Technology for Classroom Orchestration

  • Pierre DillenbourgEmail author
  • Patrick Jermann


We use different criteria to judge teaching methods and learning environments as researchers and teachers. As researchers, we tend to rely on learning gains measured in controlled conditions. As teachers and designers, the skilled management of classroom constraints results in the impression that a design “works well.” We argue that the generalizability of educational research requires that we take into account curriculum, assessment, time, energy, space and safety constraints when designing methods and environments. We systematically describe 14 design factors related to the notions of classroom orchestration and learning ecosystems and illustrate their embodiment in three learning environments from our own research. The design factors provide a teacher-centric, integrated view of educational technology design for face-to-face classroom activities which “work well.”


Learning Environment Assessment Relevance Educational Data Mining Corporate Association Classroom Life 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The environments listed in this paper have been developed by Fabrice Hong, Guillaume Zufferey, Son Do-Lenh, Bertrand Schneider, Hamed Alavi, Frédéric Kaplan and Olivier Guédat. We thank the students and teachers who have been involved in the various experiments. The work on the TinkerLamp is supported by Dual-T, a leading house funded by the Swiss Federal Office for Professional Education and Technology. The work on the Lantern is supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (Grant PDFM1-118708). The work on ManyScripts was supported by Swiss Center for Innovation in Learning (St Gallen) and a group of KALEIDOSCOPE, a former European Network of Excellence. The work on orchestration is the theme of a group within STELLAR, a new European Network of Excellence on learning technologies.


