Learning Process Models as Mediators Between Didactical Practice and Web Support

  • Renate Motschnig-Pitrik
  • Michael Derntl
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3716)


Within the last decade the introduction of technology- enhanced 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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Papert, S.A.: Mindstorms, 2nd edn. Basic Books, New York (1999)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rogers, C.R.: On Becoming a Person - A Psychotherapists View of Psychotherapy. Constable, London (1961)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tausch, R., Tausch, A.M.: Erziehungs-Psychologie, Hogrefe, Göttingen, Germany (1998)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jonassen, D.H. (ed.): Handbook of research on educational communications and technology, 2nd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wenger, E.: Communities of practice - Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1998)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Derntl, M., Motschnig-Pitrik, R.: The role of structure, patterns, and people in blended learning. The Internet and Higher Education 8, 111–130 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    W3C: Web Services Architecture - W3C Working Draft 8 (August 2003), http://www.w3.org/TR/ws-arch/
  9. 9.
    Motschnig-Pitrik, R., Derntl, M., Mangler, J.: Developing cooperative environment web services based on action research. In: Karagiannis, D., Reimer, U. (eds.) PAKM 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3336, pp. 453–462. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rogers, C.R.: Freedom to Learn for the 80’s. Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company, Columbus (1983)Google Scholar
  11. 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)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Derntl, M., Mangler, J.: Web services for blended learning patterns. In: 4th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, Joensuu, Finland, pp. 614–618. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mangler, J., Derntl, M.: CEWebS - Cooperative Environment Web Services. In: 4th International Conference on Knowledge Management (I-KNOW 2004), Graz, Austria, pp. 617–624 (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Motschnig-Pitrik, R., Holzinger, A.: Student-centered teaching meets new media: Concept and case study. Journal of Educational Technology & Society 5, 160–172 (2002)Google Scholar
  15. 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, 176–192 (2004)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Heemskerk, M., Wilson, K., Pavao-Zuckerman, M.: Conceptual models as tools for communication across disciplines. Conservation Ecology 7 (2003), Article #8Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Derntl, M.: Patterns for Person-Centered e-Learning. PhD Thesis, Faculty of Computer Science, University of Vienna (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Baskerville, R.L.: Investigating information systems with action research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 2 (1999)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ottosson, S.: Participation action research - a key to improved knowledge of management. Technovation 23, 87–94 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bajnai, J., Steinberger, C.: Eduweaver - the web-based courseware design tool. In: International Conference WWW/Internet 2003, Algarve, Portugal, IADIS, pp. 659–666 (2003)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    IMS Global Learning Consortium: IMS learning design specification (2003), http://www.imsglobal.org/learningdesign/index.cfm
  22. 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)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gamma, E., Helm, R., Johnson, R., Vlissides, J.: Design Patterns - Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1995)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    E-LEN Project: E-LEN project homepage (2003), http://www.tisip.no/E-LEN/
  25. 25.
    Pedagogical Patterns Project: Pedagogical Patterns Project homepage (2002), http://www.pedagogicalpatterns.org
  26. 26.
    Botturi, L.: E2ML - educational environment modeling language. In: Ed-Media 2003, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, pp. 304–311. AACE Press (2003)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    IMS Global Learning Consortium: IMS learning design best practice and implementation guide (2003), http://www.imsglobal.org/learningdesign/ldv1p0/imsld_bestv1p0.html
  28. 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, pp. 11–20. ACM Press, New York (1998)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tidwell, J.: UI patterns and techniques (2002), http://time-tripper.com/uipatterns
  30. 30.
    Borchers, J.: A Pattern Approach to Interaction Design. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester (2000)Google Scholar
  31. 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, pp. 61–91 (2002)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Laurillard, D.: Rethinking University Teaching: A Conversational Framework for the Effective Use of Learning Technologies, 2nd edn. Routledge Farmer, London (2001)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rogers, C.R.: Client-centered therapy: Its current practice, implications, and theory. Houghton Mifflin, Boston (1951)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Swertz, C.: Didaktisches Design. Ein Leitfaden für den Aufbau hypermedialer Lernsysteme mit der Web-Didaktik. Bertelsmann Verlag, Bielefeld (2004)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Motschnig-Pitrik, R.: An action research-based framework for assessing blended learning scenarios. In: Ed-Media 2004, Lugano, Switzerland, pp. 3976–3981. AACE Press (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Renate Motschnig-Pitrik
    • 1
  • Michael Derntl
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Knowledge and Business Engineering and Research Lab for Educational TechnologiesUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations