAMS offers as learner activity tools is

also available in many VLEs, but VLEs do not enable

easy visualization of linked steps in a learning process

(Vogel & Oliver 2006) or readily support sharing of

runnable designs. LAMS is intended to encourage

activity-oriented design thinking and to support such

visualization and sharing/reuse. Once learning designs

have been created in LAMS, they can be run with stu-

dents and published to a wider community and reused

by others.

Dalziel (2007b) identifies pedagogic neutrality as a

key driver for design for learning systems in general

and LAMS in particular, with the aim of developing

software platforms that are sufficiently flexible to

support a wide range of pedagogical approaches.

Version 2 of LAMS was released in December 2006

and development is currently oriented towards embed-

ding greater flexibility into design structures (including

a feature that enables editing of a running sequence, for

example, in response to student feedback) and optional

decoupling of the systems authoring and run-timeintegration feature. The research reported in this paper

focused on Version 1, which was superseded during the

lifetime of the study. However, our interest was less in

evaluating the technical features of a specific version

of LAMS than in the more general issues raised by

such a tool for the development and support of IBL

practice.

There is a growing but still small body of LAMS

research and evaluation data relating to higher educa-

tion implementations (see, in particular, the proceed-

ings of the First and Second International LAMS

Conferences1). Some early evaluations elicited mixed

responses (e.g. Masterman & Lee 2005); positive out-

comes, including in terms of orienting practitioners

design thinking in activity-focused directions and pro-

viding design inspiration, have also been reported (e.g.

Dalziel 2007; Pearce & Cartmill 2007).

Computer-supported inquiry learning

It is useful to distinguish a design for learning system

such as LAMS from specialist educational software that

supports IBL. The field of computer-supported inquirylearning, which reaches back over two decades, uses

digital media to create environments for inquiry or dis-

covery learning, frequently as applied to specific topics

in the natural sciences. Systems are used to present

learners with authentic inquiry contexts, for example,

through simulations or case scenarios; to provide cogni-

tive scaffolds for relevant inquiry processes and for

regulativeprocesses such as planning and monitoring;

240 P. Levy et al.



4/14

to support learner collaboration; and to facilitate

domain modeling (de Jong 2006; van Joolingen et al.

2007). Examples are Co-Lab (van Joolingen et al.

2005) and RASHI (Murray et al. 2004). Systems in this

tradition include activity tools for learners relating to

inquiry processes such as research question formula-

tion, hypothesis generation, making predictions, reach-

ing conclusions and so forth.

The research we report in this paper explores the

use of a generic design for learning system for the

purposes of IBL. From the perspective of providinginstitution-wide computer-based support for design for

learning, a generic system may offer a number of prag-

matic advantages. Alternatively, there may be value,

in some settings, in systems specifically designed to

support teachers in the creation, sharing and reuse of

designs for IBL pedagogy, across or within discipline

areas. From either perspective, cross-fertilization

between work carried out in the design for learning field

and in that of computer-supported inquiry learning

seems likely to be productive. For example, the body

of literature on how to support inquiry processes in

computer-based inquiry learning environments may

assist in the further development of generic design for

learning tools such as LAMS. Research demonstrating

the critical importance of guidance and scaffolding has

led to the development of a variety of computer-based

approaches to providing support. Van Joolingen et al.

(2007) note a key question that arises out of work in the

area of computer-supported inquiry learning in science:namely, how computer support may be optimized, in

any givencontext, by balancing the aspects of constraint

and freedom for learners such that learning is sup-

ported effectively but the inquiry process is not reduced

to following cookbook instructions (p. 112). Issues of

designing for constraint and freedom in IBL proved, as

we shall see, especially salient in the research reported

in this paper.

Fig 1 Learning Activity Management System demo sequence: Music in Everyday Life.




5/14

Research questions and method

The questions explored in this paper are as follows:

What are educational practitioners purposes and

values in relation to IBL, and what approaches do

they take to design for IBL?

What are the affordances of LAMS as a tool for creat-

ing IBL designs and for stimulating developmental

engagement with pedagogical values and practices

associated with IBL?

The data we draw upon were generated through one-

to-one and (in one case) one-to-two interviews with 12

members of academic staff who piloted LAMS during

the academic year 20062007, plus a series of five focus

group interviews involving 39 members of academicstaff in total, four of whom were also pilot users. The

research was designed as a naturalistic inquiry (Lincoln

& Guba 1985), using a qualitative, real-life case study

approach based in a single institutional setting of educa-

tional development. All but one of the pilot users were

located in the arts or social sciences disciplines (Educa-

tion, Geography, Information Studies, Law and Modern

Languages), the exception being from an applied

science (Engineering). The pilot user group was com-

posed of academic staff who responded to an invitation,

issued initially across two faculties (Arts and Social

Sciences) and subsequently across the institution as a

whole, to participate in trialing LAMS for IBL. Users

were asked to design one or more LAMS activity

sequences for use in their own teaching for any subjects

and levels (undergraduate or post-graduate) of their

choice.

Most pilot users attended an introductory workshop

about LAMS, during which they were shown an

example of a LAMS sequence created for an IBL activ-

ity, and were interviewed before and after designing

and implementing a LAMS sequence for their own

teaching. They were provided with further support forcreating designs, when desired, in the form of technical

and pedagogical advice on a one-to-one basis, supple-

mented by some technical guidance materials. They

were also encouraged to view other LAMS designs via

the institutional server, and the LAMS Community

website.2 In pre-design and implementation interviews,

pilot users were asked to describe how they understood

and approached IBL in their practice, how they usually

approached designing for learning, and why and how

they planned to use LAMS in their pilot. Post-

implementation interviews explored design and orches-

tration experiences and outcomes in relation to

objectives.

Focus groups similarly were composed of staff who

responded to an institution-wide invitation to partici-

pate. These interviews not only explored, in particular,

questions of reuse and sharing of designs for learning

but also ranged more broadly across topics of relevance

to the themes of this paper. Participants from a wide

range of academic disciplines (arts, social sciences and

sciences) were shown a selection of LAMS sequences

that had been produced by pilot users in this study and

then asked to respond to a series of questions on topics

relating to design for learning in their own IBLpractice.

The interview guides for all one-to-one and focusgroup interviews were relatively loosely structured in

order to allow for open exploration of themes emerging.

Individual interviews lasted between half an hour and

an hour, and focus group interviews between an hour

and an hour and a half. Quotations taken from inter-

views with pilot users are identified below using the

codes PI-112 (pilot interviewees), and from focus

group interviews using the codes FGI-139 (focus

group interviewees).All interview data were fully trans-

cribed and an inductive, interpretivist approach to

analysis was adopted, within broad thematic areas. The

mode of analysis was based on a systematic, iterative

process of code, retrieve, conceptualize: descriptors

of categories (concepts) embedded in the data were

assigned to segments, and related (similar and contrast-

ing) passages were brought together for consideration

and investigation of the connections between them, both

at the level of individual transcripts and of the dataset as

a whole. LAMS sequences designed by pilot users also

were analysed to identify key activity design features

and patterns.

As noted above, the composition of the pilot user

group and focus groups was self-selecting on the basisof interest in IBL, combined with willingness to explore

the application of a new technology in practice. No par-

ticipant had experienced using LAMS before. We did

not seek to establish a representative sample of the

wider university population of academic staff based

on further pre-identified variables. However, variation

within the naturalistic sample was identified in

relation to learning technology and to the concept and

242 P. Levy et al.



6/14

terminology of IBL. Six pilot users self-identified as

expert users of learning technology in the form of the

institutional VLE, four as familiar and two as non-

users. Five had a high level of prior familiarity with IBL

practice (including two with specialist interests in this

pedagogical approach), while seven were less familiar

with the terminology but identified existing aspects of

their teaching as IBL oriented.

Criteria that are widely used in the validation of inter-

pretive work involved in naturalistic inquiry were

applied to this study. Following Creswell (1998), the

key strategies were as follows: prolonged engagement

in the field and persistent observation (the research was

carried out over an extended period of one academic

year, during which time the researchers were able to

interact closely with participants during the design for

learning process and explore experiences and perspec-tives from a range of angles); dialogical interviewing

(enabling perspectives to be articulated at an appropri-

ate level of depth and complexity); triangulation (data

were generated through different means, including indi-

vidual interviews, focus groups and learning design

analysis, thereby providing corroborative evidence

regarding emergent themes); peer debriefing (insights

and interpretations were explored critically within a dia-

logical, research team context, and in interaction with

expert external researcher/evaluators in the relevant

field); thick description (data analysis was based on the

principle of inclusiveness and comprehensiveness in the

exploration of commonality and difference in the expe-

riences and perspectives of participants, with the same

principle underpinning the selection of direct quota-

tions for the case narrative so as to ensure accurate and

inclusive representation of multiple points of view); and

member-checking (pilot users reviewed the draft analy-

sis as a means of confirming the congruence between

their experiences and perspectives and the interpreta-

tion and representation of these).

Themes

Pedagogical purposes and values

The broad view that it involves getting people to learn

through doing research (PI-1) was the basis of pilot

users views of what defines IBL. This, in some cases,

meant that IBL was perceived as closely aligned with

formal, discipline-based research practice, as in the

view of it as, synonymous with the whole research

process, from question formulation all the way to pre-

sentation of the research findings (PI-2). Pilot users

sometimes highlighted a systematic, problem-solving

dimension. In other cases, the research process engaged

through IBL was perceived as a more general process of

critical (and self-critical) questioning, exploration

and investigation, with IBL defined broadly as encour-

aging inquiring students to set their own learning

goals, plan and direct their learning, and reflect on the

outcomes.

Pilot users often identified the development of learner

autonomy as central to their pedagogical purposes in

adopting IBL approaches. Typically expressing a desire

to help students learn for themselves (PI-3), they

spoke of themselves as facilitators of learning rather

than as teachers or instructors. IBLcommonly waschar-

acterized in terms of open-endedness, providing oppor-tunities for students to pursue different lines of inquiry

or arrive at different outcomes; a strong focus on the

development of process knowledge and skills also was

often emphasized, with the purpose of enabling students

to learn how to pursue self-directed inquiry and to

develop transferable skills.

While pilot users all indicated that the aim to foster

learner autonomy was fundamental to their pedagogy,

some approaches that were described could be charac-

terized as more strongly teacher-led, whereas others

more strongly student-led. For example, IBL was seen

as a pedagogy that could be oriented, depending on the

context, either towards enabling students to pursue

their own interests that they wish to investigate (PI-5)

or towards students searching for answers to someone

elses questions, and having to reflect on certain points

of the inquiry (PI-6). The purest forms of IBL were

sometimes identified as those in which students both

devise their own research questions and directthe devel-

opment of their projects with guidance and support.

Practitioners often explained their inquiry pedagogies

in flexible terms, stating that they would adopt different

forms of IBL in different educational contexts, such asaccording to level of study.

Dimensions of design

Pilot users often approached LAMS initially as a teach-

ing tool rather than as a design tool; in other words,

with a strong focus on what it could offer students in the

process of orchestration rather than what it could offer




7/14

the practitioner during the phase of creating designs.

They, typically, were unfamiliar with the terminology of

design for learningand sometimescommented that the

concept tended to be implicit, rather than explicit, in

their practice as teachers. They reported both narrative

and visual approaches to drafting and documenting

their designs, with Microsoft PowerPoint and Word

(Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA) as the

only digital tools that any of them had used previously

for design for learning purposes. They characterized

design for learning as highly contextualized, with spe-

cific learning outcomes normally providing an initial

point of departure and a wide range of contingent

factors taken into account. Within this broad frame, two

key dimensions of differentiation emerged in their

accounts of design for learning. We label these, respec-

tively, the content/processdimension and the generic/personal dimension in the description that follows.

Practitioners thought of design as a practice with both

content- and activity-oriented dimensions. Consider-

ations of subject matter could be a primary point of

departure: I would say my teaching to some extent is

content-driven. What content do I want to communicate

to students?(PI-8). Conversely, when approached from

the perspective of process, objectives relating to stu-

dents learning experiences and activities were a

primary point of departure: I think first about the learn-

ing activities and then I try to find content to fit it(PI-7).

One described focusing first on objectives relating to

students holistic experience of learning, and then on

specific learning content and activities: so not just what

do you want them to be able to do at the end of the

course, but what experience do you want them to have

of learning(PI-4). Some practitioners explicitly associ-

ated IBL with process-oriented approaches to design,

whereby the principal aim is to create the conditions for

particular experiences of learning through the design of

inquiry and assessment tasks.

Individual accounts of designing tended to indicate

(sometimes strong) orientations towards privilegingeither content or process considerations. Most pilot

LAMS users expressed broadly process-oriented per-

spectives on design for learning. However, others

described an integrated perspective in which content

and process were perceived as inseparable and in

dynamic interaction; designing was described in these

cases as an iterative process of movement back and forth

between process and content related considerations.

One practitioner argued for a need to achieve balance

between these:

I think there is a danger when you rely on activities and

tasks that why you are doing it can get lost. It is the

balance of thinking, what is really important in the

subject, and what it is really important they engage with,

also thinking what [students] can contribute as well

(PI-11).

Two further broadly contrasting approaches to design

for learning were identified. Some practitioners

described designing largely in terms of drawing on

their own personal conceptualizations of the processes

or subject matter with which students were to engage.

Others, in contrast, described drawing on different

types of generic framework, again relating either to

processes or to content. None described applying a spe-

cific process or activity model, as might be provided,for example, by Kolbs (1984) experiential learning

cycle, Laurillards (2002) conversational framework

or design protocols for problem-based learning (e.g.

see Savin-Baden & Major 2004). However, generic

process frameworks were evident in descriptions of

design as the creation of sequences of learning tasks

based on procedural activity structures perceived to be

embedded in disciplinary or professional practice.

Generic procedures were identified across each of the

broad discipline areas (arts, social sciences and sci-

ences) represented in the study. Typically, the param-eters of established procedures meant that the activity

sequencing elements of design were perceived as a

matter of step a necessarily needing to be followed by

step b and so forth.

Generic content frameworks were evident in

descriptions of design based on a primary focus on

transmission of established knowledge structures. This

perspective could make design an almost redundant

concept:

Because you need to know x before you can do y, in fact

planning the lecture content is pretty much there is noplanning to do. It is really how much time you give to

topics, and the topics naturally build on top of each other

(PI-9).

Our data did not allow for an in-depth investigation of

the role that disciplinary differences might play in

orienting practitioners more towards personal or

generic approaches to design for learning. However, it

seems likely that differing approaches will be inflected

244 P. Levy et al.



8/14

by the differing epistemological characteristics of high

paradigm consensus as compared with those of low

paradigm consensus disciplines and areas (Becher &

Trowler 2001; Donald 2002). In this study, practitioners

in high consensus science disciplines were more likely

to draw attention to the role of generic knowledge struc-

tures in their design for learning practice than practitio-

ners in arts and social sciences.

Figure 2 represents these two main dimensions of

variation in designing for learning, as reflected in these

practitioners accounts. The vertical axis differentiates,

on a continuum, between considerations oriented pri-

marily towards students process experiences oflearning and those oriented primarily towards subject

matter. The horizontal axis differentiates between those

that are inflected more by generic pedagogic or

disciplinary frameworks and models and those that

derive more from practitioners personal pedagogical

goals and perspectives. Presented as a matrix, the

framework identifies four distinct emphases in design

for learning.

Designing with LAMS

Three main themes emerged in relation to participants

experiences of designing with LAMS.

