Fine design of a blended learning sequence

Course and learning sequence

Course: Prototyping Module 3, Master of Arts in Design, Digital Ideation and Service Design specialisations.

Learning sequence: The onboarding and first three weeks of the module.

Duration: Three weeks, combining asynchronous preparation and follow-up with synchronous in-person teaching days.

1. Description and planning

Introduction

This report describes how I redesigned the onboarding and first three weeks of Prototyping Module 3 using what I learned in the blended learning course.

Prototyping Module 3 takes place in the third semester of the Master of Arts in Design and brings together students from the Digital Ideation and Service Design specialisations. It is a 12 ECTS module that I teach together with Gordon Savicic.

The overall goal of the module is to build on the insights gained in Prototyping Modules 1 and 2. Students systematically optimise, develop and field-test prototypes through an iterative process. The results are documented, critically reviewed and presented in the semester exhibition.

The redesigned sequence follows a rhythm between asynchronous preparation, synchronous collaboration, individual practice and feedback. One principle is made visible throughout the Miro board: every activity should help students with something that comes next. Each task therefore includes a section called “How we’ll build on it”. This helps students understand why they are doing an activity. It also forces us as lecturers to be clear about its purpose.

Learning goals

During this sequence, students should be able to:

Understand the module’s goals, structure, workload, attendance expectations and assessment process.
Identify prototyping methods that are relevant to their projects and personal learning goals.
Share their existing knowledge of prototyping methods and learn new methods from peers.
Translate external references into concrete ideas and low-fidelity prototypes.
Present work in progress concisely and formulate a useful question for feedback.
Give and receive structured peer feedback across disciplines and perspectives.
Develop prototypes iteratively by using feedback, peer teaching, coaching and inspiration from other projects.
Document their process and make their learning visible.
Define one individual assessment criterion connected to their personal growth goals and project.

Assessment

The assessment has two layers. The first contains criteria defined by the lecturers. The second gives each student the opportunity to propose one individual criterion.

The lecturer-defined criteria focus on two areas:

Reflection on learning. The exhibition shows the student’s main learning from prototyping through specific examples. It explains how these learnings changed or improved the thesis project and what the student wants to work on next. The reflection is either part of the exhibition or easy to access from it.
Exhibition storytelling. The exhibition uses a thoughtful selection of prototypes to tell a clear and visually engaging story.

By 23 October, each student proposes an additional assessment criterion based on their personal growth goals and the type of project they want to develop. Gordon and I review it to make sure it is clear, relevant and assessable. Once approved, it becomes an additional criterion for the student’s final exhibition and prototyping journey.

Planning table

Period	Learning activity	Teaching format	Tools and media	Student workload	Preparation and resources	Learning support during the activity
Before Day 1	Read the module overview, review goals, workload, attendance and assessment, then post at least one question	Online, asynchronous	Microsoft Teams and Miro	To add	Prepare the onboarding area, module information and links in Miro. Part of the approximately eight hours used to prepare the board for the first three weeks.	Check questions before Day 1. Answer them live and add short written summaries to Miro.
Before Day 1	Explore prototyping method cards from the course and peers, and add relevant methods	Online, asynchronous	Miro	To add	Prepare and organise method cards and a space for student contributions.	Review additions and use them as input for Method Mapping.
Start of every teaching day	Emotional Weather Report	In person, synchronous	Miro, emojis, GIFs and visual material	To add	Prepare a reusable check-in area.	Notice what students bring into the room and adapt facilitation when needed.
Day 1	Onboarding questions and answers	In person, synchronous, with asynchronous documentation	Miro	To add	Review questions submitted in advance.	Answer questions in depth and document concise answers for absent students.
Day 1	Method Mapping	In person, synchronous	Miro and colour-coded sticky notes	To add	Prepare the method map and colour key.	Observe where expertise and interest overlap. Use the results to create the peer teaching calendar.
Day 1 until Day 2	Stranger Portfolio kickoff	In person, synchronous, followed by asynchronous work	Miro and students’ chosen prototyping tools	To add	Prepare a clear brief and examples.	Students select five reference projects, derive two or three ideas and create one or two low-fidelity prototypes. Lecturers are available for questions.
Day 1	Build and review the peer teaching calendar	Lecturer preparation followed by in-person review	Miro	To add	Gordon and I build the calendar during Stranger Portfolio work, based on Method Mapping.	Students check availability, meet their peer teaching group and agree how to prepare together.
Day 2	Structured peer feedback on the Stranger Portfolio	In person, synchronous	Miro	To add	Create diverse groups in advance, mixing specialisations and genders where possible. Prepare the feedback structure.	Each student presents for five minutes. Peers ask clarifying questions for five minutes, then share strengthening feedback and an improvement recommendation for ten minutes.
Days 2 and 3	Peer teaching of prototyping methods	In person, synchronous	Miro and method-specific materials	To add	Create two or three parallel groups from the Method Mapping results.	Experienced students teach peers who expressed interest. Lecturers support groups when needed.
Days 2 and 3	Prototype practice and optional coaching	In person, synchronous individual or group work	Miro and students’ prototyping tools	To add	Keep the afternoon available for practice.	Gordon and I offer coaching sessions of 15 to 30 minutes on request.
Between Days 2 and 3	Mini Bazaar preparation and shared Miro documentation	Asynchronous preparation	Physical prototypes, screens, QR codes and Miro	To add	Prepare instructions for displaying physical and digital prototypes and updating the shared master board.	Clarify questions in the Teams thread. Students document key activities and reflections for students in the parallel Eco-Social Design class.
Day 3	Mini Bazaar exploration and structured peer feedback	In person, synchronous	Physical exhibition and Miro	To add	Prepare the space and create new diverse feedback groups.	Students explore the bazaar and shared board. Each student presents progress and a question for five minutes. This is followed by five minutes of clarifying questions and ten minutes of feedback, recommendations, answers and relevant inspiration.
End of every teaching day	Stars and Wishes	In person, synchronous	Miro	To add	Prepare a reusable feedback area.	Every student adds at least one star and one wish. The activity starts at 16:30 so there is time for optional oral feedback before the official end at 17:00. Feedback informs the next session.
Between Days 3 and 4	Continue prototyping and define an individual assessment criterion	Asynchronous	Miro, Microsoft Teams and students’ prototyping tools	To add	Prepare the brief and explain how the criterion will be reviewed and used.	Gordon and I review each criterion for clarity, relevance and assessability.

