Using Generic Templates to Promote the Use of High Quality Learning Designs in Higher Education


  • Leanne Cameron Macquarie University



Learning designs, disciplines, generic templates, disciplinary differences.


Designing for learning in the higher education sector is a complex task, especially in light of the increasing diversity of the student body. With research pointing to an inverse relationship between student engagement and attrition rates, lecturers need to be mindful of a wide range of student ability levels, socio-economic backgrounds, learning styles, and specific curriculum requirements when designing for their students’ learning. Learning design is a professional activity for which many of our academic staff are not trained. There are examples of learning designs which apply the most recent research into learning but a number of studies have shown that they are not widely utilised in all universities. This current study took a mixed methods approach to explore whether generic templates (a learning design pattern to which subject content can be added) could be used to share well-researched, high quality learning designs across a range of disciplines. The results revealed that generic learning design templates can provide a means for lecturers to access a broad range of learning designs but there are barriers to sharing these in the higher educational sector. At a time when providing students with a quality learning environment is considered highly desirable, it might be time these barriers were reviewed. By using generic templates, lecturers might be encouraged to explore new learning designs and reflect on how their existing teaching approaches affect their students’ learning.

Author Biography

Leanne Cameron, Macquarie University

Leanne Cameron is Lecturer in Design, Digital and Technology Education at Southern Cross University, Coffs Harbour, Australia. Her research explores the possibilities of technology use in education with pre-service teachers. Prior to working at the university, Leanne spent a number of years working as a teacher in both primary and secondary schools.


Barnett, R. (Ed.) (2005). Reshaping the university: New relationships between research, scholarship and teaching. Buckingham, UK: The Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.

Berthiaume, D. (2009). Teaching in the disciplines. In H. Fry, S. Ketteridge, & S. Marshall (Eds). A Handbook for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: Enhancing Academic Practice. 3rd Ed. New York: Routledge.

Bower, M., Craft, B., Laurillard, D., & Masterman, L. (2011). Using the Learning Designer to develop a conceptual framework for linking learning design tools and systems. Proceedings of the 6th International LAMS & Learning Design Conference 2011. Retrieved from: (pp. 61-71).

Braxton, J. M. (1995). Disciplines with an affinity for the improvement of undergraduate education. In N. Hativa & M. Marincovich (Eds.), Disciplinary differences in teaching and learning: Implications for practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.


Cameron, L. (2017). How learning designs, teaching methods and activities differ by discipline in Australian universities. Journal of Learning Design, 10(2), 69-84.


Cameron, L. (2013). Giving Teaching Advice Meaning: The Importance of Contextualizing Pedagogical Instruction within the Discipline. In B. Tynan, J. Willems, & R. James (Eds.) Outlooks and Opportunities in Blended and Distance Learning, 50-65. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.


Cameron, L. (2010). Planner tools – sharing and reusing good practice. In J. Dalziel, C. Alexander, & J. Krajka, (Eds.). LAMS and Learning Design. Cyprus: University of Nicosia Press.

Cameron, L. (2008). Could pedagogical planners be a useful learning design tool for university lecturers? Readings in Education and Technology: Proceedings of ICICTE 2008, 496-507.

Cameron, L., & Campbell, C. (2010). Sharing learning designs that work. Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications 2010 (ED MEDIA), Toronto, Canada, AACE, 1914-1919.

Campbell, L. (2003). Engaging with the learning object economy. In A. Littlejohn (Ed.) Reusing online resources: A sustainable approach to e-learning, 35-545. London: Kogan Page.

Cashin, W. E., & Downey, R. G. (1995). Disciplinary differences in what is taught and in students’ perceptions of what they learn and of how they are taught. In N. Hativa, & M. Marincovich, (Eds.). Disciplinary differences in teaching and learning: Implications for practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.


Course Experience Questionnaire (CEQ). Data can be retrieved from: australiangraduatesurvey

Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative approaches to research. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Pearson Education.

