Representing practice: practice models, patterns, bundles …

Abstract

This article critiques learning design as a representation for sharing and developing practice, based on synthesis of three projects. Starting with the findings of the Mod4L Models of Practice project, it argues that the technical origins of learning design, and the consequent focus on structure and sequence, limit its usefulness for sharing practice between teachers. It compares practice models with two alternative, more flexible, representations, patterns and bundles, based on the outcomes of the Pattern Language Network (Planet) project and of the Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning: Active Learning in Computing (CETL ALiC). It concludes that while practice models may be useful in mediating between teachers and technical developers, they cannot encompass the range of practice teachers require to represent. A pattern language is more comprehensive and has the advantage of being generative, but is difficult for teachers to acquire, and bundles may provide a more adoptable representation.

Keywords:

• learning design
• practice models
• patterns
• bundles
• representations
• teaching practice

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the funders and teams involved in the projects discussed in this article: Mod4L, funded by the UK Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC), co‐directed by Allison Littlejohn and Isobel Falconer, with Helen Beetham, Lori Lockyer and Ron Oliver; Planet, funded by the UK JISC, directed by Janet Finlay, with Jim Hensman, John Gray, Yishay Mor, Stephen Warburton, Isobel Falconer, Jakki Sheridan‐Ross and Andrea Gorra; CETL ALiC funded by HEFCE, led by Liz Burd, with Janet Finlay, Roger Boyle, John Gray, Gill Harrison, Jakki Sheridan‐Ross, Andrea Gorra, Royce Neagle, Janet Lavery, Andy Hatch, Phyo Kyaw, Marie Devlin involved in the representation activity. Sally Fincher provided support in the adaptation of the EPCoS bundle form.

Notes

1. In this article we follow emergent convention in distinguishing between ‘learning designs’ (lower case ‘l’ and ‘d’) as defined above, and Learning Designs which are a specific representation of learning design conforming to the IMS LD specification.