 I'd like to welcome you to this webinar on the special issue of research in learning technology, the arts and science of learning design. So I'd like to welcome Youshae Moore, who's joined by five authors from the special issue, to talk about the papers. So I'd like to ask Youshae to kick off. What is learning design, and why is it important? Hi. Thank you, Caroline. Thanks, everyone, for joining us and thanks to the authors and thanks whoever's watching us. I'd like to prepare the presentation, so I'd like to use it. So I just hope you can see the presentation. As Caroline mentioned, this is a webinar based on the southern special issue of research in learning technology, which was recently published. And that special issue had nine papers in it, but over 22 authors involved. And the first question that you asked me is, what is learning design? What is important? Here, I'll use the definition from a previous paper, which is a learning design, devising new practices, plans of activity, resources, tools aimed at achieving particular educational aims in a given situation. Now, you might say, well, isn't that what we call teaching? But yes, it is teaching. Except that a lot of phenomenally different practice of education is invisible. What we do in the classroom, or how we teach, is kind of invisible, sort of stays in there and then. And the design knowledge of how we plan for teaching, how we create resources, how we create learning experiences, is predominantly passive. Educators mainly work by themselves. And it's very hard to share that passive knowledge between the two papers. So we argued that, in terms of learning design, we need, I mean, the idea about learning design is really about sharing critiquing, remixing that design knowledge. And we said that the three kind of theme or kind of grand challenge is, we would say, language practice and tools. The practice in terms of epistemic practices, how we learn at political practices, how we teach and design practices, how we support further teaching and learning. Language in terms of how do we represent those practices particularly graphically, computationally, and how we talk about design. How we represent our design origin and share it, how we connect it to other fields of learning. And tools would allow us to alternate, share, improve, remix, and implement all those. So the special issue was really based around the themes and the papers have referred to these themes. And maybe now we can kind of have a quick introduction of the co-authors who are presented here. And they will let them talk a bit about their papers. So maybe Elizabeth, maybe you just want to start by presenting yourself and then we'll move on to the next topic. Well, again, I said perhaps we can have a quick round of introductions and then we'll discuss the papers. So I just suggested Helen, maybe you want to present yourself and say a few words about the paper and if you have any special issues. OK. Thanks, Yashay. Yes, I'll go first. I'm Helen Warnswood from Staffordshire University. And I contributed to the Rashima and the Warn. So I had a look at using the template that I've been working on here as part of the best practice models project over the last few years and looked at a more particular lesson. So I think that's maybe all I want to just say at the moment, I think, but I think we're coming on to the paper shortly. Thank you. Valerie, do you want to introduce yourself now? Hi, I'm Valerie Emma from Institut Français d'Education in Lyon, France. And I present in this special issue our editing tool called Scene Edit. And I will talk with Michael and Luis about the Rashima too. Thanks. Thank you. Liz, do you want to present yourself? Hi, I'm Liz Masterman from Oxford. I worked on the Learning Designer Project with Diana Laurelard and a cast of thousands. I'll be talking about a paper which Brock Kraft and I co-wrote on representations. But we also contributed to the Learning Design Rashima and two paper. Thank you. Luis Pablo? Yeah, hi. My name is Luis Pablo Prieto. I'm from the University of Valladolid. And in this special issue, I have worked along with nine other authors, some of which have already spoken here, about the Learning Design Rashima too, which is a paper that tries to compare and see how different learning design tools look at the activity of learning design at a concrete learning center. And we'll talk more about that later. Thank you, Michael. Yeah, hi, everyone. I'm Michael Michael Deantl from RWTH Aachen University in Germany. I have contributed to the Rashima on two paper under the superb guidance of Luis Pablo, tried to build a learning design of the given sequence using a tool called OpenGLM. And I will briefly talk about this later. Welcome. Thank you. So somebody asked that we share the link again. So I'm just showing it on the screen now. That's a link to the special issue itself and the QR code I will put in the middle of these days. But what I'd like to also now quickly talk a bit about the history of how this special issue came to be. So it all started with the Learning Design Group, which was a stellar network of excellent theme team on learning design. That's a group that worked together for a year, producing a set of resources on learning design. And we also ran a series of workshops. One of these workshops was the ASLD workshop, the Art and Science of Learning Design, which was run in October 2011 at the London Knowledge Lab. And we had around 30 contributions. We had very intense discussions over a period of two days. And when we thought about where do we want to take this next, one of the ideas that came out was to publish a special issue until we had a call. We agreed with research and learning technology on the call for a special issue. One of the, I think, points in favor of research in learning technology, among other things, was their open access policy. So we were very happy to know that our papers would be accessible freely to the world. And there were likes