ArticlePDF Available

Towards a generalised conceptual framework for learning: the Learning Environment, Learning Processes and Learning Outcomes (LEPO) framework

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

We argue in this paper is that there is a lack of clarity about learning in its broadest form, and we address this by proposing a generalised and integrated conceptual framework for learning. The Learning Environment, Learning Processes and Learning Outcomes (LEPO) framework conceptualises learning as having three components: the environment which facilitates learning (Learning Environment), the activities which are part of learning (Learning Processes) and the knowledge, behaviours, skills or understanding which can be demonstrated (Learning Outcomes). Two general actors interact with these three components, the student and the teacher. The paper discusses the origins of the framework, justifies its form and validates it against other conceptual frameworks. It concludes with a brief discussion about how it can be used to improve both the educational design of educational innovations and evaluate/ research into the effectiveness of educational innovations.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Phillips, R. A., McNaught, C., & Kennedy, G. (2010). Towards a generalised conceptual framework for learning: the Learning Environment,
Learning Processes and Learning Outcomes (LEPO) framework. In J. Herrington & W. Hunter (Eds.), ED-MEDIA 2010 (pp. 2495–2504).
Proceedings of the 22nd annual World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications, Toronto, Canada, 28 June–2
July. Chesapeake VA: Association for the Advancement of Computers in Education.
Towards a generalised conceptual framework for learning: the Learning
Environment, Learning Processes and Learning Outcomes (LEPO)
framework
Rob Phillips
Educational Development Unit, Murdoch University, Western Australia, Australia
r.phillips@murdoch.edu.au
Carmel McNaught
Centre for Learning Enhancement And Research, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
carmel.mcnaught@cuhk.edu.hk
Gregor Kennedy
Melbourne Medical School, The University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
gek@unimelb.edu.au
Abstract
We argue in this paper is that there is a lack of clarity about learning in its broadest form, and
we address this by proposing a generalised and integrated conceptual framework for learning.
The Learning Environment, Learning Processes and Learning Outcomes (LEPO) framework
conceptualises learning as having three components: the environment which facilitates
learning (Learning Environment), the activities which are part of learning (Learning
Processes) and the knowledge, behaviours, skills or understanding which can be demonstrated
(Learning Outcomes). Two general actors interact with these three components, the student
and the teacher. The paper discusses the origins of the framework, justifies its form and
validates it against other conceptual frameworks. It concludes with a brief discussion about
how it can be used to improve both the educational design of educational innovations and
evaluate/ research into the effectiveness of educational innovations.
Introduction
Despite substantial research over many years about how learners learn, our understanding of that process is
incomplete. Educational research has produced a myriad of models and frameworks, many of which are quite
narrowly focused, and few of which have broad applicability. Much work has been done in the field of Instructional
Design, but this focuses on how to design environments from which learners learn, or on environments which seek
to teach learners at various levels. There is also a large literature base about how to teach learners. Our starting point
in this paper is that there is a lack of clarity about learning in its broadest form.
This paper proposes a generalised and integrated conceptual framework for learning, attempting to lift the
‘lens’ on learning to a more general level by integrating concepts from other frameworks to arrive at a broad
description of what occurs in learning and teaching environments. The paper is deliberately positioned to encourage
discussion about this issue, both at the conference and elsewhere, in order to further validate it.
The scope of this paper is broader than the scope of the ED-MEDIA conference, looking at learning in
general, but it is presented to this forum because so much of the current work in learning is associated with the use
of various technologies. However, to keep discussion focused, this paper considers only the higher education sector.
This work explicitly focuses on the learner not the teacher. The emphasis is on learning as a process rather
than teaching as an activity. However, the level of our discussion is broadly within the field of education rather than,
for example, cognitive psychology or neuroscience, although these disciplines may enrich the framework once it has
been refined at a philosophical level.
Learning
There can be many interpretations of the word ‘learning’ and these meanings cloud discussion about it.
Grammatically, ‘learning’ has three forms. The first is as a noun, with two distinct definitions in The Cambridge
Online Dictionary [http://dictionary.cambridge.org]:
“the activity of obtaining knowledge”; and
“knowledge obtained by study”.
The former definition is clearly related to activities which students undertake in order to develop their
understanding – a process. The latter definition relates to a product or outcome constructed by the learner which can
be demonstrated to others as evidence of acquired level(s) of understanding. The noun ‘learning’ can also function
in an adjectival manner (gerund) by modifying another noun, for example, the learning process. Learning can also
be used as the present participle of the verb (I am learning), and this present participle can also be used as an
adjective (e.g. the student practiced hard, learning how to do a titration). The semantic nuances surrounding
‘learning’ can lead to different interpretations of what is meant by e-learning and m-learning, making it difficult to
develop a shared understanding of these emerging areas of scholarship.
Learning is something which, arguably, all humans do regularly in their day-to-day life. Such informal
learning and problem solving can be contrasted with learning which occurs in formal educational contexts, where
learners take the role of students, working towards some sort of qualification. However, it would be inaccurate to
claim that only formal learning occurs in an institutional educational context. While many students at all levels of
education attend classes taught by teachers, they also work on their own and in groups outside of class to develop
their understanding of the subject area. This is informal learning in a formal setting. Students at university also
develop their human capacities, which may or may not be triggered by activities in their formal classes, at coffee
shops and drinking establishments.
