A Pattern Approach to Person-Centered e-Learning Based on
Theory-Guided Action Research
Michael Derntl and Renate Motschnig-Pitrik
University
of Vienna
michael.derntl@univie.ac.at, renate.motschnig@univie.ac.at
ABSTRACT
Action research is gaining recognition as a methodology accompanying the
introduction of technology into organizations and learning. Yet, the results of
action research often remain restricted to an organization’s context. In order
to allow for a generalization and broader recognition of results, we abstract
patterns of teaching/learning activities, organize them in a reusable,
conceptual framework, and complement them with useful parameters as well as
results from their application. Our proceeding is guided by the Person-Centered
Approach that we adopt for blended learning and project work. This paper
describes the pattern repository on PCeL (Person-Centered e-Learning) as the
central structure within our action research framework and discusses means of
generalizing and objectifying our findings.
Keywords
Person-Centered e-Learning (PCeL), Blended Learning, Patterns, Action
Research
Introduction
The situation that we currently perceive in research on blended learning
can be characterized as follows:
·
Many experiments with blended learning have been
conducted, but there is hardly any systematic research on the application of
socio-technical frameworks or on individual parameters across courses or
institutions;
·
Innovative course design is very challenging and
time-intensive, reuse is very limited;
·
Research tends to be centered at technical or
didactical or evaluation issues, but their interdependencies are clearly
underrepresented;
·
Integration of humanistic educational principles with
web-based learning support is a novel asset;
·
The limitations of classical empirical research in the
area of organizational change become ever more evident, since situations in and
across organization tend to be fuzzy, unique and include unpredictable events.
Based on these observations, we contribute to blended learning research
and practice in the following ways:
·
We aim to introduce an open, structured repository with
highly reusable patterns for blended learning, along with web-service based
support for instantiating scenarios across platforms and organizations. We
derive patterns in the first place from our own teaching/learning experience,
reuse them across courses, and evaluate individual parameters systematically.
Since the patterns in the repository are based on actual practice, parts of the
framework are in use since October 2003.
·
The patterns and web-templates capture, abstract,
structure, organize, and allow to instantiate learning scenarios such that
reuse of facilitative practices is maximized and administrative overhead is
considerably reduced.
·
We develop the web-service based modules hand-in-hand
with experimenting with or living humanistic educational principles in class,
such as to achieve a high match between these two worlds. Thereby, the human
side clearly informs the technical one, but the two are interdependent with
respect to practical applicability and effectiveness. We believe that in this
respect we are entering new ground, as is the case with the development of the
measuring and evaluation procedures in order to asses, as completely as
possible, the effects of our enterprise.
·
Humanistic educational principles have been proved to
add value to traditional learning, primarily with regard to creativity,
capability to work in teams, interpersonal relationships, more positive
self-concept, more positive regard towards self and others, better
understanding and increased problem-solving capabilities. To the best of the
authors’ knowledge, Person-Centered Learning has not yet been used as the
didactic baseline for cooperative, blended learning. In this respect, the
hypothesis underlying our integrative effort is that the provision of
e-learning elements can, to a considerable degree, reduce the overhead for
Person-Centered learning while preserving its benefits. As a consequence, this
approach appears more feasible to facilitators, although the high demand on
interpersonal skills that are essential to success must not be underestimated.
The paper is organized as follows. The second Section introduces the
notion of patterns in general, and discusses our layered model of bridging the
complexity gap between conceptual patterns and their actual, platform-supported
application in courses and vice versa. It gives an overview of the pattern
repository, describes our reuse-oriented strategy for pattern mining, modeling,
organization, and description, and underlines the specifics of our approach in
comparison to related work. Section three integrates our proceeding into a
research framework that portrays the benefits of action research but
simultaneously is designed to overcome several of its difficulties.
Patterns for Person-Centered e-Learning
According to the definition of architect Alexander (1977), a pattern
describes a generic solution to a certain problem that occurs in a certain
context. At the beginning of the 1990s this promising idea was picked up by
software engineers to support reuse (e.g., Coad, 1992; Gamma, Helm, Johnson,
& Vlissides, 1993) and documentation (e.g., Beck & Johnson, 1994) of
software design by specifying Design Patterns, which are still the
most predominant approaches associated with patterns today. Nevertheless, the
pattern approach has found its way into many different disciplines, such as
pedagogy and learning design (see the section on Related Approaches).
