On October 23rd, 2014, we updated our
By continuing to use LinkedIn’s SlideShare service, you agree to the revised terms, so please take a few minutes to review them.
VALÉRIE EMIN, JEAN-PHILIPPE PERNIN ISIS AND SCENEDIT: AN INTENTION-ORIENTED LEARNING DESIGN FRAMEWORK Sense Publishers INTRODUCTIONVarious theoretical constructs have been proposed to capture abstractions in orderto design learning situations integrating digital technologies. Among those, we canparticularly quote Educational Modelling Languages (EML) (Koper & Tattersall,2005) and pedagogical design patterns (Dimitriadis, Goodyear & Retalis, 2009;Mor and Winters, 2007; Hernández-Leo & al, 2006; Derntl and Motschnig-Pitrik,2005; Goodyear et al. 2004). As noticed by IMS-LD authors, an EML, which aimsat providing interoperable descriptions of learning scenarios, is not intended to bedirectly manipulated by teachers or engineers: specific authoring systems (Murray& Blessing, 2003; Koper, 2006; Botturi & al., 2006) must be provided to allowdesigners to design scenarios at a lower cost. Pedagogical design patterns capturerecurring features across narratives, encapsulating critical challenges and forcespertaining to a domain of learning design, the interactions between them andpossible solution methods. Within this approach, Laurillard & Ljubojevic (cfchapter xx) propose a tool: the Pedagogical Pattern Collector (PPC), in order tooperationally model design, abstraction, and interpretation of pedagogical patterns.The first generation of EML editors has been mainly developed from technicalchallenges. The main goal of such tools was (a) to transform easily designersspecifications towards implementation features and (b) to insure interoperability inorder to exchange learning scenarios between technical platforms such as LearningManagement Systems. The proposed editors, which reuse modelling techniquescoming from computer science (such as UML, for example) were considered toocomplex to be mastered by teachers (Koper & Tattersall, 2005).A second generation of editors, such as LAMS (Dalziel, 2003) or CompendiumLD(Conole & al., 2008) proposes another "tool-box oriented" approach. LAMSprovides a series of components of different levels which represent activities thatcan be combined to create a scenario. Although LAMS provides patterns ofactivities and repositories for sharing scenarios, it does not allow the designer tomotivate its choices for the design or for the re-use by didactical or pedagogicalreasons. CompendiumLD is a software tool for designing learning activities using aflexible visual interface. It provides a set of icons to represent the components oflearning activities; these icons may be dragged and dropped, then connected toform a map representing a learning activity. It is a tool to support practitioners tohelp them articulate their ideas and map out the design or learning sequence but itdoesn’t assist the designer as he starts with a white space and as LAMS doesn’tprovide explanations of the choices made.
A third generation concerns "visual instructional design languages" (Botturi &Stubbs, 2008), derived from generic modelling languages such as UML (quote). ,According to these authors, these tools are still too complex for a non-technicaluser: "editing facilities need to be more accessible to non-technical user in order todevelop, implement and reach an easier and further use of this type of case studiesin reality".Specific conceptual models and authoring systems must be provided (Botturi &Stubbs, 2008) in order to help practitioners to design their own scenarios usingpatterns and vocabulary nearer to their own practices. A fourth generation concernslearning design authoring tools dedicated to practitioners which are not IMS LD orUML experts incorporating sharing and reusing features such as patterns,repositories... Most of the tools presented in this book can be considered amongthis category. For instance, the Open Graphical Learning Modeller (OpenGLM,Derntl & al; 2011) is a learning design authoring toolkit that supports the authoringof IMS Learning Design (LD) units of learning at levels A and B. The activities aregraphically displayed and arranged by the designer and may be freely defined orimported from existing patterns. Other tools, models and patterns compliant withIMS-LD levels A and B have been designed for a specific community as CSCL(CADMOS, CELS, WebCollage, the 4Ts model).In that context, our research focuses on authoring environments dedicated tospecific designers: teachers who integrate digital technologies in French secondaryeducational system. In this specific context, the teacher himself designs thescenario integrating digital resources and tools, he will potentially conduct insidehis classrooms. Economic constraints do not allow a team of designers ordevelopers to assist each teacher: it becomes necessary therefore to provideauthoring tools which allow teachers to express their requirements based on theirown business-oriented languages and shared practices. Two goals are combined: toprovide a “computable” description able to be translated into an EML (such asIMS-LD) and to be understood and shared by experts and practitioners sharing acommon vocabulary, knowledge of the discipline and pedagogical know-how. Thisauthoring approach aims to further consider learning scenario designers’requirements and the “business process” dimensions of learning scenario design,which are subjects of many works in Systems Engineering and SoftwareEngineering. We have particularly focused our research on works concerning Goal-Oriented Requirements Engineering (Van Lamsweerde, 2001) where the elicitationof goals is considered as an entry point for the specification of software systems asin the Rolland and Prakash MAP model (Rolland & al., 1999). In this perspective,we are providing authoring tools allowing teachers-designers belonging tocommunities of practice to design their scenarios expressing the intentions andstrategies they adopt.This paper is organized into 4 sections following this introduction. In section 2, wedescribe our context, our goals and the conceptual framework we propose: ISiS(Intentions-Strategies-interactional Situations) which structures the design oflearning scenarios. In section 3, we present the main functionalities of the ScenEditauthoring environment dedicated to teachers-designers through an example. Beforeconcluding, section 4 describes experimentations of tools we have developed onthe basis of ISIS model.
