Abstract
Learning design refers to the practice of creating opportunities for learning, crafted to support the achievement of defined learning objectives within a specific context. This work can be practical (e.g., educators developing and sharing their practice) or technical (e.g., researchers developing tools and strategies to support educators in their work). In both cases, the representation of learning designs is never neutral – design practice is always underpinned by one’s values and assumptions about how people learn. Understanding these values is central for the effective communication and implementation of design ideas across contexts. Over the years, learning design practice has been powerfully shaped by advances in learning theory and digital technologies, but also influenced by social, political, and economic developments more broadly. This entry describes the roots of learning design and its evolution across time, its connections to the postdigital, and implications for future developments.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Agostinho, S., Lockyer, L., & Bennett, S. (2018). Identifying the characteristics of support Australian university teachers use in their design work: Implications for the learning design field. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 34(2), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.3776.
Bayne, S., Evans, P., Ewins, R., Knox, J., Lamb, J., Mcleod, H., et al. (2020). The Manifesto for Teaching Online. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bloom, B. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay.
Boys, J. (2022). Exploring Inequalities in the Social, Spatial and Material Practices of Teaching and Learning in Pandemic Times. Postdigital Science and Education, 4(1), 13–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-021-00267-z.
Briggs, L. J. (1967). Instructional media: A procedure for the design of multi-media instruction, a critical review of research, and suggestions for future research. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.
Briggs, L. J. (1970). Handbook of procedures for the design of instruction. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.
Burk, F. L. (1913). Lock-step schooling and a remedy. Sacramento, CA: Superintendent of State Printing.
Carvalho, L., & Yeoman, P. (2018). Framing learning entanglement in innovative learning spaces: Connecting theory, design, and practice. British Educational Research Journal, 44(6), 1120-1137. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3483.
Castañeda, L., & Selwyn, N. (2018). More than tools? Making sense of the ongoing digitizations of higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15, 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-018-0109-y.
Connell, R. (2019). The good university: What universities actually do and why it’s time for radical change. Clayton, VIC: Monash University Publishing.
Conole, G. (2019). Frameworks to guide practice. In H. Beetham & R. Sharpe (Eds.), Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age: Principles and practices of designs. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351252805.
Illich, I. (1983). Deschooling society. Harper Colophon.
Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Hammondsworth: Penguin.
Gadotti, M. (2011). Adult education as a human right: The Latin American context and the ecopedagogic perspective. International Review of Education, 57(1), 9-25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-011-9205-0.
Gagné, R. (Ed.). (1965). Psychological principles in system development. New York: Holt Rinehart & Winston.
Gibbons, A. S. (2011). Contexts of instructional design. Journal of Applied Instructional Design, 1(1), 5–12.
Gibbons, A. S., Boling, E., & Smith, K. M. (2014). Instructional Design Models. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 607–615). New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_48.
Goodyear, P. (2014). Productive learning networks: The evolution of research and practice. In L. Carvalho & P. Goodyear (Eds.), The Architecture of Productive Learning Networks (pp. 23-47). New York: Routledge
Goodyear, P. (2022). Realising the Good University: Social Innovation, Care, Design Justice and Educational Infrastructure. Postdigital Science and Education, 4(1), 33–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-021-00253-5.
Goodyear, P., Carvalho, L., & Yeoman, P. (2021). Activity-Centred Analysis and Design (ACAD): Core purposes, distinctive qualities and current developments. Educational Technology Research & Development, 69, 445–464. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09926-7.
Gordon, J., & Zemke, R. (2000). The attack on ISD. Training, 37(4), 43–53.
Hakkinen, P. (2002). Challenges for design computer-based learning environments. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(4), 461-469. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8535.00282.
Jandrić, P., & Ford, D. R. (2022). Postdigital ecopedagogies: Genealogies, contradictions, and possible futures. Postdigital Science and Education, 4(3), 692–710. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-020-00207-3.
Jandrić, P., Knox, J., Besley, T., Ryberg, T., Suoranta, J., & Hayes, S. (2018). Postdigital science and education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 50(10), 893–899. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2018.1454000.
Knox, J. (2019). What Does the ‘Postdigital’ Mean for Education? Three Critical Perspectives on the Digital, with Implications for Educational Research and Practice. Postdigital Science and Education, 1(2), 357–370. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-019-00045-y.
Laurillard, D. (2012). Teaching as a design science: Building pedagogical patterns for learning and technology. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203125083.
Law, N. (2017). Instructional Design and Learning Design. In J. M. Spector & L. Lin (Eds.), The sciences of learning and instructional design. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315684444.
Markauskaite, L., Carvalho, L., & Fawns, T. (2023). The role of teachers in a sustainable university: from digital competencies to postdigital capabilities. Educational Technology Research and Development. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-023-10199-z.
Misiaszek, W. (2020). Ecopedagogy: Teaching critical literacies of ‘development’, ‘sustainability’, and ‘sustainable development’. Teaching in Higher Education, 25(5), 615-632. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2019.1586668.
Molenda, M. (2003). The ADDIE model. In A. Kovalchick & K. Dawson (Eds.), Educational technology: An encyclopedia. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-Clio.
Mor, Y., Cook, J., Santos, P., Treasure-Jones, T., Elferink, R., Holley, D., & Griffin, J. (2015). Patterns of Practice and Design: Towards an Agile Methodology for Educational Design Research. In G. Conole, T. Klobučar, C. Rensing, J. Konert, & E. Lavoué (Eds.), Design for Teaching and Learning in a Networked World (pp. 605-608). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24258-3_69.
Morrison, H. C. (1926). The practice of teaching in the secondary school. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Peters, M. A., Jandrić, P., & Hayes, S. (Eds.). (2022). Bioinformational Philosophy and Postdigital Knowledge Ecologies. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-95006-4.
Reigeluth, C. M., Beatty, B. J., & Myers, R. D. (Eds.). (2017). Instructional-Design Theories and Models, Volume IV: The Learner-Centered Paradigm of Education. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315795478.
Reiser, R. A. (2001). A history of instructional design and technology: Part II: A history of instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(2), 57. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504928.
Skinner, B. F. (1958). Teaching machines. Science, 128(3330), 969–977. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.128.3330.969.
Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Williamson, B. (2019). Brain Data: Scanning, Scraping and Sculpting the Plastic Learning Brain Through Neurotechnology. Postdigital Science and Education, 1(1), 65–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-018-0008-5.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this entry
Cite this entry
Carvalho, L., Yeoman, P. (2023). Postdigital Learning Design. In: Jandrić, P. (eds) Encyclopedia of Postdigital Science and Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-35469-4_38-1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-35469-4_38-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-35469-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-35469-4
eBook Packages: Springer Reference EducationReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Education