For our research and practice we have adopted the pattern approach to
capture and enable reuse of blended Person-Centered e-Learning (PCeL)
scenarios. From our point of view, acquiring knowledge, experience, and a sense
of which activities are suited for what kind of online interaction, or which
activities are preferably conducted face-to-face, is impossible to achieve
within one or two application cycles. Therefore, we have developed the Blended
Learning Systems Structure (BLESS) model (see Figure 1) as an essential
conceptual tool for dealing with the complexity that is inherent in blended learning
practice in a controlled way, and as a means to keep learning design
platform-independent as long as possible.
Figure 1: The Blended Learning Systems Structure (BLESS) model
The top layer (layer 1) represents concrete courses that
employ e-learning elements and that are conducted in a person-centered style.
Layer 2 aims at semi-formal, conceptual representations of concrete
scenarios by modeling their sequence as activity diagrams in the Unified
Modeling Language (UML) notation (OMG, 2003). This is also the first step of
pattern mining, aimed at modeling concrete activities. Subsequently, these
concrete activities are abstracted and combined into patterns of learning
activities. Such a modularization and abstraction process (link to layer 3:
modularization, decomposition) entails substantial advantages for the analyst
and course designer, as it enables reuse of these patterns for both course
scenario description (link from layer 1: visualization, conceptual modeling)
and application (link to layer 1). The learning activity patterns at layer
3 are described uniformly to support quick location as well as
comparability of relevant patterns in the repository. To support optimal
reusability of the learning scenarios, the patterns are arranged at different levels
of detail and abstraction. For example, super-ordinate scenarios like
project-based learning are decomposed into smaller, more reusable and tangible
units, such as team building, project milestone, and blended evaluation. This
kind of modularization enables targeted implementation of learning scenarios
(link to layer 4). By compiling and combining single patterns a new course or
learning scenario can be formed (link to layer 2: composition). The
web templates at layer 4 show interactive web pages that
describe how learning platform utilities can be arranged and combined to
optimally support a pattern’s flow of activities. Generally, each learning
platform offers a set of features to users and administrators, whereby there
are some features that most of the current platforms include, such as content
and information pages, discussion forums, chat facilities, and document storage
(files, folders). The patterns' web templates use these learning technology atoms
such as to build molecules in a way that optimally maps the underlying
process pattern onto the platform (link to layer 5: initialization,
application) (Derntl & Motschnig-Pitrik, 2004). To support a learning
scenario on a learning platform (layer 5), the respective
pattern has to be implemented by instantiating its own web templates, as well
as those of its included patterns. For example, in the Online Discussion
pattern, the web template instantiation process is relatively simple: The
instructor only has to specify the location of the discussion forum by
selecting a learning activity or web page to which the forum shall be anchored,
as well as some optional parameters regarding its usage (Are users allowed to
initiate their own discussion threads? Shall it be possible to post replies to
other users' postings?)
Pattern Description
In accordance with many software pattern catalogs, we use a template
style with a number of sections that each pattern comprises for quick location
and comparison of relevant sections and patterns. The following sections are defined:
·
Name:
Succinct descriptor of the pattern, capable of conveying its essence.
·
Intent: Short statement about the intended use of the pattern.
·
Motivation: Aims to justify the existence of the pattern by outlining general
motivational aspects.
·
Sequence: Presents the sequence of the pattern as a UML activity diagram
(see BLESS layers 2 and 3). Structure: Shows structural relations
among entities involved in the pattern as a UML class diagram.
·
Taxonomy/Dependencies: Embeds the pattern into a network of related patterns using UML
class diagrams.
·
Parameters: Used to categorize, identify, relate, and distinct different
patterns. The parameter values provide a concise list of common properties of
each pattern, e.g., pattern author, pattern categories, presence type,
flexibility, application effort, suggested assistance, target skills,
inputs/outputs, and others.
·
Web Template: See the description of layer 4 of the BLESS model as depicted in
Figure 1 above.
·
Examples: Shows examples where the pattern was employed or scenarios for
intended usage.
·
Evaluation: Questions that have already been used in questionnaires in one or
more courses along with respective results, or issues and questions of interest
which have not yet been evaluated.
·
Remarks: Provides comments or other useful remarks.
·
References: Lists references cited in the current pattern.
Pattern Organization
It is essential for pattern writers to provide collections of patterns in
a way that supports the pattern user in selecting and applying the patterns. There
are different ways to organize pattern collections, yet all serving a common
goal that is helping the pattern reader/user in finding the pattern or family
of patterns appropriate to the "problem" at hand. The pattern
collection as a whole is useless if pattern readers have to read, analyze, and
understand every pattern in detail to find the one they need (Buschmann,
Meunier, Rohnert, Sommerlad, & Stal, 1996). For example, some sub-languages
of the Pedagogical Patterns Project offer pattern maps (e.g., Fricke &
Völter, 2000) showing how the patterns relate to each other, and most of them
offer a Quick Access Table, which shows the problem in the left column
and the patterns suitable for the respective problem in the right column.
However, most of the existing pattern collections describe pattern relations
only textually. To overcome the shortcomings of such an approach (cumbersome
usability and readability), our pattern organization concept employs two
different types of relationship, allowing for simple yet concise communication
of relationships among patterns using standard modeling and extension
mechanisms of the UML:
Generalization / specialization
.
This relationship interconnects a more concrete lower-level pattern
with a more abstract higher-level pattern. For example, the Evaluation
pattern is (among others) specialized by the Peer-Evaluation pattern,
as the latter specifies that the evaluation is done by participants' peers. A
derived pattern inherits all the sections (including section content) from its
parent pattern. But it may override any of the inherited sections by specifying
an own description of the section. Generally, to keep the pattern repository
clear and understandable, no more than three levels of generalization are used.
Dependency
.
The dependency relation is used to model the usage, inclusion, or
refinement of another pattern. Usage of this relationship is derived from the
activity diagrams of the patterns: If a pattern uses another pattern in its
sequence, it is dependent on the other pattern. To keep the overall
model clear, this relationship is only used in the Taxonomy/Dependency
section of each pattern.
The PCeL Pattern Repository
Figure 2: Overview of the initial PCeL pattern repository.
As depicted in Figure 2, our approach provides a formal conceptual model
of the generalization hierarchy in the pattern repository using UML static
structure diagrams. Generally, families of related patterns are organized in
packages, which contain the pattern definitions, e.g., the Alternating
Phases pattern is located in the General package. Inside the
packages, the patterns themselves are modeled using classes which are
stereotyped with the custom keyword «Pattern».
As given in Figure 2, seven different packages are
defined:
·
The Assessment package defines patterns that
show different ways of assessing participants, whereas the ultimate goal is to
specify a grade for each participant. The patterns in this package describe
composed scenarios, using other patterns that define concrete ways of
evaluation.
·
The Course Types package re-defines familiar
course types (e.g., lab courses) in terms of the Person-Centered e-Learning
pattern repository.
·
The Evaluation package describes different
methods for evaluation. Thereby, evaluation means valuing judgment on the
performance of participants. There is a significant difference to the Assessment
package: The primary aim of evaluation patterns is not to fix a grade but
rather to lay the foundation (e.g., producing evaluation reports) for fixing a
grade.
·
The Feedback package contains patterns that
describe different ways of collecting feedback.
·
The General package hosts patterns that are
generally reusable or do not perfectly match one of the specific purposes
defined for other packages.
·
The Interactive Elements package is by far the
largest package, defining a number of patterns that aim to foster interaction
and interactivity among participants, instructor, tutors, and/or external
guests.
·
The Project-Based Learning package defines
patterns that describe some sort of iterative and/or incremental, complex
learning process, which can be expressed in terms of (project) milestones.
Related Approaches
Surprisingly, even though the pattern approach has found its way into
many different disciplines, the field of e-learning clearly seemed to lag
behind until very recently more and more projects and efforts have emerged:
·
The Pedagogical Patterns Project (2002) provides a
compilation of prose-style patterns for many educational scenarios. However,
these patterns are neither tied to any pedagogical baseline, nor do they
include or address explicitly the use of learning technology. The PPP consists
of several pattern sub-collections of patterns written by different authors,
e.g.:
o Patterns
for Active Learning (Eckstein, Bergin, & Sharp, 2002) is a pattern
collection which focuses on engaging students and keeping them active in
learning settings.
o Seminars
(Fricke & Völter, 2000) is a patter n language about teaching seminars
effectively.
o Patterns
for Experiential Learning (Eckstein, Marquardt, Manns, & Wallingford,
2001) focus on many aspects of experiential learning, mostly on what is needed
to learn by experimentation and by drawing on the students’ own experiences.
·
The E-LEN project (E-LEN Project, 2003) aims to create
a network of e-learning centers and organizations in the learning technologies,
as well as to develop and disseminate pedagogically informed technology for
effective e-learning experiences. The project started in mid-2003 at a workshop
of the CSCL conference in Norway. Its results are not yet completely available
to the public.
·
CSCL scripts formally describe collaborative learning
scenarios that students and tutors have to play like actors play a movie script
(Dillenbourg, 2002). The approach is highly formalized regarding both syntax
and semantics (inside as well as among scripts). Through "programmed
collaboration", there seems to be not much space for flexibility on the
side of the learners and facilitators.
·
The Educational Modeling Language (Koper, 2001) was one
of the cornerstones in the specification of the IMS Learning Design (LD), an
XML-based language for specifying learning content and process in a widely
pedagogy-independent way.
Our approach differs from the above approaches in several respects:
·
A didactic concept or base to build
upon (Person-Centered Approach).
·
Usage of standardized conceptual
modeling and visualization techniques inside as well as among patterns, in
particular the combination with the object-oriented paradigm (generalization
hierarchies) that additionally fosters reuse as well as analysis and design
processes.
·
The methodological underpinning:
Action Research as the primary driver of cyclic mining, description, and
evaluation processes.
·
Integration with the BLESS model to
deal with complexity inherent in spanning the socio-technical space.
Action Research in the context of PCeL
According to Baskerville (1999), the ideal domain of action research is
characterized by a social setting where:
·
The researcher is actively
involved, with expected benefit for research and organization,
·
The
knowledge obtained can be immediately applied,
based on a clear conceptual framework,
·
The research is a (typically cyclical)
process linking theory and practice
(Baskerville & Wood-Harper, 1996).
According to the prevalent action research description by Susman and
Evered (1978), five phases are iterated: diagnosing, action planning, action
taking, evaluating and specifying learning. The action research (AR) we conduct can be classified as inherently
participatory (Ottosson, 2003): The social setting is such that the project
manager (co-author of this paper) is at the same time the facilitator of
courses as well as the thesis supervisor of three research and teaching
assistants. One of them, the co-author of this paper, conceptually models the
patterns emerging from teaching/learning scenarios, another develops the
platform modules, and the third cooperates on the design of evaluation
instruments for blended learning courses. These same assistants also either
currently participate or participated in some of the facilitator’s courses in
the recent past and thus contribute complementary perspectives. The research
team on PCeL at the department of computer science and business informatics
participates actively in individual aspects of the whole AR cycle which
typically is repeated every semester. We cooperate with a Person-Centered
counselor, Ladislav Nykl, who co-facilitates one course, with a communication
psychologist and counselor at Tomcom, Dietmar Treichel, the developers of the
e-learning platform we adopt in our courses, with the department of education,
and the department of psychology.
Our goals of action research on introducing PCeL are astonishingly
numerous. Immediate, short term goals are:
·
Personal development of all concerned
with PCeL;
·
Participatory design of a
user-centered, open source learning platform, based on users’ needs;
·
Scientific knowledge about
·
the integration of New Media into
teaching/learning,
·
the introduction of organizational
change by introducing learning technology,
·
the application of the Person-Centered
Approach in higher education and management,
·
the use of Internet technology for the
support of teaching/learning processes,
·
the acquisition, modeling,
application, and evaluation of patterns for PCeL,
·
the evaluation of innovative
teaching/learning practices.
·
Individual learning and training in
innovative facilitation of courses.
·
Reuse of acquired knowledge and
experience.
