Exploring Design Thinking using ‘Learning Designer’

My experience of using the design tool Learning Designer (Dimakopoulos, 2019), an ‘open access authoring tool’ supporting the representation of learning activities (Zalavra & Papanikolaou, 2019) was both helpful and challenging. As Bower (2017) points out, for learning designs to be shared there must be a means by which they can be described. Learning Designer provides such a means and further to that a platform for the storage and sharing of such designs.

Fig 1 - The main interface of Learning Designer

For the purpose of exploring the functions of Learning Designer I decided to map out a lesson on managing and protecting landscapes that I recently prepared and taught to a Year 7 Geography class. This was not an uncomplicated process as the tool’s main interface (Fig 1) has several input boxes as selection possibilities that took time to become familiar with. However, I found that the strength of the interface was in the way it facilitated the sequencing of activities in my lesson. Indeed, the tool allowed for a substantial consideration of the components involved in each activity at a granular level, focusing on areas such as aims, learning outcomes, curriculum topics as well as teaching and learning activities (Laurillard, Kennedy, Charlton, Wild, & Dimakopoulos 2018). The tool also had a feature that organised the content into a linear summary of the lesson, a feature that made the design ‘lesson- ready’ and easier to share with colleagues (Fig 2).

Fig 2 - Learning Designer's Lesson Summary 

A feature I found to be of great value was the ‘analysis tool’ that provided a range of  visualisation of the design. One chart represented the proportions of the different learning types used (Fig 3) in the teaching and learning activities. As expressed by Zalavra & Papanikolaou (2019) this was extremely helpful as it allowed for the consideration my lesson from a range of perspectives such as the social and collaborative dimensions. Another chart (Fig 4) provided a representation of the amount of time spent on each activity and stimulated reflection from the point of view of student and correction where necessary.

Fig 3 - Pie -Chart showing summary of lesson features.

While providing a helpful support in structuring the teaching and learning activities for my lesson, my experience with using the tool did highlight some limitations. The lack of collaboration features for example, made it difficult for me to share the lesson design with colleagues and acquire their feedback. Also, while I have not yet taught the lesson after mapping it using Learning Designer, there are no features that allow for the enacting of the design with my students. This was noted by Karga & Satratzemi (2019) who pointed out that teachers could well be burdened with the extra effort of deploying their Learning Designs using a learning management system such as Moodle.

Fig 4 Visualisation of time spent on activites

In review, my experience with Learning Designer was more positive than challenging. The challenges were only short term issues like difficulty in learning to use the tool and frustrating peripheral limitations on collaboration and ease of deployment. The positives could well be seen in the long term with the facilitation of more considered lesson design and reflection.

References

Bower, M. (2017). Design of Technology-Enhanced Learning: Integrating Research and Practice. Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing.

Dimakopoulos, D. (2019). Learning Designer. Retrieved 23 September 2019, from https://www.ucl.ac.uk/learning-designer/index.php

Karga S., Satratzemi M., (2019). Evaluating Teachers’ Perceptions of Learning Design Recommender Systems. In: Scheffel M., Broisin J., Pammer-Schindler V., Ioannou A., Schneider J. (eds) Transforming Learning with Meaningful Technologies. EC-TEL 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 11722. Springer, Cham

Laurillard, D., Kennedy, E., Charlton, P., Wild, J., & Dimakopoulos, D. (2018). Using technology to develop teachers as designers of TEL: Evaluating the learning designer. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(6), 1044-1058. DOI: 10.1111/bjet.12697

Zalavra, E., Papanikolaou, K., (2019). Exploring the Potential of the Learning Designer as a Teacher Support Tool. The Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 17(2), pp. 107-117. DOI: 10.34190/JEL.17.2.04

The Affordances of MindMeister

In education, the term ‘affordance’ has several meanings but generally relates to the potentials of technologies (Hartson, 2003). For the sake of discussion and analysis, Bower (2017) defines an affordance as an ‘action potential’ that can determine how an object such as a technology can be used. Reflecting on the ‘action potentials’ of for example, a web-based ‘mindmap’ creation tool such as the website ‘Mindmeister’ can be a worthwhile activity. Indeed, a consideration of the site’s affordances can be of great value to an educator in understanding how to best utilise them when seeking to achieve a desired outcome (Bower 2017).   

 Figure 1: The Mind Meister Control Menu. Retrieved from http://www.mindmeister.com

When considering the affordances of Mindmeister, Bower’s (2008) conceptualisation framework will provide a solid starting point. Bower, for example refers to affordances as ‘abilities’, considering the option to read, write draw and produce video as ‘media affordances’ and the ability to resize and move content ‘spatial affordances’.  In these areas Mindmiester offers many options. Text can be entered and formatted along with audio and visual content. The user has essentially a limitless canvas on which to construct and resize their mindmap, with an option to use a pre-set template if desired. Content can be moved around with ease. Functionally, these options mean that Mindmiester would be a very useful tool for visualising large amounts of content and demonstrating links between various ideas. However, there are no options for audio-visual capture meaning that all content used must be pre-prepared. Mindmiester would not be a suitable tool for content creation.

