Learning Process Models as Mediators Between ... - Semantic Scholar

Learning Process Models as Mediators Between Didactical Practice and Web Support Renate Motschnig-Pitrik and Michael Derntl Department of Knowledge and Business Engineering and Research Lab for Educational Technologies, University of Vienna, Rathausstrasse 19, 1010 Vienna, Austria {renate.motschnig, michael.derntl}@univie.ac.at

Abstract. Within the last decade the introduction of technologyenhanced learning (“e-learning") has become a focal strategy in several universities and organizations. While much research has been devoted to producing e-content, describing it with metadata, and to constructing e-learning platforms, relatively little attention has been paid to using patterns and conceptual modeling techniques as a means of knowledge development and communication serving to improve the learning process in terms of depth, scope, and effective tool support. Our research is targeted at filling this gap by considering conceptual models of learning processes as mediators between rich didactic elements and Web service modules that closely match students’ and instructors’ demands on effective support. In this paper we illustrate our pattern-based research framework by giving an example, discussing the driving role and merits of conceptual modeling, providing an overview of our pattern knowledge base, and sharing our vision for future development.

1

Introduction

Technology-enhanced learning has become a hot topic for every university and organization. E-content, its description by metadata, and its delivery via learning platforms employ the minds of many researchers, teachers and administrators. In our view, the current conception of the whole complex phenomenon of technology-enhanced learning is strong with regard to different forms of representing, sharing, and delivering learning content anytime and everywhere. However, it seems quite weak in re-engineering learning processes such as to exploit technology to a degree that surpasses mere representation, sharing, and delivery by offering radically novel learning scenarios [1]. These scenarios blend faceto-face and Web-supported learning such that the strengths of both settings, mediate and immediate, can be exploited and the learning process can proceed closer to the intentions and needs of individuals. We have experienced that blended scenarios, due to their reliance on multiple media-didactic and face-to-face elements tend to be more versatile and complex than traditional lecturing. This is why structuring and abstraction mechanisms with well defined semantics, as they are typically provided by modeling languages L. Delcambre et al. (Eds.): ER 2005, LNCS 3716, pp. 112–127, 2005. c Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Learning Process Models as Mediators

113

such as the UML, are particularly well suited for model building and sharing of scenarios of technology-enhanced teaching/learning processes. However, semiformal visual models as means of communication and tools driving design and evaluation processes are rare. Currently, focus is still primarily on the content, while the process and setting of learning are (almost) neglected, despite findings from various learning theories that underline the importance of process and its motivation and enactment by people. Hence the primary objective of this paper is to highlight the central role of conceptual modeling for mediating between learning processes and appropriate Web support modules. Psychological and pedagogical theories agree on viewing lectures that solely serve to transmit information to several students as little effective in the long run, e.g. [2,3,4]. Knowledge that is not used tends to be forgotten very fast and in all but the most basic areas it is quite unlikely that different students will use the same knowledge in the near future. There is evidence that a form of learning and practice that tends to be more self-initiated and self-organized is more persistent and hence something we should strive for (e.g. [5]). In that respect our hypothesis that has been validated by three years of experience and Action Research is that modern ICT has the potential to play a significant part in approaching more individual, social, and persistent learning processes. In order to implement, research, adopt, and reuse such processes, they need to be made explicit. This is the point where conceptual models are indispensable in so far as they act as vehicles for systematic technological as well as educational innovation! Whereas the lead in effective learning still stays with persons, their capabilities, and social- and interpersonal values, thoughtfully designed scenarios, accompanying Web services, and easily accessible content have the potential to significantly support persons by reducing the time and effort needed for various organizational and administrative issues. This time then can be invested in engaging in a challenging, more spontaneous facilitation of learning. Focusing on conceptual modeling, our approach to technology-enhanced learning proceeds in two major steps1 as sketched in Fig. 1. The initial step comprises the capturing of successful learning/teaching processes in visual models taking on the form of extended UML activity diagrams. Thereby we focus on the modeling of activities and associated document flows (or “content flows"). The patterns resulting from capturing recurring process phases are organized at varying levels of abstraction and composition. Typically, they are used in presentations and discussions regarding didactical practice and applicability in specific course contexts. At the same time, the patterns form the specifications for the second step, namely the design and prototyping of interactive Web services [7,8] that implement the patterns as open-source modules and thus ease the organization and administration of courses as well as the communication and cooperation of participants. The Web services are applied in courses, reflected upon by students, discussed among instructors, and incrementally and iteratively improved, specialized and diversified, tightly following didactical practice as reflected by 1

Note that a more detailed description of the transition process following the Blended Learning System Structure (BLESS) model is given in [6].

114

R. Motschnig-Pitrik and M. Derntl Pattern mining and validation, Conceptual modeling of patterns

Feedback Item (from Collect Feedback)

Questionnaire Questionnaire Item Response

1..* Questionnaire Item Block

Item Scale

has scale 1

*

1..*

Questionnaire Item

Scaled Questionnaire Item

*

respond to *

Participant (from Course)

Open Questionnaire Item

«Pattern»

Collect (from General)

Feedback Collector

Feedback Provider

Feedback «Pattern»

«Pattern»

Feedback Phase

General

Feedback Phase

Que stionna ire «derive»

Construct questionnaire

{optional}

«Pattern»

«include»

Course

«Pattern»

«Pattern»

«use»

Publish

Publish

w

Questionnaire «use»

Publish questionnaire w

* Complete questionnaire w

Analyze questionnaires

Design of web templates, Application in courses

Discussion, Adaptation, Diversification

Fig. 1. Conceptual models as central elements in developing effective, technologyenhanced learning support driven by action research TechnologyTechnology-Enhanced Courses

Adaptation of Theories from Soft Sciences

Test and Evaluation Instruments Visual Models of Scenarios & Repository Organization

……………………………… ……………………………… ……………………………… ……………………………… ……………………………… ……………………………… ……………………………… Antwortverhalten allgemein ………………….…………… ………….…………………… Der Lehrveranstaltungsleiter oder die ……………………………… ……………………………… Lehrveranstaltungsleiterin gibt: ……………………………… ……………………………… O……………………………… destruktive, demotivierende Antworten ……………………………. O……. ineffektive, überhebliche Antworten O minimal effektive Antworten O Antworten, die merklich zum Weiterkommen beitragen O Antworten, die einem Mut zusprechen, förderlich sind und in hohem Maß zum Weiterkommen beitragen

Action Research Cycles

Learning Platform

Web Services

Knowledge Management

Learning Technology

Fig. 2. Conceptual modeling centrally embedded in the technology-enhanced learning space

actual users [9]. Each course is associated with precisely those Web services that are actually needed in a given phase, no more and no less, in order to provide focus. Briefly, our overall question and target is: How can learning processes that aim at deep, significant learning [10] be captured, co-developed by teams of experts, and communicated to practitioners? In this paper we focus on the con-


115

ceptual modeling issues of blended, significant learning. Readers interested in the Action Research perspective of our pattern-based approach are referred to [11], the derivation of Web services is described in more detail in [12,13], and [14,15] put emphasis on the Person-Centered didactical baseline [10] of our technologyenhanced learning framework. The embedding of conceptual modeling in that framework is depicted in Fig. 2. An initial example in the following Section is intended to set the scene by giving a taste of a course in which significant, whole-person learning is the major goal. We will show how conceptual modeling in terms of UML activity diagrams, stereotypes, and patterns is used to capture course skeletons and provide the core for tool support and evaluation. In Section 3, the role of conceptual models in technology-enhanced learning will be elaborated. Section 4 introduces technology-enhanced learning stereotypes as extension mechanisms to UML, presents our pattern knowledge base, and relates our work to other pattern initiatives. In the final Section we will share our vision for future research and development.

2

Example: A Technology-Enhanced Course on Soft Skills in Project Management

This Section motivates the use of conceptual models for capturing didactically rich, technology-enhanced learning processes. Fig. 3 illustrates a course scenario from a practical course on soft skills in project management using a UML activity diagram with stereotype extensions. The swimlanes serve to relate activities and document flows with those actors that play the central role and frequently control the respective activities. This allows for intuitive gross estimates on the degree of instructor- or student-centeredness of courses at first glance. In order to provide room for active interaction in class, fundamental material, links, and a list with references to further literature are supplied by the instructor over the learning platform at the time of course initialization. Also, key data on the course such as time, location, goals, brief description, etc. are provided such that students have initial information before enrolling in the course. The respective activity (“Create course space. . . ") primarily proceeds on the Web and hence is stereotyped with a ‘W’ icon in Fig. 3. The initial meeting, stereotyped with a ‘P’ icon standing for present, is used to discuss the innovative course style, requirements, and learning methods, as well as to introduce the learning platform and to finalize the list of participants. Then students are asked to fill out an online questionnaire aimed at capturing their initial motivation, attitudes towards learning, ways they tend to profit from academic courses, etc. Furthermore, students are asked to assign themselves to small teams of about three to four students for cooperative work. The face-to-face thread of the course consists of ten moderated workshops, 4 hours each, where individual topics within the gross framework of “soft-skills in project management" are elaborated following a strongly interactive style. The first three workshops are moderated by the instructor who introduces various didactical techniques such as team discussions, collection of issues on a flip chart,