CONTEXT OF THE RESEARCH AND ISIS CONCEPTUAL MODELContext of the research and methodologyThe research work presented in this paper was conducted in collaboration betweenthe Laboratoire Informatique de Grenoble and INRP1. This collaboration closelyassociates groups of teachers in charge of co-elaborating and experimentingmodels we propose. This work led us to study existing practices of sharingscenarios. In parallel with the work concerning formalization based on EMLs(Koper & Tattersall, 2005) presented above, some international initiatives aim topropose scenarios databases in order to favour sharing and reuse practices betweenteachers, such as the IDLD (Lundgren-Cayrol & al., 2006). Their goal is todisseminate innovative practices using digital technologies in the field ofeducation. These databases for teachers-designers, such as that proposed by theFrench Ministery of Education: EduBase and PrimTice, list scenarios indexed withdifferent fields depending on the domain or subject. Their descriptions are veryheterogeneous: from practice narrations to more or less structured formalizations.This diversity has led us to question the ability of these representations to beunderstood and shared between several practitioners.Our research is at the intersection of the two previously identified approaches: (a)proposing scenario databases in order to favour sharing practices for the integrationof technology by practitioners and (b) proposing computational interoperableformalisms (like IMS-LD) to describe scenarios. The research questions weaddress is to facilitate teachers’ task in designing and implementing learningscenarios using Information and Communication Technology by providing themformalisms and tools satisfying criteria of understandability, adaptability andappropriability. In this context, we propose to design learning scenarios byexplicitly expressing intentions and pedagocical strategies.We organized our work into four phases by involving closely concerned teachers(Emin & al., 2009). After a preliminary phase where we precisely defined thetargeted audience, the first phase consisted of analysing current uses of share andreuse of scenarios. It appeared that teachers raised the difficulty to identify in suchscenarios the general objectives or the used pedagogical approach while thosecriteria are central for them. After this work, teachers suggested that the design taskcould be facilitated by providing libraries of typical strategies, scenarios, orsituations of various granularities. Each of these components was to be illustratedby concrete examples. These results allowed, in a second phase, to co-elaboratewith teachers an intention-oriented model: ISiS which structures the design of ascenario. In a third phase we experimented the ISiS model with a pilot group ofteachers by the means of textual forms and graphical representations. In a fourthphase integrating the evaluation of this experiment, we tested several toolsimplementing the ISiS model (paper forms, diagram designer, mind mappingsoftware and a first dedicated sofware tool) with audiences not yet involved in ourresearch. We set up an experiment (Emin & al., 2009) to compare the perceptionsof the three types of formalisms we are studying: narrative, computational and––––––––––––––1 Institut National de la Recherche Pédagogique (French National Institute for Research inEducation), since 2012 called IFE, Institut Français d’Education (French Institute of Education)
structural. The purpose of this phase was to validate our assumptions and toevaluate our model and its first implementation before new developments.We describe in next section ISiS intention-oriented conceptual model.The ISiS modelIn this research work we have combined different approaches in the teachersdesigning process: (a) to organize the scenario by eliciting formally the intentionsof the designer and by representing explicitly the learning strategies chosen and (b)to favour exploration of reusable components and patterns in specific librariesadapted to specific communities of teachers. To this end, we have co-elaboratedthe ISiS (Intentions, Strategies, and interactional Situations) intention-orientedconceptual model. This framework proposes a specific identification of theintentional, strategic, tactical and operational dimensions of a learning scenario.ISiS aims to capture the teachers’ intentions and strategies in order to betterunderstand scenarios written by others and to favour sharing and reuse practices.ISiS is not an alternative solution to EMLs, but complements them by offeringhigher level models, methods and tools designed for and with teachers-designers.In parallel with the elaboration of the ISiS model, we have co-designed withteachers a series of software prototypes progressively implementing ISiS concepts.According to the ISiS model (cf. fig. 1), the organization and planning of a learningunit can be described with a high-level intentional scenario which reflects thedesigner’s intentional and strategic dimensions. An intentional scenario organizesthe scenario into different phases or cases by means of intentions and strategies.Each phase or case can be either recursively refined by a new intention or linked ata tactical level to a suitable interactional situation. An interactional situation canbe itself described by a more low-level interactional scenario which defines, in anoperational way, the precise organization of situations (in terms of activities,interactions, roles, tools, services, provided or produced resources, etc.).Interactional scenarios are the operational level typically illustrated with EMLexamples of implementation.Figure 1 provides an overview of the ISiS model which proposes to structure thedesign of a scenario describing the organization and planned execution of alearning unit.