This document discusses using ePortfolios in a Masters course to cultivate learning design thinking. It describes how the course explored learning design models and technologies through enactment, evaluation, and reflection activities. Students designed an online learning intervention and reflected on the process in an ePortfolio. The course addressed the diverse backgrounds of students with varying educational theory and technology experience. Student performance and reflections showed how the iterative process supported developing learning design thinking. The course structure and assessments were adapted based on reflections to better address student diversity.

1. Cultivating Learning Design Thinking
with ePortfolios in a Masters course
Andrew Deacon & Cheryl Hodgkinson-Williams
Centre for Educational Technology,
University of Cape Town, South Africa
ICEL 2013
27 June 2013, Cape Town

2. Macro-level
questions
Meso-level
questions
Micro-level
questions
Learning Design
Education - Technology
Gap

3. Learning, Co
gnition and
Technology
ICTs in
Education:
Issues and
Debates
Educational
ICTs for
Developing
Context
Online
Learning
Design
Minor
Dissertation
& Advanced
Research
Design
1 2 3 4

5. Learning Design Thinking
A complex, iterative process
of problem-defining and problem-solving
of ill-defined learning needs
that requires a creative and analytic
approach through iterative prototyping
based on formative feedback

6. Types of Content
Analytic Synthetic
More concerned
with finding or
discovering
More concerned
with making and
inventing

7. Types of Process
Symbolic
Real
abstract, symbolic world
real world;
artefacts for managing
the physical
environment

8. Types of Thinking Processes
Owen (2007); Razzouk & Shute (2012)

9. Diverse Contexts
58 students, 2009 – 2012
Kenya 3
Mozambique 1
Cameroon 1
Namibia 3
Nigeria 7
Uganda 6
Zambia 3
Zimbabwe 8
Canada 1 Austria 2
Swaziland 1
South Africa 22

10. Home Languages
Afrikaans
4%
Eng & Afr
5%
English
52%
German
3%
Isixhosa
12%
Oshiwambo
2%
Other
3%
Shona
7%
Siswati
2% Unknown
10%

11. Higher Education
lecturer
Systems Engineer
E-Learning
Manager
Backgrounds
Educational NGO

12. Ubiquitous Tools Differ
Students using
technology
Personal
learning
environments
Supporting learning
environments
Technology for
teaching

13. Course Structure
Exploration
Learning
design models
& learning
technologies
Enactment
Design
authentic
learning
intervention
Evaluation
Evaluate
learning
intervention in
situ
Reflection
Create an
ePortfolio
justifying the
design choices

14. Course Design Thinking
• Content
– Contrasting learning design models to counter one-design-fits-all
– Investigated related technologies to illustrate educational affordances
• Teaching strategies
– Modelling & explaining learning design models through examples
– Teach-back sessions by students to present differing design models
– Explore diversity of perspectives in Jigsaw Group Work
• Assessment
– Design, develop & evaluate an authentic online learning activity
with cycles of formative assessment – peers and lecturers
– Develop an e-portfolio to document design choices
and reflect on learning process

15. Students’ Prior Experience
- Educational Theory
- Educational Technology
+ Educational Theory
- Educational Technology
- Educational Theory
+ Educational Technology
+ Educational Theory
+ Educational Technology
A B
C D

16. Our Naïve Assumptions
- Educational Theory
- Educational Technology
+ Educational Theory
- Educational Technology
- Educational Theory
+ Educational Technology
+ Educational Theory
+ Educational Technology
A B
C D
Technology
support
More on Education
context & Technology
Little support
required
Educational theory
support

17. How students performed
• Over 4 years
– 58 students
• ‘A’
– mean: 66%
• ‘B’, ‘C’ & ‘D’
– mean: 71% - 72%
• Only a few students
with no educational
theory or technology
experience were at
greater risk of struggling

18. A: Alice’s reflections
“I have learnt that that it is very important
to first understand the context of the
users, the problem to be addressed, the
affordance requirements of the task to be
prescribed as well as the underlying
principles and pedagogies in order to
effectively provide an intervention”

19. B: Bem’s reflections
“Sometimes I got confused and
wondered whether I was really on the
right track especially when it can to
certain sections of the e-portfolio and the
prototype WebQuest intervention”

20. C: Chris’ reflections
“I suspect that if and when I develop
more online activities, this might shift.
Hopefully this will mean activities that
are more creative than I have at present.
But in this online activity it was definitely
a case of using the known to venture into
the unknown”

21. D: Dina’s reflections
“The lecturer adjusts according to the
students’ ability, interest, time, need
and the extent to which he/she
intends to delve in the subject matter
and may not necessary follow any
systematic pattern”

22. Course Redesign Cycle
Exploration Enactment Evaluation Reflection
Course re-design for following year
Assessments &
own reflections
A B
C D
A B
C D
A B
C D
A B
C D

23. Conclusion
• Pedagogic strategies to surface learning design thinking
– Explore technology affordances
– Develop an authentic learning task
– Provide specific and iterative formative feedback,
e.g., for ePortfolios
• Diverse backgrounds
– Cannot assume prior qualifications equates to common
learning design thinking
– Adapt pedagogical strategies to be responsive to diversity
• Analytical frameworks to reflect on our own design
thinking, pedagogies and course design

24. References
• Dabbagh, N & Bannan-Ritland, B (2005) Online learning: Concepts, Strategies and
Application. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson.
• Engeström, Y. (2001) Expansive Learning at Work: toward an activity theoretical
reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133-156.
• Huei, C.J. (2012) Design thinking engineers. Innovation, 11(1), 42-47. [online]
www.innovationmagazine.com/innovation/volumes/v11n1/coverstory3.shtml
• Jonassen, D.H. (2000) Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 8(4), 63-85.
• Owen C. (2007) Design thinking: notes on its nature and use. Design Research
Quarterly, 2007(2):16–27.
• Peet, M., Lonn, S., Gurin, P., Page-Boyer, K., Matney, M., Marra, T., Himbeault-
Taylor, S. Daley, A. (2011). Fostering Integrative Knowledge through ePortfolios.
International Journal of ePortfolio, 1(1), 11-31.
• Razzouk, R. & Shute, V. (2012) What Is Design Thinking and Why Is It Important?
Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 330-348.
• The Design-Based Research Collective (2003). Design-based research: An emerging
paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5-8.