In the longer run, we also aim at organizational development regarding
the improvement of teaching/learning practices for both learners and
instructors, both nationally and internationally, as well as transfer of
knowledge and expertise to organizations outside the university context.
Changes in learning scenarios and platform features are immediately
transferred into practice and are subject to the course-evaluation that
includes feedback on the evaluation process. Summarizing, we view our project
and setting as meeting all the criteria of AR, in other words, an optimal
test-bed for AR. In order to advance this fascinating, authentic methodology
per se, we use one of its strengths, namely its flexibility, to overcome its
major difficulties that we clearly envisage and work around, as described
below.
In general, action research (AR) is appreciated for integrating and
concurrently advancing both practical and theoretical aspects. AR accompanies
real change effected by real actions in real organizations and thus has
immediate validity for the hosting organization. Action research, however, is
also criticized (Kock, 2003) for:
·
lacking methodological precision,
·
lacking controllability, due to the
complexity and fuzzy-ness of a real environment,
·
being subjective or biased, due to the
researchers’ deep personal involvement,
·
delivering results that are difficult
to generalize.
While we consider the criticism as justified, we exploit the freedom of
AR methodology by complementing it thoughtfully with situated investigation
methods that contribute more traditional procedures to those aspects that are
better amenable for classical investigation. Thus, whereas our overall
framework or strategy is AR, individual components are empirical, qualitative,
or based on prototype construction.
We view our AR as theory-guided is so far, as our plans and
actions in teaching/learning processes are guided by the Person-Centered
Approach (Rogers, 1961, 1983) The novel feature is to adopt this approach in
the context of using New Media in education. Thus, the research is specifically
on actions regarding the integration of New Media within Person-Centered
education. There still remain many aspects to be considered, nevertheless, we
perceive the theory-guided nature of our AR as something that significantly
reduces complexity and makes actions more amenable to systematic investigation.
In our AR design, we address the general lack of controllability and
objectivity by empirically evaluating individual features of our courses, such
as students’ motivation, learning effects, learning outcome along various
dimensions, platform usage, etc. This is done by online questionnaires.
Although we do not have control groups, we do have courses that are partitioned
into groups that different instructors conduct in the same environment. Also,
in the case that the same course is taught by the same instructor in
consecutive years, loose comparisons regarding the variation of distinct
parameters can be obtained. Thus, iterations, a core feature of AR, allow us to
approach comparability between groups, although not as rigidly as in a
classical experimental design employing control groups.
Besides questionnaires we collect online reaction sheets of
students for each PCeL course and often also after individual course units.
These free-style reactions can be evaluated qualitatively, as well as in terms
of how often course-features are mentioned as positive, negative, or neutral.
By this we complement the subjective view of the researcher (facilitator) by
the broad perspective resulting from the participants’ reaction.
Depending on the goals of the course and on the features we want to
assess in each cycle, the online questionnaires are adopted to the
particular questions. Also, experience with the questionnaires flows into the
design of the questionnaires for the following term. This allows us to exploit
the iterative nature of academic courses for an incremental design and
adaptation of test instruments. Thus, our AR involves a meta-dimension, namely
research on the evaluation (viewed as action) of actions.
We address the lack of generalization of the results obtained by AR by
conceptually modeling reusable scenarios and systematically capturing relevant
parameters and corresponding evaluation results. Thereby we hope to share our
experience with others who decide to follow the specified scenarios and produce
evaluation results such that cases are assembled and results gradually become
objectified and can be generalized.
Summarizing, the results of AR are the following components that evolve
in each cycle:
·
Pattern repository containing the
specification of course scenarios and multiple parameters;
·
Course descriptions containing the
instructors’ point of view;
·
Repository of course evaluations;
·
Questionnaires and their statistical
evaluation;
·
Student’s reaction sheets and their
evaluation;
·
Web-Service based platform modules;
·
Experience and feedback on dayta, an
open source, object-oriented e-learning and knowledge management platform;
·
A handbook of person-centered teaching/learning
practices.
Currently we are in the process of transferring the expertise made in our
department to a university wide context by initiating a project to be
coordinated by the research center on innovation at the University of Vienna.