- the I level (Intention) describes the designer’s intentions. In our field, intentionsare closely linked to the knowledge context which defines targeted knowledge items(concepts, notions, competencies, know-how, abilities, conceptions ormisconceptions, etc.). The intentions for the designer can be, for example, toreinforce a specific competence in electricity, to favour a notion discovery, todestabilize a frequent misconception, etc;- the S level (Strategy) is related to strategic features. In order to reach goalsrelated to the intentions formulated at I level, the designer opts for the strategy heconsiders to be the most appropriate. Two main kinds of strategies can bedistinguished: sequencing strategies which organize the arrangement of logicalphases (for example a scientific inquiry strategy can be modelled as a series of fourphases), distribution strategies which plan different solutions for identified cases(for example, a differentiation strategy takes into account three possible levels ofmastering). Strategies can be combined by successive refinements: for example, asequencing strategy may specify one of the cases of a distribution strategy;
Figure 1. An overview of the ISiS model- the iS level (interactional Situation) represents the tactical level, i.e. the proposedsolution to implement the formulated intentions and strategies. We consider that,for a new problem, a teacher-designer does not rebuild a new specific solutionfrom scratch. As underlined in works on schemata and routines in teachingactivities (Schank & Abelson, 1977), the teacher bases his planning or hisadjustments upon a library of mastered solutions, which are triggered by specificevents. In the same way, we assume that a scenario designer selects situationswhich are appropriate for his intentions and strategies, from a library of patterns.Each “interactional situation” is defined as a set of interactions with a specific setof roles, tools, resources, locations, according to the situational context. Thesituational context is defined at an “abstract” level, which means that only typicalelements are listed (i.e.: word processor, mind map…). Physical spaces arerepresented by the item locations, which are typical abstract locations: classroom,home, internet connected location, etc. For example, in order to specify thescenario for the “solution elaboration phase” in a collaborative way and for distantlearners, a designer can choose a typical situation called “argued debate on a forum
with consensus”. In another context, as for example for pupils who havedifficulties at school, a more personalized situation can be used, such as “choosinga solution between different possible proposals by using a MCQ tool”;The ISiS model proposes to clarify the upper levels (I, S and iS) that are generallyused but not explicitly defined by current methods or tools. In parallel with theelaboration of the ISiS model, we have co-designed with teachers a series ofsoftware prototypes progressively implementing ISiS concepts. We present nowthese implementations and ScenEdit web version. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ISIS MODELTowards flexible and continued design processesThe ISiS framework is not properly a method as it does not propose a specificorder to combine design steps. The ISiS is based on the hypothesis that alldimensions of a scenario (intentions, strategies, situations, activities, resources)must be elicited and interlinked in order to facilitate the design, appropriation,sharing and reuse. In our experimentations, we analyzed the tasks undertaken byteachers-designers (Emin & al., 2009). Several design processes as shown bydifferent studies involving teachers-designers were considered. Some teachers wereable to choose a top-down approach by hierarchically defining their intentions,strategies, situations, etc., while others preferred to adopt a bottom-up approach by“rebuilding” a scenario from resources or patterns that they wanted to integrate.Consequently, one of our hypotheses is that the design of learning scenario cannotbe modelled as a linear process without significantly reducing designers’ creativity.According to the designer type, according to the uses within a precise communityof practice, several kinds of objects or methods are shared. As a result, resources,pedagogical