Towards Pedagogy-Driven Learning Design: A Case Study of Problem-Based Learning Design

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8613)


Existing learning design languages are pedagogy-neutral. They provide insufficient support to explicitly represent pedagogy-specific approaches such as problem-based learning (PBL). As the first step towards pedagogy-driven learning design, we developed a PBL design language and an associated authoring tool by adopting a domain-specific language (DSL) approach. The language and the tool provide means for teachers to think and represent their own PBL designs in vocabularies that the teacher daily uses to describe their PBL approaches. This paper presents a case study to investigate whether the language and the tool can facilitate the design of a PBL course plan. Although participants had minimal knowledge of PBL and were not skilled in process modeling, after a short training they were able to prepare their own PBL course plans using the PBL authoring tool. They reported that the vocabularies in the PBL design language were easy to understand. Some thought that the tool provides flexibility and others did not think so. Nevertheless, some found the process somewhat difficult to represent the narrative into a course plan. In addition, most participants found that the tool is user-friendly and easy to learn.


Learning design IMS-LD DSL PBL PBL design language case study 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Agostinho, S., Harper, B., Oliver, R., Hedberg, J., Wills, S.: A visual learning design representation to facilitate dissemination and reuse of innovative pedagogical strategies in university teaching. In: Botturi, L., Stubbs, T. (eds.) Handbook of Visual Languages for Instructional Design: Theories and Practices. Information Science Reference (2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Albanese, M.A., Mitchell, S.: Problem-based learning: A review of literature on its outcomes and implementation issues. Academic Medicine 68, 52–81 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barrows, H.: The Tutorial Process. Springfield Illinois: Southern Illinois University School of Medicin (1989)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beetham, H., Sharpe, R. (eds.): Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age. Routledge Falmer, London (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bennett, S., Agostinho, S., Lockyer, L., Harper, B., Lukasiak, J.: Supporting university teachers create pedagogically sound learning environments using learning designs and learning objects. International Journal on WWW/Internet 4(1), 16–26 (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bloom, B.S. (ed.): Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, the classification of educational goals – Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. McKay, New York (1956)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Conole, G., Oliver, M., Falconer, I., Littlejohn, A., Harvey, J.: Designing for learning. In: Conole, G., Oliver, M. (eds.) Contemporary Perspectives in e-Learning Research: Themes, Methods and Impact on Practice. Routledge Falmer (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Conole, G., Brasher, A., Cross, S., Weller, M., Clark, P., White, J.: Visualising learning design to foster and support good practice and creativity. Educational Media International 54(3), 177–194 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dalziel, J.: Implementing learning design: The Learning Activity Management system (LAMS). In: Proc. Ascilite Conference, pp. 593–596. Ascilite, Figtree (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    van Deursen, A., Klint, P., Visser, J.: Domain-specific languages: an annotatedbibliography. SIGPLAN Notices 35(6), 26–36 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Falconer, I., Littlejohn, A.: Representing Models of Practice. In: Lockyer, L., Bennet, S., Agostinho, S., Harper, B. (eds.) Handbook of Research on Learning Design and Learning Objects: Issues, Applications and Technologies, pp. 20–40. IDEA group (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gagné, R.: The Conditions of Learning and the Theory of Instruction, 4th edn. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York (1985)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    de Graaff, E., Kolmos, A.: History of problem-based and project-based learning. In: de Graaff, E., Kolmos, A. (eds.) Management of Change: Implementation of Problem-Based and Project-Based Learning in Engineering, pp. 1–8. Sense Publishers, Rotterdam (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Griffithsa, D., Beauvoira, P., Libera, O., Barrett-Baxendaleb, M.: From Reload to ReCourse: learning from IMS Learning Design implementations. Distance Education 30(2), 201–222 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Harrer, A., Hoppe, U.: Visual Modelling of Collaborative Learning Processes – Uses, Desired Properties, and Approaches. In: Botturi, L., Stubbs, S.T. (eds.) Handbook of Visual Languages for Instructional Design: Theory and Practices, pp. 281–298. Information Science Reference, Hershey (2008)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hmelo-Silver, C.E., Eberbach, C.: Learning theories and problem-based learning. In: Bridges, S., et al. (eds.) Researching Problem-Based Learning in Clinical Education: The Next Generation, pp. 3–17. Springer, New York (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    IMS Learning Design Specification (2003),
  18. 18.
    Kolmos, A., Graaff, E.D.: Characteristics of problem-based learning. International Journal of Engineering Education 19(5), 657–662 (2003)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Koper, E.J.R.: Modeling Units of Study from a Pedagogical Perspective: The Pedagogical Meta-Model Behind EML. Open University of the Netherlands (2001)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Koper, R., Tattersall, C. (eds.): Learning design: A handbook on modelling and delivering networked education and training. Springer, Berlin (2005)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kuutti, K.: Activity theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction research. In: Nardi, B.A. (ed.) Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human-Computer Interaction. MIT Press, Cambridge (1996)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Laanpere, M., Pata, K., Normak, P., Põldoja, H.: Pedagogy-driven Design of Digital Learning Ecosystems. Computer Science and Information Systems 11(1), 419–442 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lockyer, L., Bennett, S., Agostinho, S., Harper, B.: Handbook of Research on Learning Design and Learning Objects: Issues, Applications and Technologies. Information Science Reference, Hershey (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Martel, C., Vignollet, L., Ferraris, C., David, J., Lejeune, A.: Modelling collaborative learning activities in e-learning platforms. In: Proc. of ICALT 2006, pp. 707–709. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2006)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Miao, Y., Hoeksema, K., Hoppe, U., Harrer, A.: CSCL Scripts: Modeling Features and Potential Use. In: Proceedings of CSCL 2005, Taipei, Taiwan, pp. 423–432 (2005)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Miao, Y., Koper, R.: An Efficient and Flexible Technical Approach to Develop and Deliver Online Peer Assessment. In: Proceedings of the 7th Computer Supported Collaborative Learning Conference, New Jersey, USA, July 16-21, pp. 502–511 (2007)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Neumann, S., Oberhuemer, P.: User Evaluation of a Graphical Modeling Tool for IMS Learning Design. In: Spaniol, M., Li, Q., Klamma, R., Lau, R.W.H. (eds.) ICWL 2009. LNCS, vol. 5686, pp. 287–296. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Oliver, R., Littlejohn, A.: Discovering and describing accessible and reusable practitioner-focused learning. In: Minshull, G., Mole, J. (eds.) Proceedings of Theme 1 of the JISC Online Conference: Innovating e-Learning, pp. 30–33 (2006)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ryberg, T., Glud, L.N., Buus, L., Georgsen, M.: Identifying differences in understandings of PBL, theory and Interactional interdependencies. In: Proc. 7th International Conference on Networked Learning, pp. 943–951 (2010)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wilkerson, L., Gijselaers, W.H. (eds.): Bringing Problem-Based Learning to Higher Education: Theory and Practice. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, vol. 68. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco (1996)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Vygotsky, L.S.: Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1978)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Woods, D.R.: Problem Based Learning: How to Get the Most from PBL, 3rd edn., vol. 20(6), pp. 481–486. McMaster University (1996)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computational and Cognitive SciencesUniversity of Duisburg-EssenDuisburgGermany
  2. 2.Centre for Distance EducationAthabasca UniversityAthabascaCanada
  3. 3.Computer Science and Engineering DepartmentQatar UniversityDohaQatar
  4. 4.Eastern Macedonia and Thrace Institute of Technology Ag. LoukasKavalaGreece

Personalised recommendations