Sept 2014, Version 4

Future Ready

Blended and Online

Learning Curriculum
Design Toolkit

Ideas, suggestions and worksheets for

curriculum design at La Trobe.

This toolkit was prepared by John Hannon and Claire Macken. Contribution and
amendments are welcome and encouraged.

1
Future Ready Toolkit v4, October 2014
Contents

1. Introduction – Blended and Online Learning in the context of Future Ready ......... 3

A definition of blended and online learning ..................................................................... 3

Flexible and Online Learning Development (FOLD) projects .......................................... 5

Models of blended learning ............................................................................................ 7

Flipping the Lecture/Tutorial ........................................................................................... 8

Blended learning examples ............................................................................................ 9

Design Essentials for Blended and Learning ................................................................ 12

2. Planning a Blended Learning Design ....................................................................... 14

Blended Learning Design Planning Questions ............................................................. 15

3. Designing Curriculum for Blended Learning ........................................................... 17

Writing Intended Learning Outcomes (ILOs) at La Trobe ............................................. 18

Mapping intended learning outcomes to graduate capabilities ..................................... 24

4. Development Assessments and Learning Activities .............................................. 26

1. Assessment tasks and learning activities ................................................................. 28

2. Integrating Web 2.0 technologies into your curriculum design .................................. 30

3. Learning design checklist ......................................................................................... 32

5. Evaluating Blended Learning ................................................................................... 34

1. Holistic evaluation of FOLD projects ........................................................................ 35

2. Focusing Evaluation ................................................................................................. 37

3. Reeves & Hedberg’s Conducting Evaluations Approach .......................................... 38

4. Methods for gathering data ...................................................................................... 39

5. Evaluation of Flexible Learning by Peer Review....................................................... 40

5. Resources and References ....................................................................................... 42

Resources.................................................................................................................... 42

Toolkit References ....................................................................................................... 43

2
Future Ready Toolkit v4, October 2014
1. Introduction – Blended and Online Learning in the
context of Future Ready

La Trobe’s Strategic Plan, Future Ready 2013-2017 states:

"The student experience will be redefined through a 'Radical Learning Project' which will
reimagine teaching and learning at La Trobe by drawing on rich educational technologies and
external partners. There will be increased use of technology-enabled online learning, drawing
on the rich resource of online educational resources relevant to student learning, blended with
more traditional face-to-face delivery" (p.4).

Future Ready has a target specifically relating to blended learning, to:

Increase the number of subjects offered by the University in blended mode with at least 60%
of subjects in blended mode by [2017] (p.7).

This target is defined by 60% of the total number of students enrolled in subjects including a substantial
component of online learning.

The purpose of this toolkit is to provide a set of resources for the design or redesign of a
course and/or subject to embed flexible, online or blended learning activities or
assessments.

A definition of blended and online learning

Blended learning is an approach to planning and organising teaching for student learning
that offers an alternative to the traditional lecture/tutorial model of delivery. Blended learning
is defined by Bluic et al. (2007) as a three-way interaction:

‘Blended learning’ describes learning activities that involve a systematic combination

of co-present (face-to-face) interactions and technologically-mediated interactions
between students, teachers and learning resources (p. 234).

That is, blended learning is a mix of face-to-face and online learning and can present an
alternative to the traditional lecture/tutorial model of delivery.

Online learning instead refers to student activity in a subject that is required or expected to
occur entirely online.

Blended and online learning places learning as central, achieved using good learning
principles, such as the pedagogical design approach of constructive alignment (Biggs &
Tang, 2007), where learning outcomes, assessment and activities are aligned, with a focus
on what the learner is doing.

“Online learning” is an approach to learning where learning activities occur entirely online.

3
Future Ready Toolkit v3, October 2013
Designing learning

In designing blended and online learning, you can think about different modes of student
engagement:

 learner - teacher interaction (how learners engage with teachers)

 learner - learner interaction (how learners engage with each other)

 learner - content interaction (how learners engage with content)

A learning-centred approach demonstrates Biggs & Tang’s (2007) orientation to teaching

as a focus on “what the student does” (pp. 16-19). This emphasis on designing active
learning follows Anderson’s (2004) argument that fundamental to blended learning is an
emphasis on interaction rather than content (p. 43). Hence designing learning is
organised around modes of student engagement: learner-content interaction, learner-
teacher interaction, and learner-learner interaction, (Anderson, 2004, pp. 46-51).

Learner-Teacher Interaction Learner-Learner Interaction Learner-Content Interaction

(how learners engage with teachers) (how learners engage with each other) (how learners engage with content)
 Learning activities &  Collaboration, groupwork &  Individual student
assignments learning communities activity
 Lectures, tutorials &  Discussion forums,  Self-study exercises
workshops community journals  Review of recorded
 Discussion in class &  Problem-based learning lectures
forums, blogs in LMS activities  Applying readings from
 Debates & role plays  Peer review, shared files textbooks, LMS &
 Investigations, field work,  Project work in wikis library
surveys  Reflective writing, blogs  Case studies
 Formative assessment &  Self-assessment &
quizzes quizzes
 Reflective writing,
journals, portfolios

Figure 1: Designing Learning around modes of student interaction

4
Future Ready Toolkit v3, October 2013
Flexible and Online Learning Development (FOLD) projects

This Toolkit sets out La Trobe University’s flexible and online learning development (FOLD)
process for conducting a curriculum design project that will obtain institutional support and
resources, and result in enduring, sustainable change.
The FOLD process for curriculum design sets out principles for planning a curriculum design
project that are:
 Strategically aligned: projects are guided by University and Faculty strategies and
priorities.
 Collaborative: team-based projects, with multiple academics engaged in collective
decision making.
 Curriculum-focused: designs of subject assessments and learning activities are
based on a course focus.
 Sustainable: project designs can be adapted to other settings and extended in
scale.
 Achievable: projects will define goals that can be achieved over the length of a
Semester.
This process describes a staged approach to design: the first step is to plan and define the
project, setting goals scope, and participants. This is followed by the design, development,
implementation and evaluation stages. The evaluation process involves documentation and
dissemination that shares good practice and outcomes, and promotes adaptable designs.

Figure 2: FOLD staged approach to design

The FOLD project approach draws on the Course Design Intensives (CDI), from Oxford
Brookes University. In a study of the CDI approach, Dempster, Benfield & Francis (2012)
found:
Bringing participants together in multi-disciplinary teams enables critical review and cross-
fertilisation of ideas within and across teams ….The CDI approach appears to legitimise and
support time out for staff to work collaboratively and reflectively on new modes of delivery,
such as e-learning for blended and distance courses. Its success, however, is contingent on a
variety of factors, especially the agency of key staff members.

And Benfield (2008) observed:

CDI-like processes may provide quick wins – an early Brookes CDI participant team
succeeded in virtually overnight (well, six months anyway!) moving their whole academic
school from low levels of e-learning to almost every undergraduate student being engaged in
interactive e-learning. Nevertheless, the real benefits accrue when the institutional
commitment to CDI-like interventions is long-term. ....

5
Future Ready Toolkit v3, October 2013
The FOLD approach is a holistic approach incorporating blended/online learning
approaches, based upon the principles of student engagement. Through collaborative
design, experts from around La Trobe University can be brought together to discuss the best
design options. This can be represented as various steps within a process:

Figure 3: FOLD staged approach to design

6
Future Ready Toolkit v3, October 2013
Models of blended learning

“Blended learning” is an approach to learning where learning activities are a mix of face-to-
face and online learning.

Blended learning design approaches range from:

 Predominately face-to-face teaching, with some online learning
 A mix of face-to-face and online learning
 Predominately online learning

Face to Blended Online

face

The arrangements for blended learning need to be matched to students’ needs. Lefoe and
Hedberg (2005) recommend a design approach to incorporating technologies into existing
contexts:

An effective blended learning environment takes a learning design approach which

looks at the learning goals and aligns them with teaching and learning activities and
assessment, thereby ensuring the integration and appropriate use of technology
(Boud & Prosser, 2002). (p. 326).

There are various models of blended learning, for example:

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Blended presentation and Blended block mode Predominantly online
interaction
Combination of: Combination of:
Activity focused face to face
 intensive face-to-face  short lecture podcasts,
sessions blended with online
sessions as one day or with online resources and
resources.
half days learning activities
For example, the flipped
 weekly online  online or face-to-face
curriculum model, combines:
tutorial/seminars for tutorials
 short lecture podcasts, activities and interaction
 interaction via online or
online resources, with
 online content and face-to-face collaboration,
 face-to-face resources discussion forums and/or
tutorial/seminars for group work
interaction and presentation
of group work

7
Future Ready Toolkit v3, October 2013
Flipping the Lecture/Tutorial
The flipped lecture (or classroom) describes an approach that involves activity-focused face-
to-face sessions (whether workshops, seminars or lectures), blended with online learning
resources. EDUCAUSE (2011) offers this description:
The flipped classroom is a pedagogical model in which the typical lecture and
homework elements of a course are reversed. The notion of a flipped classroom
draws on such concepts as active learning, student engagement, hybrid course
design, and course podcasting. The value of a flipped class is in the repurposing of
class time into a workshop where students can inquire about lecture content, test
their skills in applying knowledge, and interact with one another in hands-on
activities.

For a description and illustration, see Gerstein (2011) The Flipped Classroom Model: A
Full Picture. http://usergeneratededucation.wordpress.com/2011/06/13/

Figure 4: Example of a blended model - Flipped classroom

The “flipped classroom” would generally feature online lecture and learning content, and
interactive active learning face-to-face learning environments

Further examples:

Flipping the curriculum: Exemplars.

http://www.latrobe.edu.au/ltlt/fold/flexible-and-online-
learning/exemplars

8
Future Ready Toolkit v3, October 2013
Blended learning examples

Example 1: Activity focused blended learning for a multicampus subject

Lefoe and Hedberg (2006) outlined a multicampus blended learning in which a subject is
designed in a “student-centred approach”, involving pre-reading, videos or pre-recorded
mini-lectures, and preparation for tutorial or workshops. These were facilitated by local tutors
in small classes, and activity focussed workbooks and study guides were designed for the
subject. The figure below models fortnight’s schedule for student learning in a subject.

Week 1 - 2: Learning activities online Learning activities in session

Reading
Recorded video
Learning activity: Online forum
Workshop campus 1: Group enquiry
Workshop campus 2: Group enquiry
Reading
Learning activity: Groupwork
Quiz activity
Workshop campus 1: Group enquiry
Workshop campus 2: Group enquiry
Figure 5: Multicampus Teaching A 2013

Example 2: Mini-lecture multicampus teaching

At La Trobe University, the subject Acute Care B (NSG2ACB) is taught to students over four
campuses. The subject is structured around a blend of alternating face-to-face and online
lectures. Every fortnight, a 20 minute recorded mini-lecture is accompanied by learning
activities that are linked to Skills Workshops. In this blended model, an online mini-lecture is
linked to 30 mins of specific activities to obtain knowledge and factual content, for instance,
relevant reading, an e-book, or a quiz. The mini-lecture was produced from the desktop
using Echo360, a process that did not require technical support, rooms or resources.

A similar approach is described by Storgaard &

Heilesen (2010), in which a unit of study in which
lectures were replaced with short, thematic video
podcasts with which students constructed and
presented knowledge in small group sessions.

9
Future Ready Toolkit v3, October 2013
Example 3: Enquiry-based learning
An enquiry learning approach (Oliver, 2007) was used where “students were given a series
of authentic inquiry tasks supported by a raft of learning scaffolds. The technology-facilitated
system supported timely feedback and support and administrative efficiencies for the tutors
and teacher.”

La Trobe's Faculty of Health Sciences extensively uses enquiry based learning

Example 4: Block mode multi-campus teaching

A block mode of learning design can be useful in multicampus or distributed settings where
students cannot readily come to a regular sessions.

A blended learning approach for a large class described by Abraham (2007), commences
with block mode, then lecturers and tutors conduct interactive sessions online. Tutors
facilitate group work and formative assessment, that is provide personal guidance to
students on their learning:

“The face-to-face component consisted of one full-day workshop held in Week 2 and two half-
day workshops held in Weeks 7 and 11.”

“The workshops were supplemented with the provision of online notes and an online
serialised case study. The online component was delivered using a WebCT Vista interface
which allowed extensive use of both student-student and student-coordinator asynchronous
discussion between the workshop sessions.”

“Assessment items consisted of weekly online textbook questions, an assignment consisting

of both a group element and an individual online element, a series of three multiple choice
online tests in Weeks 6, 10 and 13, and a final exam, with only the final exam being
compulsory.”

Figure 6: Example of a Blended model - "Block mode"

10
Future Ready Toolkit v3, October 2013
Figure 7: Learning spaces designed for collaboration at the La Trobe University Bundoora
campus

Example 5: A distributed learning approach

Caroline Walta (Education, Shepparton campus) has developed the Graduate Diploma in
Education (Middle Years) for post-graduate students who are off-campus and distributed in
locations throughout the state and nationally. She commences with a face-to-face block
mode meeting, then teaches online: with a blend of lecture presentations (podcasts or
vidcasts) and learning activities on the LMS, and online workshops using synchronous virtual
classroom interaction.
Learning activities online Learning activities in session
Reading
Learning activity from reading
Block Teaching (3 day)
 Meet socially
 Learning technology
 Learning activities
Learning activities:
 Video mini-lecture
 Quiz activity
 Reading
Recorded video
Learning activity: Groupwork
Quiz activity
Interactive session: synchronous or Online
forum
Learning activity: Groupwork

Assessment task

Figure 8: Multicampus Teaching B 2013

11
Future Ready Toolkit v3, October 2013
Design Essentials for Blended and Learning
Blended and online learning must be centered upon the principles of good teaching and
student learning. Technology is a tool for learning, and can be used to enhance and achieve
student learning outcomes.