methods and typical situations could constitute an entry point fromwhich design steps will be combined. From this entry point (for example typicalinteractional situations), the designer may alternatively and recursively performdesign tasks. On these principles, the ISiS model was implemented successivelyusing different kinds of tools (diagram designing or mind mapping software). In afirst step, we elaborated paper forms to express the different dimensions of thedesign (knowledge context, situational context, intentions, strategies, interactionalsituations, activities, etc.). We also adapted mind mapping software where eachnode represents a concept (e.g. strategies, phases, interactional situation) and canbe edited with a specific electronic form. These first tools based on the ISiS modelwere experimented in a secondary school with a group of five teachers intechnological domains. Each “teacher-designer” had one month to model a learningsequence that he had to implement during the school year, by using the toolsprovided. All the 5 teachers accomplished the required task in the prescribed time,and the different sequences which were produced had a duration varying betweentwo and six hours. One teacher actually covered the complete process by (1)describing his scenario in paper form, (2) encoding the designed scenario with aspecific editor (LAMS), (3) implementing the result automatically towardsMoodle, a learning management system and (4) testing the scenario with his pupils.After this first experimentation, teachers were questioned about their designactivity. The answers given by the teachers-designers have shown the benefits ofthe model for the improvement of the quality of the scenarios created, forillustrating the importance of the elicitation of intentions and strategies by users
themselves, for the better understanding of the scenarios created by others and forsimplifying the design process by reducing the distance between users’requirements and the effectively implemented system.Finally, the following points can be raised:- the elicitation of intentions and strategies allowed the teacher-designer to betterunderstand a scenario designed by a peer;- teachers expressed the need to be provided with reusable components allowing(a) a significant decrease in the design duration and (b) an exploration of solutions,proposed by peers, for a renewal of practices;- the complete implementation on a LMS by one of the teachers was considered tobe facilitated by using the ISiS model;- the provided tools (paper forms and mind mapping tools) were considered as toocostly to be integrated into regular professional use.These first results show the capabilities of the ISiS model to encourage an efficientauthoring approach. The main restriction formulated by users refers to theprovision of adapted graphical tools. As a solution to this restriction and after theevaluation of some authoring solutions in learning design (Koper, 2006; Botturi &al., 2006; Dalziel, 2003; Botturi & Stubbs , 2008), we have co-elaborated withpanels of users a specific graphical authoring environment named ScenEdit (Emin& al., 2010) based on the ISiS Model.ScenEdit: a graphical authoring tool to design learning scenariosScenEdit is a web-based authoring environment which allows a community ofteachers to create, modify and reuse learning scenarios. ScenEdit allows teachers toquickly and easily create structured scenarios by: eliciting its intentions in terms of knowledge, competencies and abilities from pre-existing database, common to a certain community of teachers; choosing scenario patterns corresponding to common or novel strategies, well adapted to its intentions and to the learning context; selecting interactional situations and matching them to the different steps of the strategies; managing different components in specific databases, like scenarios, intentions, strategies, interactional situations…In this version, operationalization features have not been yet implemented.ScenEdit proposes three workspaces: the Scenario edition workspace, the ISiSComponents workspace, and the Context workspace represented by different tabsin the ScenEdit editor as shown in figure 2.Figure 2 shows the view provided by the Scenario Edition tab, on our scenarioexample: LearnElec (Lejeune & al., 2007). LearnElec is a collaborative scenarioconcerning the “concept of power of a bulb” in Electricity domain in secondaryschool. This scenario has been co-designed by domain-specialists and teachers witha main intention which is to destabilize a usual misconception in electricity: “theproximity of the generator has an influence on the intensity”.Figure 2 shows this scenario implemented with the ScenEdit graphical tool, eachtype of component (Intentions, Strategies, Situations) is shown with a differentsymbol: a triangle for a step, a rounded rectangle for an intention, a rectangle for astrategy, a circle for a phase and a picture for a situation. Checkboxes (Intentions,Strategies and Situations) of Figure 2 allows visualizing the desired levels.
Figure 2. ScenEdit main screenThe Scenario edition workspace allows to graphically design a structuring scenariousing the hierarchy of ISiS levels by assembling and logically linking elementsdefined in this tab or previously defined in the ISiS Components tab. The ISiSComponents workspace is dedicated to manage the three main components of theISiS model: (a) Intentions, (b) Strategies and (c) interactional Situations. Eachcomponent can be made of re-usable elements that can appear in many scenarios,and for each type the author can either create a new element or import and adapt anexisting one from a library. The library contains the components of the scenarioand all the patterns provided in the global database.In LearnElec scenario, the teachers’ first didactical intention is “to destabilize” afrequently encountered “misconception” of students in electricity which is that“proximity of the battery has an influence on current intensity”.Figure 3 shows how this intention is implemented within ScenEdit, by definingmainly 4 elements: the formulator of the intention, the actor concerned by theintention, and the intention itself: an operation on a knowledge item. Figure 3. An example of intention in ScenEdit: intention “destabilize- proximity of the battery has an influence on current intensity”
After having defined his intention, the teacher-designer has to choose theappropriate strategy he wants to use to reach the goal. In LearnElec scenario, thedidactical intention is implemented with a specific didactical strategy called“scientific investigation” composed of four phases: hypothesis elaboration, solutionelaboration, hypothesis testing and conclusion.Figure 4 shows the visual representation of the intention and the strategy we haveimplemented with these four phases. Figure 4. An example of strategy in ScenEdit: “scientific investigation”Each phase can be performed through various pedagogical modes and can berefined by another intention according to the type of activity, the availability ofcomputer services, etc. the teacher wants to use. In our example, the first phase:“hypothesis elaboration” is refined by a pedagogical intention called “increase theability to work in a collaborative way” as shown in figure 2. This intention isimplemented with a strategy called “elaborating a proposal by making aconsensus” composed of two phases: “Make an individual proposal” and “Confrontproposals. Obtain a consensus”. Figure 5. An example of interactional situation in ScenEdit
For each phase, an interactional situation can be defined. Figure 5 shows the formused to define the interactional situation: “Individual proposal using MCQ”, inwhich actors, tools, resources and locations are specified. Finally, during these twophases the teacher is involved in an activity of management of the groupssymbolized by an interactional situation called “Group management” as shown infigure 2.The Context workspace defines the two different types of context in which alearning unit can be executed: the knowledge context and the situational context.The knowledge context tab allows defining the different contexts of knowledge thatcan be used in the scenario for defining the knowledge items used for intentionsand pre-requisites. The situational context tab allows defining the elements ofinteractional Situations: actors, tools, resources, locations. The choices availablefor each component depends on the characteristics defined in the Contextworkspace.This web version of our graphical editor ScenEdit was experimented with teachersnot yet involved in our research in order to use it for their classes; we describebriefly this experiment in next section. EXPERIMENTATION OF THE SCENEDIT ENVIRONMENTAt each phase of this research work (cf section 2), experiments have beenconducted in order to adopt a co-design and user-oriented approach. Theseexperimentations with teachers-designers have shown the benefits of the ISiSmodel (1) to improve the quality of the scenarios created, (2) to illustrate theimportance of the elicitation of intentions and strategies by users themselves, (3) tobetter understand the scenarios created by others and (4) to simplify the designprocess by reducing the distance between users’ requirements and the effectivelyimplemented system.An experimentation of our graphical online tool ScenEdit in terms of utility andusability, has been done in April 2009 during two days in a French secondaryschool. The subjects were a group of five teachers in Industrial Sciences andTechniques fields (electronics, mechanics and physics). Two