  1. Alavi, H., Dillenbourg, P., & Kaplan, F. (2009) Distributed Awareness for Class Orchestration. Proceedings of the Third European Conference on Technology-Enhanced Learning (EC-TEL09). Nice France, Sept. 2009Google Scholar
  2. Aronson, E., Blaney, N., Sikes, J., Stephan, G., & Snapp, M. (1978). The jigsaw classroom. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publication.Google Scholar
  3. Bielaczyc, K. (2006). Designing social infrastructure: Critical issues in creating learning environments with technology. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(3), 301–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blaye, A. (1988) Confrontation socio-cognitive et résolution de problèmes. Doctoral dissertation, Centre de Recherche en Psychologie Cognitive, Université de Provence, France.Google Scholar
  5. Bransford, J. D., Sherwood, R. D., Hasselbring, T. S., Kinzer, C. K., & Williams, S. M. (1990). Anchored instruction: Why we need it and how technology can help. In D. Nix & R. Spiro (Eds.), Cognition, education and multimedia: Exploring ideas in high technology (pp. 115–141). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  6. Brophy, J., & Good, T. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.). New York: McMillan.Google Scholar
  7. Brousseau, G. (1998). Théorie des situations didactiques. Grenoble: La Pensée Sauvage.Google Scholar
  8. Brown, J. S., & Adler, R. P. (2008). Minds on fore: Open education, the long tail and learning 2.0. Educause Review, 43(1), 16–32.Google Scholar
  9. Carey, D. M. (1994). Teacher roles and technology integration: Moving from teacher as director to teacher as facilitator. Computers in the Schools, 9(2), 105–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Collins, A. (1992). Toward a design science of education. In E. Scanlon &T. O’Shea (Eds.), New directions in educational technology (pp. 15–22). New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Copeland, W. D. (1979). Student teachers and cooperating teachers: An ecological relationship. Theory into Practice, 18(3), The Complex Classroom: A Research Focus, 194–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. DiGiano, C., & Patton, C. (2002). Orchestrating handhelds in the classroom with SRI’s ClassSync™. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Computer support for collaborative learning 2002 (pp. 706–707). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  13. Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL: The risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. In P. A. Kirschner (Ed.), Three worlds of CSCL. Can we support CSCL? (pp. 61–91). Heerlen: Open Universiteit Nederland.Google Scholar
  14. Dillenbourg, P. (2008). Integrating technologies into educational ecosystems. Distance Education, 29(2), 127–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dillenbourg, P., & Fischer, F. (2007). Basics of computer-supported collaborative learning. Zeitschrift für Berufs- und Wirtschaftspädagogik, 21, 111–130.Google Scholar
  16. Dillenbourg, P., & Hong, F. (2008). The mechanics of CSCL macro scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(1), 5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dillenbourg, P., & Jermann, P. (2007). Designing integrative scripts. In F. Fischer, H. Mandl, J. Haake & I. Kollar (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning – cognitive, computational, and educational perspectives (pp. 275–301). Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Series. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dillenbourg, P., & Tchounikine, P. (2007). Flexibility in macro CSCL scripts. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(1), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ferguson, R. F., Ludwig, J., & Rich, W. (2001). A diagnostic analysis of black-white GPA disparities in shaker heights. Ohio Brookings Papers on Education Policy, 4, 347–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fiala, M. (2005). ARTag, A Fiducial Marker System using Digital Techniques. IEEE Proc. CVPR. San Diego, CA, June 2005.Google Scholar
  21. Fischer, F., Wecker, C., Schrader, J., Gerjets, P. H., & Hesse, F. W. (2005, August). Use-inspired basic research on the orchestration of cognition, instruction and technology in the classroom. Paper presented at the SIG Invited Symposium “Instructional design and empirical research: Experiments and/or design experiments” at the 11th Conference of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI), Nicosia, Cyprus.Google Scholar
  22. Gavota, M., Schneider, D., Betrancourt, M., & Richle, U. (2008). A technology-enhanced learning environment to support learning by sharing professional experience in writing. In Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2008 (pp. 2883–2892). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved from
  23. Gravier, C., Fayolle, J., Noyel, G., Leleve, A., & Benmohamed, H. (2006), Distance Learning: Closing the Gap between Remote Labs and Learning Management Systems, Proceedings of IEEE First International Conference on E-Learning in Industrial Electronics, Hammamet, Tunisie, December 18–20, pp. 130–134.Google Scholar
  24. Hoppe, H. U., Lingnau, A., Machado, I., Paiva, A., Prada, R., & Tewissen, F. (2000). Supporting Collaborative Activities in Computer Integrated Classrooms - the NIMIS Approach Proc. of 6th International Workshop on Groupware, CRIWG 2000. IEEE CS Press, Madeira, Portugal.Google Scholar
  25. Iansiti, M., & Lakhani, K. R. (2009) SAP AG: Orchestrating the Ecosystem. HBS Case No. 609-069; Harvard Business School Technology & Operations Mgt. Unit. Available at SSRN:
  26. Infante, C., Hidalgo, P., Nussbaum, M., Alarcon, R., & Gottlieb, A. (2009). Multiple mice based collaborative one-to-one learning. Computers & Education, 53(2), 393–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jermann, P., & Dillenbourg, P. (1999). An analysis of learner arguments in a collective learning environment. C. Hoadley et J. Roschelle (Eds.), Proceedings of 3rd Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Conference, pp. 265–273, Stanford.Google Scholar
  28. Jermann, P., Zufferey, G., & Dillenbourg, P. (2008) Tinkering or Sketching: Apprentices’ Use of Tangibles and Drawings to Solve Design Problems. Proceedings of the Third European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning (EC-TEL 2008), pp. 167–178, Maastricht (The Netherlands), September 16–19. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer.Google Scholar
  29. Keetoon, M. T., & Tate, P. J. (1978). The bloom in experiential learning. In M. T. Keeton and P. J. State (Eds), Learning by experience – what, why, how (pp. 1–8). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
  30. Merrill, M. D., Li, Z., & Jones, M. K. (1992). An introduction to instructional transaction theory. In S. A. Dijkstra, H. P. M. Krammer & J. J. G. van Merrienboer (Eds.), Instructional models in computer-based learning environments. NATO ASI Series F (Vol 104, pp. 15–41). New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  31. Moon, J. (2001). How to improve the impact of short courses and workshops (2001). Training & Professional Development. London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  32. Mühlpfordt, M., & Wessner, M., (2005). Explicit Referencing in Chat Supports Collaborative Learning. In CSCL’05, 6th International Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 662–671.Google Scholar
  33. Pea, R. (1983). Logo programming and problem solving (Technical Report No.12). New York: Bank Street College of Education, Center for Children and Technology.Google Scholar
  34. Peltz, C. (2003). Web Services Orchestration and Choreography. Computer, 36(10), 46–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Resnick, M. (2002). Rethinking learning in the digital age. In G. Kirkman (Ed.), The global information technology report: Readiness for the networked world (pp. 32–37). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Rigg, C. M. (2001). Orchestrating ecosystem management: Challenges and lessons from sequoia national forest. Conservation Biology, 15(1), 78–90.Google Scholar
  37. Roschelle, J., & Pea, R. (2002). A walk on the WILD side: How wireless handhelds may change computer-supported collaborative learning. International Journal of Cognition and Technology, 1(2), 145–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rothstein-Fisch, C., & Trumbull, E. (2008) Managing Diverse classrooms. ASCD.
  39. Sandoval, W. A., & Bell, P. L. (2004). Design-based research methods for studying learning in context: Introduction. Educational Psychologist, 39(4), 199–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schneider, B., Jermann, P., Zufferey, G., & Dillenbourg, P. (submitted). Benefits of a Tangible Interface for Collaborative Learning and Interaction. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies.Google Scholar
  41. Schwartz, D. L., & Bransford, J. D. (1998). A time for telling. Cognition and Instruction, 16(4), 475–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Stoll, L., & Fink, D. (1996). Changing our schools. Philadelphia: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Tetenbaum, T. J., & Mulkeen, T. A. (1984). Logo and the teaching of problem solving: A call for a moratorium. Education Technology, 24(11), 16–19.Google Scholar
  44. Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). The Differentiated Classroom: Responding to the Needs of All Learners, ASCD.
  45. von Inqvald, E. (2009). Teachers’ implementation and orchestration of Cabri: Initial use of a dynamic geometry software package in mathematics teaching. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag.Google Scholar
  46. Weinberger, A., Ertl, B., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2005). Epistemic and social scripts in computer-supported collaborative learning. Instructional Science, 33, 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zurita, G., & Nussbaum, M. (2004 A constructivist mobile learning environment supported by a wireless handheld network. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, 235–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Lausanne (EPFL)LausanneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations