All entries for Tuesday 19 April 2005

Loosely coupled and lightweight learning designs patterns

Follow-up to Learning design patterns – keeping it simple from Transversality - Robert O'Toole

More reasons to support the gathering and sharing of simple, lightweight learning design patterns (just renamed the concept!). This follows a discussion with Rob Johnson about how best to document and communicate good practice in PDP learning design.

As previously described, a learning design pattern is a simple high level description of a type of learning and teaching activity. It lists the key interactions between those involved in the activity, transactions between them, the range of contingencies, and outcomes. It could be documented in a short text, or a simple diagram.

A single pattern should not describe activities at too many levels. For example, a pattern that describes activities at the curriculum level should not also describe activities at the seminar level (justification for this to follow).

Why we need patterns

Currently, discussions about improving teaching through applying technology tend not to be effectively focussed. They fall into three classes:

1. concerning vague notions about generic approaches that are for no apparent reason assumed to be good things to do, but which are too disconnected from actual teaching and outcomes to make a discernible difference;
2. concerning very specific new features and provisions that are not useable beyond the context for which they are developed, which develop few transferable skills outside of the context, and which add an additional support burden;
3. complex and expansive new systems and grand visions that involve the rapid adoption of many tightly coupled components.

If we encourage the focus of discussions to be on learning design patterns, followed up with suggestions and support for the appropriate application of technology to support the implementation of the patterns, then we should be able to:

• ensure that we are doing work that has definite and appropriate outcomes within the specific teaching and learning context;
• avoid the development of unsupportable and insufficiently re-useable services and features;
• apply as far as possible the available services and features to real situations, getting feedback on their suitability;
• share good practice in relation to tried and tested solutions;
• encourage more experimentation – people don't have to buy into large scale redevelopment to try out a small scale pattern – the paterns are loosely coupled.

More arguments for simplicity

As previously argued, simplicity and lack of contextual information is important. The principle is that the consumer of the pattern should be intelligent enough to apply it to their own situation, and not be distracted by the patterns origin and application in another context. It is also the case that pattern providers (lecturers) are more prepared to share a simple pattern, without having to be responsible for explaining the contextual detail (which they may not want to share for other reasons).

We can add to this the fact that, if the learning design pattern were to become a common currency for describing teaching techniques, then we need to encourage many people to start exchanging them. This exchange needs to happen both in formal contexts, but also informal contexts (chatting). It must therefore be easy, at least in the first instance, to share such a pattern quickly. Then the law of network effect may come into play, with it becoming advantageous for many connected people to talk in these terms.

: 19 Apr 2005 17:09 |  Tags: E-Learning Warwick University |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem