The Implicit Pedagogy of Teachers’ Design Patterns

  • Elisabeth Rolf
  • Ola Knutsson
  • Robert Ramberg
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10474)

Abstract

This paper presents an analysis of upper secondary teachers’ design patterns portraying their technology use in teaching by answering the question: What pedagogy is implicit in technology supported learning activities designed by teachers? Building on a framework defining key characteristics of contemporary learning theories, seventeen design patterns describing technology use in teaching were analyzed. The analysis reveals that individual activities are dominating the patterns. In addition, there is a trend towards activities favoring students’ non-reflection, but also activities being more informative than experiential.

Keywords

Learning design Designs for learning Design patterns Pattern analysis 

References

  1. 1.
    Kress, G., Selander, S.: Multimodal design, learning and cultures of recognition. Internet High. Educ. 15(4), 265–268 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Goodyear, P., Retalis, S.: Learning, technology and design. In: Goodyear, P., Retalis, S. (eds.) Technology-Enhanced Learning: Design Patterns and Pattern Languages, pp. 1–28. Sense, Rotterdam (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mor, Y., Winters, N.: Participatory design in open education: a workshop model for developing a pattern language. J. Interact. Media Educ. 2008(1) (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Laurillard, D.: Teaching as a Design Science. Building Pedagogical Patterns for Learning and Technology. Routledge, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hsueh, N.L., Chu, P.H., Chu, W.: A quantitative approach for evaluating the quality of design patterns. J. Syst. Softw. 81(8), 1430–1439 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kohls, C., Köppe, C.: Evaluating the applicability of alexander’s fundamental properties to non-architecture domains. In: Baumgartner, P., Sickinger, S. (eds.) PURPLSOC, The Workshop 2014. Department for Interactive Media and Educational Technologies, Danube University Krems (2015)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    McAndrew, P., Goodyear, P., Dalziel, J.: Patterns, designs and activities: unifying descriptions of learning structures. Int. J. Learn. Technol. 2(2–3), 216–242 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., Silverstein, M.: A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction. Oxford University Press, New York (1977)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Finlay, J., Gray, J., Falconer, I., Hensman, J., Mor, Y., Warburton, S.: Planet: pattern language network for web 2.0 in learning. Final project report submitted to JISC (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Knutsson, O., Ramberg, R.: Collaborative pattern language representation of designs for learning. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Designs for Learning, Copenhagen, Denmark (2016)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Conole, G., Dyke, M., Oliver, M., Seale, J.: Mapping pedagogy and tools for effective learning design. Comput. Educ. 43(1), 17–33 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Knutsson, O., Blåsjö, M., Hållsten, S., Karlström, P.: Identifying different registers of digital literacy in virtual learning environments. Internet High. Educ. 15(4), 237–246 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elisabeth Rolf
    • 1
  • Ola Knutsson
    • 1
  • Robert Ramberg
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer and Systems ScienceStockholm UniversityKistaSweden

Personalised recommendations