The case for deliberate design of the student learning experience

More than a century ago, the renowned educationist John Dewey writing on the role of education in society argued that “we never educate directly, but indirectly by means of the environment. Whether we permit chance environments to do the work, or whether we design environments for the purpose makes a great difference”, and furthermore, “any environment is a chance environment so far as its educative influence is concerned unless it has been deliberately regulated with reference to its educative effect” (Dewey, 1916, p. 41). Let me hasten to add here, that by “deliberately regulated”, Dewey—I do not think―was writing in support of direct instruction as an instructional strategy (Engelmann, 1980). I think he was writing instead, to highlight the importance of deliberate or intentional design of the sum total of activities in a learning environment for the education and acculturation of individuals in it. And for Dewey, the learning environment comprised everything—the formal curriculum as well as everything in and outside of it.

Conventional approaches to learning and instructional design have tended to suggest that the arrangement of learning and teaching activities in certain ways has the potential to lead to the achievement of particular types of outcomes (Bloom, 1984). While there may be a time and place for this approach as it can work well in certain contexts, and with particular types of subject matter, or skill development, it is arguable that this is a rather instrumental approach since it reduces learning to an equation of sorts, suggesting that learning achievement is the result of the arrangement of learning and teaching activities in certain ways. In fact—learning and cognition are very complex processes and their achievement requires a lot more than the arrangement, or stacking of learning strategies in particular ways (Costello et al., 2024).

What is required instead, is the design and development of authentic and productive learning experiences within which these learning activities are situated. Deployed in this manner, the learning, and the assessment activities are contextualized and situated within the learning context. And when this is the case, they are much harder―in fact, impossible to plagiarize or farm out to any artificial intelligence tool. Notable examples of such learning experiences include scenario and problem-based learning, and case-based reasoning. These are the real engines of education, and they have the potential to not only make learning more meaningful, but also effective, efficient, and engaging (Schank, & Cleary, 1995). Additionally, they underscore the point that learning and cognition are most effective and efficient when they are situated within the context of authentic and meaningful learning experiences (Brown et al., 1989; Collins et al., 1988).

The implications of this approach for the design of open and flexible learning educational experiences are significant. And as open and flexible learning expands across the education sector―especially following the COVID-19 pandemic, educational institutions need to rethink and reengineer not just their formal curriculum, but the entire educational experience of learners, as with the adoption of open and flexible learning, and the opportunities it affords, comes a variety of challenges. These challenges, caused by access to educational opportunities for a wider variety of learners, and different approaches to accreditation such as that which is possible with the accumulation of micro-credentials, include the lack of opportunities for students to meet and socialize with their peers in situ. And without the capacity for effective self-regulation of their educational experience, these challenges for many students can result in a sense of isolation, and eventual attrition from the study program.

In the article, Fostering a sense of belonging through online qualification events, Carol Edwards and Liz Hardie report on their experience with developing program level supports for the promotion of a sense of community and belonging in order to support retention, satisfaction and academic achievement. These researchers argue that fostering a sense of belonging and community requires the provision of a wider range of supports, including course-based activities—but more importantly program, faculty and institution wide supports. These supports may include opportunities and spaces for the formation of study groups for collaboration, as well as informal and impromptu socialization. Not only are such supports taken for granted on the conventional campus, they are too often completely neglected in the open and flexible learning environment, often on the assumption that it is the students’ responsibility to build their own learning communities. On the contrary—the authors of this article suggest that promoting and building a sense of community among students ought to be an institutional responsibility. And in a competitive educational environment, this seems like a sensible proposition for not only attracting new students, but retaining alumni.

This kind of initiative however, cannot be left to chance alone. As Dewey suggested, this needs to be a function of deliberate design. It is not going to happen unless suitable institutional enablers are in place for it to occur. In the article, Implementing distance learning design approaches: lessons from six impact narratives, researchers Tom Olney, Daphne Chang, and Lin Lin, offer an account of their effort in providing such support for a group of teachers from Chinese Open Universities in learning design and course creation. This article, based on practices developed and tested at the United Kingdom Open University, reports on the experience of a selection of participants in this professional development activity. A key observation from six narratives is that successful adoption and implementation of recommended strategies is contingent upon institutional enablers which include opportunities to put into practice lessons learned. Quite often this is probably due to mindsets at the senior management level, or a lack of institutional supports with learning experience design, and access to technology. For institution-wide impact, deliberate design needs to have appropriate policies and supports in place as well as the buy-in of everyone―from senior management to teaching staff.

At the course and program level, the idea of deliberate design also manifests itself in a whole variety of ways. In the article, Understanding self-regulated learning and learner performance in MOOCs, Hengtao Tang explores the function of self-regulation of learning in performance. In open and flexible learning contexts such as MOOCs, learners are expected to self-regulate their learning engagement. This expectation is justifiable to the extent that engagement with open and flexible learning should be less stringently orchestrated to allow for freedom and flexibility—after all, isn’t that what openness and flexibility should afford, or allow learners? Yes, but it does not necessarily follow that there is no room for structure, guidance and scaffolding in open and flexible learning environments, such as MOOCs. Surely, everyone is capable of self-regulation, some more than others, but how self-regulation works is important to understand, which is what this article has attempted to do. Its findings show that traces of self-regulation predict learners’ behavior and performance. Practical application of this finding has the potential to improve both, course-based, and institution-wide supports for learners.

