The process of designing for learning: understanding university teachers’ design work

Bennett, S; Agostinho, S; Lockyer, L

The process of designing for learning: understanding university teachers’ design work

Bennett, S Agostinho, S Lockyer, L

Permalink

Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Educational Technology Research and Development, 2017, 65 (1), pp. 125 - 145
Issue Date:: 2017-02-01

Open Access

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Open Access

This item is open access.

Adobe PDF

Download Accepted ManuscriptAdobe PDF (488.46 kB)

View on publisher's site

View statistics

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Bennett, S	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Agostinho, S	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Lockyer, L https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1517-2342	en_US
dc.date.issued	2017-02-01	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	Educational Technology Research and Development, 2017, 65 (1), pp. 125 - 145	en_US
dc.identifier.issn	1042-1629	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/124934
dc.description.abstract	© 2016, Association for Educational Communications and Technology. Interest in how to support the design work of university teachers has led to research and development initiatives that include technology-based design-support tools, online repositories, and technical specifications. Despite these initiatives, remarkably little is known about the design work that university teachers actually do. This paper presents findings from a qualitative study that investigated the design processes of 30 teachers from 16 Australian universities. The results show design as a top-down iterative process, beginning with a broad framework to which detail is added through cycles of elaboration. Design extends over the period before, while, and after a unit is taught, demonstrating the dynamic nature of design and highlighting the importance of reflection in teachers’ design practice. We present a descriptive model of the design process, which we relate to conceptualizations of higher education teaching and learning, and compare with the characteristics of general design and instructional design. We also suggest directions for future research and development.	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	Educational Technology Research and Development	en_US
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1007/s11423-016-9469-y	en_US
dc.subject.classification	Education	en_US
dc.title	The process of designing for learning: understanding university teachers’ design work	en_US
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	1	en_US
utslib.citation.volume	65	en_US
utslib.for	1303 Specialist Studies in Education	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/DVC (Research)
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/DVC (Research)/Graduate Research School
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Strength - STEM Education Futures
utslib.copyright.status	open_access
pubs.issue	1	en_US
pubs.publication-status	Published	en_US
pubs.volume	65	en_US

Abstract:

© 2016, Association for Educational Communications and Technology. Interest in how to support the design work of university teachers has led to research and development initiatives that include technology-based design-support tools, online repositories, and technical specifications. Despite these initiatives, remarkably little is known about the design work that university teachers actually do. This paper presents findings from a qualitative study that investigated the design processes of 30 teachers from 16 Australian universities. The results show design as a top-down iterative process, beginning with a broad framework to which detail is added through cycles of elaboration. Design extends over the period before, while, and after a unit is taught, demonstrating the dynamic nature of design and highlighting the importance of reflection in teachers’ design practice. We present a descriptive model of the design process, which we relate to conceptualizations of higher education teaching and learning, and compare with the characteristics of general design and instructional design. We also suggest directions for future research and development.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/124934