Distance Education

Vol. 30, No. 2, August 2009, 179–199

Approaches to learning design: past the head and the hands to the
HEART of the matter
Claire Donalda*, Adam Blakea, Isabelle Giraultb, Ashwini Datta and
Elizabeth Ramsaya
aeLearning Design and Development Group, Centre for Academic Development, University of
Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand; bUniversity of Grenoble – LIG –
MeTAH Team (models and technologies for human learning), 46 avenue Felix-Viallet, 38031
Grenoble, France
(Received 30 October 2008; final version received 16 February 2009)
Taylor and Francis
CDIE_A_402491.sgm

Distance
10.1080/01587910903023181
0158-7919
Original
Open
202009
30
c.donald@auckland.ac.nz
ClaireDonald
00000August
andArticle
Education
Distance
(print)/1475-0198
2009Learning Association
(online) of Australia Inc.

Digital technologies have been used increasingly in open, distance, and flexible
learning to both facilitate learning and depict learning designs. While the portable
nature of a learning design once captured in digital form appears to offer limitless
possibilities for sharing and reuse, dissemination initiatives have failed to thrive.
This may be due in part to a view of learning design as a product rather than as a
contextualised process driven by individual pedagogical beliefs. We have
developed a support strategy for the learning design process, called HEART
(HEaring And Realising Teaching-voice). HEART aims to enhance educators’
learning design awareness and capability by eliciting and depicting the
pedagogical beliefs underpinning a course or learning design. We describe the
conceptual framework for the HEART strategy, design and development of a
prototype, early results of the first trial with a small user group, and implications
for future research.
Keywords: learning design; pedagogical dimensions; teacher beliefs;
visualisation; reusability

1. Introduction
Over the past 15 years, open, distance, and flexible learning has increasingly utilised
technology-supported teaching, learning (e-learning), and assessment, leading to
significant investment in developing learning technologies, systems, and resources.
Associated developments in learning design research seek ways to support the reuse
and sharing of high quality learning designs created by teachers and learning design-
ers. With the limited uptake and sharing of learning designs ‘not invented here’ (Philip
& Cameron, 2008) researchers’ attention has turned to finding effective means to
portray and communicate the pedagogical frameworks and relevant contextual infor-
mation to support this reuse (Bennett et al., 2007; Philip & Cameron, 2008).
In parallel with these international trends, our research has focused on developing
a learning design support strategy called HEART (HEaring And Realising Teaching-
voice). Our support strategy aims to draw together two powerful drivers of effective
learning: the external world of teaching practice in the learning context, and the

*Corresponding author. Email: c.donald@auckland.ac.nz

ISSN 0158-7919 print/ISSN 1475-0198 online

© 2009 Open and Distance Learning Association of Australia, Inc.
DOI: 10.1080/01587910903023181
http://www.informaworld.com
180 C. Donald et al.

inner world of teachers’ and learning designers’ underlying educational beliefs

(referred to collectively as belief/practice dimensions later in this article). Several
researchers report the challenges of incorporating these complex and multidimen-
sional external and internal drivers in the sharing and reuse of learning designs
(Boyle, 2006; Dalziel, 2008; Philip & Cameron, 2008).
The term learning design is variously defined by different authors as (a) the
process of, and for, designing learning experiences, and (b) the product, or outcome,
of the design process (Agostinho, 2008). Learning design-as-process is what teachers
and learning designers do, while learning design-as-product is what they produce as
the outcome of this process (Masterman, 2009). To capture this dual meaning, we
define learning design as follows:

A learning design (product) documents and describes a learning activity in such a way
that other teachers can understand it and use it (in some way) in their own context.
Typically a learning design includes descriptions of learning tasks, resources and supports
provided by the teacher. Learning design is also the process by which teachers design for
learning, when they devise a plan, design or structure for a learning activity. (adapted from
Beetham & Sharpe, 2007, p. 7; Conole, 2008, p. 201; Masterman, 2008, p. 211)

The HEART support strategy does not seek to depict the learning activities,
resources, or supports that constitute a learning design (product). Rather, HEART is a
process to help teachers and designers select and work with existing learning designs,
by helping them reflect on and articulate the educational beliefs underlying their own
and others’ teaching and learning design practice. The HEART strategy involves
using a questionnaire, a visualisation tool, and facilitated face-to-face and online
discussion. This strategy is based on the assumption that an ability to articulate,
defend, or modify one’s pedagogical standpoint is fundamental to success in adapting
one’s work to different environments and working in the teams that so often collabo-
rate in open, flexible, and distance learning contexts.
In recognition of the way teachers function as learning designers when creating
courses and learning activities, and learning designers take an indirect teaching role in
design projects, we have adopted the term teacher-designers (Goodyear & Yang,
2009, p. 176) for users of the HEART strategy.
Our work challenges the common assumption that to facilitate reuse in different
contexts, designs must describe learning activities or depict key attributes using a
systematic form of notation. While not dismissing the potential value of consistent
categorisation, our premise is that teacher-designers who develop conscious aware-
ness of how their beliefs about teaching and learning influence their solution to a
learning design challenge will be better prepared to consider what existing learning
designs might be employed or repurposed to solve that challenge.
In Sections 2 and 3 of this article we describe the theoretical basis for our research.
Section 4 describes the HEART strategy, and Section 5, our research approach, ques-
tions, and methods. Section 6 outlines the results of the first trial of HEART. Plans for
further research are outlined in the conclusion of the article.

2. Teachers’ educational beliefs and their teaching practice

We must find an approach to teaching that respects the diversity of teachers and subjects,
which methodological reductionism fails to do. (Palmer, 2007, p. 12)
 Distance Education 181

In conducting our research we have taken a great deal of guidance from the writing of
Parker Palmer (2007). Much of Palmer’s writing on teaching as a vocation is based on
the premise that ‘good teaching comes from the identity and integrity of the teacher’
(p. 10), or the ‘inner terrain’ (p. 6) of the teacher’s world. We see woven into this
notion of the teacher’s identity and integrity, the range of tacit beliefs, personal theo-
ries, intuition, attitudes, values, and assumptions: the heart of a teacher’s experience.
In the professional practice of teachers and learning designers, the heart is seldom
glimpsed, but it is a powerful driving force.
In our collaborations with teachers and other learning designers, we observe a rich
diversity of approaches to teaching, to learning design, and the use of learning tech-
nologies. Similarly, Bain and McNaught (2006), in interviews with academics
involved in 22 technology-based learning development projects, noted the variety of
teaching approaches and underpinning educational and epistemological beliefs they
encountered. These tacit assumptions and beliefs about the learning process are
seldom discussed.
The impact of teachers’ educational beliefs on their practice is well documented,
and supported by extensive research evidence (see reviews by Ertmer, 2005;
Pajares, 1992). Pratt (1997) has suggested, ‘Our beliefs about knowledge determine
what we will teach and what we will accept as evidence that people have learned’
(p. 21).
With reference to teaching innovation, technology-supported teaching, and flexible
learning, several authors have observed how teachers’ beliefs govern their ideas and
decisions about what is possible, relevant, and achievable (Combs, 1982; Errington,
2004; Ertmer, 2005; Haigh, 1998). Ertmer (2005) has cited substantial evidence to
suggest that if the use of educational technologies is considered to be teaching
innovation, then teachers’ beliefs significantly influence whether and how these tech-
nologies are used.
If we are to develop, share, and reuse learning designs effectively, we need to
be able to identify, articulate, and discuss the beliefs that underpin the learning
designs that we use. Such discussion can be strengthened significantly when we
also continually reflect on the theories that underpin our teaching and design prac-
tice and the learning designs that we use (Conole, Dyke, Oliver, & Seale, 2004;
Mayes & de Freitas, 2007). Barker (2000) has encouraged us as teachers to use
learning theories either to inform our daily practice, or in hindsight, to justify it.
Other researchers have acknowledged the importance of providing support for
teacher-designers to reflect on learning theory and their own practice (Sharpe &
Oliver, 2007), and the dearth of strategies to support the learning design process
(Wills & McDougall, 2009).
For most teachers, planning teaching strategies, interacting with students, and
generating content are all part of a seamless whole (Oliver, 2002). In a study of
academics’ descriptions of their practice, Oliver (2002) reported how course
creation involved a complex interplay between a myriad of factors related to the
nature of the discipline, departmental issues, student interest, curriculum structures,
comparisons with other institutions, and resources to be used. Academics viewed
the curriculum itself as being a multilayered entity of syllabus and content, with
attitudes, beliefs, and departmental style beneath, each layer in dynamic interaction
when engaging with students. Treating any of these separately grossly oversimpli-
fies the complex array of factors that impact academics’ everyday course design and
teaching practice.
182 C. Donald et al.

3. Learning design and teaching voice

An array of projects and initiatives to support the reuse of quality digital learning
designs has accompanied the increasing use of educational technologies. Low levels
of reuse, however (e.g., see Carey & Hanley, 2008; Dalziel, 2008), may be due, in
part, to a view of learning design as a product rather than as a contextualised process
driven by individual pedagogical beliefs.

Technical solutions: viewing learning design as a product

Access, interoperability, and notational formats for learning design repositories have
formed the predominant focus in seeking to achieve sharing and reuse of digital
resources for enhancing learning (Bennett et al., 2007). However, there is acknowl-
edgement that this focus on ‘technical and supply-side issues’ (Bennett et al., 2009,
p. 610) neglects user needs and contexts of use. It is perhaps unsurprising then that
despite substantial investment in tools for sharing and reuse of learning activities, little
headway appears to have been made in enhancing educational practice (Falconer &
Littlejohn, 2009). Nevertheless, the central concern for most researchers – as
evidenced by the majority of the chapters in a very recent compendium of research in
the field (Lockyer, Bennett, Agostinho, & Harper, 2009) – remains the representation,
storage, and accessibility of learning designs.
It appears that most researchers in the field may be employing a ‘conduit’
(Griffiths & Garcia, 2003) or ‘transmission’ (Wills & McDougall, 2008) conception
in approaching e-learning and reuse of learning materials. As such, no barriers are seen
to successfully transmitting a learning resource from one environment or user to
another. Such a ‘cut and paste’ approach to teaching (Wills & McDougall, 2009,
p. 766) proceeds on the premise that a resource exists independently, rather than being
‘constituted by its use’ (Griffiths & Garcia, 2003, ‘Abstraction of Learning Resources’
section). In terms of the definitions of learning design described above, there appears
to be a strong identification with learning designs as discrete products, able to be
unplugged, stored, selected, and plugged in again within a different teaching and learn-
ing context. A recent trend has been to add pedagogical commentaries to the learning
resources stored in digital repositories (Carey & Hanley, 2008; Dalziel, 2008; Philip
& Cameron, 2008) in order to better enable users to determine the adaptation required
for their own context. While helpful, this can be seen as enhancing the product label-
ling without challenging the underpinning design-as-product metaphor. We share the
views of Falconer and Littlejohn (2009) that this metaphor is fundamentally flawed:

We would argue that the current metaphor of learning design is ill-equipped … The
metaphor is of design as a product … Even the components [of a design] are seen not to
have constant, specifiable properties when we consider that the meaning attached to them
varies from individual to individual according to their pre-existing conceptual frame-
work. (p. 29)

The teacher-designer and the process of learning design

There is a thread running through the research literature on reusing learning designs
that can be glimpsed occasionally through the dense weave of writing on design and
repository specifications. In this thread we can discern the human factors that may
explain the broad lack of reuse of digital learning designs. While the digital nature of
 Distance Education 183

the technology underpinning e-learning creation offers enormous potential for reuse if
one views learning design as a product, this tends to ignore the human process of
learning design as a means of serving teacher and learner needs in context. Whether a
teacher is seeking to implement an existing learning design or create an entirely new
one, either individually or as part of a project team, ‘[d]esigning a learning experience
involves creativity and rationality, but also deep understanding of human beings, of
their cognitive and emotional processes’ (Garzotto & Retalis, 2009, p. 135). Those
who engage in learning design must engage with the complexities of the ill-structured
knowledge domain that each individual teaching and learning context presents.
An ill-structured knowledge domain has been defined as one in which ‘individual
cases of knowledge application are typically multidimensional and there is consider-
able variability in structure and content across cases of the same nominal type’
[emphasis added] (Spiro, Feltovich, & Coulson, 1996, p. 51). The process of learning
design is classically ill-structured. Yet, as Spiro et al. (1996) have noted, learning and
problem-solving in ill-structured domains is commonly constrained by ‘a reductive
world-view … an inappropriate lessening or oversimplification of complexity’ (p. 52).
In our view, the design-as-product metaphor oversimplifies learning design practice
and the sound dissemination of learning designs. Design for learning may benefit from
systematic procedures, but it is ‘pervaded by intuition [and] tacit knowledge’ and is ‘a
creative activity that cannot be fully reduced to standard steps’ (Winograd, as cited in
Masterman, 2009, p. 211).
This view of design for learning is borne out by research. Interviews with
academic staff indicate that ‘rational, structured curriculum design processes’ are
rarely used (Oliver, 2002, p. 10). Rather, teacher-designers engage in the ‘real, messy
process of design’ (Conole, 2008, p. 203) in which their personal values and beliefs
about teaching, their discipline, and their students’ needs hold central place (Pajares,
1992). Harley’s research (2008) into academics’ attitudes to the use of digital
resources, confirms this: ‘The degree to which personal teaching style and philosophy
influences resource use was striking’ (p. 201). Further, Harley found that more than
70% of faculty members maintain their own personal collections of digital resources,
and like to easily break apart, rebuild, and integrate items into their teaching practice.
Philip and Cameron (2008) facilitated sharing and reuse of learning designs
amongst preservice teachers and their tutors over a two-year period. From their moni-
toring and analysis of user behaviour, the researchers derived six key enablers to
reuse and sharing. Only one of these related to the way a learning design was repre-
sented within a digital repository. All of the others related to the process of teachers’
learning design practice, including collaboratively documenting and reflecting on
pedagogical designs, engaging in iterative critique and evaluation of learning designs
as they are developed, and facilitating a collegial and supportive environment to
support collaboration and critique.
It is our view then that the internal beliefs of teachers about teaching and learning
in their own context exert a powerful influence over the way they create or reuse learn-
ing designs. However, in the field of dissemination of learning designs, the elicitation
of these beliefs remains largely unexamined in research and unsupported in practice.