116

R. Motschnig-Pitrik and M. Derntl Instructor

Active Team

Participants

Project Management - Soft Skills

Create course space and w publish course information

Basic soft skills content w Initial questionnaire

Initial Meeting P

Workshop unit

Team B building Prepare course unit B

Moderate P course unit

Upload w documents

Content on specific soft skill topics

[ else ] The first three workshops are held by the instructor, the rest are moderated by student teams.

Evaluate QA questionnaire data B

Discussion forum w

Personal diary w

Public reaction sheets w

Reactions

[ 10 workshops completed ] Download and view infos on topics w

w Final questionnaire

Peer- w evaluation

Self- w evaluation

Empirical evaluation results Grade participants

Fig. 3. Course scenario blending face-to-face meetings with Web-supported elements following a Person-Centered style

moderation cards, mind maps, role playing, etc., by applying them. Students reflect how they perceived the whole situation in online reaction sheets, which are discussed in the subsequent workshop unit. Accompanying descriptions of these techniques and more theoretical background on their application is provided via the learning platform and can be inspected on demand. The remaining seven workshops are prepared by teams of students on topics we agree upon during the initial sessions. Preparation of a workshop includes the provision of e-content


117

regarding the selected topic, as shown in the document flow object produced by “Upload documents". Preparation also encompasses consultation with the instructor with regard to the moderation sequence and elements (included in “Prepare course unit", which is stereotyped with a ‘B’ icon for denoting a blended activity). After each workshop, students submit online reaction sheets that can be read by all participants and are aimed at providing multi-perspective feedback to the team that moderated the workshop (the “active team" in Fig. 3). At any time, students have access to the basic material provided on the platform, as shown in the Web-based activity “Download and view info on topics" of the course scenario. Concurrently, they are expected to briefly document their learning activities in a personal diary that shall support them in writing their self-evaluation at the end of the course. Furthermore, a discussion forum is available for communication with the instructor, Web master, and fellow students on all course relevant issues. At the end of the course students evaluate themselves online. This is accomplished by responding to questions such as: What did I contribute? What could I take with me from the course? How intensive was my contribution with respect to my team mates? etc. In addition, an online peer-evaluation is conducted in which each team evaluates all other teams in terms of their moderated workshop and the e-content they provided. Furthermore, each student completes a final online questionnaire that is used to evaluate the course on a more objective level. The self- and peer-evaluations are used by the instructor in his or her grading, thus complementing the grading process by an individual- and a group perspective reflecting the participative, student-centered didactic strategy inherent in course conception and design. A first look reveals that the scenario has multiple threads and didactic elements. In our view, however, this additional complexity adds significant value to the learning process, such as: – More self-directed learning with more responsibilities of the learners and the group; – Learning on the intellectual level, due to the elaboration of literature, as well as learning on the social and personal level due to intense teamwork and moderation of a course unit; – More active participation and communication of students and instructor in face-to-face as well as online phases; during interactions active listening skills and attitudes like openness, respect, and the desire to deeply understand the other person are essential. They tend to be acquired through interaction if perceived by students. – More authenticity of the problems to be tackled can be achieved, since students can select problems and material and raise questions they find worth considering; – More perspectives on the content/theories can be discussed; – Students take on more roles. Besides being authors, moderators, presenters, and listeners, they are peers and comment on the work of others; – More group orientation and cooperation;

118

R. Motschnig-Pitrik and M. Derntl

– Explicit consideration and integration of qualitative and quantitative means of quality assurance allowing for participative, formative evaluation and improvement of the course. – Note, however, that instructors need interpersonal competencies that go far beyond being good lecturers in order to facilitate significant learning in technology-enhanced, person-centered courses. We have experienced that the diagrammatic notation is indispensable for sharing the learning design with colleagues. Also, the choice of proper abstractions, consistent names, and the provision of multiple grain sizes have proved essential in communicating didactical practice in general and in the contribution of technology-enhanced learning elements in particular. In the scenario depicted in Fig. 3, the activity “Peer-evaluation", for instance, refers to a pattern. This denotes a reoccurring activity sequence having a separate, reusable activity diagram. Patterns will be revisited and discussed in more detail in Section 4. While the results of quantitative studies based on the initial and final online questionnaire of the course on Project Management–Soft Skills are intended to be discussed in an upcoming paper, below we share excerpts from student’s self-evaluations: One student writes: “I hope I have contributed with my own inputs regarding the topic of negotiation and through active participation in all course units. I have learned to apply new moderation techniques and have acquired a balanced overview of soft skills. . . In addition I could, for sure, gain maximum benefit through frequently posing my own questions and thereby framing the discussions. A key experience was the workshop we held on our own: Despite intensive preparation I have realized ways of improvement that were shown up by the feedback we received." Another student reports: “I have participated actively and have often volunteered to take part in exercises since I have seen that it is impossible to moderate a good workshop without the support of the whole group. I have delivered detailed reaction sheets since I believe that honest and specific feedback of the group can be truly facilitative." Our experience and students’ reactions substantiate the added value of the more complex, technology-enhanced scenario. The particular benefit of conceptual modeling regarding quality assurance lies in the fact that questions as well as reactions can be associated with process phases and didactic elements, thus adding structure and transparency to researching technology-enhanced learning. Generally speaking, our solution regarding knowledge communication of the learning scenario lies in the specification of conceptual models as means of information sharing and provision of blueprints for deriving support modules.

3

The Role of Conceptual Modeling in Technology-Enhanced Learning

In our research framework on technology-enhanced learning, conceptual models take on a key position that specializes, and in specific issues even surpasses, the


119

role of conceptual modeling in software engineering and information systems. More specifically, conceptual models of technology-enhanced learning processes allow for: – Explication of didactical knowledge, in particular of learning strategies such as problem-based learning, inductive derivation of knowledge, deductive learning, constructivist knowledge creation, etc. – Specification of the social setting and role of learning activities, such as “team building" or “personal diary". – Models reveal the cooperative structures in learning activities, e.g. cooperation in teams or between participants and instructors, and the interplay of present and online/distant phases in these activities. – Presentation of learning processes at various levels of generalization / specialization and arbitrary switching between levels, if that leads to better understanding. – Knowledge communication between educational scientists, educators, educational technologists, and developers. This is especially important as learning design is an inherently interdisciplinary task, where conceptual models can play an important mediator role [16]. – Derivation of patterns to capture generic and reusable practices and organization of patterns in a knowledge base (repository) [17]. In this respect, the use of conceptual modeling techniques in combination with the objectoriented paradigm can contribute to increasing the extensibility of the pattern structures in the knowledge base. – Reuse of scenarios and supporting Web services. – Platform independent specification of functional requirements on a supporting learning platform. – Provision of a conceptual framework for research, most prominently Action Research [18]. This means that individual didactical elements (phases, threads, activities) can be researched in a targeted, participative way [19] considering different users’ perspectives. – Specification of the interdependence between process and content flows. This allows for the subsequent derivation of workflow- or better learnflow models and the integration of e-content modules [20]. – Identification and explicit integration of various means of quality assurance activities into learning scenarios in order to improve learning processes. Examples of such activities are online reaction sheets allowing for formative evaluation or final online questionnaires aiming at quantitative studies. Whereas description of the extensions to UML diagrams in the form of stereotypes are postponed to the next Section, note, specifically, that we emphasize process over content, claiming that for good learning the design of the learning process is at least as important as content design and that these two features must go hand in hand. Therefore the patterns capture successful, largely domainindependent teaching/learning or facilitating processes and consider content, being domain-dependent, as complementary, yet integrated into the process view. From the modeling perspective, content flows are specified in the form of “object

120


flows". Swimlanes in activity diagrams can be used to indicate the primary actor who elaborates and provides the content. Furthermore, our more technical goal is to raise the level of abstraction of learning platforms. When we view current platforms as providing useful standard “atoms" like forum, workspace, folder, access rights management, chat, etc., our proposal can be seen as to combine these atoms into molecules. These are communicating Web services built from atoms and arranged to optimally support the underlying process patterns. A collection of Web services is instantiated for each course such that the course’s workflow (better learnflow) can be supported at a level that is considerably higher and more user-centered than the standard atoms provided by current platforms. Note, however, that our conceptual scenario models are not (yet) intended to specify automatically executable flow semantics, contrary to the IMS Learning Design specification [21] for example, which shows a very high degree of formal expression using XML. In our case, formal completeness was deliberately traded for better understandability where required. Nonetheless, the learnflow model of a pattern acts as the primary guidance system for specifying and implementing the functionality required by a Web service supporting that pattern. For instance, a Web service implementing the Diary pattern would emphasize particularly those Web-based activities that are arranged in the pattern’s activity model, i.e. publishing of diary requirements, diary initialization, and diary review on the side of the instructor, and updating the diary on the side of the students (see Fig. 5). However, this does not imply that other “gadgets" or add-on functionality, such as sorting or querying the diary log, are necessarily excluded from a concrete Diary implementation.

4 4.1

Conceptual Modeling of Technology-Enhanced Learning Patterns Background and Related Approaches

Patterns are generic descriptions of solutions to frequently recurring problems or situations [22]. The pattern approach was originally developed by C. Alexander in the field of architecture, but currently most prominently considered in software design as a vehicle for efficient communication of best practice in tackling common design situations in object-oriented software systems [23]. The pattern approach found its way into many other disciplines and in recent years also into technology-enhanced learning. Surprisingly, most of these approaches rely on purely text-based knowledge communication. Few, if any, employ conceptual modeling techniques. – The E-LEN project [24] is a European network of e-learning organizations. Among its four special interest groups, patterns are used as means of communication, development, and dissemination of effective e-learning experiences. Conceptual modeling does not play any noticeable role in the E-LEN efforts. – The Pedagogical Patterns Project [25] provides a compilation of prose-style patterns for many educational scenarios. However, these patterns neither


–

–

–

–

121

use conceptual models, nor do they include or address explicitly the use of learning technology. The Educational Environment Modeling Language E2 ML [26] defines a complex, pedagogically neutral modeling notation for instructional design. With respect to learning processes, this language provides a method of modeling the timeline of a course design, which produces a Gantt-chart-like visualization of the “action flow". IMS Learning Design includes a learning design best practice and implementation guide [27] that employs conceptual modeling techniques: it shows learning content and resources in a process-oriented, formalized way by using use cases for analysis, activity diagrams for modeling of the use cases’ narratives, and IMS/LD compliant XML documents that are used for content development and packaging. Patterns are not explicitly considered – the ultimate artifacts produced compliant to this standard are XML documents. Other pattern approaches primarily address design and usability issues in Web-based environments while not explicitly referring to Web-based learning systems, such as patterns for hypermedia design [28], or for HumanComputer Interaction in general [29,30]. There are some approaches that do not explicitly refer to patterns in the Alexandrian sense, but that are somehow conceptually related in their viewpoints on technology-enhanced teaching/learning activities, e.g. CSCL scripts [31] or Laurillard’s Conversational Framework [32].

The approach employed in this paper makes intensive use of conceptual modeling techniques, as we believe that modeling is one of the primary means of handling and decomposing the complexity inherent in socio-technical environments. We concentrate on a balanced compromise between purely text-based means of communication and description on the one hand and highly formal representations (e.g. XML) for machine-processing on the other hand. While most of the related pattern approaches presented above focus on content and technological aspects, one distinctive asset of our approach is the concentration on the learning process and on arrangement of face-to-face and Web-based elements in (blended) learning design and, pragmatically, the transparent externalization and communication of effective technology-enhanced learning experience. Another specific and, in our view, essential feature of our approach is the existence of a psychologically well founded theory, namely the Person-Centered Approach [33], which provides the didactical baseline for pattern design. 4.2

UML Extensions for Technology-Enhanced Learning

For explicitly depicting the face-to-face and online elements involved in technology-enhanced learning processes the standard UML meta-model was extended by adding the following custom stereotypes for action states (better known as “activities") in activity diagrams: «web-based» Means that the activity primarily proceeds on the Web (or distant with technology support). If an activity stereotyped this way occurs in