1. Constructive alignment
The starting point for FOLD design is based on the fundamentals of pedagogical design.
This is achieved by using good learning principles, including the pedagogical design
approach of constructive alignment (Biggs, 2003) where learning outcomes, assessment and
activities are aligned, with a focus on what the learner is doing.

2. Student engagement
The underlying purpose of FOLD is the design of subjects or courses is to improve student
engagement. Benson and Brack (2010) point out that technology will not make you a better
teacher, but the “wise use of it may make teaching and learning easier, more engaging,
more effective, and maybe more fun” (p.189).

3. Interactive online learning

Flexible and online learning activities and assessment should be designed around the
interaction between teacher and learner, with a focus on learning activities and for the
purpose of promoting active learning. Goodyear describes this as a shift “from content
towards activity” (2002, p.66) where content becomes a “resource for activity” rather than
content and information just transmitted to students. Effective online learning requires the
presence and interactive role of the lecturer, as well as the use and assessment of
asynchornous online discussion (Field, 2005).

4. Integrated design
Flexible and online learning activities should be integrated as part of a holistic subject or
course design, and not simply treated as a learning technology ‘added on’. The literature
supports the notion that effective learning using networked technologies need to be built-in
rather than bolted-on, so that online learning is not simply addedon to existing teaching
arrangements.

5. Customised design
There is no one ‘right’ model of flexible and online learning design, each design should fit the
particular subject or course. Sometimes a subject or course design can be simple,
sometimes it can be complex. The table on page 13 scopes the range of design context at
La Trobe University.

12
Future Ready Toolkit v3, October 2013
 Table 1: The complexity of a subject or course design approach

Type of FOLD Project Definition

- single campus smaller subject Less than 100 students
1 or 2 self-directed academics seeking redevelopment
LESS COMPLEXITY

– single campus midsize subject Single campus

200-500 students
Between 1-5 academics

– single campus large subject Single campus

500-1000+ students
Between 1-10 academics
Subject design or redesign

- multi-campus smaller subject Blended or online approaches

1-3 campuses involved
Less than 100 students
2-5 academics across campuses
Content expertise can be situated on one campus or spread across
LTU campuses

- multi-campus midsize subject Blended or online approaches

1-5 campuses involved
200-500 students
2-8 academics across campuses
Content expertise can be situated on one campus or spread across
LTU campuses

- multi-campus large subject Blended or online approaches

1-5 campuses involved
500-1000+ students
2-10 academics across campuses
Content expertise can be situated on one campus or spread across
LTU campuses

Single campus existing course Blended or online approaches

redesign Course exists and requires redevelopment
1 campus
5-20 academics involved

Multi-campus existing course Blended or online approaches

Course design (new course)

redesign Course exists and requires redevelopment

MORE COMPLICATED

2-5 campuses
5-20+ academics involved

- single campus new course Blended or online approaches

1 campus
5-20 academics involved

- multi-campus new course Blended or online approaches

2-5 campuses
5-20+ academics involved

Series of new courses (e.g. Blended or online approaches

Whole school development) 1-5 campuses
sets of courses involved (e.g. Common first year)

The following sections of the Toolkit present resources and worksheets for the FOLD
process based on the course design intensive process.

13
Future Ready Toolkit v3, October 2013
2. Planning a Blended Learning Design

Figure 6: Planning a blended learning design

To plan for a blended or online learning design in a subject or course, you will need to:

2. Define your goals: set your goals for the subject, clearly defining intended learning
outcomes.

3. Identify your needs: set up a timeline for design development, identify support and
resources needed, and plan for FOLD design intensives to work through the curriculum
change.

4. Organise a team: draw on discipline academics, educational designers and academic

developers. Plan and request support from the library, graphic design, production, ICT,
student admin, LMS help etc…

Use the following Planning Questions to

identify project needs and document your
plan.

14
Future Ready Toolkit v3, October 2013
 Blended Learning Design Planning Questions
Steps Questions Comments and Actions (completed?)

1. Identify how How does the proposed topic fit Align each subject of the degree to course
the subject fits in a course or degree program? intended learning outcomes. In your plan explain
within course how this particular subject achieves course
intended learning outcomes.
learning
outcomes

What are learners expected to In this step, define the intended learning
2. Define
learning achieve and to what standard? outcomes at a subject level. What do you want
outcomes your students to learn, and be able to do?
(educational
objectives)

What are students required to Determine the assessments that will best drive
3. Design
assessment demonstrate in assessment? learning outcomes in this subject.

Who are my students? For an inclusive curriculum, consider student

4. Identify
participants needs relating to:
 Cultural diversity
 Year level (1st year or later)
 School leavers or mature age
 SES level of students
Who are my staff? And identify course or subject team, and their
needs:
 Tutors, demonstrators, clinical
educators, casual lecturers
Where are my students? Identify where learning takes place:
5. Identify
learning  Single campus or multicampus?
locations  On-campus: rooms,
 Online

6. Identify Where does learning take place? Settings for learning: rooms, LMS.
learning Which mode of blended learning Mode of blended learning: Face-to-face;
environment matches your cohort? presentation by video-conference, activity
focussed, block mode, fully online (See
Introduction).

7. Identify How will learning take place? Arrangements to support these approaches:
teaching and Which approaches suit your Resources for learning: content, library, staffm
learning assessment tasks? facilities, technologies
approach Resources from faculty: development,
 Knowledge transmission
(pedagogies) communication
& presentation
 Dialogue and discussion People: Campus coordinators/lead academics,
tutors
 Knowledge construction
 Collaborative production
See A framework for designing
flexible and online learning
http://www.latrobe.edu.au/teachi
ng/flexible-and-online-
learning/strategies

15
Future Ready Toolkit v3, October 2013
Steps Questions Comments and Actions (completed?)

What will students be required to Are the opportunities for:

8. Develop
learning do? learner-content interaction: knowledge content
activities and formative assessment (quizzes)
Activities to engage students
learner-teacher interaction: dialogue and
with assessments and
knowledge construction with
learning outcomes (formative lecturer/facilitator/tutor
assessment) learner-learner interaction: discussion and
collaborative knowledge building
Activities to enable students to
demonstrate learning
outcomes (summative
assessment)

Activities to develop graduate

capabilities (Eg. Tutorials,
quizzes, online forums, peer
review, groupwork)
How will you get the Write a requirements document before the
9. Document
School/Faculty support you development stage
your plan
need?
Summarise your plan: in a table,
timeline, a flowchart, or a
series of scenarios, or some
combination.

16
Future Ready Toolkit v3, October 2013
3. Designing Curriculum for Blended Learning

Figure 7: Designing curriculum for blended learning

To design for blended learning in a subject or course, there is a need to:

 Write intended learning outcomes (ILOs); and

 Map intended learning outcomes and assigning graduate capabilities

At La Trobe the principles of curriculum design were articulated as part of the Design for
Learning project.

The following Quick Guide describes the process of writing ILOs

and mapping ILOs to graduate capabilities.

17
Future Ready Toolkit v3, October 2013
Writing Intended Learning Outcomes (ILOs) at La Trobe
Author: Dr Judy Lyons

Definition
Intended learning outcomes (ILOs) are explicit statements of what a learner is supposed to
be able to do, while standards describe the level of achievement. The key to La Trobe
University ILO standards is that each ILO will have standards developed to measure the
achievement of graduate capabilities in the course at cornerstone, midpoint and capstone
elements of the subjects.

There are different levels of ILO statements within the curriculum:

University level ILOs are institutional undertakings from the University to Government,
Quality Enhancement and Accreditation Boards and reflect the requirements of Australian
Qualifications framework.

Course level ILOs is broad statements at course level. They relate to the university’s
mission and encompass the benefits to and requirements of the key stakeholders namely
the University, Professional Accreditation Bodies, employers, students and discipline
communities.

Subject level ILOs relates to the course ILOs and outline the graduate capabilities and
outcomes that will be achieved in the subject.

Topic level ILOs relate to the subject and describe the graduate capabilities and outcomes
that will be achieved in a specific teaching and learning session.

18
Future Ready Toolkit v3, October 2013
QUICK GUIDE

Writing CLEAR Intended Learning Outcomes for your Subject

Intended Learning Outcomes (ILOs) are the foundation of effective curriculum design. They
are statements about what you would like students to learn, the level you would like them to
learn at, and how they are expected to demonstrate their learning. In other words, they
describe student learning at the end of a program of study. All other aspects of teaching and
curriculum (for example, your selection of the learning activities and the assessment tasks)
should flow from a clear statement of learning outcomes. ILOs signal to students what they
should focus on and where they should direct their effort in order to be a successful learner
in your subject.

This Quick Guide is intended to help you write ILOs that are appropriate to the subject you
teach. Intended Learning Outcomes should be written with the following CLEAR dimensions
in mind. Use the Checklist to ensure your ILOs are appropriate.

Why is this important? Checklist: Does the ILO?

All subject level ILOs exist in a  Take account of the subject’s year level.
CONSTRUCTIVELY context: typically a year level,
ALIGNED disciplinary major, course degree  Account for the status of the subject if it
program and a policy context. contains cornerstone, midpoint or
Effective subject ILOs are written capstone elements (i.e., faculty graduate
with knowledge and understanding capabilities).
of those contexts.
 Advance a course degree outcome.

 Take account of La Trobe University

policy requirements .

 Meet the requirements of the Australian

Qualifications Framework (AQF).

ILOs are not statements of  Contain a single verb that is appropriate

LEARNING disciplinary knowledge or content. to the level of learning students are
FOCUSED They are statements about what expected to demonstrate.
you would like students to learn
and do with the disciplinary  Convey information about what the
content. Subject ILOs should student has to do to demonstrate their
contain a ‘verb’ that expresses the learning.
learning students are expected to
actively demonstrate.  Provide opportunities for cognitive,
affective and kinaesthetic forms of
learning.

It is important that all students  Present all students with an opportunity

EQUITABLE have an opportunity to achieve the to achieve it.
subject ILOs. Where appropriate, it
may be important to build in the  Account for the diversity of the student
flexibility for students to achieve cohort.
the ILOs in different ways.

19
Future Ready Toolkit v3, October 2013
 The ILOs in a subject are most  Directly inform the design of the subject’s
ASSESSABLE effective when they are directly overall approach to assessment.
linked to the assessment. Since
ILOs express the most important  Relate specifically to an assessment
aspects of student learning in the task, and the assessment task to the ILO.
subject, the opportunity to
demonstrate that learning should  Enable a valid and confident
be made available through a range
measurement of student learning.
of assessment tasks.

The ILOs need to be relevant to  Express the most important and/or

RELEVANT the aim of the subject and/or the current developments in the
professional context. It is likely that discipline/profession that are relevant to
the ILOs will take into account the the subject.
latest research and development in
the discipline.  Articulate with professional accreditation
requirements.

Levels of Intended Learning Outcomes (ILOs)

INSTITUTIONAL LEVEL
Describing the course context
 Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF)
 Professional Accreditation
 University Graduate Capabilities Definitions and
Standards and Essentials

COURSE LEVEL
Setting Course Intended Learning Outcomes
 Aims of the course
 Describe to students what they will learn and be able to on
completion of the course
 Design and sequence the learning experience so students
achieve the course learning outcomes
 Design subjects, assessment and feedback so that students
have the best opportunity to achieve course learning
outcomes

Subject level ILOs Subject level ILOs Subject level ILOs

20
Future Ready Toolkit v3, October 2013
Examples of Taxonomies
Here are examples of two taxonomies which you might like to refer to. Look at the
hierarchical nature of the taxonomies and which level of skills you would like your students to
develop.

Biggs’ SOLO Taxonomy

SOLO stands for Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome. It provides a systematic way
of describing the structural complexity of students’ responses, i.e. how a learner's
performance grows in complexity when mastering many tasks. The categories are not
content specific. They are assumed to apply to any kind phenomenon that involves learning,
and shifts in understanding.

1. Prestructural
o Use of irrelevant information or no meaningful response.
o The task is not attacked appropriately; the student hasn't really understood
the point and uses too simple a way of going about it.
2. Unistructural
o Answer focuses on one relevant aspect only.
3. Multistructural
o Answer focuses on several relevant features but they are not coordinated
together.
o One (unistructural), then several (multistructural), aspects of the task are
picked up and used, but are treated independently and additively.
Assessment of this level is primarily quantitative.
4. Relational
o The several parts are integrated into a coherent whole; details are linked to
conclusions; meaning is understood.
o These aspects then become integrated into a coherent whole (relational); this
level is what is normally meant by an adequate understanding of the topic.
Assessment of this level becomes qualitative if it is to pick up its nature.
5. Extended abstract
o Answer generalises the structure beyond the information given; higher order
principles are used to bring in a new and broader set of issues.
o The previous integrated whole may be conceptualised at a higher level of
abstraction and generalised to a new topic or area (extended abstract); this
too requires qualitative assessment.’

SOLO might be used to classify the quality, as represented by the sophistication of the
assumed underlying logic, of students' responses to assessment items (warning if students
have been ‘told’ a sophisticated answer in their classes then there need be very little thinking
at all underlying its reproduction in an examination!). (Ramsden, 2003).

21
Future Ready Toolkit v3, October 2013
Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (Revised by Anderson &
Krathwol, 2001)

Bloom proposed that there are six levels of thinking in the cognitive domain that move in a
hierarchal order of complexity. These are knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis,
synthesis and evaluation.

1. Knowledge
o memorisation of facts, theories and principles.
o recall, list, name, state, define, identify, match, memorise, order, recognize,
duplicate, label, arrange, relate, repeat, reproduce, state.
2. Comprehension
o show basic understanding.
o discuss, paraphrase, compute, extrapolate, describe, explain, distinguish,
translate, classify, restate, review, report, express, identify, indicate, locate.
3. Application
o apply knowledge (ideas or theories or principles) to new situations.
o solve, demonstrate, apply, interpret, choose, classify, use, calculate, apply,
choose, illustrate, dramatise, employ, practice, operate, relate, schedule,
sketch, administer.
o application to situations where there is a correct answer.
4. Analysis
o decompose a topic into its constituent parts, show relationships between the
more basic ideas.
o separate, recognize, test, differentiate, compare, contrast, criticise,
discriminate, examine, question, solve, analyse, appraise, calculate,
categorise, distinguish, experiment.
o solutions where there is not necessarily a specific correct answer.
5. Synthesis
o put parts of knowledge together, discover relationships among different parts,
create new patterns.
o design, order, develop, create, summarise, combine, compose, construct,
formulate, plan, prepare, propose, arrange, assemble, manage, organise.
6. Evaluation
o make judgements regarding extent to which something satisfies chosen
criteria.
o evaluate, justify, critique, appraise, argue, judge, predict, assess, defend,
value, compare, estimate, support.

