Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Supporting Learning and Teaching with Good Design: Report and Lessons Learned from Learning Experience Design in Higher Education

Written By

Martin Ebner, Sarah Edelsbrunner and Sandra Schön

Submitted: 12 July 2022 Reviewed: 30 August 2022 Published: 21 October 2022

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.107489

From the Edited Volume

E-Service Digital Innovation

Edited by Kyeong Kang and Fatuma Namisango

Chapter metrics overview

94 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics

Abstract

Learning experience design (LXD), that is, the conscious design of learning experiences based on the principles and methods of the design discipline, is a term that is increasingly being used in the design of (digital) learning environments. The aim is to make learning a positive, exciting experience for the learner. This article will introduce the understanding of “learning experience design” and describe its application at Graz University of Technology (TU Graz). As creativity is a base for the design discipline, the organizational unit “educational technology” sees LXD as a chance to develop innovative, quality online teaching and learning materials. The article will show the application and results of LXD of several different projects and resources developed for teachers and students by the educational technology team at TU Graz: the student study progress dashboard, the TELucation website relaunch, and the development of a modifiable digital template for lecturer training.

Keywords

  • learning experience design
  • teaching
  • university
  • design
  • e-learning
  • instructional design

1. Introduction

Learning at higher education institutions in Europe was hardly ever seen as a purely digital or e-service for learners and teachers before the COVID-19 pandemic. During the first weeks and months of closed lecture halls, many Austrian universities tried to continue teaching as well as possible by using video conferencing systems, live streaming, or recordings that were made available to students [12]. Interestingly, before COVID-19, the term “digital learning” was connected to the use of technologies in lecture halls or as a parallel service (provided typically in a learning management system), whereas now, “digital learning” in Austria is the prominent term for “distance learning with technologies” [2]. To sum up, “digital learning” in Austrian higher education institutions can now be seen as an e-service.

Nevertheless, even before the pandemic, we at the “Educational Technology” team at Graz University of Technology (TU Graz) have already changed the way technology-enhanced learning solutions and teaching settings were developed within the university. While the development of teaching concepts and methodologies used to be the task of higher education didactic centers in the 1990s, with the adaptation of technologies, other development methodologies were used and adapted. Instructional design in technology-enhanced learning builds upon the nine steps of Gagné, among others, starting by “gaining attention” and then a presentation of the learning objectives, followed by the stimulation of prior learning, etc. [3]. Especially, in the USA Merrill’s [4], principles are popular, favoring problem-based assignments, application-oriented learning, and day-to-day issues. As a script for the development of e-learning materials and courses, the ADDIE model, an abbreviation of “analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation,” describes how instructional design should be implemented [5]. While the development of learning technologies is of course influenced by the methodologies of software development, the attention for user experience and the need for good design received more and more attention. The use of experience from design and software development, that is, the knowledge of design principles regarding shapes and colors as well as strongly user- and prototype-oriented methods of design development comes to bear in the so-called “learning experience design” [6]. In our contribution, we want to explain the key processes and methods from our daily work within the educational technology team, where instructional, software, and graphic designers work together. In the form of a workshop report, this paper introduces learning experience design (LXD) and shows its implementation in three examples of materials that support teachers in developing good teaching concepts. Finally, the authors will highlight how LXD challenges higher education institutions and their traditional way of applying instructional design.

Advertisement

2. Processes and methods of learning experience design

Learning experience design is “the design of learning experiences that (also) use technology, with the help of design knowledge and methods” ([6], p. 3). This design discipline has been forming for several years and combines specific design knowledge and methods (from interaction design, user experience design, and graphic design, among others) with knowledge and experience from the field of methodological-didactic design of learning and teaching, as well as IT and application development [6, 7, 8, 9]. The term “experience” does not necessarily refer to experiential learning (although some refer to it, see Ref. [10]), but has been borrowed from “user experience design”: the focus lies on what individual learners experience while learning. The emphasis on (learning) experience also refers to designing the entire learning situation, not just the immediate interaction with a learning application [11]. There are different representations for the process of learning experience design, such as by Ref. [6, 12, 13, 14]. Figure 1 illustrates the steps according to Kircher et al. [6].

Figure 1.

Process sequences in learning experience design. Source: Own illustration according to Ref. [6], Figure 4, p. 11, which is based on similar representations/overviews by Ref. [12, 13, 14].

Sequence A, empathizing with learners, means investigating the challenge or problem from the learners’ perspective: What do they need and what is their interest in learning? This includes interviews with target group members; another typical method here is to develop a persona, a (fictitious) description of person representative of the target group. Figure 2 shows such a persona that was developed for our national MOOC platform development.

Figure 2.

Persona developed and in use for the development of the MOOC platform, iMooX.at. Own illustration and shortened presentation. Source: Educational technology at TU Graz.

Then in sequence B designers develop a set of ideas (called “ideation”). There are many well-known methods for generating many “original” ideas. For us, it is important not to focus solely on certain technologies in this phase yet but to develop visions of how a learning setting might look like to foster a positive experience afterward.

In sequence C, initial sketches are drafted, prototypes are built, and their usability is investigated (see [9]). For this, the developed persona can be applied and used as a tool to foster discussion on the needs of the target group(s).

First implementations, e.g., of learning methods or tools, are then tested in sequence D. Typically, mock-ups are used―which can be paper-based or simple digital mock-ups. Typically, two users are invited for a joint test, as we then understand better where adjustments are necessary or need to be considered.

After that, in sequence E, the first real application, for example in a (small) lecture, takes place, where the feedback―as in all previous steps―leads to revisions and renewed implementation of the previous steps.

Strictly speaking, iterative implementation is the rule. The sequence does not always have to be followed and individual steps may also be omitted. To achieve the best possible outcome, people from a wide range of backgrounds should be involved in the process―first and foremost the users, that is, learners, but also teaching staff or other stakeholders.

Advertisement

3. Methodology

The question we would like to answer is: How and with what outcomes and experiences is LXD used in the creation of resources for learning-related e-services? Within the tradition of participatory action research [15, 16, 17, 18], the authors, who are part of the design team, have documented the processes, revised the process steps and artifacts, and discussed how the usage of LXD methods influences the processes and perspectives. We actively explored LXD methods together with graphic designers, software developers, and instructional designers and then tried to integrate them into our daily work. Based on several different applications, where we applied such methods, we have documented, discussed, and reflected upon how these methods influenced the work from an instructional designer’s perspective. We did not explore if and how the results are better suited for the target groups.

In this publication, we will present three examples of how LXD methods were applied in the organizational unit educational technology at TU Graz. The target groups of our examples are students, lecturers of our own institution, and other interested parties. We aimed to create digital learning solutions for them or services that support their learning or teaching. Each example will highlight how user experience methods were integrated into the development of the service. After this, we will present our insights and how LXD influences or changes the design process compared with instructional design.

Advertisement

4. Examples of LXD development of teaching-related e-services for learners and faculty at our university

4.1 A dashboard for study progress: wished and codesigned by students

In a workshop on how to improve teaching, in March 2019, students of TU Graz expressed their wish to have a better and simpler overview of their study progress. Based on this impulse by users, the development of a student progress dashboard was then planned and implemented in the form of codesign and several feedback loops (see [19]). Figure 3 presents artifacts of initial ideas, development, and the final product. First, from March to October 2019, an analysis of data structures and origins was conducted, and initial visualizations were sketched: In the summer of 2019, a codesign workshop with students was held for this purpose, and further meetings with students in the following months. Then, in spring of 2020, several meetings were organized with stakeholders, including student representatives, faculty, experts from the Vice Rectorate for Academic Affairs, members of the works council, and the legal department. At the same time, information material for students was produced (see [20, 21]). Eighteen months after the first vague ideas, the new study progress dashboard was implemented for all bachelor students of the Faculty of Computer Science and Biomedical Engineering in May 2020 (see Figure 3, bottom right image page). User feedback was then gathered for minor revisions. After a 6 month test phase, the service was made available for all bachelor students in December 2020, including various information materials and the development of a consulting services.