122


an activity diagram, the respective pattern typically provides a Web template for online-support of that activity. This stereotype is presented as an icon (a circle containing the letter ‘W’) at the right-hand side of the activity. The activity is additionally filled in light blue to increase visual effect. «present» Indicates that the activity primarily takes place in a face-to-face setting. The icon for this stereotype is a circle containing the letter ‘P’ at the right-hand side of the activity. The activity carrying this stereotype is filled in light green. «blended» Indicates a mix of the former two stereotypes: the activity is conducted in a blended style, mixing or alternating online and face-to-face modes and delivery channels. The icon for this stereotype is a circle with the letter ‘B’. An activity carrying this stereotype is filled in light red. «quality-assurance» This stereotype is attached to activities that produce documents or data which can subsequently be used for the (predominantly formative) evaluation of the learning process and learning support (e.g. online questionnaires or reaction sheets). The icon for this stereotype is a circle containing the acronym ‘QA’. «pattern» This stereotype is typically attached to subactivity states. A subactivity points to another activity diagram that shows a more detailed flow of the activities. This helps to avoid overloading the diagrams with too many activities, allowing different levels of granularity and aggregation in the models. If the subactivity points to a pattern sequence, it carries the stereotype «pattern». Note that this stereotype may be omitted in diagrams for reasons of brevity and readability, as for example in Fig. 3. Examples showing the association of these stereotypes with concrete activities appear in the scope of a complete course scenario in Fig. 3, and as part of a pattern’s activity model in Fig. 5. 4.3

Pattern Organization and Modeling

Currently about 50 patterns, which were mined from the technology-enhanced teaching / learning practices of the authors’ institution over the last three years, are available in our pattern repository [17]. The repository offers an initial, rich pool of patterns that can flexibly be combined and extended in response to the situation at hand. The patterns in the repository are arranged at different levels of detail and abstraction. Unlike most other pattern approaches that specify pattern inter-relations textually, we provide a conceptual model of the repository and the relations among the patterns using UML static structure diagrams. The patterns describe courses and course modules / phases being composed of smaller, reusable process elements, such as publishing of electronic content, knowledge construction in groups, team exercises, online discussion, various forms of feedback and evaluation, and other techniques suited for technologyenhanced learning. Each pattern is hosted in a pattern package, which is used to group related patterns together. Currently the repository includes seven packages, which are listed in alphabetical order and briefly described in the following:


123

Evaluation «Pattern»

«Pattern»

Evaluation

«Pattern»

Self-Evaluation

1..*

«Pattern»

«Pattern»

Peer-Evaluation

InstructorEvaluation

Generic Evaluation

«include»

«Pattern»

«Pattern»

Examination

Blended Evaluation

«Pattern»

«Pattern»

InstructorExamination

SelfExamination

Fig. 4. The Evaluation pattern package Instructor

Participants «Pattern»

Diary

«Pattern»

Publish

«use»

Publish diary requirements

w

Initialize diaries w

Empty diaries

Review diaries w

*

Update diaries w

Updated diaries

Fig. 5. Activity model of the Diary pattern

Assessment. Methods of assessing participants’ achievements with the ultimate goal of determining a grade for each participant. Course types. Describes familiar course types in terms of technology-enhanced practices. Examples: Lab Course or Seminar. Evaluation. Different methods of evaluating participants’ contributions in a learning activity, whereby evaluation means valuing judgment on the performance of participants. This package is depicted in Fig. 4. Feedback. Different ways of collecting feedback from course participants. Examples: Reaction Sheets for written, unstructured feedback, or Feedback Forum, which uses discussion forums for collecting more structured feedback. General. Generally reusable patterns or patterns not matching any one of the specific purposes defined for other packages. Diary is an example of a general

124

R. Motschnig-Pitrik and M. Derntl Instructor

1

create

*

(from Course)

Diary

*

linked to

1

Learning Activity (from Course)

*

Participant (from Course)