           

 Figure 2: The Mind Meister Work Canvas and Control Menu. Retrieved from http://www.mindmeister.com

 Figure 3: The Mind Meister Template Selection Menu. Retrieved from http://www.mindmeister.com

Within his framework, Bower (2008) also categorises the degree of access, ability to record and playback content and option to interact synchronously as ‘spatial affordances’ and the ability to highlight content and indicate focus ‘emphasis affordances’. Mindmeister is arguably strong in these domains, making it perhaps an ideal tool for group collaboration and presentation in Project Based Learning. Indeed, content can be shared with multiple users who can collaborate in real time, accessing the site in any context with internet access, via a computer or mobile device using an app. A ‘history’ feature allows the user to track changes and there is a function that allows for the recording of a linear presentation that sequentially emphasises different areas of the mindmap allowing the user to give emphasis particular areas of content.

 Figure 4: The Mind Meister Presentation Toolbar. Retrieved from http://www.mindmeister.com

In the Bower’s category of ‘Navigational Affordances’ however, Mindmiester is arguably weak making it an inappropriate tool for research and gathering information. While users have some ability to search for and access images and video from the web, this function is confined with limited options. The site has no function for browsing web pages or manipulating data. Indeed Mindmeister would not be a suitable tool for research based activities including locating and gathering information.   

Bower, M. (2008). Affordance analysis: Matching learning tasks with learning technologies. Educational Media International, 45 (1), 3 -15.

Bower, M. (2017). Design of technology-enhanced learning: Integrating research and practice. Bingley: Emerald Publishing. p.65-92

Hartson, H. R. (2003). Cognitive, physical, sensory, and functional affordances in interaction design. Behaviour and Information Technology, 22 (5), 315 - 338.

Thinking Pedagogically about GoSoapBox

 The GoSoapBox logo at https://www.gosoapbox.com/

GoSoapBox (GSB) is Student Response Systems (SRS) that was launched in 2012 and has grown in popularity within and across primary, secondary and tertiary educational contexts. While SRSs traditionally take the form of a system of wireless handheld devices that allow students to answer questions in real time (Méndez-Coca & Slisko, 2013), GoSoapBox provides the same functionality in a web-based form. Its features include multiple-choice polls, open-ended discussion questions and social chat, allowing students to pose questions as well as start and engage in discussion (Carroll, Sankupellay, Rodgers, Newcomb, Cook, 2018). A particularly useful feature is a ‘barometer’ that aids the teacher in gauging the perceived level of understanding a class has in relation to content being discussed.

                                               The 'Confusion Barometer at GoSoapBox

As an SRS, GSB is grounded in the Social Constructivist pedagogical perspective that emphasises the importance of social and cultural elements in learning (Bower, 2017). According to this perspective, knowledge is constructed socially with cultural context playing a key role in its interpretation (Hung, 2001). GSB’s value is perhaps best assessed when it is considered in relation to the elements of Bandura’s (1977) Social Learning Theory. Arguing that humans develop knowledge by observing and interacting with others, Bandura proposed that learning occurs across a series of four processes: attentional, retentional, motor production and motivational.

                                                 An 'event' menu at GoSoapBox

Attentional Processes

Bandura (1977) argued that learners are more likely to be attentive to behaviours that are desirable and that they will most likely be required to imitate. GSB provides ‘vote up’ system where preference can be given to comments that are considered the most helpful. A teacher can take advantage of this immediate feedback in a live forum to shape the nature of their content and interaction (Carroll et al, 2018). 

 Retentional Processes

Retentional processes provide opportunities for behaviour to be viewed and rehearsed before it is performed (Carroll et al, 2018). As GSB is constructed in a written form, students have the chance to review and edit their contribution before publishing it. They can also read and consider ideas shared and discussed by their peers.

Motor Processes

Motor processes relate to the decisions learners make about when and how to participate in learning activities (Carroll et al, 2018). In its favour, GSB has a feature that allows for anonymous participation. However, all comments are viewed by the entire class and are open to criticism that can be both constructive and deconstructive. Teacher moderation is required to ensure a positive learning environment is maintained.

Motivational Processes

SLT posits that learners are motivated the most to model behaviour that leads to pleasing results (Carroll et al, 2018). GSB provide students with the ability to ask questions within traditionally silent lecture style context in a safe and regulated way.  

References

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. New York, NY: General Learning Press.

Bower, M. (2017). Design of technology-enhanced learning: Integrating research and practice. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com

Carroll, J., Sankupellay, M., Rodgers, J., Newcomb, M., & Cook, R. (2018). GoSoapBox in public health tertiary education: A student response system for improving learning experiences and outcomes.  Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 34(5), 58-71.

Hung, D. (2001). Theories of learning and computer-mediated instructional technologies. Educational Media International, 38(4), 281 – 287.

Méndez-Coca, D., & Slisko, J. (2013). Software Socrative and smartphones as tools for implementation of basic processes of active physics learning in classroom: An initial feasibility study with prospective teachers. European Journal of Physics Education, 4(2), 17-24. Retrieved from http://dergipark.gov.tr/download/article-file/62733