The Learning Environment, Learning Processes and Learning Outcomes (LEPO)
Framework
This paper conceptualises1 learning as having three components: the environment which facilitates learning
(Learning Environment), the activities which are part of learning (Learning Processes) and the knowledge,
behaviours, skills or understanding which can be demonstrated (Learning Outcomes). Two general actors interact
with these three components, the student and the teacher. For convenience, we have called this the LEPO (Learning
Environment, Process, Outcomes) framework. The interactions between the five elements of the framework are
modelled in Figure 1 as a concept map. This framework is derived from, and encompasses, various models of
learning as well as research about the characteristics of students and teachers. The relationship of these other models
to the LEPO framework will be discussed in subsequent sections. Each of the five components has its own
characteristics, which will also be discussed below.
At the highest level, the concept map in Figure 1 indicates that learning environments facilitate learning
processes, and these lead to learning outcomes, which, in turn, determine the learning environment. The concept
map also indicates that teachers design learning environments, facilitate learning processes and assess learning
outcomes, while students work within learning environments, engage with learning processes and demonstrate
learning outcomes, as well as interacting with their teachers.
1 In this paper, we distinguish between a conceptual framework and a theory or theoretical framework. While both attempt to
describe and explain a phenomenon, what distinguishes a ‘theory’ is that it attempts to predict the behaviour of that phenomenon.
In this work, we are discussing concepts at a generalised level that are not meant to be specifically predictive of one another. The
way in which the concepts interact is described through a framework, and a visual representation of the framework is presented as
a model.
Figure 1: Model of the LEPO framework, showing the interrelationships between learning environments, learning
processes, learning outcomes, and the roles of students and teachers.
The Origins of the LEPO Framework
The LEPO model is informed by a range of work in higher education and educational technology research.
However, it draws particularly on three pieces of scholarship:
Biggs’ Presage, Process, Product (3-P) model (1989);
Laurillard’s conversational framework (2002); and
The Learning-centred Evaluation Framework initially conceived by Bain (1999).
These works will be summarised briefly here to provide context for the rest of the discussion.
Biggs’ 3-P Model
Biggs (1989) conceived of learning as having three components: Presage, Process and Product, which can be
broadly interpreted as what happens before, during and after learning. Figure 2 illustrates the model, showing that
the Presage component has two aspects: ‘student factors’ and ‘teaching context’, while the process and product
components are analogous to the learning processes and learning outcomes components of the LEPO framework.
Figure 2: Representation of Biggs’ 3-P model
Laurillard’s Conversational Framework
Laurillard’s conversational framework (2002) approaches learning pragmatically, arguing that there are
four main aspects of learning and teaching:
Discussion between the teacher and learner at the level of descriptions
Interaction between the learner and some aspect of the world defined by the teacher
Adaptation of the world by the teacher and action by the learner
Reflection on the learner’s performance by both teacher and learner
Phillips and Luca (2000) extended this model to include discussions between students. An illustration of
the extended framework is provided in Figure 3. Laurillard’s schema is based on forming an information-rich
environment in which the student is able to discover knowledge, but the discovery is supported and scaffolded by
extra guidance functions which provide support and feedback for subsequent learning.
Figure 3: The extended Laurillard conversational framework.
Learning-centred Evaluation Framework
Bain (1999) proposed a framework for evaluating the effectiveness of e-learning, based on earlier work by
Alexander and Hedberg, and later developed by Reeves (Alexander & Hedberg, 1994; Reeves & Hedberg, 2003),
that mapped phases of evaluation to the phases of an e-learning development project. Bain’s (1999) innovation was
to add a second dimension, that of the learning environment, learning processes and learning outcome, in planning
research and evaluation into e-learning. This work was subsequently extended under the name Learning-centred
Evaluation Framework by Phillips, Bain, McNaught, Rice, & Tripp (2000).
Components of the LEPO Framework
Learning Environment
The learning environment provides the context in which the student works. Its characteristics include the
campus setting, the structure of the degree program and the student’s individual units of study. It is informed by the
desired learning outcomes, and it specifies the content and resources (both traditional and electronic) which support
this design. It also encompasses physical and virtual spaces, and the nature of the technology-enhanced
environment. In addition, the learning environment specifies the teacher’s design of the learning and assessment
activities which will facilitate the learning processes undertaken by students.
The learning environment may be specified at varying levels of design depending on the timeframe of the
planned activities. At one level, the learning environment might specify the overarching activities and context of a
unit of study over a semester, including the learning objectives, assessment activities and deadlines, and content to
be covered. At a different level, the learning environment might specify the design of a computer simulation which
covers a conceptually difficult area. A (typically) detailed design specification would guide the development team.
An overarching characteristic of learning environments is that they are designed, and they can therefore be
described. Sometimes this description is informal, and sometimes detailed. When a learning environment is well-
defined, it is easier to evaluate whether it functions as it was designed, and therefore whether it can lead to the
desired outcomes.
The learning environment as conceived here draws from the ‘teaching context’/ situational aspect of the
presage component of Biggs’ 3-P model, although it is arguably broader. The learning environment is also
analogous with the ‘teacher-constructed world’ component of Laurillard’s conversational framework (2002).
The learning environment should consider the characteristics of the students it is designed for; this aspect will
be explored below.
Learning Processes
Learning processes are the ways in which students engage with the learning environment and the learning
activities embedded in it. The characteristics of the learning processes in the LEPO framework draw heavily on
Laurillard’s conversational framework (2002), where students engage with ideas/ concepts/ resources to develop
conceptual knowledge; interact with the learning environment designed by their teacher; and discuss their
conceptions with their teachers and other students (T. Anderson, 2005). The framework recognises that participation
in social practice is a fundamental form of learning (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 1999). The learning processes
may also include interaction between the student and technology, whether with resources delivered by computer or
learning activities facilitated by a computer or other device (Phillips, 2004).
There is a clear distinction between learned problem-solving skills in novice learners and the specialised
expertise of individuals (Bransford, et al., 1999). An important goal of higher education is for novices to become
experts in particular discipline areas. Bransford, et al. (1999) distinguished between novices and experts in the
following way:
Understanding expertise is important because it provides insights into the nature of thinking and problem solving.
It is not simply general abilities, such as memory or intelligence, nor the use of general strategies that
differentiate experts from novices. Instead, experts have acquired extensive knowledge that affects what they
notice and how they organize, represent, and interpret information in their environments. This, in turn, affects
their abilities to remember, reason, and solve problems. (p. 2)
The learning processes also incorporate the ‘approaches to study’ component of the 3-P model (Biggs, 1989,
1993).
Learning processes refer to all cognitive activities that contribute to learning, (e.g. problem solving,
reflection) as well as the manner in which these activities are carried out (e.g. individually, in groups, teacher- or
student-directed). The learning processes refer to what the student actually does, whether intended or not. It may
vary according to the intentions of the teacher (and of the student).
The range of activities characterized as learning processes in the LEPO framework is quite broad. The
framework recognises that learning can be institutional or non-institutional. However, the learning processes are
fundamentally at the level of personal activity, whether through individual cognitive activities or through social
engagement with others (Bransford, et al., 1999).
In an institutional context, learning processes comprise formal learning or assessment activities and informal
learning activities out of scheduled classes. Learning processes can also have varying amounts of teacher mediation.
Teaching can assist students to be more metacognitive and self-regulatory (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking,
2000). Hence, it is an important role of the teacher in higher education to assist students to develop these and other
generic lifelong-learning skills. Metacognitive strategies, where students reflect on their actions and understandings,
and adapt them accordingly, are also part of the learning process derived from Laurillard’s work (2002).
Learning Outcomes
Learning outcomes refer to the things students are able to demonstrate as a result of their engagement in a
course of study. This includes both discipline-specific and generic skills. Learning outcomes correspond to the
“knowledge obtained by study” definition of learning given in the introduction. It is the product of the learning
processes. But what is ‘knowledge’ in this context? Without delving too far into epistemology, the wikipedia
definition of learning starts to unpack this: “Learning is acquiring new knowledge, behaviors, skills, values,
preferences or understanding, and may involve synthesizing different types of information.”
This definition encompasses different dimensions of ‘knowing’, including cognitive and conceptual
understandings (Bloom’s cognitive domain: L. W. Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001; Bloom, 1956; Krathwohl, 2002)
and physical behaviours and skills (Bloom’s psychomotor domain: Harrow, 1972). This definition also includes
professional skills, a range of literacies and learning skills, as well as societal beliefs and values (partially involving
Bloom’s affective domain: Krathwohl, Bloom, & Masia, 1964).
The term ‘learning outcome’ is often not used precisely in higher education practice. There is a fuzziness in
the distinction between ‘learning outcomes’ and ‘learning objectives’. At times, both seem to be used
interchangeably. Semantically, objectives are what it is intended that you are able to do after a course of study, and
outcomes are what you can actually do. Allan (1996) distinguished three types of learning outcomes:
“subject-based outcomes, which subsume learning objectives and which are complex, discipline-based which are capable
of being assessed;
personal transferable outcomes, including acting independently, working with others, using information technology,
gathering information, communicating effectively, organisational skills; and
generic academic outcomes, [such as] making use of information, thinking critically, analysing, synthesising ideas and
information.” (1996, p. 107)
According to Allan (1996) and Eisner (1979), there is little distinction between subject-based outcomes and
learning objectives. The essential criteria are that they are broad enough to enable deep learning and specific enough
to be assessable. Subject-based outcomes should require demonstration of the range of knowledge and skills
required by the revised Bloom’s taxonomy.
The contemporary world requires university graduates to have a range of other skills to be successful
knowledge workers and citizens. These are Allan’s personal transferable and generic academic outcomes, including
a range of interpersonal skills, literacies and learning skills. These generic learning outcomes combine with subject-
based knowledge to produce the ‘expertise’ of a graduate (Bransford, et al., 1999). However, Barrie (2005)
recognised “that some generic outcomes are complex interwoven aspects of human ability, which are difficult to
explicitly teach or assess in traditional university experiences”. These include societal beliefs and values, lifelong
learning skills and ethical perspectives.
While learning outcomes are a component of the 3-P framework, they are not as well developed in that
framework. Similarly, learning outcomes are represented on the right-hand side of Laurillard’s conversational
framework, at the student’s ‘conceptual knowledge’ and ‘experiential world’.
Students
Educational research has had a tendency to view students as homogenous entities, rather than real human
beings with lives outside of their study commitments. The LEPO framework recognises that students have
individual characteristics that can influence how they learn.
A constructivist educational philosophy (Duffy & Jonassen, 1992; Marra & Jonassen, 1993) recognises that
students bring their existing knowledge and abilities to their study. Their socio-economic context and expectations
of success will also impact on their ability to study effectively. Students also bring with them a range of ways of
thinking (e.g. the popular works of Gardner on multiple intelligences: Gardner, 1983, 1993) and have varying levels
of emotional maturity (e.g Goleman’s work on emotional intelligence: Goleman, 1998). All these factors influence
their beliefs about how they should behave as university learners and how they should operate in various educational
contexts (e.g. the work on students’ approaches to learning as being characterized as deep or surface: Biggs, 1999;
Gibbs, 1992; Ramsden, 1988, 1992).
A student’s motivation to learn is a relevant factor in success, the so-called conative domain (Snow, Corno,
& Jackson, 1996). Reeves (2006, p. 297) characterises conation with the “will, desire, drive, level of effort, mental
energy, intention, striving, and self-determination to actually perform at the highest standards”.
Teachers2
Beliefs about how teaching is done at university is deeply entrenched in the university worldview (Ballard &
Clanchy, 1988), and these beliefs are often accepted uncritically. Many university staff have limited teaching
experience when they start to teach students. Developing from a background in disciplinary research, many will
have deep contextual knowledge and expertise, but may have variable expertise in teaching. Bransford et al. (2000)
found that disciplinary expertise was no guarantee of ability to teach others about their area of expertise. As well as
varying abilities in explaining core concepts, teachers have varying abilities to perform in class and motivate
students to learn. The personal beliefs and mental models of lecturers (Bain & McNaught, 2006; Steel, 2009)
strongly influence the ways that teachers structure their learning environments and facilitate the embedded learning
processes.
Teachers are explicitly present on the left side of the Laurillard model (Figure 2) as they design and improve
the learning environment and facilitate understanding by students. Teachers are only present as designers of the
learning environment in the 3-P model.
Critique of the LEPO Framework
The LEPO framework, while inclusive of all aspects of learning, is largely pedagogically neutral, in that it
does not prescribe how students and teachers interact with learning environments, processes and outcomes. At the
same time, it is a very broad framework, seeking to include other models and frameworks as subsets of the LEPO
‘whole’. In this section, we consider how other pedagogical frameworks map onto the LEPO framework, in an
attempt to validate or discredit the framework.
A traditional, teacher-centred approach to higher education maps well onto the LEPO framework, although
the quality of the components may not be in line with research findings about effective learning. For example,
learning outcomes may be poorly defined, the learning environment might over-emphasise content and learning
processes may focus on transmission by teachers and surface learning for reproduction in exams.
Other approaches, which focus on deep construction of knowledge, also fit within the LEPO framework.
Brown, Collins and Duguid (1989) proposed a model of teaching based on “the notion of learning knowledge and
skills in contexts that reflect the way the knowledge will be useful in real life” (p. 2). This situated learning model
(also called ‘cognitive apprenticeship’) has been extended in recent years by the notion of authentic learning
(Herrington & Oliver, 2000) with the following characteristics:
1. provide authentic contexts that reflect the way the knowledge will be used in real life;
2. provide authentic activities;
3. provide access to expert performances and the modelling of processes;
4. provide multiple roles and perspectives;
5. pupport collaborative construction of knowledge;
6. promote reflection to enable abstractions to be formed;
7. promote articulation to enable tacit knowledge to be made explicit; and
8. provide coaching and scaffolding by the teacher at critical times.
9. Provide for authentic assessment of learning within the tasks.
The first two of these characteristics define the learning environment itself, the context of use. The other
characteristics are all associated with learning activities (both student-centred and teacher-centred) with which
2 The LEPO framework views ‘teacher’ broadly. It should not be interpreted to mean a single teacher; it can include teams of
teachers, as well as teacher supports (tutors, teaching assistants, librarians, e-learning advisors and instructional/ educational
designers)
students will engage as part of their learning process. The situated and authentic learning models are consistent with
the LEPO framework; it is simply the specific nature of the learning environment and learning processes which
distinguishes these models from others.
Not all learning problems can be treated using an authentic or ‘apprenticeship’ model. In abstract fields it is
not sensible to use a situated-learning approach. We cannot experience a chemical reaction at the molecular scale, so
we cannot simulate this real world environment. The ‘cognitive flexibility theory’ (Spiro, Coulson, Feltovich, &
Anderson, 1988) shares some similarities with situated learning, but it is applicable to abstract situations. Cognitive
flexibility theory advocates a learning environment which includes:
using multiple knowledge representations;
linking abstract concepts in cases to depict knowledge in use;
demonstrating the conceptual interconnectedness or web-like nature of complex knowledge;
emphasising knowledge assembly rather than reproductive memory; and
introducing both conceptual complexity and domain complexity early.
This model is also consistent with the LEPO framework, although there is more emphasis on the learning
environment and less on learning processes.
In 1997, Reeves and Reeves proposed a model for interactive learning on the Web which has many
similarities with the LEPO framework. This model is summarised in Table 1. It posits that students bring certain
attributes to their study (a set of input conditions analogous to the student characteristics in the LEPO model); go
through a process of education (analogous to the learning processes); and this process results in an output (learning
outcomes in the LEPO framework).
Input Process Output
Cultural habits of mind Opportunity to construct learning Knowledge and skills
Aptitude and individual differences Task ownership Robust mental models
Origin of motivation Sense of audience
Collaborative support
Teacher support
Metacognitive support
Higher order outcomes
Table 1: Components of the Reeves and Reeves (1997) ‘Process’ model of interactive learning on the Web.
In more recent work, Reeves (2006) identified eight critical factors impacting on the success of a learning
environment: 1) goals, 2) content, 3) instructional design, 4) learner tasks, 5) instructor roles, 6) student roles, 7)
technological affordances, and 8) assessment. These are all consistent with the concept of the learning environment
presented here.
Conclusion
This paper has presented a generalised and integrated conceptual framework for learning, with five
components: the learning environment, the learning processes, learning outcomes, student characteristics and teacher
characteristics. The LEPO framework is broad and pedagogically neutral, it covers a range of contexts, and it is
consistent with, and encompasses, other frameworks of learning. We do not claim that the LEPO framework
supersedes other models of learning; each has its own foci and strengths. What it does, however, is provide a view of
learning which integrates elements of other conceptual models in one generalised framework.
Our intention is that the LEPO framework can contribute to improvements in learning and teaching
environments in two ways. Firstly, it can contribute to improved educational design of learning and teaching
environments, by focussing attention on all aspects of learning, while allowing educational designers to choose
specific strategies most appropriate to the learning context.
Secondly, the LEPO framework has been developed to guide evaluation and research into educational
innovations. Our ongoing work is in using the LEPO framework to scaffold the development of robust plans to
make judgements about the effectiveness of e-learning innovations, and understand better how students engage with,
and learn from these innovations. In this way, we hope to guide novice evaluators of e-learning towards appropriate
research in this emerging discipline. We also hope that this work will contribute to improved quality in e-learning
research, an area Reeves (1993; 2000; 2005) has consistently criticised.
References
Alexander, S., & Hedberg, J. G. (1994). Evaluating technology-based learning: which model? In K. Beattie, C.
McNaught & S. Wills (Eds.), Multimedia in higher education: Designing for change in teaching and
learning (Vol. A59, pp. 233–244). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Allan, J. (1996). Learning outcomes in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 21(1), 93–108.
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: a revision of
Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Anderson, T. (2005). Distance learning – Social software’s killer app? Breaking the boundaries: The international
experience in open, distance and flexible education, proceedings of the 17th ODLAA conference. Adelaide:
Open and Distance Learning Association of Australia.
Bain, J. D. (1999). Introduction to special issue on learning centered evaluation of innovation in higher education.
Higher Education Research and Development, 18(2), 165-172.
Bain, J. D., & McNaught, C. (2006). How academics use technology in teaching and learning: Understanding the
relationship between beliefs and practice. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22(2), 99–113.
Ballard, B., & Clanchy, J. (1988). Literacy in the University: an ‘anthropological’ approach. In G. Taylor (Ed.),
Literacy by degrees (pp. 7-23). Milton Keynes: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open
University Press.
Barrie, S. (2005). Rethinking generic graduate attributes. HERDSA News, 27(1). Retrieved March 30, 2010, from
http://www.herdsa.org.au/newsite/wp/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/1_herdsa_news_april_2005.pdf
Biggs, J. B. (1989). Approaches to the enhancement of tertiary teaching. Higher Education Research and
Development, 8(1), 7–25.
Biggs, J. B. (1993). From theory to practice: A cognitive systems approach. Higher Education Research and
Development, 12, 73–86.
Biggs, J. B. (1999). Teaching for quality learning at university. Philadelphia, PA: Society for Research into Higher
Education & Open University Press.
Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals: Handbook
I, cognitive domain. New York: Longman.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (1999). Executive summary of how people learn: National
Academy Press.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and
school: National Academy Press.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational
Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.
Duffy, T. M., & Jonassen, D. H., (Eds.). (1992). Constructivism and the technology of instruction, A conversation.
New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Eisner, E. W. (1979). The educational imagination: On the design and evaluation of school programs. New York:
MacMillan.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York: Basic Books.
Gibbs, G. (1992). The nature of quality in learning. In G. Gibbs (Ed.), Improving the quality of student learning (pp.
1–11). Bristol: Technical and Educational Services Ltd.
Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence New York: Bantam Books.
Harrow, A. (1972). A taxonomy of psychomotor domain: A guide for developing behavioral objectives. New York:
David McKay.
Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2000). An instructional design framework for authentic learning environments.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 23–48.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Blooms’ taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212–218.
Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. B. (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of
educational goals. Handbook II: The affective domain New York: David McKay.
Laurillard, D. M. (2002). Rethinking university teaching: A conversational framework for the effective use of
learning technologies (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Marra, R., & Jonassen, D. (1993). Whither constructivism. In D. Ely, Minor, B. (Ed.), Educational media and
technology yearbook (pp. 56-77). Englewood CO: Libraries Unlimited, Inc. Published in cooperation with
ERIC and AECT.
Phillips, R. A. (2004). The design dimensions of e-learning. In R. Atkinson, C. McBeath, D. Jonas-Dwyer & R.
Phillips (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in
Learning in Tertiary Education (pp. 781-790). Perth: ascilite.
Phillips, R. A., Bain, J., McNaught, C., Rice, M., & Tripp, D. (2000, April 10). Handbook for learning-centred
evaluation of computer-facilitated learning projects in higher education. Retrieved March 30, 2010, from
http://www.tlc.murdoch.edu.au/archive/cutsd99/handbook/handbook.html
Phillips, R. A., & Luca, J. (2000). Issues involved in developing a project-based online unit which enhances
teamwork and collaboration. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 16(2), 147-160.
Ramsden, P. (1988). Studying learning: Improving teaching. In P. Ramsden (Ed.), Improving learning: New
perspectives (pp. 13-31). London: Kogan Page.
Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to teach in higher education. London: Routledge.
Reeves, T. C. (1993). Pseudoscience in computer-based instruction: The case of learner control research. Journal of
Computer-based Instruction, 20(2), 39-46.
Reeves, T. C. (2000). Socially responsible educational technology research. Educational Technology(November-
December), 19–28.
Reeves, T. C. (2005). No significant differences revisited: A historical perspective on the research informing
contemporary online learning. In G. Kearsley (Ed.), Online learning: Personal reflections on the
transformation of education (pp. 299–308). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Reeves, T. C. (2006). How do you know they are learning?: The importance of alignment in higher education.
International Journal of Learning Technology, 2(4), 294–309.
Reeves, T. C., & Hedberg, J. G. (2003). Interactive learning systems evaluation. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:
Educational Technology Publications.