teachers had workedwith us before on the definition of reusable components inside our tool ScenEditand the three others had never heard about ISiS model or learning scenario designbefore this experiment. This study is qualitative and is used so as to help us toimprove the model and tools we are developing. We are only presenting here themain results, and especially the ones concerning the interest and the ability ofreusing components (Intentions, Strategies, interactional Situations) or scenarios, inthe form of templates or design patterns. Table 1 shows their answers as regardscollaborative work with other teachers.Table 1. Breakdown of the answers to questions about re-use for collaborative work betweenteachersAs regards collaborative No totally quite quite absolute Totalwork with other teachers, answer useless usele useful ly usefulevaluate the fact of having sscomponents / patterns,implemented previously by 0 0 0 3 2 5the designers of ScenEdit
is…implemented previously by 0 0 0 3 2 5other teachers is…implemented previously by 0 0 0 3 2 5yourself is…Total 0 0 0 9 6 15More precisely the elements provided with ScenEdit (knowledge items, intentions,strategies, interactional situation patterns…) are useful as can be seen in table 2.To the question “Would you say that the presence of components and patterns is…”(two possible choices), the associated terms were “advantage”(4 answers), “help”(4 answers). One of the experimented teachers said, it was an “advantage” and a“constraint”, and he explained that “at first sight I found the choices were not wideenough, I was a little embarrassed to be unable to put whatever I wanted… andfinally it’s another advantage of ISiS thinking of words that everybody can acceptand then speak the same language” so he was convinced of the necessity to have adefinite number of possibilities in the list if the vocabulary chosen is relevant fortheir users.Table 2. Breakdown of the answers to questions about the presence of suggestionsEvaluate the presence of No totally quite quite absolute Totalsuggestions answer useless usele useful ly useful ssknowledge items 0 0 0 4 1 5intentions 0 0 0 4 1 5strategies 0 0 0 4 1 5interactional situations 0 0 0 3 2 5Total 0 0 0 15 5 20Some of the comments suggested improvements of the visual representation of theISiS model: in particular more precision is required for the temporal dimensionwhich is not represented on the actual simple tree version. Moreover they pointedout that making the phases and the activities more explicit helped them as « thescenario can be appropriated more quickly ».In the end, the detailed analysis of this qualitative study (Emin & al., 2009) showsthe value for the practitioners of having access to reusable components in thecontext of designing for the teachers’ own ordinary work in their classroom or for acollaborative work with other teachers. CONCLUSIONIn this paper, we have presented an overview of ISiS model and ScenEditauthoring environment whose purpose is to assist teachers in the design of learningscenarios and to favour sharing and re-use practices. According to ourexperimentations, the ISiS model, co-elaborated with a panel of practitioners,appears efficient. Part of our work with the teachers has been to formalize anddesign patterns of learning scenarios, pedagogical approaches and recurrentinteractional situations. ScenEdit offers some patterns of different levels(intentions, strategies, interactional situations) elaborated from best-practices found
in the literature or within communities of practice. With this environment, weexpect users will be able to feed databases by exporting fragments of their ownscenario, in order to share their scenarios with others or reuse them further inrelated or different contexts. The graphical representation shown on figure 2 is aclassical hierarchical tree quite useful to produce a scenario but not very clear tounderstand a new scenario because of the different levels of imbrications. The newgraphical representation we are implementing in the online version is a tree wherethe horizontal dimension represents time evolution and the vertical dimensionrepresents the hierarchy of the ISiS concepts. As the scenario can be encoded as anXML file, different outputs can be produced, a printable text or form for theteacher is now available, and we plan to offer several possibilities oftransformation in next version: a printable picture of the edition views and aSCORM package which can be executed on a LMS.We aim at experimenting ScenEdit more thoroughly, with a wider audience whichnot