that we had a call which brought in, resulted in nine papers. So some of these papers are directly derived from contributions to the workshop, such as Susan McKinney's paper, which is an improved and enhanced version of her contribution to the workshop. Some of these papers were some reflection actions after the workshop. So for instance, the Demetriades and Goodyear papers would be in that category. And some of them are actually the result of work that we did post-workshop, so mainly the two Rashomon papers. The idea came out towards the end of the workshop, because one thing that we discussed a lot is the various representations and tools which we use in learning design. And we thought as a way of just the positioning, comparing, and really demonstrating the breadth of possibilities in this area, would we could take a certain learning and follow it through a variety of tools and representation. We originally thought we would have one Rashomon paper, but in the end, that project kind of expanded to a greater, to such a sized scope that we decided to split it into two papers. So what you see in the special issue actually maybe I'll see if I can share the, see if I can share. So here you can see, I don't know how magical this is, but this is the actual special issue itself. And you can see, as I said, the first papers is an editorial trying to reflect on what is learning design, so drawing on other traditions of design and conceptual issues of design, and highlighting these three themes of grand challenge learning design. McKinney's papers is sort of a theoretical framework for learning design. Then Posey and Perseco give a kind of overview of different approaches, and so on. So I think maybe what we should do now just because we have limited time is perhaps let the other speakers present their papers. And then we can have an open discussion around this. So Helen, perhaps you want to start with just a presentation of your paper? Yes, sorry. I was just trying to check that my microphone is working there. Yes, it's a pity that none of the other presenters, none of the other authors of this paper are able to be present today. So that's quite a shame. It's quite difficult to talk about the whole paper just on the own. But essentially, the work is five, I'll just get a release. The five tools that we used to represent in the healthy eating scenario. So sorry, my phone got me. That's the wrong thing. So essentially, there were the five different approaches. The four SPPI's, model of 40s, eDesign tablet and the design principles, database, and the design narrative. What was interesting doing this was certainly for me the challenge, which was to use my own tool on this lesson. And I think that looking at both the papers, I think that that is certainly something that all of the authors have found a real challenge because the lesson was not based on a wholly online environment. It was all to face-to-face activity in it. And it had some unique features. So I think everybody found it a real challenge to express the learning design. But that in itself was part of the interest of this challenge to explore the learning design tool. So the actual paper, the Rashomon here, had, I think, two or three main types of approaches. So the four SPPI and four teams were really tools that enabled a teacher to express their learning design. But the eDesign template that I contributed and the design principles database was slightly different in that they emphasized the use of design principles. And this, I think, is something interesting looking at some of the others, which seems to be a challenge or a tension here between a tool that allows a teacher to express what they're already doing or what they've already planned to do and to share it, maybe, or learning design tools that actually challenge the teacher to create something new, something innovative, or something that follows a pedagogy that they weren't originally intending. So I certainly see that as an interesting challenge for a tool. And you may well need several tools. And I think that that's where the discussion here boils down to a lot of it is about the challenge for a variety of different tools and what tools might be useful at different stages of the process and the design process and what tools might be useful for different purposes. And I think quite a lot of our discussion now can move on to which tools are appropriate at which stage or for what purposes rather than each tool trying to do everything, which I think is certainly a possible challenge for you. OK. So I'm not sure if I can see any questions or comments or not, but I'm just trying. Well, I'm looking at the Q&A panel at the moment. I don't see any questions specifically yet, but perhaps when we proceed with the discussion, we'll be some questions coming back to that paper. Liz, do you want to prevent your paper? As you said, you participated in two papers. But the learning designer one was, I think, quite different because it focuses on one tool and on the philosophy behind it. Yes. Right. Ishe, are you going to show the slides for me? Yes. Right. So the first one I need to see, that's it. OK. And I'll just say next slide, please, when it's time to move on. Well, thank you very much. And good afternoon, everybody. In this paper, Brock, my co-author and I focused on the Grand Challenge of Language or Representation. But it is, of course, inseparable from the other challenges as our research project was designing representations to help teachers to model their practice in a digital tool, the learning designer. The project itself was actually led by Diana Lorelar to the Institute of Education and was a collaboration of six universities. So could I have the next screen, please, Ishe? Thank you. This is just a very quick screenshot of the design designer. It was a big and complex tool, so I'm just going to cut a very, very tiny part of it. So we created this tool in order to help teachers develop their practice within a knowledge building community of educators. So it doesn't only support tasks in the design process, such as specifying learning outcomes, activities, and resources. It also provides an environment in which teachers can manipulate representations containing these elements. They can model the kinds of learning that their students might experience when the learning design is implemented in learning session. And they can explore how changes in the learning activity and all the use of digital technology could affect that learning experience. And when they're happy with their design, they can implement it with their students as a learning session and also share the representation with other teachers. So next slide, please, Ishe. Now in their introduction to the supplement, Ishe and Brock pose these two big questions in relation to representations. How to define the key concepts and how to present them to practitioners. In our paper, we try to suggest through demonstration that the designers of tools like the learning designer can maximize their chances of successfully addressing these questions if they apply principles and guidelines derived from theory when they're designing these representations. And the framework we use is called epistemic efficacy. Rather hard to pronounce. It brings together five dimensions of design with the goal of representation to accommodate the concepts of learning design and the relationships between them. The task of design, that's what teachers do and they do the design. Reasoning and problem solving, so that's the cognitive or mental operations involved in design and the characteristics or the individual idiosyncrasies of users and all in a tool that's easy to learn and use. I think that bottom point has got missed off the bottom of the slide. So I'm just going to touch very briefly on the first three of these. So coming next slide, thank you. So this is a conventional lesson plan in a tabular format. And it shows most a lot of the concepts, outcomes, activities, resources, and timings. The only relationship between those concepts can be easily expressed is a chronological order in which activities take place. And also, the heights of the rows representing the learning activities are determined by the cell containing the largest number of text lines on each row. So you can't easily work out from that or make inferences about the relative proportions of the lessons spent doing different activities. Next slide, please, because now we're going to look at the learning designers' timeline of learning activities. You can now see the relative length of the different activities. So that particular mental operation should be slightly easier. The learning designers added some new concepts, which you can see in the colored bars in each learning activity. And they show the relative proportions of the different types of activity, the cognitive activity in which the students will engage when they're doing their learning. So there's acquisition, which is reading, listening, or watching, inquiry, discussion, practice, and production. And as you can see, a lot of the activities involve discussion in this design. And these concepts have been added to make it possible to model the students' likely learning experience. So in terms of epistemic efficacy, the learning designers' timeline has added both to the ontology or the content of learning design, the domain, and to the task. It's also used in a timeline in a special way, which has implications. But you can read those in the paper. Although the teacher can sort of see what proportions of learning are made up in taking the different cognitive activities in individual activities, you can't really work out very or see very clearly how that adds up to the total lesson. So on the next slide, please, the teacher can switch to the analysis view. And here, the cognitive activities have been combined into a single pie chart for the whole lesson using the same color coding. And this is an example of what's called re-representation, showing the same data in another format in order to facilitate a different mental operation. So let's just quickly see the modeling functionality at work. Next slide, please, Youshae. So suppose the teacher decides to see what happens if she asks the students to work individually rather than in groups and to write an essay for homework. What happens was that the cognitive activity discussion has been much reduced. And there's a bigger element of practice and production. And what's important is that neither of these two models is right or wrong. What the learning designers doing is to help the teachers see in advance how variations in learning activities could alter students' likely learning experience. And it's likely, it's not predicting, it's only suggesting. So they can tune their design on the timeline and check the outcomes in the analysis view until they're getting quite close to what sort of learning experience they want their students to have. And we analyze the evaluation data using the same framework. And you can read about it in the paper. But the main points I want to make here is that learning designer introduced new concepts, new representations, and new activities into the task of designing for learning. And these entailed additional cognitive effort on the teacher's part. But we found that this can be acceptable to teachers, provided the tool offers them something in return. Learning designer does this by offering insights into students' possible learning experience. It does enable the teachers to review and refine their design. And this notion of repayment for additional effort applies also to the intended role of a learning designer in supporting knowledge building among the teaching community. Because a teacher contemplates in reusing a particular learning design needs to have sufficient information about the pedagogy contention underlying that design to be able to make an informed decision about its usefulness. And this requires the person who is sharing the design to make explicit some aspects of their practice that are normally tacit. And there may be more motivated to do so if they too can benefit. And I'll leave it there. Thank you very much. And I think we'll just, again, move ahead and quick order to the next paper. Well, today the last paper we'll share today. And we have three offers for that paper, right? So Michael, I think you guys will share your own presentation, right? So I'll switch over to you. Sorry, I thought that we were actually going to use the GSA's slides at the end, but I will try to open them now. Because my computer just died on me a few minutes ago. Okay. Okay, well, you can start with my slides while these probably twice. Okay. Yeah, probably that works better. Okay. So just tell me when to put the slides. Time. Okay, so what we did here in this learning design Rashomon two paper, which is actually quite similar to what Helen already talked about about the Rashomon one. In their case, they were looking at conceptual tools for learning design, conceptual approaches on how to do this learning design activity. And we kind of wanted to do the same thing for the technological tools that are out there and that are being developed right now for supporting learning designers. So our goal mainly was to aid researchers and practitioners in choosing the tool that best fit their goals, because actually it's quite difficult to keep up with the different tools and different approaches that are being produced each day, right, different research teams and so on. So we wanted to give a wide overview of what's out there right now, what's being developed, and what we wanted to have as a wide variety of tools, different approaches, different kind of levels of learning variety and so on. So what we did is we tried to model this same healthy eating scenario that was also used in the Rashomon one paper. And we asked each, the teams that did the development of the proposition of each tool, we asked them to model the scenario and try to come up with what were the difficulties and we tried to analyze what were the differences, the commonalities of the different models that were the output of this modeling of the scenario. So if you go to the next slide, thank you. I will, I have my slides open. I don't know if everybody can see the whole page. I think, at least I can't. So I think I can try to switch to my screen now. Just one second. Okay, so I hope you can right now see my screen. So the five tools that we use in this paper were basically the learning designer but which at least has already done a proof a minutes ago. Then we have the CADMOS tool, which was a tool a little bit more technically oriented for teachers that maybe are not experts in learning design but do have some knowledge of technology and they want to design courseware for online courses and also put those courses or those designs into a learning platform like for example Moodle. Then we have also WebCollage, which is another tool for teachers that is more focused on a specific pedagogy and collaborative learning activities. So it helps teachers who may not be experts in learning design or learning collaboratively and collaborative learning, sorry. It proposes them to do this learning design through what they call patterns which are like strategies that have worked in collaborative learning like the tips or strategy, peer review, brainstorming and so on and use that as the building blocks for doing the design. Then we have also the ZenEdit tool which was done actually by the team of Valerie and maybe Valerie can now say a few words about their tool because probably she'll do that much better than me. Yes, thank you. So ZenEdit is for teachers as designers to design blended learning situation and scenarios and as WebCollage, the design can be done through patterns and the main emphasis of this model and tool is on the intentions that the designer wants to achieve through strategies. Okay, thanks Valerie. So that was the fourth tool and the fifth tool was the OpenGLM tool and since we have here also Michael who is one of the main proponents of the tool, I think I'll let him do the talking and go a bit deeper into what's OpenGLM so that people can see another quite different approach to the ones that we have seen so far, different approach to learning design. So that's up to you Michael. Yeah, thanks Luis Pablo. I will just try to put on my slides and I try to arrange them on the screen nicely, hopefully. Yeah, so on the OpenGLM is a visual modeling tool for learning design, actually for IMS learning design. It is one of many in that respect but it has some features, I think that set it apart from others. It was started actually many years ago in an FP6 project and built on the reload tool which was built somewhere in Bolton in the UK and via several EU projects, it got connected to different repositories, got integrated with design pattern approaches and other things. So this is probably one explanation why the user interface has become quite yeah, populated by now. You can see it on the slides. This is the representation of this healthy eating scenario, at least part of it. Actually it was a bit of a longer sequence but here you see one cut out. You have different roles who are performing activities and one challenge I think in all of these, in all of the tools, was to represent how the different people, the different roles are interacting in this scenario. And in OpenGLM this is done by attaching roles to activities and if you want to get a broader overview of visual learning design tools that allow the orchestration of activities based on similar approaches and visual approaches, I may point you to the other paper by Katsamani and Mary Katsamani and Simus Retalis also in this supplement, which is called just looking at orchestrating learning activities using CAPMOS, which is the tool developed by Simus Retalis and his group but actually they're also comparing it with other tools from based on different perspectives. Anyway, when you model such a scenario that is described in textual form you run into several difficulties and these difficulties vary by type and intensity across the different tools. For example, the difficulties I ran into here was that the scenario we had was not pure online or computer managed scenario, actually it was a mix of face-to-face and virtual activities, which is very hard to represent using such an IMSLD authoring tool. So we cannot represent physical artifacts from the real world, for example, the kids pinning photographs on pin boards and similar stuff, so what I had to do is come up with a way of representing this in a virtual space, which of course moves away from the original scenario and kind of creates a variant, a new one. There are other issues, of course, for non-IMSLD experts or non-learning design experts, for example, related to terminology, so you can see a lot of terms like roles, activities, add-ons, environments and similar terms in the user interfaces and people who are not familiar with those terms will have a lot of trouble using those tools also. Yeah, so that was it. One example from the OpenGLM perspective. I think we can move on with more findings that Luis Pablo will present from the study. Okay, thanks, Michael. So I hope you can now see my slides. I don't know why they are kind of flashing. But I'll try to be brief so that your eyes do not pop out of their sockets. So basically we end the paper after following this kind of same approach of representing the scenario in the five different tools. We wrap up with a discussion of comparing what were the different perspectives and what we learned by doing these five different representations. So we found different sorts of things and there's more detail about that in the paper, but we found different tools were aimed not surprisingly to different audiences. So depending on who you are, you might find more interesting one tool or the other. Also, different tools have different pedagogical specialties like some are more aimed to collaborative learning, some more for online learning or blended learning and so on. Also, as it has been mentioned by Michael already, there were difficulties in generally modeling physical resources, resources that are not virtual, not in the web and so on. And that stems from the fact that many of these tools were originally thought as tools for modeling online courses. So if you want to do courses that are not online, you're going to have a little bit of difficulty with some things. And also that different ways, different tools are coming up with different ways of going farther or beyond the design and into the implementation of, for example, the technologies that are implicated in this design. For example, in some cases we have to do that manually or either by the teacher or by some technical staff that supports the teacher in implementing this design idea that has been modeled. Others do it via IMSLD standards and platforms compatible with this standard and others can do it via the systems like loops which try to draw bridges between these heterogeneity of learning chain tools that exist up there and the different learning platforms that are being widely used today like Moodle or Blackboard and so on. So in the end we kind of conclude that there is, and this is interesting because it's a bit of the same thing that the Rashomon 1 paper found out that there is no silver bullet, no tool that does everything for everyone. But we rather have an ecosystem of tools that may be useful for different purposes, for different people and for different moments in the learning design process. So going into this idea of the ecosystem of tools, maybe Michael is going to introduce what some of the authors of the Rashomon paper have been up to in the latest year trying to put some of these ideas into practice. Yeah, thanks Luis Pablo. I was just trying to share again my screen that you can see, I hope you can see my browser window which shows the homepage of a recently, or it was started one year ago, a project called METIS. It is founded by the European Commission in the Lifelong Learning Program. And some of the presenters here are involved. Actually Luis Pablo's institution is coordinating the project, the Anistimitriades. That the idea there is to support these co-design activities in different educational contexts using different kinds of tools and different kinds of implementation possibilities. And what we have there is the concept called Integrated Learning Design Environment. I will go there briefly. If you go to ILDE, UPF, EDU, you will find a platform that as you can see or could briefly see at the bottom integrates different learning design and conceptualization tools to allow people to create representations to plan their teaching activities. And in the end via Cloupies that Luis Pablo has mentioned briefly to deploy those designs to different runtime environments. For example, to Moodle or Google Docs or other environments that you can think of or whether an adapter exists to ILDE. So please go to the METIS website and subscribe to the news feed. And also you're invited of course to join the ILDE where you can or will be able to see new stuff generated by the people that are also published in this ALT supplement. Yeah, and I think Valérie maybe wants to add a line or two on the same edit as I see it on the slides. I just mentioned that Senedit will be available on the new version of Cloudline LMS platform. The first integration has been made in this new version and in the release in next September there will be a complete integration of how is this model inside Cloudline LMS. Thank you, Valérie. I know this is a bit unplanned but if you can quickly load Senedit in your browser and just give people a quick impression of what it looks like. Because we've seen two other tools so maybe it's an opportunity to give people an impression of a third learning design tool. While we're waiting for that just I'm quickly noting there is a question in the Q&A am I right in thinking that this is a pedagogical planning tool rather than an authoring tool for interactive online environments. I think there is perhaps some un-clarity here about what is a learning design tool what's the relationship between a learning design tool and a tool that's used to actually run or enact learning activities. Liz, Michael, Luis, Pablo, maybe you want to comment on this. Shall I start because it was asked while I was doing my presentation. It is true that the learning designer is more of a pedagogical planning tool than one for authoring activities. I think if we thought or there has been a proposal that the learning design cycle has got four different cycles the planning or design, setting up the learning environment, the running with students and the reflection afterwards and tools will support different aspects of this and the learning designer I think it's present incarnation is just purely for the actual planning side of things. Thanks Liz, anybody else wants Michael, Luis, Pablo, maybe you want to comment on the whole learning design process and how you see the different tools in the different phases of this process. Yes, maybe it's useful that we talk a bit about discussions we have had inside this current project that we have where we have different people from different perspectives trying to get into this integrated environment and see how do we make some sense of the different tools that are out there and the different ways and different moments and so on. What we have come up to right now and I'm not saying it's the perfect solution but that's what we are actually trying in the trials we are doing right now is like dividing the learning design oh thanks Yixie, I was just going to do that. So it's about dividing the we have divided this whole ecosystem into three big buckets one which is the conceptualized part which is maybe more akin to what the learning designer does it's more about thinking about the activities the different, it's more conceptual maybe. So they are out there a number of templates, approaches basically tools that have been right now being showed by Yixie's screen you have the course map, design patterns, design narratives, there are many tools out there and there are many other which we have not yet integrated into this environment but we can see that there are more intended to see how we can help teachers in thinking about their learning activities. Then we have another level which is the authoring level which we call which is more detail more going into what the audience was asking about let me see, the authoring tool for interactive online activities so that's more the league of web class, open GLM or the CADMOS too which are more detailed and more intended to always doing an actual implementation in an online environment for example and then we have a third phase which is one could argue it's not actually a designer it's not like the role of a designer to go into this place but that's something that eventually someone has to do which is the implementation so once the design the activities in the learning design have been more or less defined and they are detailed enough you can actually go and put those activities into our learning design platform that students can actually use and the teachers can actually use in the classroom so that's what we have come up with right now which is showing the one of these authoring tools which is web collapse and it's using some of the patterns that it has that's a brainstorming pattern if I see correctly so just to finish we kind of see these three big really rough ways of classifying the tools but this is not the only way and probably others in this kind of speakers have other ideas also Thanks Siris Pavlo Michael do you want to add anything to that or shall we see if we have any other questions from the audience I think which Pavlo made it quite made a quite good point I think the before, during and after learning design which is the conceptualization the actual act of authoring and designing and the release in the runtime environment are if you want to break it down into three phases that appear quite reasonable also from computational perspective I mean with Pavlo and myself we are more from the technology side so we are interested in reducing the complexity of the interfaces between the phases to be able to support as many processes as smoothly as possible so this is why three phases I guess make a lot of sense although it is sometimes difficult to put one tool into one specific packet but I think most of the things that we have seen here are authoring tools and some of them conceptualization tools but as I said please feel free to get an account at the ILDE you will find many ways of conceptualizing your designs there including personas course maps and other things and you will also find links to authoring tools and deployment options sorry, thanks Michael so I think just quickly I'll remind you that we're getting some I'm okay if you want sorry? Yes, I was saying that I was ready to present to Senedith if you want Yeah that's brilliant, so let's see that now please I just have to share my screen so can you see as I have no feedback can you see my screen with these pictures on the right and on the left yes, we see it now okay, so I just I will start again there is a demo website where the login is a demo Senedith but it's on the URL I've given to you when you login you can see some samples of scenarios in English there is lots more in French version just to show you that there is lots of scenarios designed with our teachers so here you can find the inquire alphiating scenario so I double click to open it then you have the vision of the scenario with a graphical vision of the tree and if I click on show images you can have more or less the script of the different interactions that are used in the scenario so if I just go back to the global vision you have the intention of the teacher in this case it was to develop the inquire based learning process acquisition and the strategy which is used you can see it in yellow if I reduce the situation you just see the different faces of the enquire project so there were 8 faces in the enquire project it was seen as a circle it means that you can go from one face to another face and start anywhere here you have a second role representation but we are working on another visualization which can be in any order and if we develop now the situation level we can see for each face for instance the first face it's to find the topic of which the pupil will make his enquiry you have two interactional situations the first one is to listen to the presentation and the second one is to define what topic to study among the enquiry so if I click on this second item I can see with visual interface what are the different elements of this situation so I can see that it's in the who it's a pupil which is doing this interaction alone with some tools so you have a laptop and a website the resource it has in incoming a document and synthesis produced by the teacher and you can see here the locations which means what are the type of classroom you need or if it can be in any in any location where is the internet connection for instance this is an example and here in the description the teacher can write down all the the guidelines for this situation and he can also link this situation with the non-agitem which are supposed to be mastered during this global scenario so this is a very short tour of ZenEdit just in easiest component you can have library of different components here you have the components listed in this scenario the intention the strategy and the interaction of situation and in the context you can define what kind of knowledge is used so for instance for this scenario it's very short knowledge context but if you see for instance the other one you can take all the competencies capacities from certification program and integrate them in your scenario and here you have the properties of the scenario which are more textual which can inform on the duration of the scenario and the knowledge context which can be used inside the scenario so thank you I will hand share my screen if I able to thank you Valerie I think that again looking at these three different tools that we've seen today again gives us a a sample of what what readers will be exposed to if they go through the papers in this special issue but also reflects back to the question that we discussed about making educational practice visible by giving it textual and visual languages to represent and share that knowledge and the different representation seeing the fact that we don't have a single canonical representation in a single ultimate tool but rather need to look at the ecosystem of different representations and different tools and we hope that this special issue captures a good sample of those to quickly remind us that essentially we've really just touched on three out of the nine three or four of the nine papers in this special issue so as I said Susan McKinney's paper really tries to look at learning design from the practice of learning design and the tension between researchers and experts and novices or practitioners and argues for an approach to learning design that would work within the boundaries of what is possible in practice both in Persico look specifically at designing for computer support collaborative learning but again try to provide some taxonomy of different approaches in this field and then as I said Goodyear and Dimitriadis were I think two of the pioneers and the most prominent figures in the field of learning design on one hand a sort of a theoretical reflection on the state of the field and propose a new approach which they call forward oriented design approach and look at that sort of specifically at the difference between design for orchestration and design for reflection another paper that was mentioned today was Testimania and Ritalis which focuses on the CADMUS tool but actually also discusses five other popular learning design tools and make some arguments about what still these tools provide and what still need in terms of integration of learning design tools in common practice I think we're actually we're close to the end of this session let's have a quick look at the Q&A and see if it might be that not seeing I don't see any questions that we haven't addressed in the Q&A but if I'm missing something perhaps Mark can help us there does anybody want to just make some final comments about the experience of writing this separate discussion issue and what you've learned from interacting with the other authors I don't know I might say just a few words I think it's interesting and it's sometimes maybe you don't find many special issues that despite the fact that the works are really different and different people different approaches, different tools but at the end especially if you look at the Russian paper it was really nice to see that we kind of came up to the same conclusions of trying to to see or to see learning design as something that is supported by ecosystem of approaches ecosystem of tools and that there is not one single way of thinking about that and that we should try to instead try to support this kind of dialogue among the different representations the different approaches and so on and try to keep whatever we propose open for interaction with the other approaches or the other perspectives but that was from just what I know this Thank you. Any other final remarks from many of the authors of the papers today? Okay, well again I want to thank everyone for contributing to the special issue and I'll just quickly share the screen which has a link for the issue and pass on to Caroline Let's just say thanks very much for joining us for the session and thanks to Yishay and the authors for a great session and the recording of this will be available on the Elk YouTube. Thanks a lot.