Structure, guidance and scaffolding within the context of a course—however long or short, is a part of deliberate learning experience design. Not easily implemented in the online environment, the use of games has the potential to not only scaffold learning but enthuse and engage learners, especially if the subject matter is rather difficult, and not so appealing to some. In the article, Gamified online course design: A scoping review of the research, Chareen Snelson offers a scoping review of recently published literature (2013-2021), on gamified course design, covering key attributes of game design such as badges, leaderboards, activities, tools, frameworks, and user attributes.

Games are a lot like scenarios, cases, and problem situations. The more authentic they are, the more meaningful and motivating they are likely to be for learners and teachers. In educational contexts, they provide the scaffolding for the acts of learning and teaching. Without the context they provide, the learning and teaching transactions—as powerful they might be—can seem rather instrumental, but within the context of a scenario, case or a problem, they can be very effective and efficient. In the article, Effects of teaching strategies on students’ learning engagement and knowledge construction in asynchronous online learning, researchers Yang Wang, and Yating Zhang explore the effects on learners and learning engagement (i.e., questioning level and explaining level), of different types of teaching activities, namely contextual, organizational, task-driven, as well as reflective teaching strategies. The findings of this study suggest that task-driven teaching strategies promote students’ learning engagement and questioning level, while reflective teaching strategies promote students’ explaining level. These findings underscore the importance of task-engagement and reflective learning activities that are endemic to game design and problem-centered, scenario, and case-based learning.

Game, case, and problem-based learning are all deeply rooted in the epistemological principles of constructivism and situated cognition. They are based on the belief that learning is embedded in complex, realistic, and relevant contexts, in which negotiation of meaning and understanding, multiple perspectives, and multiple modes of representation are all an integral part. In the article, Exploring differences between students’ interactions, online presence, and cognitive presence, Larisa Olesova and Ayesha Sadaf explore the differences between students with high and low levels of engagement within case-based discussions, their perceptions of presence, and their actual cognitive presence. Findings of this study reveal that all participants rated teaching presence highly over social and cognitive presence, with students with low-interaction levels possessing a higher perception of teaching presence than high-interaction students. This suggests that learners with lower levels of interaction and engagement obviously need greater levels of instructional support, scaffolding and help with social presence.

The case for deliberate design of the student learning experience is strongest in nontraditional educational contexts, or situations with particular challenges. In the article, Learning at a distance: Recognizing remote tutoring as a career, Brad McLennan, Karen Peel, Patrick Danaher, and Elizabeth Burnett report on the challenges confronting one such context—geographically isolated students who rely for their education on Remote Education Tutors (RETs), also known as governess or govie in the Australian context. These are usually, young women who move in with the families they work for, and who are primarily responsible for the home schooling of the children in the family. The job requires no educational training, nor does it promise recognition of any sort towards a career path in teaching. So, without any training and/or qualifications at all in teaching, the RETs are pretty much left to their own devices for the education of the children under their charge. Yet, a great deal of thought and planning is required in the design of productive learning experiences for these children that are appropriately benchmarked against commonly accepted criteria and standards, and which are cognizant of the conditions and the context within which these children live.

In the article, Beyond borders: Telecollaboration for internationalization at home in tertiary education, researchers Hui-Chin Yeh, Grace Yue Qi, and Shih-hsien Yang offer an example of deliberate learning experience design within the context of another such challenge. The design challenge comprised the promotion of Internationalization at home (IaH) and intercultural communicative competence (ICC), through telecollaboration between a group of tertiary EFL (English as a Foreign Language) learners from Taiwan, and Chinese language learners from Australia and New Zealand. Data derived from both the students and the teachers reveal the development, not only of language skills, but cultural competence, and interpersonal relationships among participants. Importantly, the findings of this study reported substantial growth in ICC across cognitive, affective and behavioral dimensions.

The idea of deliberate design, is not especially novel. Every teacher is a designer. Before any teacher sets about to teach anyone anything, some thought goes into what is it that will be taught and to whom, how it will be taught, and when (Shulman, 1986). So then, every teaching activity sits on a continuum of minimal to optimal design. Design is foremost, a scientific process, and there are many robust approaches for prosecuting this design process. Widely known among these are the ADDIE (Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation and Evaluation) process (Dick, 2009). Although, one can go through the steps in this process and still fail to develop a motivating, efficient, and engaging learning experience, because design is also, and very much so a creative process. Great teaching is the product of great designs, and great designs are the product of synergies derived from a deep understanding of the subject matter, its pedagogy and the technology that will help communicate it (see Mishra, & Koehler, 2006). Weakness in any one of these areas will render your teaching, and learning experience design to the lower end of the design continuum, where you do not want to be!