How the activities build on one another

The sequence starts before the first teaching day. Students receive a welcome message through Microsoft Teams with the key practical information and a direct link to the relevant place in Miro. They read about the module, post questions and explore prototyping methods. This moves information that “could have just been an email” into the asynchronous phase and keeps Day 1 available for active learning.

On Day 1, the questions collected in advance become the basis for the live onboarding discussion. The method exploration feeds directly into Method Mapping. Method Mapping then gives Gordon and me the information we need to build the peer teaching calendar. At the same time, students begin the Stranger Portfolio, which helps them move from the academic mindset of their recent research thesis back into making.

Between Days 1 and 2, students continue the Stranger Portfolio. On Day 2, their work becomes the material for structured peer feedback. The feedback, together with the methods learned through peer teaching, then informs the afternoon’s practice time.

Between Days 2 and 3, students continue prototyping and prepare the Mini Bazaar. On Day 3, the prototypes displayed in the bazaar become the material for exploration and a new round of peer feedback. Inspiration from the bazaar, the shared Miro board and peer teaching then feeds into further practice.

Between Days 3 and 4, students continue developing their work and formulate their individual assessment criterion. This connects their learning goals and project type to the final exhibition and assessment.

Across all three weeks, the Emotional Weather Report supports the social and emotional side of collaboration. Stars and Wishes creates a repeated feedback loop that allows us to adapt the course as it unfolds.

2. Justification of the design

Why this learning sequence

The sequence was designed around a simple idea: activities should not sit next to one another as isolated tasks. They should form a learning system. The output of one activity should become useful input for another.

This linking, or Verzahnung, is the most important learning I took from the blended learning course. In the Miro board, it becomes visible through the repeated “How we’ll build on it” sections. Students can see what an activity is preparing them for. As lecturers, we have to justify each activity and avoid adding exercises that do not move the overall learning process forward.

The sequence also alternates between different modes of learning. Students acquire information through the asynchronous onboarding. They discuss questions live. They collaborate through peer feedback and peer teaching. They practise through prototyping. They produce concrete prototypes and exhibition material. This creates a rhythm between understanding, exchange, making, reflection and further iteration.

Why these teaching formats

Asynchronous work is used for information, preparation and follow-up that students can complete independently. This includes reading the module overview, exploring methods, continuing prototypes, preparing the Mini Bazaar and defining an individual assessment criterion.

Synchronous time is used when interaction adds value. Questions are discussed live. Method Mapping makes the group’s expertise visible. Peer teaching allows students to learn directly from one another. Structured feedback brings together different perspectives. Practice time gives students immediate access to coaching when they need it.

This division makes the live teaching days more active. A concrete example is the onboarding. In previous years, much of Day 1 was spent presenting module information. By moving this information into an asynchronous phase, we created enough time to begin the Stranger Portfolio on Day 1 instead of Day 2.

Why these tools

Miro is the main hub for teaching, learning, collaboration and documentation. Both Digital Ideation and Service Design students already know it well. Digital Ideation students have used Miro extensively in their first year, and it is also a common collaboration tool in professional design practice.

Using one main hub reduces tool-switching. Students do not have to move constantly between an e-learning platform, a whiteboard, a feedback tool and a documentation system. The calendar, onboarding, tasks, method cards, questions, peer feedback notes and documentation all live in one place.

Microsoft Teams is used for communication and reminders because it is the official communication channel of the Master’s programme. Five days and one day before each live session, students receive a reminder with a short TLDR, the required preparation, a direct Miro link, the deadline, location, date and time. Students are asked to post questions in the shared thread rather than sending private messages so everyone can benefit from the answers.

SharePoint is used only when files are too large for Miro. The intention is not to add another learning space, but to provide storage when needed.

Why these methods

Emotional Weather Report

The Emotional Weather Report supports emotional intelligence within the group. It gives students a space to share what they bring into the session, whether that is energy, tiredness or something personal that may affect how they collaborate. Because the participants are designers, emojis, GIFs and visual expressions also work as a gentle creative warm-up.

Method Mapping and peer teaching

Method Mapping begins with what students already know and what they want to learn. Instead of lecturers deciding which methods are important for everyone, students make their existing expertise and interests visible.

This feeds directly into peer teaching. Students with experience in a method deepen their knowledge by teaching it. Students who are new to a method learn in a safe setting and may feel more comfortable asking beginner questions of a peer. This recognises that Master’s students already bring substantial knowledge and experience into the classroom.

Stranger Portfolio

Students enter the third semester directly after completing a research thesis. They can therefore arrive in a highly theoretical and writing-focused mindset. The Stranger Portfolio helps them warm up to prototyping and thinking through making.

The activity is deliberately guided. Students choose five external projects connected to their topic, derive two or three ideas and create one or two low-fidelity prototypes. External references provide a starting point, while the prototypes help them move quickly from inspiration to action.

Structured peer feedback

Peer feedback exposes students to different practices and perspectives. The groups are prepared in advance so Digital Ideation and Service Design students are mixed, with attention to gender diversity and at least one Service Design student in each group where possible. Groups change during the semester so students do not remain in the same disciplinary or social setting.

The feedback process is deliberately structured. Presentation time is short. Clarifying questions come before recommendations. Students receive both strengthening feedback and suggestions for improvement. This helps them practise presenting prototypes concisely and improves the quality of the feedback they receive.

Mini Bazaar

The Mini Bazaar makes work in progress visible. Students can see physical and digital prototypes, ask questions and discover approaches outside their own projects. The shared master Miro board extends this inspiration to the parallel Eco-Social Design class.

The bazaar is not an isolated exhibition. It becomes the material for another structured peer review. Inspiration from other projects is explicitly brought back into the feedback and then into the next phase of prototyping.

Stars and Wishes

Stars and Wishes provides a small feedback loop after every live session. Students identify what helped them and what they would change, remove or add. Starting this activity 30 minutes before the official end gives students time to add written feedback and, if they wish, discuss it more personally while the day closes.

This feedback allows the module to remain iterative. The first weeks are structured in advance, while later parts of the course can be adjusted based on what students need.

Learning support and supervision

Learning support is distributed across the sequence rather than concentrated only in lecturer-led coaching.

Written instructions and the “How we’ll build on it” sections give orientation before activities begin.
Questions can be posted asynchronously and are answered where the whole group can benefit.
Short written summaries in Miro support students who miss a session.
Peer teaching makes student expertise available to the group.
Structured peer feedback gives students repeated input from different perspectives.
Gordon and I offer short coaching sessions during practice time.
Stars and Wishes helps us adapt the next session.
Individual assessment criteria are reviewed by the lecturers before they are used.

This approach does not remove lecturer support. It uses lecturer time where experience and judgement add the most value, while also making the group itself a learning resource.

Effort and sustainability

Preparing the Miro board for the first three weeks took approximately eight hours. Around two of those hours were spent finding student portraits, grading criteria and existing material that was not as well organised as I had hoped.

The board is designed as a reusable template. It can be duplicated next year and improved over time. Activities are built in modular containers, which makes it easy to copy and adapt recurring elements such as the Emotional Weather Report, structured feedback, peer teaching and Stars and Wishes.

The recurring support effort includes checking Teams for questions, preparing diverse peer groups, building the peer teaching calendar, giving coaching sessions, reviewing individual assessment criteria and adapting future sessions based on feedback.