Conclusions
Based on our experience with the Person-Centered style of blended
learning we have been searching for means that allow us to share our
experience, evaluate effects, generalize our findings and reuse successful
learning designs and platform modules. To meet these goals we have proposed a
theory-guided action research framework that is based on visual, conceptual
models and reusable patterns of learning scenarios. With our research and
practice we aim to combine theories from the social and the technical sciences
to contribute to making learning more meaningful, effective, and
growth-promoting.
References
Alexander,
C., Ishikawa , S., Silverstein, M., Jacobson, M., Fiksdahl-King, I., &
Angel, S. (1977). A Pattern Language - Towns, Buildings, Construction. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Baskerville,
R. L. (1999). Investigating Information Systems with Action Research.
Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 2,
http://cais.isworld.org/articles/2-19/.
Baskerville,
R. L., & Wood-Harper, A. T. (1996). A Critical Perspective on Action
Research as a Method for Information System Research. Journal of Information
Technology, 11(235-246).
Beck, K.,
& Johnson, R. E. (1994). Patterns Generate Architectures. Paper presented
at the European Conference on Object-Oriented Programming (ECOOP) '94, Bologna,
Italy.
Buschmann,
F., Meunier, R., Rohnert, H., Sommerlad, P., & Stal, M. (1996).
Pattern-Oriented Software Architecture: A System of Patterns. Chichester, U.K.:
John Wiley & Sons.
Coad, P.
(1992). Object-oriented patterns. Communications of the ACM, 35(9), 152-159.
Derntl,
M., & Motschnig-Pitrik, R. (2004). Patterns for Blended, Person-Centered
Learning: Strategy, Concepts, Experiences, and Evaluation. Paper presented at
the 19th ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC 2004), Nicosia, Cyprus.
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.
Eckstein,
J., Bergin, J., & Sharp, H. (2002). Patterns for Active Learning. Retrieved
Jan 4, 2003, from http://www.pedagogicalpatterns.org/current/activelearning.pdf
Eckstein,
J., Marquardt, K., Manns, M. L., & Wallingford, E. (2001). Patterns for
Experiential Learning. Retrieved Nov 25, 2002, from
http://www.pedagogicalpatterns.org/current/experientiallearning.pdf
E-LEN
Project. (2003). E-LEN project homepage. Retrieved Jan 14, 2004, from
http://www.tisip.no/E-LEN/
Fricke,
A., & Völter, M. (2000). Seminars - A Pedagogical Pattern Language about
teaching seminars effectively. Retrieved Dec 12, 2002, from
http://www.voelter.de/data/pub/tp/tp.pdf
Gamma, E.,
Helm, R., Johnson, R. E., & Vlissides, J. (1993). Design Patterns: Abstraction
and Reuse of Object-Oriented Design. Paper presented at the European Conference
on Object-Oriented Programming (ECOOP) '93, Kaiserslautern, Germany.
IMS Global
Learning Consortium. (2003). IMS Learning Design Specification. Retrieved Oct
4, 2003, from http://www.imsglobal.org/learningdesign/index.cfm
Kock, N.
(2003). The three threats of action research: a discussion of methodological
antidotes in the context of an information systems study. Decision Support
Systems, 1062, 1-22.
Koper, R.
(2001). Modeling units of study from a pedagogical perspective: the pedagogical
meta-model behind EML, from
http://eml.ou.nl/introduction/docs/ped-metamodel.pdf
OMG.
(2003). OMG Unified Modeling Language Specification, Version 1.5, March 2003.
Retrieved May 12, 2003, from http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?formal/03-03-01
Ottosson,
S. (2003). Participation action research - A key to improved knowledge of
management. Technovation, 23, 87-94.
Pedagogical
Patterns Project. (2002). http://www.pedagogicalpatterns.org. Retrieved Nov 5,
2002, from http://www.pedagogicalpatterns.org
Rogers, C.
R. (1961). On Becoming a Person - A Psychotherapists View of Psychotherapy.
London: Constable.
Rogers, C.
R. (1983). Freedom to Learn for the 80's. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill Publishing
Company.
Susman, G.
I., & Evered, R. D. (1978). An assessment of the scientific merits of
action research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(4), 582-603.