Donatella Persico and Francesca Pozzi: SUSTAINING LEARNING DESIGN AND PEDAGOGICAL PLANNING IN CSCL

Cloud created by:

Yishay Mor
5 October 2011

This paper proposes a framework based on 4Ts (Task, Team, Time and Technology) describing the main dimensions of pedagogical planning of CSCL activities. The four dimensions are interdependent and design decisions concerning each of them should take into account the other three. It is proposed that this framework is used in connection with the other Learning Design resources and tools presented at the workshop.

Extra content

Mapping existing Learning Design approaches

Organizational concern:

Finding a systematic approach to support LD

+

Developing tools for the support teachers’ LD, but also “understanding” what LD is (good point). Teacher do not perceive as designers (my comment).

Special interest in collaborative LD, approach used to train teachers in the use of technology and pedagogy for collaboration.  

Study on teachers designing CSCL, 4 elements identified: task, time, team and technology

Mapping existing design approaches based on the following dimensions (proposal): target users, underlying pedagogy, degree of formalization, type of representation, ease of automation, level of abstraction, ease of reuse

Marcelo Fabián Maina
13:36 on 13 October 2011

Mapping existing Learning Design approaches

Organizational concern:

Finding a systematic approach to support LD

+

Developing tools for the support teachers’ LD, but also “understanding” what LD is (good point). Teacher do not perceive as designers (my comment).

Special interest in collaborative LD, approach used to train teachers in the use of technology and pedagogy for collaboration.  

Study on teachers designing CSCL, 4 elements identified: task, time, team and technology

Mapping existing design approaches based on the following dimensions (proposal): target users, underlying pedagogy, degree of formalization, type of representation, ease of automation, level of abstraction, ease of reuse

Marcelo Fabián Maina
13:37 on 13 October 2011

Embedded Content

added by Yishay Mor

Contribute

John Cook
6:55pm 10 October 2011


Useful intro giving definition of LD, taking us through IMS LD to players "aimed to produce and manage ‘runnable’ design artifacts". This is followed by pedagogical planners, the "importance of the artifacts this process produces lies in their reusability by other designers", which further discussed in the context of CSCL, something I am very interested in. I like the notion of “inspirational” tools and would like to learn more about this.

The authors usefully extend discussion of their proposed framework, which identified 3Ts, that is Task, Team(s) and Time. Specifically, recent thinking is that "the role of Technology should be made visible in the framework and that the importance of student agency should be specifically born in mind when designing CSCL". So we get a 4th 'T' = Technology

A questions that arises for me is where does learner agency (which is mentioned) fit in? I also wonder if all the links between the 4Ts in the Figure are of equal weight?

I very much look forward to finding out more in our workshop session and applying the model to my 2 cases.

 

Valerie Emin
1:37pm 13 October 2011


The proposed classification of design approaches is

  • Target users
  • underlying pedagogical approach (Burgos)
  • degree of formalisation
  • type of representation (Connole)
  • ease of automation
  • level of abstraction (Dimitriadis)
  • ease of reuse

Gemma Corbalan
2:02pm 13 October 2011


Tools for support  the training of teachers: for instance, tools with best examples: Good! How were those tools and its content selected? (based on a prior needs analysis of what teachers lack and need?)

Contribute to the discussion

Please log in to post a comment. Register here if you haven't signed up yet.