3. What I changed in the existing course

I made the connection between activities explicit

The biggest change is the linking of activities. In the past, an exercise such as the Stranger Portfolio could work as an interesting lateral-thinking task but remain disconnected from what followed. In the redesign, each activity has a clear role in the wider sequence and prepares material, questions, skills or feedback for the next step.

I moved part of the onboarding before Day 1

Previously, the onboarding happened mainly on the first teaching day. Now, students read the module facts, assessment information and team overview in advance. They can post questions asynchronously and discuss them live on Day 1. This freed substantial time and allowed the Stranger Portfolio to begin one day earlier.

I made goals and assessment clearer

The module goals and assessment process used to be presented much more briefly. They now have a dedicated space in Miro. Students can see what is expected, how their work will be assessed and how the different activities relate to the module goals.

I introduced more guided peer feedback

Previously, support relied more heavily on lecturer coaching. The redesign makes structured peer review a central part of the learning process. Groups are created in advance to increase diversity, and the feedback steps are clearly written down.

I introduced an individual assessment criterion

Previously, all students were assessed using the same criteria. Students can now propose one additional criterion that reflects their personal growth goal and type of project. This gives them more ownership while keeping the assessment clear through lecturer review.

I reduced reliance on oral instructions

In the past, I often guided exercises orally. Writing the activities down in advance has made the structure more precise. Students can revisit the instructions, and I have to think more carefully about each step before the session.

I reduced tool fragmentation

The redesign brings almost all learning material, tasks, collaboration and documentation into Miro. Teams remains the communication channel, and SharePoint is used only for large files. This is a more radical attempt to create one recognisable hub for the course.

4. Materials and methods used as inspiration

The blended learning course

The most important inspiration was the principle of linking activities across asynchronous and synchronous formats. This changed the structure of the module more than any single tool or exercise.

Conversations with peers in the blended learning course also reinforced the importance of limiting the number of tools. This led to the decision to use Miro as the main hub rather than distributing the course across several platforms.

Diana Laurillard’s Conversational Framework

The Conversational Framework and its six learning types helped me look more critically at the variety of learning activities in the module. The current redesign includes acquisition, collaboration, discussion, practice and production. Investigation is still underdeveloped.

Peer-designed learning

The course strengthened my interest in using the experience already present among Master’s students. Method Mapping and peer teaching are based on the idea that students are not empty vessels. They bring methods, professional experience and different disciplinary perspectives that can benefit the whole group.

Samuel’s course design

Two elements from Samuel’s approach were especially inspiring. The first is the use of small warm-up activities and simple metaphors, such as the Tower of Pisa, to create an anchor and a story for the day. The second is sending students a short written lecturer response after they submit work. This acknowledges that their work has been seen and adds a more seasoned perspective alongside peer feedback.

AI as an exploration tool

Peers in the blended learning course also showed how AI can support exploration. This is relevant because investigation is the learning mode that is currently least visible in my design. I would like to explore this further in a future version of the module.

Reflection and next steps

This redesign has had a direct and practical effect on Prototyping Module 3. The new course structure will be put into practice from 2 October.

The main insight I take with me is the importance of linking activities. The second is the value of guiding activities clearly in writing. Writing instructions in advance has made me more precise than when I relied mainly on oral facilitation.

There are several areas I want to develop further:

Revisit the Stranger Portfolio in the middle of the semester so the connection continues beyond the following week.
Use the Conversational Framework more deliberately, especially the investigation learning mode.
Explore video material in a course I teach alone. I did not introduce it here because the module is co-taught and I did not want to pressure my colleague into producing videos.
Experiment with peer grading and mini-quizzes.
Link students to existing HSLU material on how to learn.
Use small warm-ups and metaphors to create a stronger story across a teaching day.
Explore AI as a tool for investigation.
Add short written lecturer feedback after selected submissions.

The current design is not finished. That is intentional. Stars and Wishes allows us to adapt later parts of the module based on students’ experiences. The Miro template also makes it possible to improve the structure from one year to the next.

Evaluation and self-evaluation

Evaluation criterion	Importance, 4 to 1	Achievement, 4 to 1	How much the learning activities helped, 4 to 1
The dramaturgy of the learning activities and teaching formats is justified using motivational, learning-psychological or learning-phase perspectives	To add	To add	To add
Tools are selected and justified according to the learning activities and situation	To add	To add	To add
Production and support costs and resources are estimated realistically for each learning activity	To add	To add	To add
The design shows a didactic connection between activities across different teaching formats	To add	To add	To add
Different methods of supporting the learning process are demonstrated	To add	To add	To add
The learning design considers and justifies activities, tools, learning support and effort as a coherent whole	To add	To add	To add

The Learning Loop

The three AI drafts