Advertisement

Designing Dippler — A Next-Generation TEL System

  • Mart Laanpere
  • Hans Põldoja
  • Peeter Normak
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 395)

Abstract

This paper discusses the conceptual design of Digital Learning Ecosystems, which, as we argue, are becoming the foundation of next-generation Technology-Enhanced Learning systems (TEL systems). We illustrate our argument by a case study on design and development of a Dippler ecosystem. First, the framework for identifying the generations of TEL systems is described and expectations towards next generation of TEL systems are drawn from the literature review. After that, the dialectics of ongoing mainstream discourse (LMS vs PLE) is analysed and platform for reaching the synthesis is drawn. As we argue, the next-generation TEL systems are better understood if not referred as “learning environments”, but rather as Digital Learning Ecosystems. Finally, process and results of a design-based research on Digital Learning Ecosystem called Dippler is described and discussed.

Keywords

learning environment socio-technical transition digital learning ecosystem design-based research 

References

  1. 1.
    Schumpeter, J.A.: Business Cycles: A Theoretical, Historical and Statistical Analysis of the Capitalist Process. McGraw-Hill, New York (1939)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Christensen, C.M.: The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Harvard Business Review Press, Cambridge (1997)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ansari, S., Garud, R.: Inter-generational transitions in socio-technical systems: The case of mobile communications. Research Policy 38(2), 382–392 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Scholz, T.: Market Ideology and the Myths of Web 2.0. First Monday 13(3) (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rajagopal, K., Joosten-ten Brinke, D., Van Bruggen, J., Sloep, P.: Understanding personal learning networks: Their structure, content and the networking skills needed to optimally use them. First Monday 17(1) (2012)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Casquero, O., Portillo, J., Ovelar, R., Benito, M., Romo, J.: iPLE Network: an integrated eLearning 2.0 architecture from a university’s perspective. Interactive Learning Environments 18(3), 293–308 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mott, J.: Envisioning the Post-LMS Era. EDUCAUSE Quarterly 33(1) (2010)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Moodle Statistics, http://moodle.org/stats
  9. 9.
    Weller, M.: Virtual Learning Environments: Using, Choosing and Developing your VLE. Routledge, Oxon (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Paulsen, M.F.: Online Education Systems: Discussion and Definition of Terms (2002), http://nettskolen.nki.no/forskning/Definition%20of%20Terms.pdf
  11. 11.
    Uden, L., Wangsa, I.T., Damiani, E.: The future of E-learning: E-learning ecosystem. In: IEEE Conf. on Digital Ecosystems and Technologies, pp. 113–117. IEEE, Cairns (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Geels, F.W.: Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study. Research Policy 31(8–9), 1257–1274 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Genus, A., Coles, A.-M.: Rethinking the multi-level perspective of technological transitions. Research Policy 37(9), 1436–1445 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Buchem, I., Attwell, G., Torres, R.: Understanding Personal Learning Environments: Literature review and synthesis through the Activity Theory lens. In: Proceedings of the The PLE Conference 2011, Southampton, UK, July 10-12 (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    The Design-Based Research Collective: Design-Based Research: An Emerging Paradigm for Educational Inquiry. Educational Researcher 32(1), 5–8 (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Leinonen, T., Toikkanen, T., Silvfast, K.: Software as Hypothesis: Research-Based Design Methodology. In: Proceedings of the Tenth Anniversary Conference on Participatory Design 2008, pp. 61–70. Indiana University, Indianapolis (2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    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
  18. 18.
    Väljataga, T., Põldoja, H., Laanpere, M.: Open Online Courses: Responding to Design Challenges. In: Proceedings of NBE 2011, pp. 68–75. University of Lapland, Rovaniemi (2011)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    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
  20. 20.
    Põldoja, H.: EduFeedr: following and supporting learners in open blog-based courses. In: Open ED 2010 Proceedings, UOC, OU, BYU, Barcelona (2010)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Carroll, J.M.: Making Use: Scenario-Based Design of Human-Computer Interactions. The MIT Press, Cambridge (2000)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cohn, M.: User Stories Applied: For Agile Software Development. Addison-Wesley, Boston (2004)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Snyder, C.: Paper Prototyping: The Fast and Easy Way to Design and Refine User Interfaces. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2013

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations