2a: Understanding of teaching, learning, and/or assessment processes
My approach to learning design is grounded in the understanding that effective educational technology must serve a clearly articulated pedagogical purpose. Throughout my career, I have drawn on educational theory, professional experience and learner feedback to design learning environments that promote critical thinking, engagement and the practical application of knowledge.
A significant example was my work as Course Coordinator for the Graduate Certificate in Learning Design (GCLD) at the University of Technology Sydney (UTS). The course was designed for professionals seeking to enter or develop their expertise in learning design. This required a deliberate relationship between the knowledge students were expected to develop, the learning activities through which they would develop that knowledge, and the assessments used to demonstrate their capabilities.
My approach was informed by constructive alignment (Biggs, 2014; Biggs & Tang, 2011). Rather than beginning with the technologies available or the content to be delivered, I sought to identify the capabilities that graduates would need in professional learning design contexts through a process of mapping and developing personas. These capabilities then informed the selection of pedagogical approaches and technologies.
One example was the adoption of a flipped learning approach. Students engaged with foundational concepts asynchronously through readings, multimedia resources and interactive activities delivered through Canvas, including materials developed using H5P and Genially. Synchronous sessions, facilitated through Zoom, then provided opportunities for discussion, collaborative problem-solving and the practical application of learning design principles.
The distinction between these learning modes was intentional. Asynchronous resources allowed students to engage with foundational material at their own pace, while synchronous sessions supported dialogue, feedback and collaborative application. Technologies were selected according to the learning activities they could support rather than their novelty or apparent sophistication.
However, I also recognised limitations in this approach. Flipped learning depends on students engaging with preparatory materials, something that can be challenging for working professionals with competing responsibilities. Equally, making learning materials available asynchronously does not guarantee that students understand them and it also limits the opportunity for them to ask questions – and this risks them falling further behind their peers. This reinforced the importance of combining flexible access with opportunities for clarification, feedback and ongoing interaction. A simple but effective mechanism I employed here was the decision to make the last 10 minutes of our live sessions AMAs – here, students could Ask Me Anything about the assessment tasks.
Assessment design was another area in which pedagogical principles informed technological decisions. Drawing on authentic assessment, I adopted a portfolio-based approach across the course. Rather than relying primarily on essays or examinations, students developed artefacts that reflected the work undertaken by professional learning designers (usually in a smaller or more limited fashion), using the tools required by learning designers. The assessment tasks included interactive learning objects, multimedia learning modules and assessment resources, accompanied by reflections explaining their design decisions and learning. Originally, it was my intention for students to use the university platform, Portfolium, as the basis for their portfolios; it was my hope that the students would be able to take this with them when they finished the course and started applying for jobs. However, the institution abandoned support for the platform during the course, so I was forced to find other solutions. Ultimately, ti was a colleague and fellow learning designer, Dr Mais Fatayer, who suggested that we should get the students to find their own platform to host their portfolio – which they duly did, often opting for WordPress or Google sites. One thing that I am most pleased with is how these portfolios have continued to be of us – for example, Amy Cotton, a graduate and then a colleague, still uses her portfolio as the basis for her professional web site.
The use of digital authoring tools, including Articulate Rise, provided opportunities for students to develop and demonstrate practical capabilities. Importantly, the digital artefact was not the sole focus of assessment. Students were also required to explain the pedagogical reasoning underlying their work, encouraging them to connect educational theory with professional practice. This is an example of a student assessment task, using Genially.
Reflecting on this approach, I consider the combination of artefact production and reflection particularly important. A technically polished learning object is not necessarily a pedagogically effective one. Asking students to justify their choices provided a way to assess their professional judgement as well as their technical capabilities.
This experience strengthened my understanding of the relationship between pedagogy and educational technology. The most important question is not which technology should be used, but what learners need to understand or accomplish, and how particular technologies might help them do so.
Understanding learners’ professional backgrounds, prior experiences, motivations and circumstances has been central to my approach to learning design. I regard learner analysis as an ongoing process that should inform decisions about curriculum, teaching approaches, technology and assessment.
It also reinforced the importance of continually extending my pedagogical knowledge. Designing for online learning required me to reconsider assumptions developed through face-to-face teaching and develop a more nuanced understanding of how learning activities, digital technologies and student circumstances interact. I have hyperlinked a subject outline to demonstrate the way that the learning outcomes and the assessment tasks, as described above, align.
2b: Understanding of your target learners
During the development of the Graduate Certificate in Learning Design, I conducted interviews with potential learners to better understand their expectations and the challenges they anticipated in undertaking postgraduate study.
These interviews informed the development of learner personas representing different groups within the anticipated cohort, including career changers, part-time students and professionals working in corporate learning and development.
The personas (see below) helped make differences within the learner cohort visible during the design process. For example, some prospective students were experienced educators seeking to transition into learning design, while others worked in corporate training and wanted to develop a stronger theoretical and pedagogical foundation.
Although these learners were pursuing a shared qualification, they did not necessarily have the same prior knowledge, technical confidence or professional goals. This reinforced the need for a learning environment that combined a consistent academic foundation with opportunities for individual application.
One outcome of this analysis was the decision to structure the program around three-credit-point subjects delivered sequentially. This provided shorter periods of focused study, allowing students to progressively develop and apply their capabilities while managing employment and other commitments.
I also adopted a flexible online delivery model, combining synchronous learning opportunities with asynchronous materials and activities. Live sessions were recorded, and alternative asynchronous activities were provided for students who could not participate at scheduled times.
This flexibility was particularly important for learners balancing study with professional and family responsibilities. However, I recognise that providing different modes of access does not automatically create equivalent learning experiences. For example, a recording can communicate information but may not reproduce the interaction, questioning and collaborative learning available during a live session. Designing meaningful alternatives therefore required consideration of the learning outcomes associated with each activity.
My approach was also informed by Universal Design for Learning (UDL), particularly the importance of providing multiple means of engagement, representation, and action and expression. Course resources incorporated text, video and interactive materials, offering students different ways to access and engage with content.
Reflecting on the use of learner personas, I consider them valuable for developing empathy and challenging assumptions about a supposedly typical student. However, personas are necessarily simplified representations and cannot capture the full complexity of individual learners’ circumstances. There is a risk that they can reinforce assumptions if they are treated as fixed categories rather than provisional design tools. My initial analysis of potential learners is presented below:
Figure 1: Example Personas for the GCLD
Consequently, I regard the initial learner analysis as a starting point rather than a substitute for continued engagement with students. Opportunities for feedback, clarification and adjustment remain essential throughout implementation.
The GCLD reinforced my understanding that learner-centred design requires attention not only to what students need to learn, but also to the circumstances in which they are learning, the knowledge they bring, and the barriers that might prevent their full participation.
References
Biggs, J. (2014). Constructive alignment in university teaching. HERDSA Review of Higher Education, 1, 5–22.
Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university (4th ed.). Open University Press.