necessarily has a great familiarity with ICT and scenario design software andmethods. REFERENCESBotturi, L., Cantoni, L., Lepori, B., Tardini, S. (2006). Fast Prototyping as a Communication Catalyst for E-Learning Design: Making the Transition to E-Learning: Strategies and Issues. Hershey, M. Bullen & D. Janes editorsBotturi, L., Stubbs S. (2008). Handbook of Visual Languages in Instructional Design: Theories and Pratices. Hershey, PA: Informing Science Reference., USADalziel, J. (2003). Implementing learning design: the Learning Activity Management System (LAMS). Proceedings of the ASCILITE 2003 conference, Adelaide.Derntl, M., Neumann, S., Oberhuemer, P. (2011). Community Support for Authoring, Sharing, and Reusing Instructional Models: The Open Graphical Learning Modeler (OpenGLM). Proceedings of IEEE ICALT 2011, Athens, Georgia, USA.Derntl, M. & Motschnig-Pitrik, R.. The role of structure, patterns, and people in blended learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 8 (2), 111-130. (2005)Dimitriadis, Y., Goodyear, P., Retalis, S. (Eds). (2009).Using e-learning design patterns to augment learners experiences, Computers in Human Behavior, Volume 25, Issue 5, 2009.Emin V., Pernin J.-P. and Aguirre J.-L. (2010). ScenEdit: An Intention-Oriented Authoring Environnment to Design Learning Scenarios. In Wolpers M., Kirschner P., Scheffel M., Lindstaedt S., and Dimitrova V., (Eds) Sustaining TEL: From Innovation to Learning and Practice, vol. 6383 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 626-631. Springer Berlin/Heidelberg.Emin, V., Pernin, J.-P., & Guéraud, V. (2009). Model and tool to clarify intentions and strategies in learning scenarios design. In Cress, U., Dimitrova, V., Specht, M., (Eds.) Learning in the Synergy of Multiple Disciplines. vol. 5794 of Lecture Notes In Computer Science, pp. 462-476, Springer Berlin/Heidelberg.Goodyear, P., Avgeriou, P.,Baggetun, R., Bartoluzzi, S., Retalis, S., Ronteltap, F. & Rusman, E. (2004). Towards a pattern language for networked learning. Proceedings Networked Learning Conference 2004, Lancaster University, England, UK.Hernández-Leo, D, Villasclaras-Fernández, E. D., Asensio-Pérez, J. I, Dimitriadis, Y., Jorrín-Abellán, I. M., Ruiz-Requies, I., & Rubia-Avi, B. (2006). COLLAGE: A collaborative Learning Design editor based on patterns. Educational Technology & Society, 9 (1), 58-71.Koper, R. (2006). Current Research in Learning Design. Educational Technology & Society, 9 (1), pp. 13-22Koper, R. and Tattersall, C. (2005). Learning Design: A Handbook on Modelling and Delivering Networked Education and Training. Springer Verlag, HeidelbergLaurillard, D. & Ljubojevic, D. (2011) Evaluating learning designs through the formal representation of pedagogical patterns. In C. Kohls & J. Wedekind (Eds.), Investigations of E-Learning Patterns: Context Factors, Problems and Solutions. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Lejeune A., David J.P., Martel C., Michelet S., Vezian N. (2007). To set up pedagogical experiments in a virtual lab: methodology and first results, International Conference ICL, Villach AustriaLundgren-Cayrol, K., Marino, O., Paquette, G., Léonard, M. & De La Teja, I. (2006). Implementation and deployment process of IMS Learning Design: Findings from the Canadian IDLD research project, Proceedings Conference IEEE ICALT’06, pp. 581-585.Mor Y., Winters N., Design approaches in technology-enhanced learning, Interactive Learning Environments, 1744-5191, Volume 15, Issue 1, 2007, p 61–75.Murray, T., Blessing, S. (2003). Authoring Tools for Advanced Technology Learning Environment, Toward Cost-Effective Adaptive, Interactive and Intelligent Educational Software, Ainsworth, S. (Eds.), Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 571Rolland, C., Prakash, N. and Benjamen, A. (1999). A Multi-Model View of Process Modelling, Requirements Engineering, 4(4), pp. 169–187Schank, R. C. & Abelson, R.: Scripts, plans, goals and understanding, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, (1977)Van Lamsweerde A. (2001). Goal-Oriented Requirements Engineering: A Guided Tour, Fifth IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering, pp. 249 WEB-REFERENCES FOR THE DEMONSTRATIONScenEdit Home Pagehttp://eductice.ens-lyon.fr/EducTice/recherche/scenario/scenedit/scenedit/view?set_language=enRemote access to the Prototypehttp://scenedit.imag.fr/demo/login: demo_scenedit AFFILIATIONSValérie EminS2HEP, Institut Français de l’EducationENS LyonJean-Philippe PerninLaboratoire Informatique de GrenobleUniversité Grenoble 3