Reeves, T. C., & Reeves, P. (1997). Effective dimensions of interactive learning on the World Wide Web. In B.
Khan (Ed.), Web-based instruction (pp. 59-66). Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Educational Technology
Publications.
Snow, R. E., Corno, L., & Jackson, D. (1996). Individual differences in affective and conative functions. In D. C.
Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 243–310). New York:
Macmillan.
Spiro, R. J., Coulson, R. L., Feltovich, P. J., & Anderson, D. K. (1988). Cognitive flexibility theory: Advanced
knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. In V. Patel (Ed.), Proceedings of the 10th Annual
Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 375–383). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Steel, C. (2009). Reconciling university teacher beliefs to create learning designs for LMS environments.
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(3), 399-420.
... In addressing these research questions, we have employed the Learning Environment, Learning Processes and Learning Outcomes (LEPO) Framework proposed by Phillips et al. (2010) as our theoretical foundation. This framework provides a structured lens through which we can examine micro-credential integration into the higher education ecosystem. ...
... Therefore, multiple theoretical perspectives on employability exist in the literature. Theoretically, frameworks like the Understanding, Skills, Efficacy beliefs and Meta-cognition (USEM) framework (Knight and Yorke, 2002), CareerEDGE framework (Pool and Sewell, 2007) and LEPO framework (Phillips et al., 2010) have been commonly used to define employability. While the studies using these frameworks or others have expansively explained graduate employability and transferability (Vasudeva and Mogaji, 2020;Kornelakis and Petrakaki, 2020) and employability and student representation at the workplace (Bonnard, 2020), recent studies have extended further to identify various in-demand employability skills and factors. ...
... The LEPO Framework (Figure 1), as proposed by Phillips et al. (2010), redefines learning using three components: (1) the learning environment (environment facilitating learning), (2) learning processes (activities) and (3) learning outcomes (knowledge, behavior, skills, understanding). This study conceptualizes the integration of micro-credentials in the higher education ecosystem within these three components, guided by different theoretical perspectives. ...
Article
Full-text available
Purpose Proponents of micro-credentials envision them as vehicles for upskilling or re-skilling individuals. The study examines how integrating micro-credentials in the higher education ecosystem enhances employability. It aims to offer insights from the perspective of stakeholders who may benefit from these credentials at an institutional or individual level. Design/methodology/approach Online in-depth interviews are conducted with 65 participants from India, Nigeria, the United Arab Emirates and the United Kingdom to explore how micro-credentials can be a valuable addition to the higher education ecosystem. A multi-stakeholder approach is adopted to collect data. Findings The analysis highlights two possible methods of integrating micro-credentials into the higher education ecosystem. First, micro-credentials-driven courses can be offered using a blended approach that provides a flexible learning path. Second, there is also the possibility of wide-scale integration of micro-credentials as an outcome of standalone online programs. However, the effectiveness of such programs is driven by enablers like student profiles, standardization and the dynamics of the labor market. Finally, the study stipulates that micro-credentials can enhance employability. Originality/value The study's findings suggest that, for successful integration of micro-credentials, an operational understanding of micro-credentials, their enablers and strategic deliberation are critical in higher education. Institutions must identify the determinants, address technological limitations and select a suitable delivery mode to accelerate integration. However, micro-credentials can augment employability, considering the increasing emphasis on lifelong learning. An overview of the findings is presented through a comprehensive framework.
... Conceptually, the learning environment may be thought of as the campus settings, the structure of the programs, and the students' approaches to learning [16]. As highlighted by Ref. [16], the learning environment is informed by the desired learning outcomes and specifies the content and resources that support the outcomes. ...
... Conceptually, the learning environment may be thought of as the campus settings, the structure of the programs, and the students' approaches to learning [16]. As highlighted by Ref. [16], the learning environment is informed by the desired learning outcomes and specifies the content and resources that support the outcomes. Additionally, it encompasses physical and virtual spaces, and the nature of the technology-enhanced environment. ...
... The learning environment is also characterized as being specified at different levels of design depending on the timeframe of the planned activity. According to Ref. [16], at one level, the learning environment may specify the overarching activities and context to a unit of study over a semester, including the learning objectives, assessment activities and deadlines, and content to be covered. At another level, the learning environment might specify the design of a computer simulation that covers a conceptually difficult area. ...
Chapter
Full-text available
Increasing demands for educational institutions to provide reliable measures of student success and student satisfaction have accelerated the way education systems worldwide have transformed their educational missions and mandates regarding the learning environment. However, guaranteeing such measures of assurance of learning is still a challenge since there is no clear-cut definition that fully articulates the wide range of expected academic outcomes associated with the learning environment. Despite this, various studies have shown that faculty perceptions and beliefs about the learning environment can influence learners extracting meaning from their learning experiences. Although these studies have provided vital information for carving a path to the best possible education for learners, they focus only on faculty and the innate characteristics that affect student learning. They place little emphasis on the ability of students to define and achieve goals based on knowing that their own choice-making, problem-solving, self-advocacy, internal locus of control, self-awareness, and self-knowledge as dispositions to them actively learning. Consequently, this chapter explores, via an analytic literature review, the psychological and psychosocial elements underpinning the Inputs-Environment-Outcomes model of the learning environment. Particularly, it explores character education and academic performance in terms of the concepts of social competence, social perception, self-efficacy, and cognition.
... According to Jarvis's learning process theory (1995;2006), students learn more efficiently by simultaneously tapping students' psychomotor, thoughts, and emotions and letting them experience the situation or event. Moreover, the learning environment, learning processes, and learning outcomes (LEPO) framework emphasises the key role of learning processes in achieving learning outcomes (Phillips et al., 2010). ...