Teaching beliefs and learning design: the notion of teaching voice

Knowledge systems are open to evaluation and critical examination; beliefs are not …
And yet, for all their idiosyncrasies … beliefs are far more influential than knowledge in
184 C. Donald et al.

determining how individuals organize and define tasks and problems and are stronger
predictors of behavior. (Pajares, 1992, p. 311)

We have described opposing conceptions of learning design: a conduit/transmission/

design-as-product approach vs. an ill-structured/belief-driven/design-as-process
approach. These conceptions find parallels in research into the role of epistemology
(beliefs about knowledge and what it means to know) and its impact on teaching and
learning.
Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, and Tarule (1986) developed an epistemological
framework with a continuum for intellectual development based on Perry’s scheme
(Hill, 2000, 2004; Hofer, 2001; Hofer & Pintrich, 1997) using the metaphor of
‘voice’ (see Hofer & Pintrich, 1997, p. 95). This continuum proceeds from ‘silence’
– ‘a passive, voiceless existence listening solely to external authority’ (Hofer &
Pintrich, 1997, p. 95) – through to ‘constructed knowledge’ (knowledge and truth are
contextual and the individual constructs knowledge based upon her own frame of
reference).
We have already noted the nature of learning design as a complex, contextualised
process; an ‘ill-structured domain’ (Spiro et al., 1996). Kitchener (as cited in Hofer,
2001) proposed three levels of progressively higher thinking: cognition, metacogni-
tion, and epistemic cognition. Each builds on the level(s) below, and epistemic
cognition is crucial for solving problems in ill-structured domains. ‘Yet the evidence
gathered to date suggests that most individuals do not achieve a level of epistemo-
logical understanding that makes possible genuine critical thinking … or a level of
reflective judgment essential to the solving of ill-structured problems’ (Hofer, 2001,
p. 365). In terms of the framework of Belenky et al. (1986), such individuals are not
able to give voice to their own frame of reference in order to solve problems in their
own context.
Educational design, a term favoured by Goodyear (2005) and Goodyear and Yang
(2008), has been conceptualised as comprising four levels: pedagogical philosophy,
high-level pedagogy, pedagogical strategy, and pedagogical tactics (Goodyear, 2005).
The pedagogical philosophy contains the beliefs about epistemology and teaching and
learning that powerfully influence the practice of teacher-designers. Pedagogical
tactics are what the teacher-designer actually uses when implementing a learning
design, but the middle ground of educational design is ‘the difficult territory in which
philosophy and pedagogical tactics have to be aligned’ (Goodyear, 2005, p. 85). This
is where belief and practice converge, or where pedagogical beliefs find voice as
pedagogical practice. It is this confluence of belief and practice that we have termed
teaching voice.

Helping teacher-designers discern their teaching voice

In the context of the ill-structured domain of learning design, teacher-designers need
support in learning ‘how to judge, that is, how to think in context, weigh alternatives,
and seek adequate solutions on the basis of evidence’ (Hill, 2004, p. 31). Rather than
placing faith in the external authority of learning design representations and reposito-
ries, and acting as passive consumers of others’ pedagogical products, ‘practitioners
should be encouraged to interrogate and engage with their own understanding in order
to externalize and make explicit the “knowing how”, so that it can be shared and learnt
from’ (Sharpe & Oliver, 2007, p. 122).
 Distance Education 185

It appears then that supporting learning design-as-process in an individualised and

reflective yet collaborative and collegial manner promises to empower the individual
teacher-designer to understand his or her own teaching perspectives and context and
to design for learning accordingly. However, teacher-designers working in higher
education are frequently employed for their research abilities rather than their teach-
ing skills or pedagogical understanding, and may have little inclination or ability to
engage in the pedagogical reflection required. ‘University teachers do not typically
have such tools and sensibilities … Nor is there a community of university teachers
with a common pedagogical language or shared set of robust pedagogical constructs’
(Goodyear & Yang, 2009, pp. 173–174).
There is a need for support strategies and tools to help teacher-designers discover
and reflect upon the pedagogical beliefs and practice that form their teaching voice.
As learning designers (and academic developers) we have a key role to play in devel-
oping such strategies and facilitating their use (Sharpe & Oliver, 2007). Hill (2000,
2004) has described the use of a community of inquiry approach to help teachers deal
with pedagogical complexity. Bain and McNaught (2006) have recommended that
research-led staff development be provided, recognising the importance of teacher-
designers reflecting on their educational beliefs and teaching practice in relation to
how learning technologies may enhance student learning.
It is against this background that we have developed the HEART strategy.

4. Description of the HEART learning design support strategy

The HEART strategy has three principal components: a questionnaire, a visualisation
tool, and support for face-to-face and online discussion between teachers, learning
designers, and other members of course or learning design teams, as depicted in
Figure 1.
The strategy may be used in parallel with a learning design representation, such
Figure 1. Principal components of HEART.

as a lesson plan, case study, pattern language, or other visual representation. The
arrows in Figure 1 illustrate the sequence in which we have used the strategy so far,
working individually with a small number of learning designers and university
teachers.

The questionnaire
First: Teacher-designers complete the HEART questionnaire addressing their educa-
tional beliefs and practice in relation to a particular learning activity, course, or
project. The learning activity or course itself, with all artefacts, examples, and related
documentation and data, are demonstrated and described during this first step, so that
all those attending the session are fully informed about the details of the course (or
learning activity), its content, and its context. The derivation and construction of the
questionnaire is described in Section 5. In our research so far, the questionnaire has
been completed in a meeting situation similar to what would occur during a typical
project meeting (further possible audiences and contexts of use are listed in Table 1).

The visualisation tool

Second: The teacher-designers see their responses to the questionnaire in a diagram,
using an online visualisation tool. The diagram depicts how the teacher-designers
186 C. Donald et al.

Figure 1. Principal components of HEART.

rated their educational beliefs and practice in relation to the particular learning activity
or project under discussion. The teacher-designers can change their responses to the
questionnaire if necessary and regenerate the diagram as many times as required. Note
that the diagram does not illustrate or represent the learning design itself, but the peda-
gogical belief/practice dimensions that underpin the design. This is similar to the
process of ‘convergent participation’ (Nesbit & Leacock, 2009) where groups review
learning objects in teams. The goal of this process is not for the group to agree on one
rating, but ‘to increase each participant’s understanding of the reasoning that underlies
their judgment about a particular feature’ (Nesbit & Leacock, 2009, p. 581).

Discussion and reflection

Third: Teacher-designers discuss and reflect on the diagram and questionnaire state-
ments. The diagram, and the responses to the questionnaire, are recorded for further
reflection, development, evaluation, or research purposes. In future, we intend
to broaden access to the HEART strategy by facilitating the discussion, decisions,
 Distance Education 187

Table 1. Audience and contexts of use of the HEART strategy.

Audience
Project development team (e.g., learning
designer, academic, Web developer,
graphic designer).
Learning designers (individuals or
groups), either dispersed across
institutions, or in one department or
institution.
Teachers, lecturers, tutors working
independently with learning
technologies (e.g., LMSs, Web 2
technologies, or their own Web sites).
Context of use
1. Project development process, either at the early
stages of project scoping or at completion of the
first version.
2. Evaluations of the project (at whichever stage
they occur).
3. Debriefs of first implementations of a learning
design.
4. Preparation of a second phase of development
of a project.
5. When responding to a request for advice and
reviewing a range of existing learning designs
for possible adaptation and repurposing.
6. Reflective practice: learning designers reflect
on their own learning designs at a number of
different stages of the development process.
7. Review of a range of existing learning designs
or completed resources for possible adaptation
and customising.
8. Reflect on own lesson planning or course design.

planning, or reflection generated during this process in either private or collaborative

discussion areas online.
A Web-based prototype of the questionnaire, visualisation tool, and discussion
spaces is being developed.

Audience and contexts of use

As already discussed, the learning design process is complex, varied (Oliver, 2002),
and ‘messy’ (Conole, 2008). Our support strategy is intended to accommodate this
complexity and diversity by being used in a variety of ways to support a collaborative
process which a group of learning designers or teachers would undertake to share or
repurpose learning designs, but could also be used by teacher-designers working
alone. As listed in Table 1, our strategy caters for three main audience types, who may
use the strategy at various stages of a course design or learning design process, or
while teaching a course or implementing a learning design.
Our early trials of the strategy, reported in this article, involved using the HEART
strategy as described in points 6 and 8 in Table 1, that is, to support reflection by
learning designers on their own learning designs (at early and late stages of design and
implementation) and to support teachers’ reflections on their own course at an early
stage of the course creation.

5. Research approach and methods

Research goal and research approach
Our research goal is to determine how the pedagogical beliefs and practice dimensions,
that is, ‘belief/practice dimensions’ (Bain & McNaught, 2006) of learning designs can
188 C. Donald et al.

be discerned, articulated, and represented to support the development, review, and

reuse of learning designs. From the literature reviewed above, our research is based
on the premise that if designers and teachers can inspect, convey, and discuss the
teaching voice that underpins their own and others’ learning designs, they can create
or repurpose those learning designs on an informed, critical basis. Our research activ-
ities have focused on developing and trialling the components of the HEART strategy.
Our results at this very early stage can only provide preliminary evidence, which we
will build upon as the research continues. We have taken an iterative research
approach, using qualitative research methods to obtain feedback from a very small user
group (i.e., two expert reviewers, three learning designers, and one lecturer). We have
used this feedback to inform further development of the prototype in iterative cycles
of design, testing, and re-development, in preparation for more trials with a wider audi-
ence in 2009.

Research methods
Our research methods to date have included:

(1) constructing a questionnaire on pedagogical dimensions of a course or learn-

ing design;
(2) adapting an existing visualisation tool to represent the pedagogical dimensions
rated by the questionnaire;
(3) conducting initial trials of the HEART strategy (i.e., use of the questionnaire
and visualisation tool to discuss the pedagogical dimensions of a particular
course or learning design) to elicit feedback from learning designers and
teachers on the questionnaire and the visualisation tool, and, more importantly,
to monitor the emerging discussions provoked by the use of these instruments.

Construction of the questionnaire

Using our review of the literature we have proceeded on the basis that teachers’ educa-
tional beliefs play a key role in defining teaching behaviour, that beliefs must be
inferred, and that inferences about teachers’ educational beliefs must take into account
the congruence between their teaching behaviour in relation to a particular belief
(Pajares, 1992). These assumptions are evident in the teaching perspectives inventory
(TPI), developed by Pratt, Collins, and Selinger (2001), where respondents’ dominant
and recessive teaching perspectives are reflected in scores that indicate the consis-
tency (or lack thereof) between actions, beliefs, and intentions for each teaching
perspective. The inventory is described on the Teaching Perspectives website (http://
teachingperspectives.com/).
We considered using the TPI for the first stage of the HEART strategy, as a means
of making explicit the educational beliefs relating to learning design practice. We tried
using the TPI with a range of learning design projects we had previously worked on.
This process held parallels for us with attributes of signature pedagogies described by
Shulman (2005): the ‘habits of the mind [intentions], … heart [beliefs], and … hand
[actions]’ (p. 59) of the range of disciplines we encounter in our daily practice as
learning designers.
While the inventory was useful in highlighting inconsistencies and aspects that
warranted closer attention, we experienced the limitations of what Pajares (1992,
 Distance Education 189

p. 327) calls ‘it depends’ thinking. The list of beliefs we were responding to were not
relevant to the educational actions of the learning designer’s role. The differences in
scale, level, granularity, and discipline of the projects and courses we considered
made a vast difference to the way we answered the questions.
We then traced the progressive development of ‘pedagogical dimensions’ and
‘belief/practice orientations’ of Reeves and Harmon (1994), Reeves and Reeves
(1997), Bain, McNaught, Mills, and Lueckenhausen (1998), Hautakangas and Ranta
(2001), and Bain and McNaught (2006).
Bain et al. (1998) added epistemological belief dimensions and curriculum belief
dimensions to Reeves and Reeves’ pedagogical dimensions (1997) and separated a set
of practice dimensions related to computer-aided learning. These were based on
extensive research from 24 computer-facilitated learning projects in the mid-1990s.
Subsequently, Bain and McNaught (2006) derived 13 belief/practice dimensions to
investigate the relationship between academics’ beliefs and practice when using tech-
nology in teaching and learning.
To select pedagogical dimensions best suited to our research aims, we applied the
dimensions proposed in these different studies to projects that we were involved in as
learning designers. We found the 13 belief/practice dimensions of Bain and
McNaught (2006), listed in Table 2, best suited our research purposes. We used these
belief/practice dimensions to construct a questionnaire as the first component of the
HEART support strategy.
The belief/practice dimensions proposed by Bain and McNaught (2006) are
expressed in theoretical and abstract terms, as they are intended to be used as a

Table 2. Bain and McNaught’s 13 belief/practice dimensions (2006, p. 102) and what they are
intended to measure or represent.
Pedagogical dimensions What the dimensions measure
Epistemological beliefs
1. Nature of discipline knowledge Abstract and/or situated knowledge
2. Origin of to-be-learned knowledge Influence of discipline and/or openness of
knowledge to interpretation
Pedagogical beliefs
3. Pedagogical philosophy Constructivist and/or instructivist approach
4. Accommodation of students’ conceptions Absent, pre-emptive, and/or conversational
Curriculum beliefs
5. Learning goal orientation Focused and/or unfocused
6. Role of student collaboration Absent, social, and/or cognitive
‘CAL’ (technology-supported teaching,
learning, and assessment) practices
7. Task orientation Abstract and/or authentic
8. Task structure Constrained and/or open-ended
9. Interactivity Navigational and/or manipulative
10. Learning framework Structured, guided, and/or facilitated
11. Learning control Teacher managed and/or student managed
12. Learning process Construction and/or reproduction
13. Feedback to students Minimal, fixed, and/or individualised
190 C. Donald et al.

descriptive research tool by the educational community. In order to operationalise the

dimensions, we generated a set of statements for teacher-designers to rate, using a
five-point Likert scale. We tried to make each statement as concise, unambiguous, and
jargon-free as possible, while adhering to Bain and McNaught’s titles and descriptions
of their dimensions for purposes of establishing validity.
Bain and McNaught (2006) used a teacher-centred to learner-centred scale to
represent the academics’ belief codes. We were aware that this dichotomy may imply
judgement in our statements concerning purportedly more acceptable or better
teaching approaches (if they were constructivist or learner-centred). We considered
adopting a different dichotomy for the dimensions, such as, for example, the acquisi-
tion vs. participation metaphors for learning proposed by Sfard (1998), but decided to
adhere to the teacher vs. student-centred scale of Bain and McNaught (2006) for this
first phase of our research.
Some statements have a teacher-centred orientation. For example, in Table 3, for
dimension 5, Learning goal orientation, ‘Students follow or adopt the goals set out in
the learning materials,’ a rating of 5 means that the teacher plays an important role.
Other statements have a student-centred orientation. For example, in the same dimen-
sion, ‘The learning design allows the students to define their own goals,’ a rating of 5
means that the student has an active role. For each of the 13 dimensions, we initially
created four statements for respondents to rate a learning design (two statements
representing each extreme of a dimension), which made the questionnaire too long.
We reduced this to two statements per dimension. Examples are shown in Table 3.
Respondents could provide written comments in addition to quantitative ratings
for each dimension. Although the reduction in the number of statements may limit

Table 3. Two of the 13 pedagogical dimensions, each with two statements for users to rate a
learning design.
Almost Almost I don’t
Statements never Seldom Sometimes Often always know
Dimension 5: Learning goal orientation (focused and/or unfocused)
The learning design allows the
students to define their own goals.
Comments:
Students follow or adopt the goals set
out in the learning materials.
Comments:

Dimension 13: Feedback to students (minimal, fixed, and/or individualised)

The learning design provides for
pre-determined feedback
responses that are built into
learning tasks.
Comments:
The learning design provides for
responsive and individualised
feedback.
Comments:
 Distance Education 191

our opportunities to cross-check and validate respondents’ ratings, the need for the
questionnaire to promote reflection and discussion by teacher-designers is paramount
if it is to meet the goals of the HEART strategy.

Visualisation of the pedagogical dimensions

The scores from the rating scales of each statement in the questionnaire were used to
generate a visual representation of respondents’ ratings. This diagram illustrates the
pedagogical dimensions of the learning design. The diagram is thus intended to help
make explicit the teacher-designer’s beliefs and actions that influenced the learning
design of a particular learning activity or course: their teaching voice.
In this initial phase of our research we used Many Eyes (IBM, n.d.) to generate
visualisations because it offers many options for viewing data. We experimented with
two visualisation options: the Tree map (Figure 2) and the Bubble chart (Figure 3).
Obtaining these visualisations required some modification of statement ratings.
Figure 3.
2. Pedagogical dimensions of a learning design as a Bubble
Tree map.
chart.

The mixed student- and teacher-centred orientation of statements meant that visualised
ratings had to be adjusted (a rating of 5 does not mean the same thing in each case).
We therefore represented all the statements according to a student-centred scale. We
retained the variety of student-centred and teacher-centred statements, but used the
formula x = 6 – x for all teacher-centred statement ratings to transform, for example,
a rating of 5 for a teacher-centred statement to a rating of 1 on a student-centred scale.
Creating visual representations with Many Eyes’ Tree map and Bubble chart
can yield complex visualisations. We experimented with different display parame-
ters to generate the most meaningful representation of the respondents’ ratings of
the statements.

Trial of the HEART strategy

The first trial involved two stages. First, we sought feedback on the clarity of wording
in the statements we had generated for each dimension, and how closely they adhered
to what the dimension was intended to measure. We asked two expert reviewers who

Figure 2. Pedagogical dimensions of a learning design as a Tree map.

192 C. Donald et al.

Figure 3. Pedagogical dimensions of a learning design as a Bubble chart.

are senior colleagues and experienced academic developers for this feedback. Second,
we asked three learning designers (LD1, LD2, and LD3) and one lecturer (L1) to trial
the HEART strategy using the statements with the visualisation tool. Although a very
small sample, this suited our need for detailed feedback on a very early prototype. At
this initial stage of our research, we needed to trial the HEART strategy with individ-
uals rather than course teams, to pilot the questionnaire and the visualisation tool, and
monitor the ensuing discussion with a small group from our intended audience. Our
aim was to get feedback from users in preparation for more comprehensive trials
in 2009.
We interviewed the learning designers and the teacher separately, using semistruc-
tured interviews. Our goal was to provoke and support, by means of the questionnaire
and diagram, ‘good talk about good teaching’ (Palmer, 2007, p. 149) and in our case,
good talk about good learning design. Palmer has suggested that one of the elements
essential to this type of conversation is the topics we discuss.

We rarely talk with each other about teaching at any depth – and why should we when
we have nothing more than ‘tips, tricks, and techniques’ to discuss? That kind of talk
fails to touch the heart of a teacher’s experience. (p. 12)

When teaching is reduced to technique, we shrink teachers as well as their craft – and
people do not willingly return to a conversation that diminishes them. (p. 149)

We aimed to encourage teacher-designers to discuss, openly and honestly, what

their learning design aimed to achieve, how they structured teaching and learning to
achieve this, and why they taught this way.
Each interview session was similar to a typical focus group meeting, when teachers
and learning designers review a learning activity under development. Each session
lasted between 1 hour 20 minutes and 3 hours. We asked each research participant to
rate the statements in relation to a selected learning design project or course he/she
was familiar with. LD1 and LD2 reviewed distance, flexible courses they had designed.
LD3 reviewed a flexible, supplementary e-learning resource and L1 reviewed a blended
 Distance Education 193

course he was preparing. Further, we asked them to comment on the visualisation that
was generated based on their questionnaire scores. We used a rapid prototyping
approach, where feedback from each participant was used to modify the tools and the
session format in preparation for the next interview.

6. Results and discussion of the first trial of the HEART strategy

Feedback on the questionnaire
Research question 1: are the statements clearly understood by the respondents?
Based on the feedback we received from our two expert reviewers on the wording
of the statements, we modified the questionnaire in preparation for the interviews with
the three learning designers and the lecturer. Most modifications involved simplifying
the wording and removing theoretical terminology, while remaining faithful to Bain
and McNaught’s descriptions of the pedagogical dimensions (2006). We asked each
respondent to rate the pedagogical dimensions of a learning design project or course
that they had been directly involved in.
Feedback from the respondents related to the clarity and length of the question-
naire. Suggestions were made for useful inclusions to clarify what the dimensions
were measuring in relation to the learning goals of the course being reviewed.
Changes were progressively made to the questionnaire as the trials proceeded.
The feedback from LD2 revealed that some of the statements were still ambiguous
due to theoretical terminology, and we further rephrased these.

Research question 2: do the statements address the key pedagogical dimensions of a

learning design, or have some key dimensions been omitted?
Each of our respondents said that the dimensions did cover all the critical features that
a review/planning tool for a learning design should. L1 (the lecturer) went further to
say that the pedagogical dimensions extended his thinking, not only about how to
teach aspects of the course that he had not yet considered, but also about how students
would respond to his teaching, and important aspects of their learning that he had not
considered before.
LD3 said she would prefer that the dimensions represent the acquisition vs. partic-
ipation learning metaphors (Sfard, 1998) as an alternative to the teacher/student-
centred dimensions: ‘It’s more orientated to the design itself rather than the person
who’s teaching the course.’ With the current student/teacher-centred dimensions she
felt she was second-guessing what the course lecturer would say.
LD1 and LD2, who reviewed skills-based learning activities during the interview
session, said that it would be advantageous if the pedagogical dimensions were more
adaptable to skills-based courses as well as courses in the more traditional academic
disciplines.

Feedback on the visualisation tool

Our participants needed help to understand the Tree map (Figure 2) and Bubble chart
(Figure 3) that illustrated the results of the questionnaires. We expected this as we
were using Many Eyes as an off-the-shelf tool for trialling purposes and were aware
that we would need to rework the user interface for our purposes. To minimise
194 C. Donald et al.

complexity, we chose one set of parameters (e.g., size, colour) for each visualisation,
and limited how much the user could manipulate these parameters. The Bubble chart
was preferred by all three learning designers, while the lecturer found the Tree map
easier to understand.
All our participants indicated that, despite the visualisations being complex, they
did reflect the pedagogical dimensions of their learning design projects fairly, that
they served to indicate design strengths and weaknesses, and areas they wanted to
focus on during ongoing development work. LD1 stated, ‘I think the questionnaire
and the visual representation of the results are invaluable for reflecting on a particular
learning design.’

Feedback on the discussion session

Feedback about the discussion revealed (a) the potential benefits of a team approach
to using the HEART strategy, and (b) the value of the discussion for reflection on
beliefs underlying the course design.

The potential benefits of a team approach to using of the HEART strategy

Observing the learning designers using the HEART strategy during the trials was illu-
minating. During each of the four trial sessions it was clear to us that to facilitate good
talk about good learning design we needed to create a positive atmosphere to encour-
age frank discussion about the teacher-designer’s project and to avoid any feelings of
defensiveness. We need to ‘speak openly and honestly about our struggles as well as
our successes’ (Palmer, 2007, p. 151).
Two of the learning designers, as well as the lecturer, commented that it would
have been beneficial if the whole course design team had participated in the session,
for a variety of reasons:

● LD1 found it intensive and uncomfortable at times. She felt this would have
been alleviated if the whole development team had taken part, particularly the
subject matter experts and tutors who would actually teach the course:

My beliefs around these dimensions were not necessarily realised in the actions of the
teacher/SME [subject matter expert] when he/she taught/facilitated the course. This,
to me, reflects the immense potential/strength of this tool and I think it will be best
utilised to stimulate/generate discussions with the SME around the legitimate/reason-
able grounds identified by the pedagogical dimensions both in the planning stage and
the evaluation/implementation stage. (LD1)

● LD3 also expressed unease at responding to some statements without being

fully aware of how the course lecturer was teaching the course.

The value of the discussion for reflection on beliefs underlying the course design
LD2 commented that the questionnaire could serve as a useful reflective tool, and
would be very useful for professional development purposes. LD3 also noted the
reflective value of the process: ‘[D]oing the test helped me think about what was
underneath … if you are a teacher or learning designer who has a vested interest in a
learning design … then something like this would be very worthwhile.’ The initial
 Distance Education 195

discomfort we observed in one of the learning designers when she was asked to
express personal beliefs about knowledge and teaching subsided as she continued
reflecting on how these beliefs influenced her learning design practice. The support-
ive, collegial discussion during the session brought new insights on some of the design
issues she faced.
Observing the contrasting ways that the teacher-designers engaged with the ques-
tionnaire and visualisations raised questions about how the review sessions could run.
We have begun to explore the forms that a collegial environment may take to support
dialogue and peer review regarding learning designs, both face-to-face and online.
Important elements for the format of the sessions emerged, such as the value of creat-
ing a positive atmosphere in which participants were able to demonstrate their course
or learning design, and be encouraged about their achievements thus far. We are well
advised to incorporate the collegial, collaborative, documentary, reflective, evaluative
enablers of good learning design communities described by Philip and Cameron
(2008), and likewise the communal dialogue advocated by Hill (2000, 2004) and
Falconer and Littlejohn (2009).
Most encouraging was feedback from the lecturer (L1) about the value of being
able to see a diagrammatic representation of the pedagogical dimensions of his course.
The diagram served as a valuable focal point, he said, to clarify his thinking about the
variety of course components, how they related to his personal teaching philosophy
and to his teaching team. This supports the findings of Falconer and Littlejohn (2009),
who explored different types of learning design representation and their ability to repre-
sent practice models. They found that the process of engaging with a learning design
representation within a peer community, rather than the representation itself, was key.

7. Conclusion and future directions

So far the HEART strategy shows potential to support the learning design process at
many stages – whether planning a new design, reviewing an existing design, repur-
posing a learning design, or developing and evaluating an emerging design. Our initial
trial of the strategy with teacher-designers of distance, flexible, and blended courses
suggests that the HEART strategy may effectively support the learning design process
in flexible, open, and distance learning contexts.
In the next phase of our research we intend to develop and refine the HEART strat-
egy, and to gather the evidence required to support these tentative claims. Our
research will involve:

● revisiting the pedagogical dimensions (what educational orientations should

they attempt to portray?);
● clarifying and validating the statements, both quantitatively and qualitatively;
● customising the visualisation tool to simplify display parameters and build in
process instructions;
● establishing more clearly the requirements for facilitating the discussion and
reflection process provoked by use of the questionnaire and visualisation; and
● trialling the online collaborative and private spaces.

We will seek feedback and participation from a larger reference group as we estab-
lish the validity of the questionnaire and develop a robust visualisation and communi-
cation tool for use in broader open, distance, and flexible learning contexts.
196 C. Donald et al.

The HEART strategy does not purport to be a solution to the challenges of reuse
and sharing of learning designs. There will always be a limited number of teachers,
particularly at the higher education level, who are prepared to engage in examina-
tion of personal beliefs about teaching and learning in the way that our strategy
encourages. In short, we do not believe there is any easy answer to the sharing and
reuse challenge that faces practitioners and researchers in open, distance, and flexi-
ble learning. However, we propose that efforts are more productively directed at
promoting subjective awareness and communities of practice amongst teacher-
designers than on developing the perfect learning design representation or digital
repository.

Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge colleagues at the University of Auckland for their help and
advice. Dr Helen Sword provided a thorough and thoughtful critique of the HEART question-
naire. Dr Cathy Gunn, Dr Hamish Cowan, and Pauline Cooper gave much of their time and
professional advice as we developed the HEART strategy. Associate Professor Miles Barker at
the University of Waikato reviewed an earlier version of this paper in detail. His advice and
encouragement at various stages of this research have been greatly appreciated.

Notes on contributors
Claire Donald has a background in science education, and has been involved in research, teach-
ing and elearning development in both tertiary education and industry. Alongside her active
involvement in a variety of elearning developments across the university, her current research
interests include concept development during learning, evaluation, and the learning design
process.

Adam Blake has managed projects for staff orientation to elearning, learning management
system development and implementation, creation of blended and fully-online courses, and
implementation of elearning initiatives across a range of university programmes. Adam’s
research interests span learning design, knowledge visualisation, and professional development
and change management for elearning.

Isabelle Girault’s fields of interest are primarily in e-learning, inquiry-based learning, and
laboratory work. Her research focuses on giving students responsibility for the design of exper-
imental procedures as part of the inquiry process, to help students link theory and practice.

Ashwini Datt has worked in a variety of roles as an educational technologist and learning
designer at tertiary level, where she has been involved in elearning integration and professional
development projects. Her research interests are in educational design, online interaction, and
application of multimedia, 3D modelling and virtual reality in education.

Liz Ramsay has had a long association with the University of Auckland in various roles.
Currently she is a learning designer and editor of aCADemix, the biannual departmental
magazine, aimed at keeping the university abreast of the Centre for Academic Development’s
work.

References
Agostinho, S. (2009). Learning design representations to document, model and share teaching
practice. In L. Lockyer, S. Bennett, S. Agostinho, & B. Harper (Eds.), Handbook of
research on learning design and learning objects: Issues, applications and technologies
(Vol. 1, pp. 1–19). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
 Distance Education 197

Bain, J., & McNaught, C. (2006). How academics use technology in teaching and learning:
Understanding the relationship between beliefs and practice. Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning, 22(2), 99–113.
Bain, J., McNaught, C., Mills, C., & Lueckenhausen, G. (1998). Understanding CFL practices
in higher education in terms of academics’ educational beliefs: Enhancing Reeves’ analysis.
In R. Corderoy (Ed.), Proceedings of Ascilite 98 Conference (pp. 49–58). Wollongong,
Australia. Retrieved October 29, 2008, from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/
wollongong98/asc98-pdf/bain0089.pdf
Barker, M. (2000). Learning theories in science teaching – Hindsight or master plan? New
Zealand Science Teacher, 94, 32–39.
Beetham, H., & Sharpe, R. (2007). An introduction to rethinking pedagogy for a digital age.
In H. Beetham & R. Sharpe (Eds.), Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age (pp. 1–10).
Abingdon: Routledge.
Belenky, M.F., Clinchy, B.M., Goldberger, N.R., & Tarule, J.M. (1986). Women’s ways of
knowing: The development of self, voice and mind. New York: Basic Books.
Bennett, S., Agostinho, S., Lockyer, L., Kosta, L., Jones, J., Koper, K., et al. (2007). Learning
designs: Bridging the gap between theory and practice. In R.J. Atkinson, C. McBeath,
S.K.A. Soong, & C. Cheers (Eds.), Providing choices for learners and learning. Proceed-
ings Ascilite Singapore 2007 (pp. 51–60). Singapore: Centre for Educational Develop-
ment, Nanyang Technological University. Retrieved October 29, 2008, from http://
www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/singapore07/procs/bennett.pdf
Bennett, S., Parrish, D., Lefoe, G., O’Reilly, M., Keppell, M., & Philip, R. (2009). A needs
analysis framework for the design of digital repositories in higher education. In L. Lockyer,
S. Bennett, S. Agostinho, & B. Harper (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning design
and learning objects: Issues, applications and technologies (Vol. 2, pp. 607–628). Hershey,
PA: Information Science Reference.
Boyle, T. (2006). The design and development of second generation learning objects. In E.
Pearson & P. Bohman (Eds.), World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hyperme-
dia & Telecommunications. Orlando, FL. Retrieved October 29, 2008, from http://www.
rlo-cetl.ac.uk/dissemination/events/second%20generation%20learning%20objects.doc
Carey, T., & Hanley, G.L. (2008). Extending the impact of open educational resources
through alignment with pedagogical content knowledge and institutional strategy:
Lessons learned from the MERLOT community experience. In T. Iiyoshi & M.S.V.
Kumar (Eds.), Opening up education: The collective advancement of education through
open technology, open content, and open knowledge (pp. 181–195). Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Combs, A. (1982). A personal approach to teaching: Beliefs that make a difference. Boston:
Allyn and Bacon.
Conole, G. (2008). Using Compendium as a tool to support the design of learning activities.
In A. Okada, S. Buckingham Shum, & T. Sherborne (Eds.), Knowledge cartography
(pp. 199–221). London: Springer-Verlag.
Conole, G., Dyke, M., Oliver, M., & Seale, J. (2004). Mapping pedagogy and tools for
effective learning design. Computers & Education, 43(1/2), 17–33.
Dalziel, J. (2008). Learning design: Sharing pedagogical know-how. In T. Iiyoshi & M.S.V.
Kumar (Eds.), Opening up education: The collective advancement of education through
open technology, open content, and open knowledge (pp. 375–387). Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Errington, E. (2004). The impact of teacher beliefs on flexible learning innovation: Some prac-
tices and possibilities for academic developers. Innovations in Education and Teaching
International, 41(1), 39–47.
Ertmer, P. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology
integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25–39.
Falconer, I., & Littlejohn, A. (2009). Representing models of practice. In L. Lockyer, S. Bennett,
S. Agostinho, & B. Harper (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning design and learning
objects: Issues, applications and technologies (Vol. 1, pp. 20–40). Hershey, PA: Information
Science Reference.
Garzotto, F., & Retalis, S. (2009). A critical perspective on design patterns for e-learning. In L.
Lockyer, S. Bennett, S. Agostinho, & B. Harper (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning
198 C. Donald et al.

design and learning objects: Issues, applications and technologies (Vol. 1, pp. 113–143).
Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
Goodyear, P. (2005). Educational design and networked learning: Patterns, pattern languages
and design practice. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 21(1), 82–101.
Retrieved April 22, 2009, from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet21/goodyear.html
Goodyear, P., & Yang, D.F. (2009). Patterns and pattern languages in educational design.
In L. Lockyer, S. Bennett, S. Agostinho, & B. Harper (Eds.), Handbook of research
on learning design and learning objects: Issues, applications and technologies (Vol. 1,
pp. 167–187). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
Griffiths, D., & Garcia, R. (2003, April). Commentary on R. Koper, ‘Combining re-usable
learning resources to pedagogical purposeful units of learning.’ Reusing online resources:
A sustainable approach to eLearning [Special issue]. Journal of Interactive Media in
Education, 1. Retrieved April 3, 2009, from http://www-jime.open.ac.uk/2003/1/JIME-
2003-1.html
Haigh, N. (1998). Staff development: An enabling role. In C. Latchem & F. Lockwood (Eds.),
Staff development in open and flexible learning (pp. 182–192). London: Routledge.
Harley, D. (2008). Why understanding the use and users of open education matters. In T. Iiyoshi
& M.S.V. Kumar (Eds.), Opening up education: The collective advancement of education
through open technology, open content, and open knowledge (pp. 197–211). Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Hautakangas, S., & Ranta, P. (2001, June 25–30). Integrated pedagogical profile and the
design of web-based learning environments. Paper presented at the ED-MEDIA 2001
World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications,
Tampere, Finland.
Hill, L. (2000). What does it take to change minds? Intellectual development of preservice
teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(1), 50–62.
Hill, L. (2004). Changing minds: Developmental education for conceptual change. Journal of
Adult Development, 11(1), 29–40.
Hofer, B.K. (2001). Personal epistemology research: Implications for learning and teaching.
Journal of Educational Psychology Review, 13(4), 353–383.
Hofer, B.K., & Pintrich, P.R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs
about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational
Research, 67(1), 88–140.
IBM. (n.d.). Many eyes. Retrieved April 4, 2009, from http://services.alphaworks.ibm.com/
manyeyes/homeproject
Lockyer, L., Bennett, S., Agostinho, S., & Harper, B. (Eds.). (2009). Handbook of research on
learning design and learning objects: Issues, applications and technologies. Hershey, PA:
Information Science Reference.
Masterman, E. (2009). Activity theory and the design of pedagogic planning tools. In L. Lockyer,
S. Bennett, S. Agostinho, & B. Harper (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning design
and learning objects: Issues, applications and technologies (Vol. 1, pp. 209–227). Hershey,
PA: Information Science Reference.
Mayes, T., & de Freitas, S. (2007). Learning and e-learning: The role of theory. In H. Beetham
& R. Sharpe (Eds.), Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age. Abingdon: Routledge.
Nesbit, J.C., & Leacock, T.L. (2009). Collaborative argumentation in learning resource evalu-
ation. In L. Lockyer, S. Bennett, S. Agostinho, & B. Harper (Eds.), Handbook of research
on learning design and learning objects: Issues, applications and technologies (Vol. 2, pp.
574–588). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
Oliver, M. (2002). Creativity and the curriculum design process: A case study. Retrieved
October 29, 2008, from http://www.palatine.ac.uk/files/1037.pdf
Pajares, M. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy
construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–332.
Palmer, P.J. (2007). The courage to teach: Exploring the inner landscape of the teacher’s life
(10th anniversary ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Philip, R., & Cameron, L. (2008). Sharing and reusing learning designs: Contextualising
enablers and barriers. In Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia,
Hypermedia and Telecommunications (pp. 453–462). Chesapeake, VA: Association for
the Advancement of Computers in Education (AACE).
 Distance Education 199

Pratt, D.D. (1997). Five perspectives on teaching in adult and higher education. Malabar, FL:
Krieger.
Pratt, D.D., Collins, J.B., & Selinger, S.J. (2001). Development and use of the Teaching
Perspectives Inventory (TPI). Paper presented at the Annual Congress of the American
Educational Research Association. Retrieved April 22, 2009, from http://www.one45.com
/teachingperspectives/PDF/development1.pdf
Reeves, T.C., & Harmon, S.W. (1994). Systematic evaluation procedures for interactive multi-
media for education and training. In S. Reisman (Ed.), Multimedia computing: Preparing
for the 21st century (pp. 472–505). Harrisburg, PA: Idea Group.
Reeves, T.C., & Reeves, P.M. (1997). Effective dimensions of interactive learning on the
World Wide Web. In B.H. Khan (Ed.), Web-based instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Educational Technology Publications.
Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one.
Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4–13.
Sharpe, R., & Oliver, M. (2007). Supporting practitioners’ design for learning: Principles of
effective resources and interventions. In H. Beetham & R. Sharpe (Eds.), Rethinking peda-
gogy for a digital age (pp. 117–128). Abingdon: Routledge.
Shulman, L. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134(3), 52–59.
Spiro, R.J., Feltovich, P.J., & Coulson, R.L. (1996). Two epistemic world-views: Prefigurative
schemas and learning in complex domains. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10(7), 51–61.
Wills, S., & McDougall, A. (2009). Reusability of online role play as learning objects or
learning designs. In L. Lockyer, S. Bennett, S. Agostinho, & B. Harper (Eds.), Handbook
of research on learning design and learning objects: Issues, applications and technologies
(Vol. 2, pp. 761–776). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.