Dawson, S., & Winslett, G. (2006). Transforming theory into practice: Toward new staff development and support models. Ascilite Newsletter (October).

Donald, C., Blake, A., Girault, I., Datt, A., & Ramsay, E. (2009). Approaches to learning design: past the head and the hands to the HEART of the matter. Distance Education, 30(2), 179-199.


Donnelly, R., & Crehan, M. (2011) The impact of generic teaching strategies from a professional development programme on discipline-specific faculty. In J. P. Henderson & A. Lawrence (Eds.). Teaching Strategies, 219-234. New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Franklin, J., & Theall, M. (1995). The relationship of disciplinary differences and the value of class preparation time to student ratings of teaching. In Hativa, N. & Marincovich, M. (Eds.). Disciplinary differences in teaching and learning: Implications for practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.


Fry, H., Ketteridge, S., & Marshall, S. (2009). (Eds). A handbook for teaching and learning in higher education: Enhancing academic practice. 3rd ed. New York: Routledge.

Gibbs, G. (2000). Are the pedagogies of the discipline really different? In Rust (Ed.). Proceedings of the 1999 7th International Symposium: Improving Student Learning through the Disciplines. Headington, UK: The Oxford Centre for Staff & Learning Development.

Gilardi, S., & Guglielmetti, C. (2011). University Life of Non-Traditional Students: Engagement styles and impact on attrition. The Journal of Higher Education, 82(1), 33-53.


Kearney, M., Treagust, D. F., Yeo, S., & Zadnik, M. G. (2001). Student and teacher perceptions of the use of multimedia supported Predict-Observe-Explain tasks to probe understanding. Research in Science Education, 31, 589-615.


Knight, S. (2004). Effective Practice with e-Learning: A Good Practice Guide in Designing for Learning. Retrieved 26 March, 2016 from

Kreber, C. (2009). The university and its disciplines: Teaching and learning within and beyond disciplinary boundaries. New York: Routledge.

McGill, L., Currier, S., Duncan, C., & Douglas, P. (2008). Good intentions: Improving the evidence base in support of sharing learning materials. Project Report.

McNaught, C. (2003). Identifying the complexity of factors in the sharing and reuse of resources. In A. Littlejohn (Ed.), Reusing online resources: A sustainable approach to e-learning (pp.199-211). Kogan Page: London and Sterling, VA.

Neumann, R., Parry, S., & Becher, T. (2002). Teaching and learning in their disciplinary contexts: A conceptual analysis. Studies in Higher Education, 27(4).


Pennell, R. (2007). Sharing teaching resources. In ICT: Providing choices for learners and learning. Proceedings ascilite Singapore 2007.

Philip, R., & Cameron, L. (2008). Sharing and Reusing Learning Designs: Contextualising Enablers and Barriers. In J. Luca & E. Weippl (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Media and Technology 2008, 453-462. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).

Radloff, A. (Ed.). (2011). Student engagement in New Zealand’s universities. Retrieved 26 March, 2016 from

Schaeffer, C. E., & Konetes, G. D. (2010). Impact of learner engagement on attrition rates and student success in online learning. International Journal of Instructional Technology & Distance Learning, 7(5).

Scott, G. (2006). Accessing the student voice: Using the CEQuery to identify what retains students and promotes engagement in productive learning in Australian higher education. Final Report. Barton, ACT: Commonwealth of Australia.

Seeto, D., & Vlachopoulos, P. (2015). Design Develop Implement (DDI) – A team-based approach to learning Design. Paper presented at the THETA 2015 Conference, Gold Coast, Australia.

Shulman, L. S. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus. 134(3), 52-59.


Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.


Stark, J. S., & Lattuca, L. R. (2009). Shaping the college curriculum: Academic plans in context. 2nd Ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (Eds). (2003). Handbook on mixed methods in the behavioral and social sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Toohey, S. (1999). Designing courses for higher education. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.

Young, P. (2010). Generic or discipline-specific? An exploration of the significance of discipline-specific issues in researching and developing teaching and learning in higher education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 47(1), 115-124.







Original Research