22
Future Ready Toolkit v3, October 2013
Examples of intended learning outcomes
Through accessing subject information from five modules (Context of Care and the Health
System, Organisational Dynamics, Professional Development, Evidence/Quality and
Professional Accountability) and through written activities, discussions, other readings, on-
line interaction and team work, students will be able to:

 describe, discuss and analyse the structure and influences of the health system,
demonstrate an interdisciplinary awareness.
 describe and explore the contribution of other professions to health and human
service delivery.
 engage in team work with students from other health and human service professions.
 describe and analyse the rights and expectations of service consumers and apply the
key issues of ethical decision making.

Key References on learning outcomes

Anderson, L. W. & Krathwohl, D. (Eds.) (2001). Taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A
revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.

Biggs, J. & Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for Quality Learning at University: What the Student Does (3rd
Edition). UK: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.

Bloom’s Taxonomy: http://at.ccconline.org/faculty/wiki/Teaching_Resources_-_Other_Resources_-

Blooms_Taxonomy (Colorado Community Colleges Online).

Hussey, T. & Smith, P. (2002). The Trouble with Learning Outcomes. Active Learning in Higher
Education, 3(3), 220-233.

Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to Teach in Higher Education (2nd Ed). London: Routledge.

23
Future Ready Toolkit v3, October 2013
Mapping intended learning outcomes to graduate capabilities

1. Map subjects and their relationship to graduate capabilities.

2. Map graduate capabilities as they progress over year levels.

a. What type of graduate emerges from this discipline?

b. Map each subject against one or two primary graduate capabilities that will be assessed in that subject.

3. Identify cornerstone, midpoint and capstone assessment points over the course.

Discipline Aims:

Graduate Capabilities
Subject Year Subject intended learning outcomes Graduate capabilities to be
assessed in this subject

24
Future Ready Toolkit v4, October 2014
Identify the subject that mark the cornerstone, midpoint and capstone assessment points over the course

Discipline-
Literacies and Inquiry and Personal &
specific
Communication Analytical Professional ESSENTIALS
knowledge/
Skills Skills Skills
skills

Cornerstone

Sustainability Thinking
Global Citizenship

Entrepreneurship
Midpoint

Innovation &
Capstone

25
Future Ready Toolkit v3, October 2013
4. Development Assessments and Learning Activities

Figure 8: Development Assessments and Learning Activities

To develop assessments and learning activities for a subject or course:

 Identify assessment tasks by matching ILOs to teaching and learning approaches

(pedagogies).
 List potential learning activities for each assessment.
 Align learning outcomes with assessments: principles of constructive alignment.
 Integrate Web 2.0 technologies into your curriculum design.
 Map learner activity over a subject.

To embed engaging learning in a subject, ensure that learning activities are closely linked to
assessment and ILOs, following the principles of constructive alignment (Biggs & Tang
2007).

Intended Learning Outcomes (ILOs) Assessment of ILOs

An intended learning outcome (ILO) is a Assessment is tailored so that a student

statement of what the learner is expected who is successful in the assessment
to be able to do and to what standard meets the ILO

Learning activities are then designed to enable and support assessment tasks.

Teaching & learning

activities (TLAs)
Supporting students to
achieve the assessment
becomes the purpose of
teaching and learning
activities

26
Future Ready Toolkit v3, October 2013
The following worksheets are intended to
assist with planning assessments and
learning activities.

27
Future Ready Toolkit v3, October 2013
1. Assessment tasks and learning activities
The best and most successful forms of assessment occur when the learning activities and assessment tasks merge, providing the motivation for
students to complete the activities (Oliver and Herrington 2001).

1.1 Approaches to learning: Start by identify one or more of these four approaches to learning*

Learning through acquisition & Learning through interaction, Learning through knowledge Learning through groupwork and
knowledge presentation dialogue & discussion construction & production collaborative production

Learning Assessment Learning Assessment Learning Assessment Learning Assessment

activity task activity task activity task activity task

Lectures Quizzes Forums, Discussion Quizzes, voting, Reports, papers, Collaboration, Shared
discussions, multiple choice essays group work or presentation
Presentations Self-assessment debates, online Peer review & and short-answer teamwork
chat feedback questions Case study Problem-solving
Readings Exams reports Group projects
Video or web Peer teaching Enquiry based Group project
Recordings & conferencing learning & PBL Project reports Exploration, production and
podcasts Debates & role investigation, document
Peer review plays Reflection, e- Reflective writing, experiential creation
Open access (blogs) portfolios journals, learning
materials e-portfolios, Experiential
Peer teaching Performances, blogs Practicals, lab learning
exhibitions, work, field trips
Role-playing artefacts Video & multi- Supervision
activities, media Role-playing reports
simulations, Field work, presentation activities,
gamification project work, simulations, Online
case studies, gamification community
Virtual tutorials Work-integrated journals
(synchronous or learning & Social media,
asynchronous) placements Blogs, wikis

Collaboration, Mentoring with

group work or external
teamwork stakeholders

*Adapted from Bower, Hedberg & Kuswara (2009).

28
Future Ready Toolkit v3, October 2013
1.2 Define your course and subject Intended Learning Outcomes. Then, design the student learning experience by aligning learning activities and
assessment tasks to subject intended learning outcomes.

Enter your ILOs into the table below and choose from the options above to match learning activities and assessment tasks to your ILO:

ILOs
Subject intended learning outcomes Assessment Tasks Learning Activity
What activities will enable students to
What are learners expected to achieve and What are students required to demonstrate? accomplish the assessment tasks?
to what standard?
ILO 1:

ILO 2:

ILO 3:

ILO 4:

The learning activities above are based on Laurillard’s Conversational Model (2002), as adapted by Littlejohn and Pegler (2009).

Types of Assessment, Teaching & Learning, University of Technology Sydney:

http://www.uts.edu.au/research-and-teaching/teaching-and-learning/assessment/types-assessment

For guides on effective discussion forums, open education resources, blended learning approaches, multi-campus teaching, see the LTLT Resource
Library: http://www.latrobe.edu.au/ltlt/resource-library

29
Future Ready Toolkit v3, October 2013
2. Integrating Web 2.0 technologies into your curriculum design

Shifting from individual learning to expansive learning.

Integrating Web 2.0 into the university learning means:

(i) including students’ own use of social media into their

own learning, and

(ii) encouraging innovations in teaching approaches

involving Web 2.0.

