James Dalziel @ EdMedia
He introduced learning design through “miffy content“, which includes multimedia content, self tests and some sequencing. Learning management systems offer very little in addition to miffy content, apart from discussion fora and chats. Why would they not also offer sequencing of collaborative activities? Then successful such sequences would become available for reuse to learn about other content.
Learning Designs require details for each activity that define who, what (content and instructions) and how (tools), as well as flow information that defines when each task needs to be executed and educational objectives that explain why you would want to go through the sequence. This information can be executed by a LD run-time environment, like Coppercore/SLeD or LAMS. Both tools look very electronic forms based to me and, as I believe that “electronic forms must die”, I am not sure that many teachers can actually use these tools. (It does look like LAMS is a bit more drag-and-drop based, though…).
James concluded by saying that, if you consider a learning design as the source code of learning, then this approach enables “open source teaching”… I like that idea, which is of course very close to our “share and reuse” of learning objects. In fact, we always considered learning objects to include not only simple content, but also more structural objects, and by the way also presentational ones!