Figure 3.

Artifacts from the codesign sessions with students and result of the development of the TU Graz student dashboard. Top left: Students’ needs and initial ideas, top right: A first sketch, bottom left: Annotated paper prototype, bottom right: Final dashboard. (Source: Ref. [19], Figures 5 and 7).

The study progress dashboard is intended to give students a helpful overview of their successes and activities. The data used was already accessible before, but students had to painstakingly gather it; now in the dashboard, it is visualized in such a way that your study progress is visible briefly (or with a few more clicks). Now students can see, colored appropriately, their achievements and the credits they have gained in comparison to the average of the other students. In addition, their own study progress, the progress in the various compulsory and elective subjects, and the official study recommendation are clearly displayed. By visualizing the learning data, students can now keep better track of their own learning process, which might ultimately lead to an improvement in their study success [19]. Student satisfaction with the dashboard is very high; there have been comparatively few complaints or ambiguities communicated via the feedback function since the system has been rolled out across the university.

4.2 The collection of texts for lecturers: TELucation becomes a low barrier

TELucation (“technology enhanced learning” and “education”) is a service for teachers in higher education, offering them freely available information and step-by-step guides to improve their technology-enhanced teaching and stay up to date with developments in the field. TELucation was developed based on several internal workshops at TU Graz with teachers, an online discussion over 3 weeks, and a final round table discussion during the strategy development of TU Graz regarding digitalization, where teachers expressed the wish to have information on different concepts, tools, and implementations as a starting point for their own continuing education, and so that they know what to ask for if necessary. As a result, a website with TELucation articles in five categories was launched in 2021. As the topic of technology-enhanced teaching has received a lot of attention due to the closure of university spaces [1], the website had to be expanded and adapted accordingly. We chose to do this according to the idea of learning experience design.

The users’ demands were crucial to the decision to adapt the website since teachers in higher education were requiring more step-by-step guides for digital teaching and wanted to find these guides on a single page. As a public institution, we also aim to reach a diverse target group and so the second focus of the adaptation was on accessibility, in line with the WCAG 2.1 standards [22] to guarantee a good user experience for all higher education teachers using the service. This phase included research into accessibility guidelines and continuing education on the topic for the instructional and graphic designers involved in the project. A colleague with a visual impairment and expertise in accessible web design was also able to contribute his expertise.

In the first step, requirements for the new website were identified based on users’ needs: The TELucation website must be navigable by keyboard, a path must indicate where you are on the website, the color scheme should be changeable (for color-blind people), no light boxes should be used because they are not recognized by screen readers. At the same time, it was suggested to also introduce the team behind TELucation and explain who is behind the project to make the service feel more personal. Some design choices were deliberately kept from the previous website: categories of articles should still be easily distinguishable by color and by the icons used. All changes made should not interfere with the open license of the website, because TELucation was supposed to remain an OER.

As envisaged in LXD, these ideas were not only discussed and implemented but also shown to the target group with the help of sketches and mock-ups and adapted according to the user feedback. Different website templates were compared with each other and the one with the most positive feedback was chosen for implementation. Testing was not only done with accessibility test tools but also by users with a disability. In the meantime, the TELucation website has been fully revised and is now as accessible as possible. In addition, a “TELucation map” and a guide for authors, which can be downloaded from the website, make the editing and design process of the content transparent for teachers (Figure 4).

Figure 4.

The TELucation folder: first online version (left), first sketches (middle), and accessible new version (right). Source: educational technology at TU Graz; screenshots of https://telucation.tugraz.at .

4.3 OER canvas: modifiable working aid for OER projects

Our third application of LXD addressed users outside of our university: We planned to offer materials that we have developed for our teachers to others so that they can adapt them themselves. The material in question is the “OER canvas”, a template that can be used in print or digitally for consultations or training on the topic of open educational resources (OER). The OER canvas guides through the planning and creation of openly licensed educational resources, for example with a checklist or relevant URLs. We had already learned from our experience with an “OER project canvas” that others like to adapt such tools: In 2018, we offered to send interested parties an Open Office file for translation in a short time and 17 translations of the canvas were created and published [23]. From a legal point of view, such modification and republication were allowed since the OER canvas itself was openly licensed.

In 2021, we planned to also make the OER canvas (Figure 5, middle) available so that modifications and translations can be made easily. We wanted to avoid using Open Office this time since we wanted to make the modification very easy and preferably have a document that can be edited online. After some consideration, we decided to publish the canvas as a Google Slides file. Without a Google account, the template can be downloaded in various formats ― including Microsoft PowerPoint and Open Office files. For people who have a Google account, creating a copy that can be edited is an even easier option. The template can then be edited in several languages and design variants in different formats. To ensure that everything is understandable and everyone will produce roughly the same results, instructions on how to proceed are included in the first slide. The canvas itself was presented at the global OERcamp 2021 (Figure 5, center). It was promptly translated into Telugu (Figure 5, right).

Figure 5.

The first sketch of the OER canvas (left, source: educational technology at TU Graz), the modifiable original canvas version for Austrian teachers [24], [center], and a translation into Telugu [25], [right].

Advertisement

5. Result: a different view on teaching and learning with LXD

LXD methods require an engagement with the target group and its needs. This change of perspective is particularly challenging in higher education, where traditionally the focus lies strongly on a systematic transfer of knowledge and development of discipline-related competencies. The development and introduction of such knowledge are learning goals oriented and often chronologically follow developments in the discipline rather than focusing on the learners’ interests and experiences while learning. LXD sets a clearly different focus here with its perspective on the learner and their perspective. For example, the focus is not on what a learners should already be able to do, but on what he or she can potentially do. The main question is how someone learns particularly well.

To illustrate these results, we use the visualization of the “didactic triangle” to show relevant aspects in the design of teaching arrangements [26] in Figure 6. Whereas in higher education the focus is typically on the arrangement of content and actions related to the competencies to be acquired, LXD has a clearer focus on the concerns of the learners.

Figure 6.

The different perspectives of instructional design in higher education versus learning experience design.

Advertisement

6. Discussion

So, not surprisingly, all the examples mentioned here concern creations by the service unit educational technology; we do not know of a similar design of lectures with the help of LXD methods by university teachers’ own initiative so far. We would like to add that the term LXD and the self-understanding of LXD are not yet clearly sharpened. We also learned that LX designers cannot take charge of the entire process of designing technology-enhanced learning experiences, as they continue to have only a specific view of the process and outcome. Collaborations with other disciplines are certainly still essential here.

For our educational technology team, the adaptation of LXD was not very “exciting” since user experience methods are well-known and common, especially in software development. We have now, however, transferred these to other settings and teams that do not primarily work on software applications.

Advertisement

7. Conclusion: challenge and chance of LXD implementation in higher education institutions and a recommendation

A challenge for LXD, perhaps specific to universities, lies in the fact that development methods for didactic-methodical designs are hardly a research object themselves and it is also not trivial to research them. Thus, the exchange about such innovations happens rather marginally, even in more research-oriented networks, such as technology-enhanced learning or development of teaching at universities. In any case, however, we expect that activities for the professionalization of LXD, that means its use in further education and also by teachers will increasingly lead to awareness of its development. Ultimately, it is important to us that we support good teaching with technology. This increased interest found resonance as a trend toward “quality online learning” in the current Horizon Report [27]. For us, LXD is a helpful wayto better realize this claim.

