Reframing

In 2025 with the OUA project in the rear-view mirror, we worked on a paper to help gather the key lessons learnt and what advice would we give to others embraking on similar projects. As a group we started looking at the specific tools, but the reality was that each of these was a respone to a large issue – the approach we have to course development. Traditional approaches often treat it as a complicated problem — one that can be solved through linear workflows, templates, and transactional handoffs between roles. This perspective assumes that if you break the process into discrete steps and follow them in sequence, quality courses will emerge on time and on budget. However, our experience developing the two fully online undergraduate programs revealed that our work exists in a complex environment, characterised by interconnected challenges involving pedagogy, technology, quality expectations, diverse stakeholders, and commercial realities.

Working in a complex environment requires a fundamentally different approach. Rather than seeking to eliminate complexity through rigid processes, we needed to embrace it — developing adaptive practices that could respond to emergent challenges while building sustainable capacity for the future. This realisation led us to the concept of reframing and we applied it in a way to shift course development from a problem of production and instead see it as an opportunity for collaborative design, shifting our focus from delivering minimum viable products to creating maximum value for students, educators, and the institution.

The Reframing Process

Understanding Complexity

The distinction between complicated and complex problems is crucial. Complicated problems can be broken down into distinct, identifiable causes that allow for piece-by-piece solutions with predictable outcomes. Complex problems, however, arise from interconnected networks of causes that cannot be separated, requiring whole-system approaches where small changes can have unpredictable effects and solutions involve ongoing management and adaptation rather than permanent control.

When we examined traditional course development strategies, we found they were framed as addressing complicated problems—breaking each component into discrete elements along a linear timeframe. This approach worked on paper but failed in practice, producing uneven results, poor experiences, missed deadlines, and inconsistent quality. The process couldn't evolve, adapt, or improve because it wasn't created with complexity in mind.

Creating a New Frame

Drawing on design thinking principles, particularly Dorst's (2011) concept of frame creation, we redefined the course development challenge. Rather than asking "How do we produce more courses faster" we asked "How can we consistently develop high-quality, flexible online courses in a complex environment?" This shift required redefining value itself — not just in terms of course outputs but through a curriculum lens, focusing on learning experiences that were pedagogically robust, contextually relevant, and adaptable.

We drew on Senge's (2006) Learning Organisation model, incorporating systems thinking, shared vision, personal mastery, and team learning. Systems thinking helped us focus on relationships and underlying connections rather than isolated parts. We established a collaborative team environment that leveraged diverse skills and created opportunities for shared knowledge and practice. Through frequent reflective practice, we created an open environment for discussion, critique, and ideation.

This reframing shifted our perspective from linear to cyclical, iterative development that built up over time. The three-and-a-half-year project duration allowed us to iterate and improve processes continuously—a snowball rather than waterfall approach, where work was scaffolded holistically and details were added through incremental iterations.

Working Principles

Through reflection on the completed project, we identified six working principles that formed a replicable framework for course development in complex environments:

1. Frame Creation

For projects operating in complex environments, the frame must be both clear and well-defined through three crucial areas:

These areas reduce ambiguity and create boundaries for the project to operate within.

2. Team Focused

Working in complexity requires team approaches to cope with interdependencies. We moved away from single-person ownership that creates bottlenecks and single points of failure. Diversity within the team became a superpower—different perspectives, experiences, skills, and knowledge intersecting in problem resolution. Dedicated project teams amplified these benefits by developing shared expertise over time, creating redundancies while deepening overall capability.

3. Human-Centred Practice

Time and space must be given to human considerations. Rather than managing people as resources on a spreadsheet, we promoted the human aspects of the project. Critical were the formation and building of relationships through conversations and rapport development over time. We held consistent collaboration sessions, engaged in open discussions, and used consensus and consent-based decision-making. Timelines and workloads were based on the people involved, sometimes requiring adapting the scope of work to match.

4. Iterate and Improve

Learning design is dynamic, ongoing, and cyclical. Rather than searching for the "right way," we sought the best fit and adapted what worked to circumstances. Agile practices, particularly regular retrospectives, were critical for identifying what to maintain, discontinue, or initiate in future cycles. This required time to reflect, willingness to change, and planning for continuous improvement as standard practice.

5. Tools for Collaboration

Most institutions default to individual work, making collaboration challenging. Scheduled co-working time became key for embedding collaboration into practice. These sessions provided structure for real-time problem-solving, feedback, and iterative design. Access to digital tools enabling real-time development was critical—digital workspaces sustained momentum and visibility across a distributed team, shifting focus from individual tasks to shared progress.

6. Working Across Layers

Our work extended across different layers of design practice:

This multi-layered approach ensured innovations at one level informed and improved others.

Applications of the Framework

Course Maps (Process Layer)

Visual course maps became a foundation for planning, capturing critical information about each course while enabling holistic design across the entire 12-week experience. Built in Miro, these maps used visual elements including Learning Types colour coding to help identify connections, assess student workload, and visualise the learning sequence. The collaborative nature of Miro allowed real-time adaptation and iteration, fostering dynamic and responsive course development.

Program Workshops (Program Layer)

Half-day workshops brought together academics and designers for focused collaboration on high-level program design. Using physical space, colour, and visual elements, participants could "walk through" the sequence of study, see skills developing over time, and identify gaps quickly. These workshops minimised knowledge gaps between participants, encouraged systems thinking, and allowed iteration on course-level processes based on program-wide understanding.

Smart Storyboard (Project Layer)

Smart Storyboard emerged organically from project needs when document-based authoring became unwieldy. Developed in-house with our Media Team, it provided a centralised, structured, and adaptable workspace that supported modular course development, workflow management, and real-time progress tracking. The tool embedded Learning Types and Patterns directly into the authoring environment, making pedagogical decisions visible and actionable throughout development.

Learning Types and Patterns (Profession Layer)

We developed a shared vocabulary for discussing the learner experience, building on Laurillard's conversational framework and expanding it with seven Learning Types (assimilative, investigative, discursive, formative, productive, evaluative, and social) and their associated activities. An accompanying colour palette created a visual language element. These dual language elements became a shared reference point that clarified intent, identified imbalances, and supported consistent, intentional learner experiences across courses.

We extended this work by developing Learning Patterns—reusable, adaptable structures borrowed from Alexander's pattern language concept. These patterns guide design without dictating outcomes, providing systems-like tools for constructing learning sequences. By sharing these frameworks as open educational resources, they've been adopted beyond our project and institution, contributing to the broader learning design profession.

Impact and Transferability

The design-led approach fundamentally transformed our team operations and organisational capacity, demonstrating how small teams can create impact far exceeding their direct output. The framework is transferable to other institutions, though implementation requires:

A Call for Systemic Change

This work demonstrates that reframing course development from complicated to complex fundamentally transforms both processes and outcomes. The learning design profession stands at a critical juncture. As online and hybrid learning become permanent features of higher education, the field must move beyond template-driven, transactional approaches toward sophisticated design practices that acknowledge the interconnected nature of educational challenges.

The question facing the learning design community is not whether traditional linear approaches are sufficient, but whether we will collectively commit to the more demanding yet ultimately more rewarding path of collaborative, design-led practice that creates lasting value for learners, educators, and institutions.

Full Paper: Klapdor, T., Alchin, K., Bartlett, R., Lemieux, D., & Klynsmith, J. (2024). Reframing: Solving Complex Problems with Learning Design. Proceedings of ASCILITE 2024. Link to full paper