Rapid process design

Pilot users did not tend to approach experimentation

with LAMS from a high-level perspective of imple-

menting new general models of IBLbut focused instead

on ways in which the technology might fit with, and

enhance, their existing approaches to IBL in specific

instances of teaching. Several used the tool to broadly

replicate designs they had already used in face-to-face

teaching, while others had new ideas sparked for small-

scale activities but did not feel that their underlying

pedagogical thinking had been altered through interac-

tion with LAMS. However, sometimes comparing

LAMS with the universitys VLE, some practitioners

identified the way in which it appeared to move the

focus away from overloading with material (FGI-23)

and considered that engaging with LAMS could impact,

alongside other influences in the institutional environ-

ment, on orientation towards more process-orientedapproaches to design that were seen as more compatible

with IBL:

That has been a major change. Looking at students

learning as an activity rather than something into which

you input readingsand outputin the formof essays[. . .]I

think [LAMS] is an easy way to get into thinking about

teaching and learning in terms of activity (PI-8).

Designing with LAMS was generally described as an

iterative process in which it was very easy, for both less

and more experienced learning technology users, to

rapidly build up and change the sequence of activitiesand to populate them with relevant content, links and

instructions: I would not underestimate; it is very quick

and easy for me to create(PI-1).

In principle, the possibility of reusing LAMS designs

created by others was welcomed by practitioners, espe-

cially for cherry-picking inspiring design ideas for

adaptation to their own subject teaching or for easy, off-

the-shelf adoption of full sequences for teaching in

Personal contentContent-oriented design practice,based on practitioners personalconceptualisations of the subject anddiscipline knowledge structures.

PROCESS-ORIENTED FOCUS

CONTENT-ORIENTED FOCUS

Personal processProcess-oriented design practice,based on practitioners personalconceptualisations of process goals

and frameworks.

PERSONALFRAMEWORKS

GENERICFRAMEWORKS

Generic contentContent-oriented design practice, basedon generic conceptualisations of thesubject and discipline knowledgestructures.

Generic processProcess-oriented design practice, basedon generic process frameworks forlearning or disciplinary/professional

inquiry procedures.

Fig 2 Approaches to design for learning.




9/14

generic skills and subject areas. In practice, pilot users

did not generally tend to look at others designs before

designing their own, beyond those introduced directly

in the context of preliminary workshops. Not having

sufficient time to view others LAMS sequences was

identified by pilot users as a key constraint. It seems

likely that cultural factors also played a part: many prac-

titioners in the study were unfamiliar with sharing and

reuse of activity designs in any form.

Although design with LAMS was perceived to be

quick and easy, some pilot users described experiencing

their own initial responses to the system as mechanistic

and unreflective. For example:

Its very, very easy to build up the box, the discussion

forum, and chain them together and before you know

where you are, you have a sequence of one thing leading

to another [. . .] One of the dangers is just how quicklyyou can zap up a design (PI-8).

This practitioner, along with others, said he or she

would, another time, aim to stand back from the tool

and plan a design before creating it in LAMS:

I think I would not rush to develop the LAMS sequence

so quickly. The trouble is it looks exciting, its new, its

easy.You get zoomed into it and think that is all it can do

[. . .] My major difference will be to not just go in and

start playing (PI-8).

Practitioners emphasized the value of pedagogical

reflection, discussion, guidance and exemplars in con-

junction with experimentation with the new system.

Custom-designed sequences used in introductory work-

shops provided a starting point for critical and reflective

discussion. Dialogues that took place with learning

development staff and other practitioners around the use

of LAMS were identified as positive developmental

stimuli, in particular in making the concept of design

more explicit.

Linear inquiry pathways

All practitioners perceived linearity as the principalcharacteristic of the way in which LAMS supports and

shapes design for learning. This was reflected in a

range of metaphors and similes used to describe it. Most

of these ladder, interactive workbook, industrial flow-

chart, training manual, sequential computer game and

Russian doll conveyed a strong sense of LAMS as a

tool for designing and reinforcing linear learning path-

ways. This modeling of learning and its facilitation as a

step-by-step, forward progression was identified as

either positive or problematic for IBL, depending on

pedagogical purposes and context.

On the one hand, these characteristics were wel-

comed as a means of reinforcing sequential inquiry pro-

cesses and procedures: I think it is really good for some

types of learning to have a clear pathway (FGI-35).

Practitioners were especially likely to see advantages

in using the tool to support activity in subject areas

including Engineering, Information Technology, Lan-

guages, Mathematics and Nursing in which generic

activity procedures could easily be identified. LAMS

was seen as a tool to reinforce these and the skills that

correspond to them. It was perceived as especially

suited to the design of bite-size sequences of activity

that would scaffold students engagement with larger,

more complex inquiry processes.On the other hand, linearity was perceived to be in

tension with messier, iterative forms of inquiry and

therefore with IBL approaches that aim to facilitate stu-

dents learning in this mode. From this perspective, the

design functionality of LAMS was perceived to be con-

ducive of programmed learning (PI-1) or training

(PI-12), even when it was recognized that it doesnt

have to be like that, it depends how the sequences are

written (PI-2). The version used in the trial did not

allow easily for backwards as well as forwards move-

ment through sequences, and branching options to

facilitate the creation of multilevel, in-parallel activity

sequences were not yet available. These were seen as

major problems by those practitioners who conceived

of IBL as a fundamentally iterative and parallel-

processing experience:

Trying to make [activities] linear is sort of actually rein-

forcing the students idea that it is all simple and easy

[. . .] If youre emphasising that[inquirys]not a step-by-

step process, then you know, its a bit counterproductive

if they then have a sequence thats entirely linear its

sort of going against the learning goal! (PI-11).