As we have shown, LXD puts the learner at the center of its work. In practical terms, this is what we might expect from instructional design in general, but where we have seen a less defined practical application. So, with what we have now learned from LXD, we would like to advocate also for learning situations that are not primarily about e-learning, or about digital services, to focus more on the actual user. This can be done simply by sharing and discussing plans and mock-ups with them. Furthermore, we have also learned that besides methodological considerations, early involvement of graphic designers and e-learning developers give everyone a better picture of the needs, backgrounds, and considerations of all parties involved. This may mean that the design process will not be shorter or less time-consuming per se, but unproductive “loops” or “mistakes” may be avoided.

Advertisement

Acknowledgments

The developments of materials presented here, in particular the OER canvas, are partly funded by the Open Education Austria Advanced project (OEAA, 2020-2024) with financial support from the Austrian ministry BMBWF.

Advertisement

Conflict of interest

The authors state no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1. Ebner M, Schön S, Braun C, Ebner M, Grigoriadis Y, Haas M, et al. COVID-19 epidemic as e-learning boost? chronological development and effects at an Austrian university against the background of the concept of “E-learning readiness”, Future Internet. 2020;12:94. Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/1999-5903/12/6/94
  2. 2. Pausits A, Oppl S, Schön S, Fellner M, Campbell D, Dobiasch M. Distance Learning an österreichischen Universitäten und Hochschulen im Sommersemester 2020 und Wintersemester 2020/21. Bundesministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Forschung: Wien; 2021. Available from: https://pubshop.bmbwf.gv.at/index.php?article_id=9&type=neuerscheinungen&pub=926. [Accessed: September 8, 2021]
  3. 3. Gagné R, Briggs L, Wager W. Principles of Instructional Design. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers; 1992
  4. 4. Merrill M. First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development. 2002;50(3):43-59
  5. 5. Branch RM. Instructional Design: The ADDIE Approach. New York: Springer; 2009
  6. 6. Kircher J, Burger E, Ebner M, Schön S. Learning Experience Design – zur Gestaltung von technologiegestützten Lernerfahrungen mit Methoden der Design-Entwicklung. In: Wilbers K, Hohenstein A, editors. Handbuch E- Learning. Expertenwissen aus Wissenschaft und Praxis – Strategien, Instrumente, Fallstudien, 93. Erg.-Lfg. Vol. 7-15. Hürth: Wolters-Kluwer; 2021. pp. 1-14
  7. 7. Ahn J. Drawing inspiration for learning experience design (LX) from diverse perspectives. The Emerging Learning Design Journal. 2019;6:1-6. Available from: https://digitalcommons.montclair.edu/eldj/vol6/iss1/1. [Accessed: September 8, 2021]
  8. 8. Sousa F, Nuno M. Learning experience design: instructional design applied to the onboarding of digital products. In: Martins N, Brandão D, editors. Advances in Design and Digital Communication, Digicom; Springer Series in Design and Innovation. Vol. 12. Cham: Springer; 2020. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-61671-7_5. [Accessed: July 11, 2022]
  9. 9. Schmidt M, Tawfik AA, Jahnke I, Earnshaw Y, editors. Learner and User Experience Research. An Introduction for the Field of Learning Design & Technology. Brigham: EdTech Books; 2020. Available from: https://edtechbooks.org/ux
  10. 10. LXD.org. What is Learning Experience Design?. 2021. Available from: https://lxd.org/fundamentals-of-learning-experience-design/what-is-learning-experience-design/. [Accessed: September 8, 2021]