1

submit

Author

*

Diary Entry Date Text

Fig. 6. Structural model of entities and relationships involved in the Diary pattern

pattern, which can be employed in almost any learning scenario. It is used in the scenario in Fig. 3, and its activities are depicted in Fig. 5. Other general patterns include Achievement Award, Publish, or Preliminary Phases. Interactive elements. The largest package, hosting patterns used to foster interaction and interactivity among participants, instructors, tutors, and/or external guests. Examples: Brainstorming, Theory Elaboration, Online Discussion, Consultation, etc. Project-based learning. Patterns describing some sort of iterative and/or incremental learning process which can be expressed through several successive (project) milestones, for example Learning Contracts. In the structural repository model, the patterns are modeled using stereotyped classes. Relationships between patterns take on two different types: – Generalization, connecting a concrete lower-level pattern with a more abstract higher-level pattern (e.g., Evaluation as a generalized form of the Peer-Evaluation pattern in Fig. 4). – Dependency, modeling the inclusion, usage, or adaptation of a pattern by another pattern. Each pattern also includes a structural model of the entities involved in the activity model of the pattern when appropriate (see Fig. 6 for an example). Besides supporting the user in understanding the underlying concept of a pattern, this is particularly useful when deriving requirements of Web support for the pattern. Subsequently, a combination of the structural models may serve to define a data model when implementing a learning platform particularly dedicated to blended, process- and person-centered learning. Note that each pattern additionally includes a detailed textual description regarding the pattern’s intent, motivation, parameters, relations to other patterns, examples of use, results of previous evaluations, and literature references.

5

Conclusions and Further Work

We have illustrated the central role of conceptual, semiformal process models in our framework on technology-enhanced learning (Fig. 2). We have outlined why visual, conceptual models are indispensable for capturing, promoting, researching, and improving rich didactical practices on several grounds. Firstly,


125

they offer instruments that allow one to decompose and manage the complexity inherent in socio-technical practice. In this way they offer vehicles for knowledge communication that have proved effective in dialogues with psychologists, educational-, communication-, and computer scientists. Secondly, the latter can use the process models as functional specifications for deriving Web templates and prototypes of Web services implementing didactical practices being derived directly from students’ and instructors’ needs. Our strategy is to offer these Web services (CEWebS, Cooperative Environment Web Services) as open-source modules such as to allow for broad adaptation, improvement and reuse. A vision in this respect is the promotion and Web-support of person-centered didactical practice to contribute to making technology-enhanced learning more effective, significant, and enjoyable. Aside of these traditional roles of conceptual models, technology-enhanced learning scenarios and patterns serve to capture and explicate theoretically founded didactical models such as inductive, deductive, and problem-based learning [34]. Furthermore, they can be used to denote those phases in the learning process, where specific document- or content flows immerse into the learning process or are produced as material- or content output. Finally and importantly, stereotyped activities in the process models allow one to drive attention to focal perspectives, such as activities being performed solely on the Web, in presence phases, or serving quality assurance. The integration of the latter, in particular, has opened up a new dimension, namely the explicit consideration and consequent improvement of the quality of learning processes as integral constituents of these same processes. Means such as transparent online reaction sheets or online questionnaires have proved to be simple yet effective and feed into our participatory action research initiative [35]. We have argued that modeling processes and artifacts of teaching and learning in the form of patterns allows one to reuse proven didactic principles and thus saves time for course design. This benefit is further strengthened in the case that the patterns are implemented the form of open-source Web services that significantly reduce the effort spent on organizational and administrative issues. Further research follows multiple threads. One of them addresses the capturing and implementation of further patterns with a particular focus on international courses where students and instructors are truly distributed. We are also in the process of developing instruments for evaluating the effects of technology-enhanced, person-centered learning and the impact of instructor’s attitudes, process design, and amount of online phases on issues such as learning outcome, motivation, effort, and personal relevance of learning. If this research provides a path to a more meaningful way of learning in technology-enhanced and immediate environments, it will have served its purpose well.

References 1. Papert, S.A.: Mindstorms. 2nd edn. Basic Books, New York (1999) 2. Rogers, C.R.: On Becoming a Person - A Psychotherapists View of Psychotherapy. Constable, London (1961)

