3a: Understanding and engaging with legislation
As an academic and learning designer, I recognise that educational technology decisions are shaped not only by pedagogical considerations but also by legal responsibilities. These include ensuring equitable access to education, protecting personal information and respecting intellectual property rights.
An important example of my engagement with these responsibilities was the development of the Graduate Certificate in Learning Design (GCLD) at UTS, particularly the need to design accessible online learning experiences.
In Australia, the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 and the Disability Standards for Education 2005 establish important responsibilities for education providers concerning access, participation and reasonable adjustments for students with disabilities. These obligations are particularly relevant to online education, where the design of learning environments and digital resources can create barriers to participation.
In developing the GCLD, I sought to incorporate accessibility considerations from the beginning of the design process, rather than treating them solely as problems to be addressed after implementation.
For example, the program incorporated captioned multimedia resources, documents designed to support accessibility, and learning materials available in different formats (such as transcripts). I also considered the accessibility of interactive learning activities and the importance of enabling students to navigate and engage with content using different technologies. Below I showcase a screenshot from a video that we made, showing how it has closed captions.
The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 provided a useful technical framework for considering issues such as text alternatives, captions, keyboard navigation and the presentation of digital content. While WCAG is a technical standard rather than legislation in itself, it offers practical guidance relevant to meeting broader accessibility responsibilities.
One of the challenges involved in this work was balancing the educational possibilities offered by interactive technologies with the need to ensure that students could access and participate in learning activities. For example, tools such as H5P and Genially can support engaging forms of interaction, but their accessibility depends on the particular content type, the way activities are authored and the requirements of individual learners. Selecting an interactive platform does not automatically mean that the resulting learning experience is accessible. Some of the tools that I might have wished to use in laying out the content were not available to me because they were not best practice from the WCAG perspective. For example, I couldn’t use tool tips.
Reflecting on this experience, I recognise the importance of considering accessibility throughout the learning design process, including during technology selection, resource development and evaluation. It also reinforced the need to work with appropriate technical and accessibility specialists rather than assuming that pedagogical expertise alone is sufficient to establish accessibility. As part of my work with experts in this field, I was able to help edit a book specifically focused on learning design for inclusivity and accessibility.
Another area of legislative responsibility concerns the protection of student information. As a NSW public university, UTS operates within a regulatory environment that includes the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW).
This is particularly relevant when learning technologies collect information about student participation, interaction and progress. My use of learning management systems and learning analytics made me increasingly conscious of the need to consider what information is collected, why it is needed, who may access it and how it may be used.
I recognise that there is an important distinction between using learning analytics to identify opportunities for student support and assuming that the collection of more detailed information is automatically educationally justified.
These experiences have strengthened my understanding that legal and ethical considerations must be integrated into educational technology decisions, rather than treated as separate administrative requirements.
They have also highlighted an important professional responsibility: learning designers need to understand the limits of their own expertise and know when to seek specialist advice.
3b: Understanding and engaging with policies and standards
My professional practice has also involved interpreting and applying national and institutional standards to curriculum and learning design. I consider these requirements important not simply for demonstrating compliance, but for making expectations explicit and supporting the coherence and quality of educational programs.
One example is my work with the Master of Teaching (Secondary) program at UTS, where I was involved in aligning curriculum and assessment with the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers (APST).
The APSTs establish expectations for teachers’ professional knowledge, professional practice and professional engagement. For initial teacher education, they provide an important reference point for considering the knowledge and capabilities that graduates need to demonstrate.
As part of my work, I undertook mapping of course outcomes and assessment tasks against the relevant standards. This required considering how the expectations expressed in the APST were represented in the curriculum and, importantly, what evidence students would be required to produce to demonstrate their developing capabilities. As an exemplar, I’ve put an excerpt from a subject outline for a Masters of Teaching (Secondary) subject, showing how the APSTs (here referred to as GSTs or Graduate Teaching Standards) map against the Subject Learning Outcomes (SILOS).
The value of this process was that it encouraged a more systematic examination of the relationship between professional standards, teaching activities and assessment. Rather than assuming that a standard was adequately addressed because it appeared in a subject outline, mapping required closer attention to how the relevant capability was taught and assessed.
This work also highlighted the difference between identifying a connection with a professional standard and demonstrating that students have developed the capability associated with it.
A mapping document can establish where a standard is intended to be addressed, but it does not automatically establish the quality of the learning experience or the extent of students’ achievement. This distinction is particularly important when considering the design of assessment tasks and the evidence of learning collected through digital platforms.
Reflecting on this experience, I recognise that standards mapping can become a largely administrative exercise if it focuses only on recording nominal alignment. Its greater value emerges when it is used as an opportunity for critical curriculum discussion and improvement.
Another relevant example was the development of the Graduate Certificate in Learning Design, which required consideration of the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) and institutional requirements for postgraduate qualifications.
The AQF provided a framework for considering the level and nature of learning expected in the qualification. This was relevant to decisions about course structure, learning outcomes and the relationship between theoretical knowledge and professional application. Below I have attached a screenshot mapping learning outcomes, assessment tasks and course content across the whole of the GCLD.
Together, these experiences reinforced my understanding that standards and policies should inform educational design while still leaving scope for professional judgement and innovation.
They also demonstrated the importance of communicating the purpose of standards to colleagues, rather than presenting them solely as external compliance requirements.
In future standards-mapping activities, I would seek to document more explicitly the design decisions arising from the mapping process, including areas where alignment was difficult, alternative approaches were considered and changes were made following discussion.