  11. 11. Interaction Design Foundation. Learning Experience Design – The Most Valuable Lessons. 2018. Available from: https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/article/learning-experience-design-the-most-valuable-lessons. [Accessed: September 8, 2021]
  12. 12. Stone M, Kent KM, Roscoe RD, Corley KM, Allen LK, McNamara DS. The design implementation framework: Iterative design from the lab to the classroom. In: Roscoe R, Craig SD, Douglas I, editors. End-user Considerations in Educational Technology Design. Hershey: IGI Global; 2018. pp. 76-98
  13. 13. McCarthy K, Watanabe M, McNamara D. The design implementation framework: Guiding principles for the redesign of a reading comprehension intelligent tutoring system. In: Schmidt M, Tawfik AA, Jahnke I, Earnshaw Y, editors. Learner and User Experience Research. An Introduction for the Field of Learning Design & Technology. Provo: EdTech Books; 2020. Available from: https://edtechbooks.org/ux. [Accessed: July 11, 2022]
  14. 14. Schmidt M, Earnshaw Y, Tawfik AA, Jahnke I. Methods of user centered design and evaluation for learning designers. In: Schmidt M, Tawfik AA, Jahnke I, Earnshaw Y, editors. Learner and User Experience Research. An Introduction for the Field of Learning Design & Technology. Provo: EdTech Books; 2020. Available from: https://edtechbooks.org/ux. [Accessed: July 11, 2022]
  15. 15. Lewin K. Action research and minority problems. The Journal of Social Issues. 1946;2(1):34-46. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1946.tb02295.x
  16. 16. Adelman C. Kurt Lewin and the origins of action research. Educational Action Research. 1993;1(1):7-24. DOI: 10.1080/0965079930010102
  17. 17. Adugu E. Contextualizing action research. International Journal of Adult Education and Technology. 2021;12(2):31-46
  18. 18. Mertler CA. The Wiley Handbook of Action Research in Education. New Jersey: Wiley; 2019
  19. 19. Leitner P, Ebner M, Geisswinkler H, Schön S. Visualisation of learning for students. A dashboard for study progress. Development, design details, implementation, and user feedback. In: Ifenthaler D, Sahin M, editors. Visualisation and LA. Cham: Springer; 2021
  20. 20. TU Graz. Leitfaden: Grundlagen des Studierenden-Dashboards. 2020. Available from: https://tu4u.tugraz.at/fileadmin/Studierende_und_Bedienstete/Anleitungen/Studierenden-Dashboard_Funktionen_Leitfaden.pdf. [Accessed: September 8, 2021]
  21. 21. TU Graz. Learning Analytics. 2021. Available from: https://tu4u.tugraz.at/studierende/mein-laufendes-studium/learning-analytics/. [Accessed: September 8, 2021]
  22. 22. W3C. Web Content, WCAG 2.1. 2022. Available from: https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/wcag/glance/. [Accessed: July 11, 2022]
  23. 23. Schön S, Atenas J, Ebner M. OER Canvas. In: Open Education Working Group; 2018. Available from: http://education.okfn.org/handbooks/oer-canvas/. [Accessed: July 11, 2022]
  24. 24. Edelsbrunner S, Ebner M, Lari C, Schön S. Canvas for the creation of an open teaching/learning resource (OER)—OEAA version. Graz: TU Graz Educational Technology for Open Education Austria Advanced; 2021. DOI: 10.3217/szkrw-aew74
  25. 25. Rao S. OER Canvas template_Telugu. 2022. Available from: https://www.oercommons.org/courseware/lesson/88624/student-old/. [Accessed: July 11, 2022]
  26. 26. Kansanen P. Teaching as teaching-studying-learning interaction. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research. 1999;43(1):81-89
  27. 27. Pelletier K, Brown M, Brooks DC, McCormack M, Reeves J, Arbino N. 2021 EDUCAUSE Horizon Report, Teaching and Learning Edition. Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE; 2021. Available from: https://library.educause.edu/-/media/files/library/2021/4/2021hrteachinglearning.pdfla=enhash=C9DEC12398593F297CC634409DFF4B8C5A60B36E. [Accessed: July 11, 2022]

Written By

Martin Ebner, Sarah Edelsbrunner and Sandra Schön

Submitted: 12 July 2022 Reviewed: 30 August 2022 Published: 21 October 2022