126


3. Tausch, R., Tausch, A.M.: Erziehungs-Psychologie. Hogrefe, Göttingen, Germany (1998) 4. Jonassen, D.H., ed.: Handbook of research on educational communications and technology. 2nd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ (2004) 5. Wenger, E.: Communities of practice - Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1998) 6. Derntl, M., Motschnig-Pitrik, R.: The role of structure, patterns, and people in blended learning. The Internet and Higher Education 8 (2005) 111–130 7. Curbera, F., Nagy, W.A., Weerawarana, S.: Web services: Why and how? In: OOPSLA’2001 (Workshop on Object-Oriented Web Services), Tampa, Florida (2001) 8. W3C: Web Services Architecture - W3C Working Draft 8 August 2003. http://www.w3.org/TR/ws-arch/ (2003) 9. Motschnig-Pitrik, R., Derntl, M., Mangler, J.: Developing cooperative environment web services based on action research. In: 5th International Conference on Practical Aspects of Knowledge Management (PAKM 2004), Vienna, Austria, Springer (2004) 453–462 10. Rogers, C.R.: Freedom to Learn for the 80’s. Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company, Columbus, Ohio (1983) 11. Derntl, M., Motschnig-Pitrik, R.: A pattern approach to person-centered e-learning based on theory-guided action research. In: 4th International Conference on Networked Learning (NLC), Lancaster, UK (2004) 12. Derntl, M., Mangler, J.: Web services for blended learning patterns. In: 4th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, Joensuu, Finland, IEEE Computer Society (2004) 614–618 13. Mangler, J., Derntl, M.: CEWebS - Cooperative Environment Web Services. In: 4th International Conference on Knowledge Management (I-KNOW ’04), Graz, Austria (2004) 617–624 14. Motschnig-Pitrik, R., Holzinger, A.: Student-centered teaching meets new media: Concept and case study. Journal of Educational Technology & Society 5 (2002) 160–172 15. Motschnig-Pitrik, R., Mallich, K.: Effects of person-centered attitudes on professional and social competence in a blended learning paradigm. Journal of Educational Technology & Society 7 (2004) 176–192 16. Heemskerk, M., Wilson, K., Pavao-Zuckerman, M.: Conceptual models as tools for communication across disciplines. Conservation Ecology 7 (2003) Article #8 17. Derntl, M.: Patterns for Person-Centered e-Learning. PhD Thesis, Faculty of Computer Science, University of Vienna (2005) 18. Baskerville, R.L.: Investigating information systems with action research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 2 (1999) 19. Ottosson, S.: Participation action research - a key to improved knowledge of management. Technovation 23 (2003) 87–94 20. Bajnai, J., Steinberger, C.: Eduweaver - the web-based courseware design tool. In: International Conference WWW/Internet 2003, Algarve, Portugal, IADIS (2003) 659–666 21. IMS Global Learning Consortium: IMS learning design specification. http://www.imsglobal.org/learningdesign/index.cfm (2003) 22. Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., Silverstein, M., Jacobson, M., Fiksdahl-King, I., Angel, S.: A Pattern Language - Towns, Buildings, Construction. Oxford University Press, New York (1977) 23. Gamma, E., Helm, R., Johnson, R., Vlissides, J.: Design Patterns - Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA (1995)


127

24. E-LEN Project: E-LEN project homepage. http://www.tisip.no/E-LEN/ (2003) 25. Pedagogical Patterns Project: Pedagogical Patterns Project homepage. http://www.pedagogicalpatterns.org (2002) 26. Botturi, L.: E2 ML - educational environment modeling language. In: Ed-Media’03, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, AACE Press (2003) 304–311 27. IMS Global Learning Consortium: IMS learning design best practice and implementation guide. http://www.imsglobal.org/learningdesign/ldv1p0/ imsld_bestv1p0.html (2003) 28. Nanard, M., Nanard, J., Kahn, P.: Pushing reuse in hypermedia design: golden rules, design patterns and constructive templates. In: 9th ACM Conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, ACM Press (1998) 11–20 29. Tidwell, J.: UI patterns and techniques. http://time-tripper.com/uipatterns (2002) 30. Borchers, J.: A Pattern Approach to Interaction Design. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester (2000) 31. Dillenbourg, P.: Over-Scripting CSCL: The risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. In Kirschner, P.A., ed.: Three worlds of CSCL. Can we support CSCL. Open Universiteit Nederland, Heerlen (2002) 61–91 32. Laurillard, D.: Rethinking University Teaching: A Conversational Framework for the Effective Use of Learning Technologies. 2nd edn. Routledge Farmer, London (2001) 33. Rogers, C.R.: Client-centered therapy: Its current practice, implications, and theory. Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA (1951) 34. Swertz, C.: Didaktisches Design. Ein Leitfaden für den Aufbau hypermedialer Lernsysteme mit der Web-Didaktik. Bertelsmann Verlag, Bielefeld (2004) 35. Motschnig-Pitrik, R.: An action research-based framework for assessing blended learning scenarios. In: Ed-Media’04, Lugano, Switzerland, AACE Press (2004) 3976–3981