Asld2011 ljubojevic laurillard

  • 2,367 views
Uploaded on

Dejan Ljubojevic and Diana Laurillard: Pedagogical Pattern Collector software tool …

Dejan Ljubojevic and Diana Laurillard: Pedagogical Pattern Collector software tool
http://www.ld-grid.org/workshops/ASLD11

More in: Education , Technology
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
2,367
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1

Actions

Shares
Downloads
20
Comments
0
Likes
1

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Pedagogical  Pattern  Collector  software  tool   Dejan  Ljubojevic  and  Diana  Laurillard   London  Knowledge  Lab,  Institute  of  Education,  London,  UK  Introduction  This  paper  describes  one  of  the  key  strands  of  the  three-­‐year  ESRC/EPSRC  funded,  research  project  titled  Learning  Design  Support  Environment  (LDSE  http://www.ldse.org.uk).  One  of  the  principal  strategies  adopted  by  the  LDSE  project  is  to  enable  teachers  to  build  on  the  work  of  others  by  providing  the  support  tools  to  assist  them  in  finding,  interpreting,  evaluating,  and,  reusing/redesigning  the  work  of  their  colleagues.  Operationalising  that  strategy  requires  a  way  of  representing  the  theory  and  practice  of  learning  design  so  that  the  analytical  links,  between  the  pedagogical  first  principles  and  the  practice-­‐instances,  are  exposed  and  offered  to  practitioners  as  support.      The  Pedagogical  Pattern  Collector  (PPC)  tool  is  a  proposal  for  operationally  modelling  design,  abstraction,  and  interpretation  of  pedagogical  patterns.  Underpinning  the  design  of  the  PPC  is  the  Conversational  Framework  (Laurillard,  2002).  The  Conversational  Framework  (CF)  offers  analytical  means  for  dissecting  any  approach  to  teaching  and  learning  (teaching  and  learning  conversation)  and  is  not  value-­‐laden,  that  is,  it  does  not  prescribe,  or  favour,  any  one  approach.    Background  The  appeal  of  establishing  a  successful  model  for  reuse  (of  ideas,  approaches,  processes,  and  products),  in  any  domain,  is  at  least  twofold.  Firstly  it  serves  to  optimally  mobilise  the  domain’s  resources:  the  existing  aggregate  of  materials,  solutions  and  tools,  and  its  workforce  –  by  reducing  the  doubling  of  effort  and  therefore  the  cost.  Secondly,  through  this  optimised  mobilisation  it  leads  to  sharing  and  evolution  of  the  best  practices,  and  ultimately  innovation.  The  crucial  prerequisite  for  building  a  successful  model  for  reuse  in  any  domain  is  a  solid  foundation  of  conceptions  about  a  domain-­‐intrinsic  unit  of  reuse  that  are  shared  across  the  stakeholder  groups.    These  generic  criteria  when  applied  to  the  domain  of  learning  design  do  not  read  all  that  comfortably.  On  one  hand  the  optimisation  of  teaching  effort  and  resourcing  is  demanded  by  the  significant  changes  in  HE  in  the  UK  and  globally  (HEFCE,  2006;  HEFCE-OLTF,  2011; D.  Laurillard  &  Masterman,  2009),  and  on  the  other  hand,  the  prerequisite  for  that  optimisation,  the  shared  conception  about  the  unit  of  reuse,  is  absent  despite  significant  effort  (Grainne  Conole  &  Jones,  2010;  Isobel Falconer,  Janet Finalay,  &  Fincher,  2011; LAMS).    Often  cited  reasons  for  this  absence  of  shared  conceptions  about  the  unit  of  reuse  inside  the  teaching  and  learning  domain  are  the  disciplinary  and/or  institutional  idiosyncrasies,  as  well  as  the  technical  interoperability  issues,  such  as  granularity  of  focus,  that  are  hard  to  overcome.  And  yet,  other  domains,  of  at  least  equal  complexity,  such  as:  engineering,  medicine,  music  etc.,  have  successfully  overcome  this  ‘shared  conception’  hurdle.    This  conceptualisation  problem  (the  elusive  answer  to  the  question  ‘what  are  we  talking  about  when     1  
