I have finally browsed through the book "Learning Design: A Handbook on Modelling and Delivering Networked Education and Training" by Kopper and Tattersall (Eds.) and grasped the concept (I think, I hope :) ! Wow! It is an eye opener! Here I am reflecting my rudimentary understanding of the new concept "Learning Design".
Basically, learning is treated as architecture, which embodies theoretical frameworks, structures for design and implementation, technology networks, people roles, and tools. Learning Design is both art and science. The beauty of the art is in its flexibility in adaptive strategies in relation to learning outcomes, needs, and contexts. The evidence of science is that designing of learning (or: instructional design) is built upon learning theories instead of intuitive creation.
Learning Design (LD) involves two parts: (a) LD (with capitals), which referred to the formal specification consisting of an information model, a best practice and implementation guide, and an XML binding with a binding document; (b) learning design (without capitals), which is referred to the human activity of designing units of learning, learning activities, or learning environments. Therefore, there are two parts to LD: the design of technological tools/systems for e-learn and the design of learning activities and environment.
But, how is Learning Design different from the traditional ID (Instructional Design)? Do the two concepts compliment each other or are they just two different perspectives, or even paradigms?
