Learning Design
AU Course Development: Part 3
Supporting Academic Course Developers at Adelaide University through structured 10-week design and build cycles, aligned to the Adelaide Attainment Model.
Course Development at Adelaide University
Adelaide University launched a new curriculum in 2024, built from the ground up to reflect the Adelaide Attainment Model — a vision for graduates who are digitally capable, sustainability-minded, and equipped for work-integrated learning. Part 3 of this project is where that vision became reality: the active design and build of over 200 courses across disciplines.
As a Learning Designer embedded in the Teaching & Learning Innovation team, my role was to support Academic Course Developers (ACDs) through structured 10-week build cycles. Across 2025, I worked on 53 courses — advising on pedagogy, building in Canvas, creating H5P activities, coordinating with media teams, and helping ACDs translate their expertise into student-ready learning experiences.
By the Numbers
My Role as Learning Designer
Each Learning Designer was allocated a portfolio of courses per development cycle. For most courses this meant a standard allocation of 15 hours; at-elbow courses — where the ACD needed more intensive support — received 20+ hours of LD time. My primary contact window with ACDs was Weeks 4–8 of each cycle, though I was often involved earlier for kick-off preparation and later for QA and handover.
What I did as an LD
- Advised on constructive alignment: learning outcomes → assessments → content
- Co-created and reviewed lesson pages, concept pages, and topic structures in Canvas
- Built and uplifted H5P activities (quizzes, branching scenarios, flashcards, drag-and-drop)
- Wrote and reviewed video scripts; coordinated with Panopto and the Media team
- Converted PPTXs and Word documents to AU-branded Canvas content
- Completed and reviewed Course Details Forms with ACDs
- Supported assessment design: rubrics, instructions, Canvas assignment setup
- Coordinated QA reviews and contributed to the Course Readiness & Handover Tool
The 10-Week Development Cycle
Each course followed a structured 10-week development cycle with four milestone checkpoints. Multiple cycles ran concurrently, meaning LDs were often supporting courses at different stages simultaneously.
ACD onboarding, Course Details Form review, scope agreement
Module structure set, first content drafted, LD review begins
Most content built, assessments drafted, media briefs submitted
Course ready for QA, handover tool completed, student-ready
Cycle Schedule — 2025
| Cycle | Kick-off | Milestone 1 | Milestone 2 | Final |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6 | Jan 2025 | Feb 2025 | Mar 2025 | Apr 2025 |
| 7 | Feb 2025 | Mar 2025 | Apr 2025 | May 2025 |
| 8 | Mar 2025 | Apr 2025 | May 2025 | Jun 2025 |
| 9 | Apr 2025 | May 2025 | Jun 2025 | Jul 2025 |
| 10 | May 2025 | Jun 2025 | Jul 2025 | Aug 2025 |
| 11 | Jun 2025 | Jul 2025 | Aug 2025 | Sep 2025 |
| 12 | Jul 2025 | Aug 2025 | Sep 2025 | Oct 2025 |
| 13 | Aug 2025 | Sep 2025 | Oct 2025 | Nov 2025 |
| 14 | Sep 2025 | Oct 2025 | Nov 2025 | Dec 2025 |
Aligning to the Adelaide Attainment Model
The Adelaide Attainment Model is the pedagogical backbone of AU's new curriculum. Every course was expected to demonstrate alignment to its six principles. As an LD, I helped ACDs interpret and apply these principles practically — in assessment design, content structure, and the choice of learning activities.
Embedding sustainability perspectives and global awareness into course content, assessments, and learning activities that connect students to real-world challenges.
For Fundamentals of Climate Change and Culture, Society & Climate Change I helped design Canvas assessments grounded in real-world climate scenarios. For Animal Handling & Husbandry I contributed to an Aboriginal Knowledges initiative, supporting the team in scoping how Indigenous perspectives could be meaningfully woven into course content.
Designing modular content structures in Canvas that support stackable credentials, micro-credentials, and varied student entry points.
For Bioinformatics: Sequencing Technologies I worked with the LMS Support team to build a differentiated content pathway using Canvas Learning Mastery — a first for the team. Students at different starting points accessed different resources based on quiz performance, with module prerequisites preventing out-of-sequence progression.
Creating interactive, media-rich learning experiences through H5P activities, video, audio, and custom Canvas page design.
H5P was the main tool across most courses — quizzes, branching scenarios, drag-and-drop, and flashcards. For Applied AI & Machine Learning I embedded NotebookLM audio summaries into the course structure. Custom summary boxes and styled lesson pages were co-developed with the Media team across the AI & Computing cluster.
Supporting authentic assessment design that connects coursework to professional practice, industry contexts, and real-world application.
Assessment design across Thinking By Design, Geochemistry 2, and the security courses focused on authentic professional tasks — from enterprise security scenario analysis to field report preparation. I helped ACDs move from generic task descriptions to discipline-specific, professionally-grounded assessment instructions.
Advising on AI-aware assessment design and creating H5P activities and Canvas content that help students engage critically with AI tools.
The AI & Computing cluster was particularly rich: Generative AI (Alfred), Applied AI/ML (Feras), and Advanced Topics in AI/ML (Orvila) all needed nuanced assessment design. I helped ACDs write instructions that specified when and how AI tools could be used, and built H5P activities that prompted students to engage critically with AI outputs rather than just accept them.
Contributing to the Adelaide Graduate Attribute framework by helping course developers align learning outcomes to graduate capabilities through constructive alignment.
Across most courses, the Course Details Form review was where graduate attribute alignment happened. I helped ACDs map CLOs to Adelaide Graduate Attributes — turning broad aspirational outcomes into measurable, assessable statements. The most productive conversations were often when an ACD realised their assessment didn't actually measure what their CLO claimed.
Supporting Course Developers: Key Deliverables
The development cycle was structured around four key deliverables. My role as LD was to support ACDs in meeting each one — not to build the course for them, but to provide the scaffolding, expertise, and hands-on assistance they needed to do it well.
1. Course Completion & Teaching Readiness
The overarching goal: a student-ready course in Canvas by the end of Week 10. This meant all modules published, assessments configured, media embedded, and QA completed. I supported ACDs in prioritising what needed to be done, identifying gaps, and ensuring nothing fell through the cracks in the final weeks.
By the final week, the checklist was extensive: published modules, live assessments, embedded Panopto videos, accessible H5P, QA sign-off, and a completed handover tool. The courses I'm proudest of are the ones where the ACD reached Week 10 feeling confident — where support had been scaffolded rather than substituted.
2. Course Details Form & Constructive Alignment
The Course Details Form was a foundational document mapping Course Learning Outcomes (CLOs) to assessments, rubrics, and learning activities. I worked with ACDs to complete or review their CDFs — ensuring CLOs were measurable, assessments were appropriately weighted, and content was genuinely aligned to what was being assessed.
The CDF review was often where the real pedagogical conversation happened. Many academics who had been teaching face-to-face for years had tacit knowledge they'd never articulated as learning outcomes. The CDF forced that articulation — which was sometimes uncomfortable but always valuable. The most productive conversations happened when an ACD realised their assessment didn't actually measure what their CLO claimed.
3. Course Development & Canvas Build
The hands-on build phase: writing assessment instructions, creating lesson and concept pages, designing H5P activities, embedding Panopto videos, converting PPTXs, sourcing and formatting images, and building the Canvas module structure. I collaborated closely with Digital Education Developers (DEDs), the Media team, and LMS Support depending on each course's needs.
The build phase was where the abstract became concrete. A lesson page in Bioinformatics looked completely different from one in Administrative Law. Adapting to different disciplinary conventions while maintaining AU's visual and structural standards was a constant creative challenge — and the part of the role I found most satisfying.
4. Course Readiness & Handover Tool
Before a course could be marked complete, it needed to pass through the Course Readiness & Handover Tool — a structured checklist ensuring all components were in place for a smooth transition to delivery.
A good handover was one where the ACD could describe their course confidently to a student. The Handover Tool gave us a shared language for "done" — but the real test was whether the course could stand alone. My role in the final handover was to push back gently where items were marked complete but weren't quite there yet, and to help ACDs close those gaps so we could sign off with genuine confidence.
Courses I Worked On
AI & Computing
8 coursesSciences & Engineering
4 coursesHealth & Life Sciences
1 courseHumanities, Law & Business
6 coursesAU Learning Environment Principles in Practice
Alongside the Attainment Model, AU's seven Learning Environment Principles guided how courses were designed and built. These principles informed the everyday decisions I made as an LD — from how a lesson page was structured to how feedback was framed in an assessment rubric.
Students as active agents in their own learning
H5P branching scenarios — like the Cyber Threat Intelligence activity for Security Principles — gave students meaningful decisions with consequences, not just passive quiz questions. The Bioinformatics differentiated pathway let students determine their own route through content based on what they already knew.
Learning is social and collaborative
Discussion forums and peer-review tasks were built with clear scaffolding — rubrics that rewarded thoughtful engagement rather than participation counts. For IHR I helped build a Google Forms topic allocation system so students could coordinate their own group work with less friction.
Learning environments are inclusive and accessible
I aimed to apply AU's accessibility guidelines as consistently as possible — heading hierarchy, contrast, alt text, and keyboard-accessible H5P configurations — while recognising that accessibility is an ongoing practice rather than a one-time checklist. APA 7 referencing was applied across courses where I had the opportunity, and custom Canvas components were checked against the AU style guide.
Content is contextualised and authentic
The most engaging pages connected content directly to students' future practice — Geochemistry fieldwork contexts, enterprise security real-world scenarios, and AI applications in the student's own discipline. Generic content was the hardest to make stick; contextualised content wrote itself.
Assessment is meaningful and aligned
CDF reviews were fundamentally about alignment: every assessment was traceable to a CLO, and every CLO was assessable. When the chain broke — "analyse" in a CLO but only "describe" in the assessment — we fixed it before building, not after.
Feedback is timely, specific, and forward-looking
Rubric criteria were drafted to be genuinely formative — not just "good analysis" but "clearly identifies the mechanism and cites supporting evidence; next step is to connect this to the broader literature." Vague criteria were replaced with actionable descriptors at each grade band.
Technology enhances rather than replaces human connection
The principle I returned to most often. H5P and NotebookLM audio were chosen to free up synchronous time for deeper discussion, not as substitutes for academic presence. When a simpler tool served the learning need better, that's what we used — as the VibeCheck / Miro exploration showed.
Reflections & Key Takeaways
What worked well
The structured cycle gave both LDs and ACDs a shared language for progress. Milestone checkpoints turned what could have been a vague 10-week sprint into a series of manageable conversations: "by Week 4 we need X; by Week 7 we need Y." That predictability reduced anxiety for academics and made it easier for me to manage a concurrent portfolio of 8–12 courses.
The cross-team collaboration model also worked better than I expected. Having DEDs, Media, and LMS Support as distinct specialist roles meant I could broker support rather than being the bottleneck for every technical problem. Knowing when to escalate versus when to handle something myself was a skill I built quickly.
What was hard
The hardest part was the scope variation. A "standard 15-hour course" could range from a well-prepared ACD who just needed a Canvas build, to an academic who needed help conceptualising their course from scratch. The hours were fixed; the ambiguity wasn't. Learning to scope honestly with ACDs early — and to be clear about what 15 hours could and couldn't achieve — was essential.
The process was fundamentally academic-led — and the level of engagement varied enormously. Some course developers arrived prepared and eager to collaborate; others were navigating significant competing pressures. Full teaching loads, active research commitments, unfamiliarity with online pedagogy, anxiety about committing to a public platform, and simple overcommitment all affected the pace and depth of collaboration available in any given cycle. There's no clean solution to this — it's structural. But it meant that the same 15-hour allocation could produce very different outcomes depending on the working relationship, and building trust quickly became as important as any technical skill.
Not having a complete set of tools and scaffolding resources made some engagements harder than they needed to be. When an ACD was starting from a blank page — no existing course materials, no content brief, no prior online equivalent — significant time went into helping them draft and structure content before any Canvas build could begin. Without a shared exemplar library, templated H5P structures tailored to different disciplines, or a bank of reusable course components, that scaffolding sometimes absorbed a disproportionate share of the allocation. Better tooling was advocated for; it takes time to materialise.
Late-breaking content changes in Week 8–9 were a recurring challenge. An ACD rethinking an assessment in the final weeks could create knock-on effects for QA across other courses running simultaneously. Proactive milestone check-ins and an early-warning habit helped contain this, but it never fully went away.
What I'd do differently
I'd invest more time in the kick-off conversation. The courses that ran smoothest were the ones where I spent an extra 30–45 minutes in Week 1 establishing shared expectations: what the ACD wanted, what the course needed, and where the 15 hours would be best spent. When that conversation was rushed or skipped, the misalignment showed up later — often at the worst possible moment.
I'd also build in more peer review between LDs earlier in the process. By the end of the year we had informal patterns for sharing course templates and H5P designs, but a more deliberate sharing practice from Cycle 6 onwards would have accelerated quality and reduced duplicated effort across the team.
Interested in curriculum design at scale?
I'm always happy to talk about learning design, Canvas builds, H5P, or what it looks like to work across 53 courses in a year.
Get in touch