  • 2. talking  teaching  and  learning?’)  is  in  the  way  of  the  theoretical  and  practical  progress  in  the  field.  This  is  manifested  in  the  way  the  field’s  capacity  to  innovate  is  plagued  by  the  lack  of  the  foundation  for  the  exchange  of  ideas,  models,  tools,  materials  etc.  It  is  important  to  note  that  the  ‘foundation  for  exchange’  does  not  pertain  to  the  much  researched  ‘interoperability’  issue,  but  to  the  way  the  pedagogical  content  of  the  learning  design  is  made  explicit  for  the  practitioners,  and  the  designers  alike,  to  help  them  interpret  and  consequently  reuse  designs  across  the  disciplinary,  institutional,  and  individual-­‐practice  boundaries.  What  is,  and  what  is  not  a  Pedagogical  Design  Pattern?    The  Pedagogical  Design  Pattern  (PDP)  captures  the  generic  description  of  the  pedagogical  essence,  the  epistemic  property,  of  a  piece  of  learning  design  that  successfully  achieves  the  learning  outcome  it  was  designed  for;  it  describes  the  mechanisms  of  students’    ‘coming  to  know’.  This  description  is  systematised  by  the  use  of  the  5  cognitive  activities  from  Conversational  Framework  (Laurillard,  2002),  these  are:  acquisition,  inquiry,  discussion,  practice,  and,  production.  Each  teaching-­‐learning  activity  statement  in  the  PDP  description  is  assigned  one  of  these  categories,  and  composites  are  enabled  by  the  use  of  Segments  that  aggregate  two  or  more  statements  (and  their  cognitive  activity  assignees)  to  describe  more  complex  design  structures.  The  operational  choice  of  Conversational  Framework  taxonomy  is  not  mandatory,  that  is  the  pattern  representations  inside  the  PPC  are  loosely  coupled  with  Laurillard’s  taxonomy,  and  this  is  potentially  a  very  appealing  feature…       The  most  successful  designs  are  not  those  that  try  to  fully  model  the  domain   in  which  they  operate,  but  those  that  are  ``in  alignment  with  the   fundamental  structure  of  that  domain,  and  that  allow  for  modification  and   evolution  to  generate  new  structural  coupling.    (Winograd  &  Flores,  1986,  pp  53)    For  example,  the  patterns  inside  the  PPC  browser  are  presently  classified  using  Bloom’s  Taxonomy  (Bloom,  1956),  and  can  be  (additionally)  (re)classified  using  Kolb’s  Learning  Cycle  (Kolb,  1984).  Similarly,  the  present  operational  design,  underpinned  by  the  Conversational  Framework  (Laurillard,  2002)  classification  of  the  learner  cognitive  activities,  can  be  substituted  with  learning  activities  taxonomy  (Conole,  2007)  with  operational  integrity  intact.  This  would  serve  to  capture  wider  audience  that  may  have  particular  preference  in  this  regard.        All  other  aspects  of  the  learning  design  are  underplayed  (not  omitted)  in  our  approach,  to  allow  for  high  interpretability  of  the  epistemic  content  of  the  design  by  the  potential  reuser.  Other  aspects  of  the  learning  design  that  also  lend  themselves  to  design  pattern  approach  are:  curricular  (one  curricular  design  pattern  example  is  an  instance  from  the  Spiral  Curriculum  family,  called  Simplifying  Conditions  Methodology  from  Elaboration  Theory  –  (Reigeluth,  1999)),  and,  logistic  (one  logistic  design  pattern  example  is  an  instance  from  the  Role  Play  family,  called  Jigsaw  Pattern  -­‐  (Grainne    Conole,  McAndrew,  &  Dimitriadis,  2010)).       2  
  • 3. Pedagogical  Pattern  Collector  The  Pedagogical  Pattern  Collector  (PPC)  is  online  software  tool  (tinyurl.com/ldsepatterns)  with  three  distinct  stages:  browser,  designer,  and,  abstractor,  corresponding  respectively  to  identification/adoption,  designing/adaption,  and,  abstraction  of  teaching  practice.  Two  typical  use  case  scenarios  of  the  way  the  PPC  is  used  are  depicted  in  the  Figure  1.       Figure  1  –  Two  typical  use  case  scenarios  of  the  PPC  use      Use  Case  I  –  Adopt  and  Adapt  existing  Pedagogical  Design  Pattern  The  browser  (Stage  1  in  Figure  1)  is  used  for  searching  through  the  repository  of  learning  outcomes  and  the  associated  pedagogical  design  patterns.  When  the  user  identifies  the  potentially  suitable  pattern  (Stage  1  in  Figure  1),  the  browser  aids  interpretation  by  providing  up  to  3  instance  examples  for  each  pattern  from  as  disparate  disciplines  as  possible.  Furthermore,  the  browser  also  allows  the  user  to  input  their  own  instantiation  parameters  into  the  pattern.  