Proceedings ascilite Auckland 2009: Concise paper: Dave 178 Design patterns for computer supported groupwork Kashmira Dave CoCo Research Center University of Sydney This paper describes work-in-progress in the area of educational design patterns. More specifically, the paper highlights a relatively neglected area in educational design for technology-supported learning – the various ways in which students can be grouped together to work collaboratively on study activities. Thus, it looks at the ‘people’ component of the ‘task, tools and people’ design model. The paper outlines this design model, sketches the ‘people’ component and offers an example design pattern to illustrate how design knowledge can be shared through design patterns and pattern languages. The research has implications for anyone who is concerned about sharing good ideas for technology-supported collaborative learning, whether in small, medium-sized or large groups (from dyads to learning communities). Key words: educational design, patterns, social organisation, group work, large classes Conceptualising ‘teaching-as-design’ Teaching and learning in higher education has shifted its focus from what teachers say to what students do. Student-centered active learning is becoming a more important focus for teaching. What students do is the most important determinant of what they learn. This requires teachers to design good learning tasks, which align with intended learning outcomes (Biggs, 2007). Good task design must be accompanied by careful consideration of the learning environment: paying attention to such things as the affordances of learning places, the tools and resources that should be available, etc. Design also needs to take into account the ways in which students might work together, whether in pairs, small groups, teams or communities. Designing learning tasks, and the accompanying considerations of the learning environment and learning partners, has to be seen as a complex challenge for teachers – one which should involve careful thinking as well as creativity. This idea of ‘teaching-as-design’ (Goodyear & Retalis, in press) is being shaped and necessitated by some major changes in higher education: larger classes, worsening staff-student ratios, growing diversity in the student population, changes in technology and rising expectation about graduate capabilities are all putting extra pressure on the teacher and on traditional teaching practices. When these stresses become too great, traditional methods can no longer cope, and educational innovation becomes a necessity. Educational design and design components Instructional design is an established term, but one that has not gained much currency among university teachers, partly because they see it as a rather narrow and specialised professional practice that makes strong assumptions about the nature of teaching (instruction) and learning (reception). While this may not be a fair criticism of instructional design, it is clear that few university teachers would describe part of what they do as ‘instructional design’. ‘Learning design’ has gained in popularity as a term, partly because it emphasises learning rather than instruction, but it implies that learning can be designed or delivered. Learners have to do the learning: other people can help create supportive environments for learning, and suggest good things to do. For this reason, the term ‘educational design’ is preferred to ‘learning design’ or ‘instructional design’. Educational design can be considered as a set of practices involved in constructing representations of how to support learning in particular cases (Goodyear, 2005). These representations can be converted into real