Others saw the linearity of LAMS sequencing asseeming to want to impose (PI-8) a serialist rather than

holist learning style (Pask 1976), or as incompatible

with the learning approaches of specific groups, such as

post-graduate professionals. The value of LAMS as a

tool to design more complex, holistic and extended

inquiry processes therefore was questioned. The pros-

pect of the enhanced design features of Version 2

were welcomed by a number of practitioners as more

246 P. Levy et al.



10/14

promising for IBL because of the greater potential for

enabling iterative and multiple pathways through an

activity sequence.

Tight structure and teacher control

In general, LAMS was perceived as a tool for designingtight activity structures with relatively high levels of

teacher guidance and control. Tight structure often was

identified as a welcome feature in the context of intro-

ductory forms of IBL. For example:

I think in some ways you can use it as a workbook and it

could become a rather directive pedagogical tool. So it

could be a now do this, now do thatapproach [. . .] but I

actually think with students whomay notbe familiar with

IBL, LAMS offers in its structured way, a very good way

of scaffolding them [. . .] It is not entirely open-ended

inquiry (PI-11).

The potential for the teacher to lead by the hand (PI-

12) even at a distance was seen as very helpful in

some contexts, not least to ensure that students would

engage with tasks as set. Having used LAMS to design

sequences, several pilot users commented on the value

of having been encouraged by the system, at the stage of

design, to provide students with very specific guidance

and pathways.

However, the perceived inbuilt orientation in the

system towards tight activity structures was seen to

militate against principles of open-ended inquiry and

higher-level student autonomy. The extent to which

LAMS could accommodate students ownership of

their learning process was questioned. Some pilot users

explicitly identified LAMS with behaviourist or didac-

tic approaches to teaching:

LAMS in itself has quite a kind of mechanical, kind of

instructivist model of teaching built into it. You do what

youre told to do and answer questions. Its all pro-

grammed, while IBL is a more open process and that will

be better in getting people to go off in their different

directions [. . .] I dont see LAMS as having any orienta-

tion towards IBL really (PI-1).

One pilot user commented that,

Its like conducting an orchestra [. . .] LAMS can if the

conductor tutor wishes, really impose strict limitations

on the students, you are not going to start playing until

you finish this [. . .] Really what I am trying to do is

learn how to orchestrate less [. . .] How might the stu-

dents themselves orchestrate the learning experience?

(PI-8).

Analysis of the pilot sequences confirmed that while

LAMS was used to create designs based on both more

personal and more generic inquiry processes, it was not

used to create strongly student-led, open-ended or

extended approachesto IBL. Instead, in inviting critical,

inquiring responses to given resources and asking stu-

dents to find additional resources to share with others or

to respond reflectively to questions posed by the tutor,

the sequences generally were designed as small-scale

initiatives in more teacher-led approaches to IBL.

Without exemplars of strongly student-led sequences,

focus group participants often did not recognize the

potential that existed, in principle, to create more

student-led designs using the learning activity tools

already available in the system. For example, in

response to the generic activity tools in LAMS, and

lacking examples of how the system might be used tofacilitate students framing of research questions, two

focus group participants concluded that it would not be

possible to use the system for this purpose: You want

the students to frame the research question, and they

cant do that with this(FGI-14). [LAMS] is very much

teacher-led because the teacher predetermines every-

thing. So the questions are not student-led, are they, or

the activity, which it should be in IBL (FGI-19).

However, while perceptions of LAMS as affording tight

activity structure and teacher control were generally to

the fore early on in exposure to the tool, initial percep-

tions could shift over time. The concept of students as

designers emerged in some interviews and focus group

discussions as a means of empowering students to take

greater control of their learning experiences. Practitio-

ners envisaged setting tasks whereby one group of stu-

dents might design a sequence for another group, or

staff and students would work collaboratively on design

for learning, something they did not consider would be

possible in a VLE.

Discussion

This research revealed aspects of practitioners peda-

gogical values and purposes in relation to IBL and two

main dimensions of design for learning practice. We

labeled these, respectively, a content/process dimen-

sion and a generic/personal dimension. Practitioners

tended to associate design for IBL with relatively

strongly process-oriented approaches, drawing on either




11/14

more genericor more personalprocessframeworks to

guide their design practice, as illustrated in the upper

two quadrants of the matrix in Fig. 2. This is not to

suggest that the practice of any one individual would fit

neatly into one of the four modes identified. As already

noted, design practice is highly contingent on context,

and the axes of the matrix represent continua rather than

binaries. Designing in any particular context is likely to

involve a blend of generic and more personal pedagogi-

cal thinking, as well as a combination of process and

content considerations. However, in foregrounding dif-

ferences of emphasis in practitioners accounts of

design, the matrix offers a conceptual framework that

may be useful for further explorations of the nature and

practice of design for learning in IBL and other peda-

gogical contexts across different disciplines.

The research also highlighted the pedagogical anddesign affordances of LAMS in relation to IBL, as

reflected in practitioners responses to the system. We

take affordances to be not inherent properties, but to be

relational and contingent, constructed through fluid,

socially and ideologically mediated interactions

between people and tools. Laurillard et al. (2000, p. 3)

explain affordances as features perceived by an

observer [that] create the possibility for a certain kind of

behaviour. In the context of this study, for practitioners

with varying levels of familiarity with IBL and learning

technology, the features of LAMS offered similar affor-

dances: rapid process-oriented design practice; design

approaches based on linear learning pathways; design

approaches based on relatively tight task structure and

sequencing; and, teacher control.

The findings of this research indicate the potential

value for IBL development of generic tools that can

bring the concept of design for learning to the fore and

support the practice of process-aware design. LAMS, in

the version piloted, was perceived to be a promising tool

for some forms of IBL in a range of disciplinary con-

texts. However, its characteristics appeared consider-

ably less well suited to affording the design of moreflexible, open-ended and student-led forms of inquiry.

In their model of teaching-as-design, Goodyear and

Ellis (2007) argue that a margin of indirection is

important when opportunities for the development of

student autonomy aredesired.This view was reflected in

the perspectives of those practitioners in this study who

identified little connection between what they perceived

LAMS offered and the design and facilitation of IBLfor

more autonomous, advanced learners. On the contrary,

there was some perception of an inbuilt constraining

effect. In this sense, the system was not experienced as

pedagogically neutral, and these findings serve as a

reminder that activity-focused pedagogy may at the

same time be strongly teacher-centred. These consider-

ationssuggest theneed for designtoolsthat provide for a

high level of flexibility, in terms of choices about the

extent of structure and control of students learning and

inquiry processes, such that the balance of constraint

and freedom (van Joolingen et al. 2007) may easily be

adjusted by teacher-designers to suit the circumstances

of different educational contexts. Our research findings

also suggest the more general point that there may be a

risk of engaging a somewhat mechanistic response to

design for learning. While wanting tools that would be

easy to use, practitioners were wary of a reductiveimpact on practice. This reinforces the importance of

supporting practitioners to step backduring the design

process to explore underpinning pedagogical purposes

and values, for example, through interactions with

educational developers and peers or through access to

computer-based pedagogical guidance resources.

The potential of LAMS itself was not fully tested in

our study, in that the focus was on initial encounters and

experiences of the tool rather than longitudinally on

experiences over time. However, consistent with the

findings of previous research (Masterman & Vogel

2007), the system per se was not associated with strong

developmental impact. In particular, there was little evi-

dence that the tool in itself (in Version 1) articulated

with, or stimulated, strong engagement with ideas,

values and practices, which, arguably, represent this

pedagogy in its truest, most radical and empowering

form (Hutchings 2007) and which, also, more broadly,

align with values and practices associated with produc-

tive inquiry in the Web 2.0 environment (Seely-Brown

& Adler 2008).

The implication we draw from this is not that a

generic design for learning system such as LAMS doesnot have the potential to afford the design of more trans-

formational forms of IBL. That it did not tend to orient

pedagogical thinking and practice in the direction of

strongly student-led pedagogies is a reflection not only

of the features of LAMS in the version piloted but also

of the interpretive frameworks (or pedagogical mind-

sets) and other factors brought to bear on its use; as

noted above, we take affordances to be constructed

248 P. Levy et al.



12/14

through the interaction between tools and contextual

factors operating at individual and organizational levels,

rather than determined solely by technological factors.

As observed in this study, opportunities for pedagogical

reflection and discussion did lead to identification of

ways in which sequences might be designed to encour-

age a high degree of student empowerment in IBL

mode, and a need was identified for practitioners with

interests in IBL to have access to a wide range of exem-

plar designs, including those that are loosely structured

and student-led.

Concluding remarks

The research reported in this paper explored design for

learning mainly from the practitioner perspective,

reflecting the strong emphasis in the design for learningfield, thus far, on the concept of teacher as designer.

However, in the context of pedagogies that, like IBL,

place emphasis on learner autonomy, we suggest that

there is a need to explore the potential value and nature

of design tools for learners whether based on existing

tools (such as LAMS) or on new tools with different

functionality and to investigate the pedagogical and

practical issues relating to supporting student use of

such design for learning tools. There may be a case for

the development of explicitly student-facing tools that

empower and support students to design, manage and

adjust their own inquiry processesand to usedesign rep-

resentations as resources for reflection and sharing with

other students, thereby supporting metacognition.

Based on the themes arising from our research, we

propose that such tools would need to include highly

flexible research planning features and perhaps offer

integrated design for learning guidance akin to the guid-

ance offered to teachers by emerging pedagogical

planner systems, such as those developed in the UK

through the JISC Design for Learning programme.3

We conclude with two observations. First, the

concept of design for learning emphasizes the role ofactivity in the experience of learning and of activity

design in the practice of teaching. Yet intellectual

inquiry, the fundamental activity in IBL, is inseparable

from engagement with content (Hutchings 2007). This

leads us to speculate that too strong an emphasis on

activity in design for IBL may lead to a counterproduc-

tive decoupling of content and activity in the experience

of learning. More broadly, there may be a case for some

rebalancing of definitions of the concept of design for

learning in the e-learning field to reflect a more inte-

grated conception of the relationship between process

and content in knowledge-creation.

Finally, it is worth reiterating that, as an intellectual,

moral and creative activity, teaching cannot be reduced

to a solely technicalpractical exercise. Tools, and asso-

ciated community and institutional processes, are

needed that help engage imaginative and critically

reflective approaches to development and innovation in

professional practice. There is no one way to design and

facilitate IBL. There may be an important role for easy-

to-use design for learning tools in helping generate (and

share) creative designs and design ideas for IBL.

However, in creating such tools, attention needs to be

paid to avoiding the risk of fostering inflexible or

mechanistic conceptions of either inquiry or teaching-as-design.

Acknowledgements

The research reported in this paper was funded by the

JISC of the Higher Education Funding Council for

England through its Design for Learning programme.

An earlier version of this paper was given at the 6th

International Conference on Networked Learning, 56

May 2008, Halkidiki, Greece.

Notes

1Available at http://lamsfoundation.org/lams2006/ and http://lams2007sydney.

lamsfoundation.org/ (Accessed 1 July 2008).2LAMS Community Website: http://www.lamscommunity.org.3http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/elearning_pedagogy (Accessed

01/07/2008).

References

Becher T. & Trowler P.R. (2001) Academic Tribes and Terri-

tories: Intellectual Enquiry and the Culture of Disciplines,

2nd edn. Society for Research in Higher Education/Open

University Press, Buckingham, UK.

Beetham H. & Sharpe R. (2007) An introduction to rethinking

pedagogy for a digital age. In Rethinking Pedagogy for A

Digital Age (eds H. Beetham & R. Sharpe), pp. 110. Rou-

tledge, London.

Brew A. (2006) Research and Teaching: Beyond the Divide.

Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, UK.

Britain S. (2004) A Review of Learning Design: Concept,

Specification and Tools. A report for the JISC e-Learning


http://lamsfoundation.org/lams2006http://lams2007sydney/http://www.lamscommunity.org/http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/elearning_pedagogyhttp://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/elearning_pedagogyhttp://www.lamscommunity.org/http://lams2007sydney/http://lamsfoundation.org/lams2006


13/14

Pedagogy Programme. Available at: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/

uploaded_documents/ACF83C.doc (last accessed 1 July

2008).

Britain S. (2007) Learning design systems: current and future

developments. In Rethinking Pedagogy for A Digital Age

(eds H. Beetham & R. Sharpe), pp. 103114. Routledge,London.

Conole G. & Weller M. (2008) Using learning design as a

framework for supporting the design and reuse of OER.

Journal of Interactive Media in Education May. Available

at: http://jime.open.ac.uk/2008/05/jime-2008-05.pdf (last

accessed 1 July 2008).

Conole G., Cross S., Brasher A., Weller M., Nixon S. &

Clark P. (2008) A learning design methodology to

foster and support creativity in design. In Proceedings of

the 6th International Conference on Networked Learning

(eds V. Hodgson, C. Jones, T. Karsidis, D. McConnell,

S. Retalis, D. Stamatis & M. Zenios), pp. 4653. 56

May, Halkidiki, Greece. Available at: http://www.

networkedlearningconference.org.uk/abstracts/PDFs/

Conole_46-53.pdf (last accessed 1 July 2008).

Creswell J.W. (1998) Qualitative Inquiry and Research

Design: Choosing among Five Traditions. Sage,

London.

Dalziel B. (2007) Designing LAMS templates for medical

education. In Proceedings of the 2nd International LAMS

Conference (eds L. Cameron & J. Dalziel), pp. 4349.

LAMS Foundation, Sydney. Available at: http://

lamsfoundation.org/lams2007sydney/pdfs/04a.pdf (last

accessed 1 July 2008).

Dalziel J. (2003) Implementing learning design: the LearningActivity Management System (LAMS). In Proceedings of

the 20th Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for

Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (eds G. Crisp,

D. Thiele, I. Scholten, S. Barker & J. Baron), pp. 593596.

Ascilite, Adelaide, 710 December 2003. Available at:

http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/adelaide03/docs/

pdf/593.pdf (last accessed 1 July 2008).

Dalziel J. (2007a) Building communities of designers. In

Rethinking Pedagogy for a Digital Age (eds H. Beetham &

R. Sharpe), pp. 193206. Routledge, London.

Dalziel J. (2007b) Using LAMS for inquiry-based learning.

Keynote presentation for the Centre for Inquiry-based

Learning in the Arts and Social Sciences (CILASS). LAMS

Workshop, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, 9 July, 2007.

Available at: http://www.lamscommunity.org/dotlrn/clubs/

educationalcommunity/lamsresearchdevelopment/forums/

attach/go-to-attachment?object_id=443758&

attachment_id=443760 (last accessed 1 July 2008).

Donald J. (2002) Learning to Think: Disciplinary Perspec-

tives. Jossey Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Falconer I. & Littlejohn A. (2007) Designing for blended

learning, sharing and reuse. Journal of Further and Higher

Education 31, 4152.

Goodyear P. & Ellis R. (2007) Students interpretations of

learning tasks: implications for educational design. In Pro-

ceedings of the 24th Annual Conference of theAustralasianSociety for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education

(eds R. Oliver, D. Tan, A. Soong Swee Kit & C. Cheers),

pp. 339346. Ascilite, Singapore, 25 December 2007.

Available at: http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/

singapore07/procs/goodyear.pdf (last accessed 1 July

2008)

Hutchings B. (2007) Enquiry-based Learning: Definitions

and Rationale. Centre for Excellence in Enquiry Based

Learning, University of Manchester. Available at: http://

www.campus.manchester.ac.uk/ceebl/resources/essays/

hutchings2007_definingebl.pdf (last accessed 1 July 2008).

Joint Information System Committee (JISC) (2006) JISC

Briefing Document. Design for Learning Programme.

Available at: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/

Backgrounddesignforlearningv3%20Final.doc (last

accessed July 2008).

Jones C. & Asensio M. (2002)Designs fornetworkedlearning

in higher education: a phenomenographic investigation of

practitioners accounts of design. In Networked Learning:

Perspectives and Issues (eds C. Steeples & C. Jones),

pp. 253278. Springer-Verlag, London.

de Jong T. (2006) Computer simulations technological

advances in inquiry learning. Science 312, 532

533.

van Joolingen W.R., de Jong T., Lazonder A.W., SavelsberghE.R. & Manlove S. (2005) Co-Lab: research and develop-

ment of an online learning environment for collaborative

scientific discovery learning. Computers in Human Behav-

ior21, 671688.

van Joolingen W.R., de Jong T. & Dimitrakopoulou A.

(2007) Issues in computer supported inquiry learning in

science. Journal of Computer-Assisted Learning 23, 111

119.

Justice C., Rice J., Warry W. & Laurie I. (2007) Taking an

inquirycourse makes a difference: a comparative analysis

of student learning. Journal on Excellence in College

Teaching 18. Available at: http://celt.muohio.edu/ject/

issue.php?v=18&n=1 (last accessed 1 July 2008).

Kahn P. & ORourke K. (2005) Understanding enquiry-based

learning. In Handbook of Enquiry and Problem-Based

Learning: Irish Case Studies and International Perspec-

tives (eds T. Barrett, I.M. Labhrainn & H. Fallon), pp. 112.

AISHE, Dublin, Ireland. Available at: http://www.

aishe.org/readings/2005-2/chapter1.pdf (last accessed 1

July 2008).

250 P. Levy et al.

http://www.jisc.ac.uk/http://jime.open.ac.uk/2008/05/jime-2008-05.pdfhttp://www/http://lamsfoundation.org/lams2007sydney/pdfs/04a.pdfhttp://lamsfoundation.org/lams2007sydney/pdfs/04a.pdfhttp://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/adelaide03/docshttp://www.lamscommunity.org/dotlrn/clubshttp://www.ascilite.org.au/conferenceshttp://www.campus.manchester.ac.uk/ceebl/resources/essayshttp://www.campus.manchester.ac.uk/ceebl/resources/essayshttp://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documentshttp://celt.muohio.edu/jecthttp://www/http://www/http://celt.muohio.edu/jecthttp://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documentshttp://www.campus.manchester.ac.uk/ceebl/resources/essayshttp://www.campus.manchester.ac.uk/ceebl/resources/essayshttp://www.ascilite.org.au/conferenceshttp://www.lamscommunity.org/dotlrn/clubshttp://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/adelaide03/docshttp://lamsfoundation.org/lams2007sydney/pdfs/04a.pdfhttp://lamsfoundation.org/lams2007sydney/pdfs/04a.pdfhttp://www/http://jime.open.ac.uk/2008/05/jime-2008-05.pdfhttp://www.jisc.ac.uk/


14/14

Kolb D.A. (1984) Experiential Learning: Experience as the

Source of Learning and Development. Prentice Hall, Engle-

wood Cliffs, NJ.

Koper R. (2006) Current research in learning design. Educa-

tional Technology and Society 9, 1322.

Laurillard D. (2002) Rethinking University Teaching: AFramework for the Effective Use of Educational Technol-

ogy, 2nd edn. Routledge/Falmer, London.

Laurillard D., Stratford M., Luckin R., Plowman L. & Taylor

J. (2000) Affordances for learning in a non-linear narrative

medium. Journal of Interactive Media in Education

February. Available at: http://www-jime.open.ac.uk/00/2/

laurillard-00-2-paper.html (last accessed 1 July 2008).

Lincoln Y.S. & Guba E.G. (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry. Sage,

London.

Masterman L. & Lee S.D. (2005) Evaluation of the Practitio-

ner trial of LAMS. Final report. Available at: http://www.

jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/LAMS%20Final%20

Report.pdf (last accessed 1 July 2008).

Masterman L. & Vogel M. (2007) Practices and processes of

design for learning. In Rethinking Pedagogy for a Digital

Age (eds H. Beetham & R. Sharpe), pp. 5263. Routledge,

London.

Murray T., Woolf B. & Marshall D. (2004) Lessons learned

from authoring for inquiry learning: a tale of authoring

evolution. In Intelligent Tutoring Systems: Proceedings

of the 7th International Conference (eds J.C. Lester, R.M.

Vicari & F. Paraguacu), pp. 197206. Springer, Berlin.

Pask G. (1976) Styles and strategies of learning. British

Journal of Educational Psychology 46, 128148.

Pearce K. & Cartmill M. (2007) Authoring Using LearningDesign. Final report to JISC. Available at: http://

www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/elearning

pedagogy/aledfinal.pdf (last accessed 1 July 2008).

Savin-Baden M. & Major C. (2004) Foundations of Problem-

Based Learning. Open University Press/Society for

Research in Higher Education, Maidenhead, UK.

Seely-Brown J. & Adler R.P. (2008) Minds on fire: open edu-

cation, the long tail and learning 2.0. Educause Review

January/February, 1632. Available at: http://www.

johnseelybrown.com/mindsonfire.pdf (last accessed 1 July

2008).

Selwyn N. (2007) The use of computer technology in univer-

sity teaching and learning: a critical perspective. Journal of

Computer Assisted Learning 23, 8394.

Vogel M. & Oliver M. (2006) Design for Learning in Virtual

Learning Environments: Insider Perspectives. Final report

to JISC. Available at: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_

documents/D4L_VLE_report_final_.pdf (last accessed 1

July 2008).


http://www-jime.open.ac.uk/00/2http://www/http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/elearninghttp://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/elearninghttp://www/http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_http://www/http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/elearninghttp://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/elearninghttp://www/http://www-jime.open.ac.uk/00/2

designing for inquiry-based learning with the lams

Documents