... LE refers to the physical, psychological, and social contexts that may either facilitate or obstruct learning. As the (LEPO) framework indicates, LE facilitates learning processes which in turn leads to achieving learning outcomes (Phillips et al., 2010). They further explained that LE may include, but not limited to, interaction between students and their teacher, availability of resources, and overall ambience of the environment that makes students more relaxed. ...
Article
Full-text available
Outcomes-based teaching and learning (OBTL) has emerged as one of the useful pedagogical approaches and is widely adopted in countries such as Hong Kong and the Philippines. However, it has been observed that many classroom teachers struggle in faithfully implementing it because of the lack of a tool that would provide rich feedback regarding its implementation. Hence, the current study sought to develop and validate an instrument that will assess in-service teachers' implementation of OBTL in the classroom. This paper describes the assessment instrument development process and results from 903 university students. Results provided strong empirical support for the six OBTL domains (i.e., learning process, instructional strategies, assessment, learning environment, classroom management, and teacher qualities). The items indicated in the assessment instrument were grounded in previous literature about OBTL, with each domain strongly correlating with each other. Implications for classroom practise and future studies are discussed.
... A classroom learning environment, in its simple definition, is a setting where learning takes place. However, learning in its broadest form is not clearly defined (Phillips et al., 2010). Some researchers prefer the Cambridge Online Dictionary (n.d.) definition of learning. ...
Article
Full-text available
The United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development called for a conducive learning environment for male and female learners equally. Considering that, this study examined the classroom learning environment in Oman and the differences between Omani female and male English teachers' classroom environments. This study is based on 60 pre-service English language teachers' experiences. Utilizing Krueger's content analysis continuum model to analyze reports and focused-group interviews, the study found that a welcoming, safe environment, teacher-student interaction, and flexibility and innovation lead to conducive learning environments. However, large classes and lack of technological equipment, time constraints, and overreliance on a grammar-translation method are criteria which negatively affect the learning environment. Also, the study found that the differences are attributed to several factors, some of which are related to student-teacher relationship, the materials used, and classroom management. Such investigations contribute significantly to the provision of high-quality education. To optimize student engagement and learning outcomes, it is recommended that educational settings offer flexible seating arrangements, sufficient space, and access to technological resources. The study recommends that teacher training programs enhance future educators' skills in managing learning environments and developing emotional intelligence, particularly among male teachers. Some of the study's implications can be considered by English teachers, school stakeholders, and future researchers to improve the current status of learning environments and be aligned with Omani Vision 2040 in relation to education.
... First, we focused on theoretical aspects to generate a cumulative overview of didactic and methodological assumptions that lay the foundation for the foreign language classroom profile today. The outline for this stage of the study includes the consideration of the following factors: who learns, what constitutes the learning environment, what activities students are engaged in [12] and on how all these factors interact. ...
Article
Introduction. In the course of time and due to the development of science and technology, the understanding of the effective university foreign language classroom has changed. The most significant change took place during the pandemic when all the students had to attend online classes. Nevertheless, our assumption is that in view of the nature of the subject itself, teaching and learning languages either online or offline to science or humanitarian majors has common characteristics relevant to any type of the classroom. It has specific characteristics related to different educational traditions, ethnic cultures, learning environments, and primarily to the agents (both teachers and students) involved in the process. The purpose of this article is to explore what ideas are frequently proposed by researchers worldwide and their implementation in university foreign language classrooms in Russia and China both in online and offline types of teaching and learning. Materials and methods. The study involved 61 university teachers of foreign languages from Russia and China who answered the questions of the questionnaire. A combination of both qualitative and quantitative methods of action research was used in the study. The methods included a literature review, the development of teacher questionnaires, a comparative study, data analysis and data visualization. Results. The study has revealed the major trends that are apparent in university foreign language teaching and learning both online and offline. They are related to learner-centered (60% of Chinese teachers / 23% of Russian teachers), interactive (15% of Chinese teachers / 30% of Russian teachers) and fostering learners’ engagement (55% of Chinese teachers / 25% of Russian teachers) with an emphasis on the development of overall students` communication, social and thinking abilities (100% of Chinese teachers / 95% of Russian teachers). Among the didactic tools used by foreign language teachers in both countries interactive tasks are prevalent with 95% и 100% of the Chinese and Russian teachers choosing them respectively. Conclusion. The differences revealed during the study need further research due to a limited number of the teacher participants. The conclusions obtained in this study will help to understand the main trends in modern foreign language teaching and learning, and assist foreign language teachers in choosing appropriate classroom techniques for their practices in line with more specific aims and content.
... Additionally, in a computer-supported inquiry-based learning environment, teachers can include scaffolds that assist students during their activities (Ping & Swe, 2004). Students' learning outcomes are influenced by the characteristics of the learning environment created by teachers (Phillips et al., 2010). Teachers must carefully consider whether and how to integrate support for their students when using such environments. ...
Article
Full-text available
Learning and teaching Mendelian genetics are central topics in school science. This study explored factors associated with the learning outcomes of Taiwanese junior high school students in an online inquiry learning environment. Research within face-to-face classroom settings had revealed that Asian students are more likely to be tutor-oriented and collectivistic learners. However, results of how these orientations affect learning in online environments are needed. In this analysis, seventh-grade students from Taiwan (N = 290) completed a genetics lesson using an Inquiry Learning Space (ILS) on the Go-Lab platform. Students were randomly assigned conditions in which support was provided either by general text or by an expert person in the form of a cartoon figure. In addition, students completed questionnaires assessing their cultural orientations, as well as their computer self-efficacy. Results revealed that the presence of a virtual expert did not influence students’ learning outcomes. However, the extent to which students identified as collectivistic and their level of computer self-efficacy were positively associated with the learning outcomes. Students’ computer self-efficacy was positively related to their behavioral intentions as well. These results illustrate the importance of Asian students’ disciplined personality and computer self-efficacy for online inquiry-based learning.
