Pedagogy-Driven Design of Digital Learning Ecosystems: The Case Study of Dippler

  • Mart Laanpere
  • Kai Pata
  • Peeter Normak
  • Hans Põldoja
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7558)

Abstract

In most cases, the traditional Web-based learning management systems (e.g. Moodle, Blackboard) have been designed without any built-in support for a preferred pedagogical model or approach. The authors and proponents of such systems have claimed that this kind of inherent “pedagogical neutrality” is a desirable characteristic for a LMS, as it allows teachers to implement various pedagogical approaches. This study is based on an opposite approach, arguing for designing next-generation online learning platforms – so called digital learning ecosystems – with built-in affordances, which promote and enforce desirable pedagogical beliefs, strategies and learning activity patterns while suppressing others. We describe the pedagogy-driven design, development and implementation process of a digital learning ecosystem based on Dippler platform, which was guided by a combination of four contemporary pedagogical approaches: self-directed learning, competence-based learning, collaborative knowledge building and task-centered instructional design models.

Keywords

digital learning ecosystems pedagogy-driven design 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Laanpere, M., Põldoja, H., Kikkas, K.: The Second Thoughts about Pedagogical Neutrality of LMS. In: Kinshuk, L.C.K., Sutinen, E., Sampson, D., Aedo, I., Uden, L., Kähkonen, E. (eds.) The 4th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, pp. 807–809. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Koper, R.: Modelling Units of Study from a Pedagogical Perspective: the Pedagogical Meta-model behind EML. OUNL, Heerlen (2001)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Friesen, N.: Learning Objects and Standards: Pedagogical Neutrality and Engagement. In: Kinshuk, L.C.K., Sutinen, E., Sampson, D., Aedo, I., Uden, L., Kähkonen, E. (eds.) The 4th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, pp. 1070–1071. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Laanpere, M., Põldoja, H., Normak, P.: Designing Dippler – a Next Generation TEL System. In: Tatnall, A., Ruohonen, M., Ley, T., Laanpere, M. (eds.) Open and Social Technologies for Networked Learning. Springer, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pata, K.: Revising the framework of knowledge ecologies: How activity patterns define learning spaces? In: Lambropoulos, N., Romero, M. (eds.) Educational Social Software for Context-Aware Learning: Collaborative Methods & Human Interaction, pp. 1–23. IGI Global, Hershley (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Normak, P., Pata, K., Kaipainen, M.: An Ecological Approach to Learning Dynamics. Educational Technology and Society (2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Uden, L., Wangsa, I.T., Damiani, E.: The future of E-learning: E-learning ecosystem. In: Inaugural IEEE International Conference on Digital Ecosystems and Technologies, pp. 113–117. IEEE, Cairns (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ficheman, I.K., de Deus Lopez, R.: Digital Learning Ecosystems: Authoring, Collaboration, Immersion and Mobility. In: Díaz, P., Kinshuk, P., Aedo, I., Mora, E. (eds.) Eighth IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, pp. 371–372. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Reyna, J.: Digital Teaching and Learning Ecosystem (DTLE): A Theoretical Approach for Online Learning Environments. In: Williams, G., Statham, P., Brown, N., Cleland, B. (eds.) Changing Demands, Changing Directions. Proceedings Ascilite Hobart 2011, pp. 1083–1088. University of Tasmania, Hobart (2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Odling-Smee, F.J., Laland, K.N., Feldman, M.W.: Niche Construction: The Neglected Process in Evolution. Princeton University Press, Princeton (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Young, M.F.: An ecological psychology of instructional design: Learning and thinking by perceiving-acting systems. In: Jonassen, D.H. (ed.) Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology, 2nd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Braha, D., Maimon, O.: A Mathematical Theory of Design: Foundations, Algorithms, and Applications. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1998)MATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rubens, W., Emans, B., Leinonen, T., Skarmeta, A.G., Simons, R.-J.: Design of web-based collaborative learning environments. Translating the pedagogical learning principles to human computer interface. Computers & Education 45(3), 276–294 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Laanpere, M., Kikkas, K., Põldoja, H.: Pedagogical foundations of IVA Learning Management System. In: Hudson, B.G., Kiefer, S., Laanpere, M., Rugelj, J. (eds.) eLearning in Higher Education, pp. 143–155. Universitätsverlag Rudolf Trauner, Linz (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Knowles, M.S.: Self-directed learning: A guide for learners and teachers. Prentice Hall/Cambridge, Englewood Cliffs (1975)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Väljataga, T., Laanpere, M.: Learner control and personal learning environment: a challenge for instructional design. Interactive Learning Environments 18(3), 277–291 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sampson, D., Fytros, D.: Competence Models in technology-enhanced Competence-based Learning. In: Handbook on Information Technologies for Education and Training, pp. 155–177. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tammets, K., Pata, K., Laanpere, M., Tomberg, V., Gašević, D., Siadaty, M.: Designing the Competence-Driven Teacher Accreditation. In: Leung, H., Popescu, E., Cao, Y., Lau, R.W.H., Nejdl, W. (eds.) ICWL 2011. LNCS, vol. 7048, pp. 132–141. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bereiter, C.: Education and Mind in the Knowledge Age. L. Erlbaum, Mahwah (2002)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    van Merriënboer, J.G., Clark, R.E., de Croock, M.: Blueprints for complex learning: The 4C/ID-model. Educational Technology Research and Development 50(2), 39–64 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Laanpere, M., Pata, K., Tomberg, V.: Evaluating Pedagogy-Driven Design of IVA LMS with Activity Pattern Analysis. In: Spaniol, M., Li, Q., Klamma, R., Lau, R.W.H. (eds.) ICWL 2009. LNCS, vol. 5686, pp. 210–214. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Väljataga, T., Pata, K., Tammets, K.: Considering Students’ Perspectives on Personal and Distributed Learning Environments in Course Design. In: Lee, M.J.W., McLoughlin, C. (eds.) Web 2.0-Based E-Learning, pp. 85–107. IGI Global, Hershey (2011)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tomberg, V., Laanpere, M., Lamas, D.: Learning Flow Management and Semantic Data Exchange between Blog-Based Personal Learning Environments. In: Leitner, G., Hitz, M., Holzinger, A. (eds.) USAB 2010. LNCS, vol. 6389, pp. 340–352. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Põldoja, H.: EduFeedr: following and supporting learners in open blog-based courses. In: Open ED 2010 Proceedings, UOC, OU, BYU, Barcelona, pp. 399–408 (2010)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Väljataga, T., Põldoja, H., Laanpere, M.: Open Online Courses: Responding to Design Challenges. In: Ruokamo, H., Eriksson, M., Pekkala, L., Vuojärvi, H. (eds.) Proceedings of the 4th International Network-Based Education 2011 Conference The Social Media in the Middle of Nowhere, pp. 68–75. University of Lapland, Rovaniemi (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mart Laanpere
    • 1
  • Kai Pata
    • 1
  • Peeter Normak
    • 1
  • Hans Põldoja
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of InformaticsTallinn UniversityTallinnEstonia

Personalised recommendations