This is in keeping with the notion of expansive learning

(Engeström et al 1996), in which learning is viewed as a
creative, situated process of adaptation to challenges and
problems.

This section lists three starting points for investigating teaching with Web 2.0

i). Identify potential designs with Web 2.0

Examine the examples of Web 2.0 teaching and learning approaches, and the range of Web
2.0 technologies on the next page.

Examples are:

 learner-generated content: students produce and review their own resources.

 peer review & knowledge construction: open projects on wikispaces or wikiversity.
 learning communities of students, staff & practitioners.
 experiential learning &assessment that crosses institutional boundaries: involvement
of expert peers.
 knowledge generation via placements, (virtual) exchanges.
 open approaches to assessment and access to knowledge via adoption of open
education resources (OER).

Adapted from McLoughlin & Lee (2010).

30
Future Ready Toolkit v3, October 2013
ii). Selected online collaboration tools and applications for teaching and
learning

Hershock & LaVaque-Manty (2012, p. 11) present a list of Web 2.0 applications and their
uses for learning. See http://www.crlt.umich.edu/node/961.

iii). A framework for using social media in learning environments

The table by Dabbagh & Kitsantas (2012) presents a framework that lists social media and
their uses for learning. See Figures and Tables:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1096751611000467#t0005

31
Future Ready Toolkit v3, October 2013
3. Learning design checklist
The learning design checklist is intended to help you consider a process for setting up a
subject in an online environment.

The following information provides details of each step in the process:

1. Introduction
Introduction should include:

 subject description subject

 intended learning outcomes

1.1
 expectations of student learning in this subject

 what students can expect of staff in this subject – including when you are available,
contact details

2. Program information
2.1 Timetables, Instruments, Learning handbooks.

Prerequisite knowledge and skills:

 State any minimum prerequisite knowledge/skills students must have to understand

2.2
content in the current module.

 Label this section "Prerequisite knowledge and skills".

Prescribed / Recommended texts for the module:

 Provide information as to the prescribed text and/or the recommended text.

2.3
 It is preferable for these to be available online through the library.

 Label this section "Prescribed / Recommended texts"

Estimated Student Learning Hours:

 Provide an estimate of the time required for students to complete the module, including
2.4 all readings, watching video lectures, performing learning activities and self-directed
study.

 It excludes time for assessment activities.

For each assessment task:

 Provide clear assessment instructions ensuring the assessment assesses the stated
learning outcomes and is consistent with learning activities and provided content.

 Explain how the assessment will be assessed and grading policies (links to marking
2.5 rubrics, other relevant assessment tool that may be used).

 Explain how and when feedback will be given to students.

 Clearly explain how to submit assessment, due dates, and logistics for assessment
(e.g.. formative/summative meetings; use of Turnitin with instructions on how/when to
use it etc.).

32
Future Ready Toolkit v3, October 2013
 Other assessment information that should be provided:

2.6  Explain exactly what is assessable in the subject and what isn’t.

 Explain where support can be obtained for assessments if needed.

3. Learning activities and resources

Select content and design learning activities that allow students to meet learning outcomes, and
3.1 link to assessment tasks that examine whether the outcomes have been met.

Provide learning activities and resources that are appropriate for the subject, e.g., learning
3.2 activities are presented in a format appropriate to the online environment, accessible and
useable by all students.

Learning resources and content should not be limited to only readings / journal articles, e.g.,
3.3 content might be lecturer created content, websites, images, figures, diagrams, links to
prescribed textbooks or e-books, short 5-10min PowerPoint presentations.

Ensure all learning resources and materials are appropriately cited and comply with copyright
3.4 and moral rights obligations.

Any activity included in the module must be accompanied by a statement explaining: Why the
3.5
activity is relevant and what the student should gain from the reading.

4. Summary
4.1 Summary paragraph should be included that provides a conclusion for the module.

5. Reference List
Reference list is provided using correct referencing style, listing all references used in the online
5.1 learning environment.

Adapted from POSTGRADUATE NURSING LMS MODULE REVIEW CHECKLIST Prepared by Claire Macken &
Pauline Wong. Adapted from: CHA Module Review Checklist and Melbourne University, Teaching and Learning
(Multimedia and Educational Technologies) Committee Working Group on Online Subjects, developed by a
working group of the Teaching and Learning (Multimedia and Educational Technologies) Committee of Academic
Board. Membership of the group was Dianne Chambers, Chris Higgs, David Hirst, Richard James, Peter
Tregloan and Harry Watson, 2006.

33
Future Ready Toolkit v3, October 2013
5. Evaluating Blended Learning

Figure 9: Implement and evaluate blended learning

This section contains suggestions and worksheets relating to:

 Holistic evaluation of FOLD projects
 Focusing Evaluation
 Reeves & Hedberg’s (2003) Conducting Evaluations approach for e-learning
 Evaluation of Flexible Learning by Peer Review

o Evaluation of constructive alignment

o Methods for Gathering data

34
Future Ready Toolkit v3, October 2013
1. Holistic evaluation of FOLD projects

Projects based on La Trobe University’s Flexible and Online Learning Development (FOLD)
approach adopt a holistic approach to curriculum design and development that seeks to
integrate the constituents of an active learning environment. The principles for FOLD are set
out in the Introduction Section.

Institutional evaluation is available for all subjects through student feedback measures and
through course lifecycle policy and procedures.

The team-based approach to FOLD invites participation and expertise from a broad range of
interests: academic teachers, students, educational designers, academic developers,
Faculty managers, administration and information technology support staff. At the outset,
projects are aligned with institutional policies and Faculty strategies. Designs are then
shaped around situated factors that underpin the learning environment; the student cohort;
discipline requirements and expertise; spatial, temporal, and technological arrangements for
learning that occur in online and physical locations.

The FOLD principles and processes match the action research (AR) cycle, with the formative
goal of “forming (shaping) the thing being studied” (Patton, 2002, p. 218). Action research
aims to integrate theory and practice in order to improve and recover practice in a complex
environment. The action takes place as an iterative cycle:

Figure 10: Plan > Act > Observe > Reflect.

35
Future Ready Toolkit v3, October 2013
 Figure 11: Applied to the FOLD process, the Key stages take on an iterative cycle.

The FOLD approach aims to embed FOLD principles by:

1. Pedagogically inspired and learner-centred. It maps these principles for online

pedagogy.
2. Learning environments rather than learning objects. It encompasses the people,
practices and arrangements for learning (‘Learning ecosystems’).
3. Shared and sustainable practice. Creates designs that are useable across several
contexts.
4. The scale and range of settings are appropriate to the educational aims and objectives.
5. Compatible with the La Trobe context. Strategic, and yet, discipline focussed;
achievable; collaborative (including the uses of resources); uses an intensive
methodology.

36
Future Ready Toolkit v3, October 2013
2. Focusing Evaluation

Establish the basic purpose of the evaluation, for example, formative or summative, then the
focus in the evaluation context, and finally the strategies for gathering evidence, e.g., focus
group, observation, survey, and so on.

Type of evaluation Focus Strategies

Formative evaluation: Will involve ascertaining the match Peer-review of the design
between the ‘learning and model/architecture (combined with
Design evaluation instructional goals’ and the design interview assisted think aloud).
specification.

Prototype evaluation Will involve ascertaining whether the Direct observation (combined with
educational innovation matches structured responses via
predefined design criteria. This checklist).
involves a small group of students as
well as the tutors. Focus group or individual interview
(semi-structured).

Implementation Involves gathering data from a larger Direct observation (combined with
evaluation sample of users in the first full-scale structured responses via
use of the materials in a real teaching checklist/questionnaire).
and learning situation.
Analysis of user interactions and
products of their learning activities.

User’s self-reporting which

includes post-hoc comments
gained through querying, and
analysis of Critical Reflections on
the learning activities.

Semi-structured and open-ended

questionnaires of user satisfaction
with the materials.

Summative Outcome evaluation, effects on Outcome evaluation can be

evaluation specifically defined learning achieved through looking at
outcomes. student performance on the
assigned tasks.
Impact evaluation will examine the
overall or net effects of the program Impact evaluation can be achieved
or technology as a whole. through the use of questionnaires,
and focus group debriefs.

Monitoring and on- Secondary analysis re-examines Secondary analysis is achieved

going evaluation existing data to address new through critical analysis of existing
questions. data.

Integration of innovation. The extent Integration of innovation. Can be

to which the study materials are ascertained by examining current
forming an integral part of teaching practice.
and learning of the subject.
Time on task. Can be ascertained
Time on task. This is an estimation of by reviewing logs kept by teachers
time spent by teachers and students and students.
on the required tasks.

37
Future Ready Toolkit v3, October 2013
3. Reeves & Hedberg’s Conducting Evaluations Approach

Evaluation is central to ensuring the quality of teaching and learning, and academic practice.
Tom Reeves & Hedberg (2003) propose the Conducting Evaluations approach for e-
learning:

Step 1: Identify decisions that must be made about e-learning. Why evaluate?
Identify the reasons for an evaluation
Is it to adopt, expand, improve, abandon, or review?

Step 2: Clarify questions that must be addressed to guide decisions

What do you want to learn? Establish the goals of an evaluation. For example: Who is
enrolled in e-learning and why? How can LMS be improved? What is the impact on access,
on performance? Did students achieve higher order learning outcomes?

Step 3: Select methods

Who will you ask? Determine your sample. What will you ask? Create your instruments.
Observations, interviews, focus groups, questionnaires, data log analysis, expert review,
usability studies. Don’t ask: Which test should we use? but What counts as evidence that
learning has occurred?

Step 4: Collect the data

Triangulate (mixed methods), revise data collection methods – accept limitations but aim for
quality.

Step 5: Report findings so they influence decisions in time

Evaluate alignment: Outcomes, learner tasks, assessment, technological features. Report
early and often, use multiple formats, engage stakeholders in focus groups.

Data don’t make decisions, people do. Don’t reduce complexity by oversimplifying, describe
e-learning in many ways.

References

Reeves, T. & Hedberg, J. (2003). Interactive Learning Systems Evaluation, Englewood Cliffs:
Educational Technology Publications. The companion web site makes available a full set of
evaluation tools (forms and protocol). http://www.evaluateitnow.com/.

38
Future Ready Toolkit v3, October 2013
4. Methods for gathering data
The following activity will help you document a plan for gathering research data:

What are the What are the How will the Are there practical Are there additional
What will be the
Method potential potential analysis be considerations to considerations to take
resulting data?
benefits? limitations? conducted? take into account? into account?

Document
study

Electronic
tracking

Focus group

Interview

Observation

Questionnaire

Survey

Video
recording

Other

39
Future Ready Toolkit v3, October 2013
5. Evaluation of Flexible Learning by Peer Review

This evaluation process follows a holistic approach, that is, each element of the
arrangements for learning is integrated with the overall goals of the curriculum (Hodgson et
al. 2012, p. 295).

The questions are a guide to evaluating a flexible or online learning artefact (subject, course,
artefact) on the basis of its fitness for purpose, and whether it its own processes and
expectations are clearly communicated.

Elements Questions Comments

What is the purpose of this project?

1. Problem/issue
What are the benefits for learning?

What are learners expected to

2. Educational
achieve and to what standard? (Are
objectives and
practitioner or professional bodies
defined learning
involved?)
outcomes
Do learning outcomes align with
subject and course goals?

Is the content organised to support

3. Learning content &
learning activities?
resources
Does the content relate to learning
outcomes?

Does the subject demonstrate

4. Constructive
constructive alignment*? That is:
alignment
1. Do learning outcomes match
assessments tasks and
2. Do learning activities support
assessment tasks? (see below)
Who and where are the learners?
5. Learning
engagement Are expectations made clear to
learners?

Are there opportunities for dialogue

and collaboration?

Is the online subject well organised

and easy to work with?

40
Future Ready Toolkit v3, October 2013
 How will teaching and learning
6. Learning process &
occur? (Are modes, locations & times
support
of learning clearly indicated?)

Are learners guided in their progress?

(Select a learning activity and follow
its path to completion)

Is there opportunity for

communication with key people:
lecturer, tutor, subject coordinator

Is there institutional or administrative

support?

Do learning technologies enhance

7. Learning pedagogies
educational goals and facilitate
learning?

Are the opportunities for:

 learner-content interaction:
knowledge content and formative
assessment (quizzes)
 learner-teacher interaction:
dialogue and knowledge
construction with
lecturer/facilitator/tutor
 learner-learner interaction:
discussion and collaborative
knowledge building

41
Future Ready Toolkit v3, October 2013
5. Resources and References

Resources

Flipped Lecture/classroom
Flipping the curriculum: Exemplars. http://www.latrobe.edu.au/ltlt/resource-library

Educause, (2011). 7 Things you should know about Flipped Classrooms.

http://www.educause.edu/library/resources/7-things-you-should-know-about-flipped-
classrooms.
“The Flipped Classroom”. University of Northern Colorado.
http://www.flippedclassroom.com/.
Dan Berrett, (2012) How 'Flipping' the Classroom Can Improve the Traditional
Lecture. The Chronicle of Higher Education. February 19.
http://chronicle.com/article/How-Flipping-the-Classroom/130857/

FOLD/Design Intensive approaches

Course Design Intensives (CDIs), Oxford Brookes University.
https://wiki.brookes.ac.uk/display/CDIs/Home.
Benfield, G. (2008). e-Learning Course Design Intensives: Disrupting the norms of
curriculum design. Educational Developments, 9(4), 20-22.
Dempster, J.A., Benfield, G. and Francis, R. (2012) An academic development model
for fostering innovation and sharing in curriculum design. Innovations in Education
and Teaching International, 49 (2) 135-147.

Resources for Web 2.0

Open assessment through Wikiversity. http://wikiversity.org.

Crisp, G. T. Rethinking assessment in a participatory digital world - Assessment 2.0.

www.transformingassessment.com/.

McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M. (2010). Pedagogy 2.0: Critical Challenges and Responses
to Web 2.0 and Social Software in Tertiary Teaching.

Evaluation Resources
Evaluating E-learning, Introduction, Disciplinary Thinking, HEA-JISC, UK.
http://disciplinarythinking.wordpress.com/.

Evaluation at CILASS: http://www.shef.ac.uk/ibl/cilass/evaluation.

42
Future Ready Toolkit v3, October 2013
 Evaluating e-learning developments, Learning and Development Centre, University of
Warwick, UK. http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/services/ldc/resource/eguides/elearning/.

Getting Started with Blended Learning, Griffith Institute for Higher Education, Griffith
University, pp. 61-68. http://www.griffith.edu.au/gihe/pdf/gihe_tipsheet_web_bl.pdf.

Hodgson, V., McConnell, D. and Dirckinck-Holmfeld,L. (2012). The Theory, Practice

and Pedagogy of Networked Learning. In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld et al. (eds.),
Exploring the Theory, Pedagogy and Practice of Networked Learning. Springer.

JISC, Disciplinary Thinking: Evaluating E-learning.

http://disciplinarythinking.wordpress.com/

Phillips, R., Kennedy, G. & McNaught, C. (2012). The role of theory in learning
technology evaluation research. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology,
28(7), 1103-1118. http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet28/phillips.html.

Phillips, R., McNaught, C. & Kennedy, G. (2011). Evaluating e-learning: Guiding

research and practice. New York: Routledge.

Reeves, T. (2011). Using Evaluation Tools Effectively. Educause.

http://www.educause.edu/Resources/UsingEvaluationToolsEffectivel/227424\.

References on Writing ILOs

Anderson, L. & Krathwohl, D.R. (Eds.) (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and
Assessment: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (Abridged
Edition). New York: Allyn & Bacon.

Biggs, J and Tang, C. (2007) Teaching for Quality Learning at University, 3rd Edition,
Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University
Press.

Ramsden, P. 2003. Learning to Teach in Higher Education. 2nd Edition, London: Routledge
Falmer.

Toolkit References
Abraham, A. (2007). Adopting a student-centred pedagogy in the teaching of accounting to
engineering students: Comparing a blended learning approach with a traditional
approach. In ICT: Providing choices for learners and learning. Proceedings ascilite
Singapore 2007.
Anderson, T. (2004). Toward a Theory of Online Learning. In T. Anderson & F. Elloumi
(Eds.), Theory and Practice of Online Learning, Athabasca University, pp. 46-51.
http://cde.athabascau.ca/online_book/.
Biggs, J. and Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for Quality Learning at University, SHRE & Open
University Press.
Benson, R & Brack, C 2010, Online learning and assessment in higher education: a planning
guide, Chandos Publishing, Oxford.

43
Future Ready Toolkit v3, October 2013
Bluic, A-M., Goodyear, P., and Ellis, R. 2007. ‘Research focus and methodological choices
in studies into students’ experiences of blended learning’. Internet and Higher
Education, 10: 231-244.

Bower, M., Hedberg, J. & Kuswara, A. (2009). Conceptualising Web 2.0 enabled learning
designs. In Same places, different spaces. Proceedings Ascilite Auckland 2009.
http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/auckland09/procs/bower.pdf.

Crisp, G. T. Rethinking assessment in a participatory digital world - Assessment 2.0.

www.transformingassessment.com/.
Crisp, G. T. (2009) Moving beyond multiple-choice questions: interactivity in e-assessments.
Association Learning Technology Conference Manchester, UK, 8-10 September
2009 Workshop. Available online: http://altc2009.alt.ac.uk/.
Dabbagh, N. & Kitsantas, A. (2012). Personal Learning Environments, social media, and
self-regulated learning: A natural formula for connecting formal and informal learning.
The Internet and Higher Education 15 (1), pp. 3–8.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1096751611000467.

Engeström, Y., Virkkunen, J., Helle, M., Pihlaja, J. & Poikela, R. (1996). The Change
laboratory as a tool for transforming work. Lifelong Learning in Europe, 1(2), 10-17.

Gerstein (2011) The Flipped Classroom Model: A Full Picture.

http://usergeneratededucation.wordpress.com/2011/06/13/.
GIHE, Getting Started with Blended Learning, Griffith Institute for Higher Education (GIHE),
Griffith University. http://www.griffith.edu.au/gihe/resources-support/blended-learning.
Herrington, J. Oliver, R. & Herrington, A. (2007). Authentic learning on the web: Guidelines
for course design, in Khan, B (ed), Flexible learning in an information society.
Information Science Publishing, Hershey PA, 2007, 26-35.
Herrington, J., Herrington, A. & Olney, I. (2012). Mobile learning in higher education:
Authentic tasks, assessment and Web 2.0. In T. Amiel & B. Wilson (Eds.),
Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and
Telecommunications 2012 (pp. 1988-1993). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
http://www.editlib.org/p/41020.

Hershock, C. & LaVaque-Manty, M. (2012). Teaching in the Cloud: Leveraging online

collaboration tools to enhance student engagement. CRLT Occasional Papers No 31,
Center for Research in Learning & Teaching, (2012), University of Michigan.
http://www.crlt.umich.edu/node/961.

Lefoe, G and Hedberg, J, (2006). Blending on and off campus: A tale of two cities. In C.
Bonk & C. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of Blended Learning Environments: Global
Perspectives, Local Designs, Pfeiffer, San Francisco, pp. 325-337.
McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M. (2010). Pedagogy 2.0: Critical Challenges and Responses to Web
2.0 and Social Software in Tertiary Teaching. In M. Lee & C. McLoughlin (Eds.), Web
2.0-Based E-Learning: Applying Social Informatics for Tertiary Teaching (pp. 43-69).
Hershey, Pennsylvania: IGI Global.

McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M. (2010). Pedagogy 2.0: Critical Challenges and Responses to Web
2.0 and Social Software in Tertiary Teaching. In M. Lee & C. McLoughlin (Eds.), Web

44
Future Ready Toolkit v3, October 2013
 2.0-Based E-Learning: Applying Social Informatics for Tertiary Teaching (pp. 43-69).
Hershey, Pennsylvania: IGI Global.

Oliver, R. and Herrington, J. 2001. ‘Online Learning Design for Dummies: Professional
Development Strategies for Beginning Online Designers’. Ed. P. Barker and S.
Rebelsky. Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2002, World Conference on Educational
Multimedia, Hypermedia, and Telecommunications. Norfolk, VA: AACE. 1500-1505.

Oliver, R. (2007). Using technology supported inquiry learning to engage first year students
in large classes. In Student Engagement. Proceedings of the 16th Annual Teaching
Learning Forum, 30-31 January 2007. Perth: The University of Western Australia.
http://elrond.scca.ecu.edu.au/oliver/2007/tlf_2007.pdf.
Storgaard, C., & Heilesen, S. (2010). Facilitating blended learning by means of vidcasting.
Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Networked Learning 2010, Edited
by: Dirckinck-Holmfeld L, Hodgson V, Jones C, de Laat M, McConnell D & Ryberg T.

45
Future Ready Toolkit v3, October 2013