... LEPO theorizes learning as having three components: "the environment which facilitates learning (Learning Environment), the activities which are part of learning (Learning Processes) and the knowledge, behaviors, skills or understanding which can be demonstrated (Learning Outcomes)" (Phillips et al., 2010(Phillips et al., , p. 2496. Additionally, in the LEPO framework, the teacher, learner, and various resources come together to form a unique learning environment that influences the process of knowledge acquisition (Figure 1, Phillips, 2011). ...
Conference Paper
Full-text available
With the latest technological developments and associated new possibilities in teaching, the personalisation of learning is gaining more and more importance. It assumes that individual learning experiences and results could generally be improved when personal learning preferences are considered. To do justice to the complexity of the personalisation possibilities of teaching and learning processes, we illustrate the components of learning and teaching in the digital environment and their interdependencies in an initial model. Furthermore, in a pre-study, we investigate the relationships between the learner's ability to (digital) self-organise, the learner’s prior- knowledge learning in different variants of mode and learning outcomes as one part of this model. With this pre-study, we are taking the first step towards a holistic model of teaching and learning in digital environments.
Article
Full-text available
Aurora Battery is a corresponding test of successful intelligence. This study aims to examine the factorial structure of the Chinese version of Aurora Battery and to investigate its internal consistency and validity, as well as to discover the developmental features of Chinese students. A total number of 2007 students were recruited from 13 schools across eastern, central, and western China, ranging from 4th to 8th grade (mean age = 12.29 years) and among them, 43.9% are girls. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to examine the factorial structure. Among the tested models, a second-order factor model, in which the three ability factors serve as indicators of a general factor, provided an acceptable model fit to the data. Moreover, measurement invariance across gender and grades were supported, which suggests the mean scores of analytical, creative, and practical abilities are comparable in this research. The criterion-related validity analysis suggests that the battery and its three subscales have good criterion validity. The scale reliability analysis shows that the Cronbach’s alpha and the McDonald’s omega value of the whole test were .84 and .87, respectively, indicating the scale’s internal reliability is good. For ability differences among grades, students’ analytical and practical abilities increase across all grades, while creativity presents an upward trend from grade 4 to 6, followed by a downward trend from grade 6 to 7, and an increase from grade 7 to 8. Female students outperform male students on both analytical and creative ability, while with no obvious difference on practical abilities.
Article
Ein Buch für Unternehmen, die die Notwendigkeit einer ständigen Weiterentwicklung ihrer Organisation erkannt haben. Sie erhalten Werkzeuge für die Analyse, Gestaltung und Bewertung der innerbetrieblichen Prozesse. Es werden Fragen der Kooperation und Konsensbildung in betrieblichen Hierarchien erörtert. Die Team- und Arbeitsgruppenbildung wird vor dem Hintergrund zementierter Entscheidungsprozeduren entwickelt. Neben fachbezogenen Fragen des Qualitätsmanagements sprechen die Autoren viele Probleme des sozialen und methodischen Miteinanders an. Das Besondere für den Leser: Eine Rahmenhandlung führt durch die unendliche Geschichte des Wandels. Durch die Visualisierung der beschriebenen Methoden, Gefahrenquellen und Ideen wird das schnelle Erfassen der Aussagen ermöglicht. Zahlreiche Übungen machen das Werk zu einem konkreten Arbeitsbuch.
Book
Part 1: Learning and Teaching in Higher Education 1.Introduction 2.Ways if Understanding Teaching 3.What Students Learn 4.Approaches to Learning 5.Learning form the Student's Perspective 6.The Nature of Good Teaching in Higher Education 7.Theories of Teaching in Higher Education Part 2: Design for Learning 8.The Goals and Structure of a Course 9.Tecahing Strategies for Effective Learning 10.Assessing for Understanding Part 3: Evaluating and Improving the Quality of Teaching and Learning 11.Evaluating the Quality of Higher Education 12.What Does it Take to Improve Teaching?
Book
Howard Gardner’s brilliant conception of individual competence is changing the face of education today. In the ten years since the publication of his seminal Frames of Mind, thousands of educators, parents, and researchers have explored the practical implications of Multiple Intelligences (MI) theory—the powerful notion that there are separate human capacities, ranging from musical intelligence to the intelligence involved in understanding oneself. Multiple Intelligences: The Theory in Practice brings together previously published and original work by Gardner and his colleagues at Project Zero to provide a coherent picture of what we have learned about the educational applications of MI theory from projects in schools and formal research over the last decade.
Article
The design of learning experiences in higher education is becoming increasingly outcome-led, but there is confusion regarding what constitutes these outcomes, disquiet concerning their ostensible association with behaviourism, and apprehension concerning their implementation. This article traces the evolution of learning outcomes through rational curriculum planning to the development of expressive outcomes, and suggests a definition of learning outcomes which includes subject-based, personal transferable and generic academic outcomes. The three principal criteria of behavioural objectives are analysed in relation to learning outcomes. Outcomes may subsume learning objectives, but the two are not synonymous and learning outcomes are not fettered by the constraints of behaviourism. Learning outcomes represent what is formally assessed and accredited to the student and they offer a starting point for a viable model for the design of curricula in higher education which shifts the emphasis from input and process to the celebration of student learning.