This  marks  the  end  of  the  Adoption  phase;  the  adopted  pattern  is  then  imported  into  the  design  area  (Stage  2  in  Figure  1)  and  the  user  can  edit  the  whole  pattern  to  adapt  it  to  their  specific  requirements.  This  Use  Case  ends  with  the  reuser  either  exporting  the  design  in  an  XML  format  that  can  be  potentially  ‘played’,  pending  the  development  of  the  PPC  player,  or  printing  out  the  textual  description  of  the  design.    Use  Case  II  –  Express  own  teaching  practice  and  generalise  for  others  to  reuse  The  design  editor  (Stage  A  in  Figure  1)  is  used  for  designing  the  user’s  own  teaching  instance.  When  the  design  stage  is  complete  the  design  is  migrated  to  the  Abstractor  (Stage  B  in  Figure  1),  which  offers  the  tools  for  abstracting  a  design  instance  into  a  generic  design  pattern.  Use  Case  II  ends  with  the  PPC  sending  the  email  to  the  research  team  with  the  complete  materials  (including:  design  instance  description  of  pedagogy,  sequence,  timings,  and  tools  and     3  
  • 4. resources,  and  the  designer’s  generalisation  recommendation),  so  that  the  newly  created  instance  can  be  inserted  into  the  repository  of  PPC  patterns.             Figure  2  –  the  browser  part  of  the  PPC       Figure  3  –  the  designer  part  of  the  PPC       4  
  • 5. Figure  4  –  the  abstractor  part  of  the  PPC    Suggested  activities  for  the  workshop  The  two  use  cases  described  earlier  could  be  used  in  the  session  to  allow  the  participants  to  evaluate  the  PPC  tool.  References  Bloom,  B.  S.  (Ed.).  (1956).  Taxonomy  of  Educational  Objectives:  The  Classification   of  Educational  Goals,  Handbook  1  Cognitive  Domain.  New  York:  David   MvKay  Co.  Inc.  Conole,  G.  (2007).  Describing  learning  activities:  tools  and  resources  to  guide   practice.  In  H.  Beetham  &  R.  Sharpe  (Eds.),  Rethinking  Pedagogy  for  a   Digital  Age:  Designing  and  Delivering  E-­Learning.  London:   RoutledgeFalmer.  Conole,  G.,  &  Jones,  C.  (2010).  Sharing  practice,  problems  and  solutions  for   institutional  change.  In  P.  Goodyear  &  S.  Relatis  (Eds.),  Technology-­ Enhanced  Learning:  Design  Patterns  and  Pattern  Languages.  Technology   Enhanced  Learning  (Vol.  2,  pp.  277–296):  Sense  Publishers.  Conole,  G.,  McAndrew,  P.,  &  Dimitriadis,  Y.  (2010).  The  role  of  CSCL  pedagogical   patterns  as  mediating  artefacts  for  repurposing  Open  Educational   Resources.  In  F.  Pozzi  &  D.  Persico  (Eds.),  Techniques  for  Fostering   Collaboration  in  Online  Learning  Communities:  Theoretical  and  Practical   Perspectives.  Hershey,  USA:  IGI  Global.  HEFCE.  (2006).  Strategic  Plan  2006-­11  Higher  Education  Funding  Council  for   Englando.  Document  Number)  HEFCE-­‐OLTF.  (2011).  Collaborate  to  Compete:  Seizing  the  opportunity  of  online   learning  for  UK  higher  education  (HEFCE  o.  Document  Number)  Isobel  Falconer,  Janet  Finalay,  &  Fincher,  S.  (2011).  Representing  practice:   practicve  models,  patterns,  bundles...  Learning  Media  and  Technology,   36(2),  101-­‐127.  Kolb,  D.  A.  (1984).  Experiential  learning:  experience  as  the  source  of  learning  and   development.  Englewood  Cliffs,  New  Jersey:  Prentice-­‐Hall.  LAMS.  Learning  Activity  Management  System.  from  http://lamsfoundation.org/  Laurillard,  D.  (2002).  Rethinking  University  Teaching:  A  Conversational   Framework  for  the  Effective  Use  of  Learning  Technologies  (2nd  ed.).   London:  RoutledgeFalmer.  Laurillard,  D.,  &  Masterman,  E.  (2009).  TPD  as  online  collaborative  learning  for   innovation  in  teaching.  In  O.  Lindberg  &  A.  D.  Olofsson  (Eds.),  Online   Learning  Communities  and  Teaching  Professional  Development:  Methods   for  Improved  Educational  Delivery.  Berlin:  Springer.  Reigeluth,  C.  M.  (1999).  The  Elaboration  Theory:  Guidance  for  Scope  and   Sequence  Decisions  .  In  C.  M.  Reigeluth  (Ed.),  Instructional-­Design  Theories   and  Models:  A  New  Paradigm  of  Instructional  Theory,  vol.  II.  (pp.  425-­‐453).   Mahwah,  NJ:  Lawrence  Erlbaum  Associates.  Winograd,  T.,  &  Flores,  F.  (1986).  Understanding  Computers  and  Cognition.   Norwood,  NJ.:  Ablex  Corporation.         5