skip to main content
10.1145/3424771.3424782acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageseuroplopConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Design patterns for teaching in online settings

Authors Info & Claims
Published:17 December 2020Publication History

ABSTRACT

This paper presents a concise pattern language that has been developed for designing online learning and teaching. The aim of these patterns is to facilitate novice teachers in designing both their online environments and learning experiences in a manner that is scaffolded yet maintains and supports their agency in the design process. The value of these patterns, as sources of reusable design insights that capture expert knowledge, provides a mechanism for novice teachers to realise their creative pedagogical intent in a tested and framed manner. The openness of these patterns to individual and group interpretation also allows for connections to related pattern languages that sit within the learning and teaching domain.

References

  1. Bergin, J., Kohls, C., Köppe, C., Mor, Y., Portier, M., Schümmer, T., & Warburton, S. (2015a). Assessment-Driven Course Design - Foundational Patterns. In Proceedings of the 20th European Conference on Pattern Languages of Programs, EuroPLoP'15. Irsee, Germany: ACM.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Bergin, J., Kohls, C., Köppe, C., Mor, Y., Portier, M., Schümmer, T., & Warburton, S. (2015b). Assessment-Driven Course Design - Fair Play Patterns. In Proceedings of the 22nd Pattern Languages of Programs conference, PLoP'15. Pittsburgh, USAGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Alexander, C. The timeless way of building. Oxford University Press, New York (1979)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. C. Alexander, S. Ishikawa, M. Silverstein, M. Jacobson, I. Fiksdahl-King, S. Angel. A pattern language, towns, buildings, construction. Oxford University Press, New York (1977)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. J. Eckstein, M.L. Manns, M. Voelter. Pedagogical patterns: Capturing best practices in teaching object technology. Software Focus, 2 (1) (2001), pp. 9--12Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Fricke, A & Völter, M. (2000). Seminars, a Pedagogical Pattern Language about teaching seminars effectively. EuroPLoP' 2000.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. D.R. Garrison, T. Anderson, W. Archer. Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2 (2) (2000), pp. 87--105Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Garrison, D. R. Communities of Inquiry in Online Learning: Social, Teaching and Cognitive Presence. In C. Howard et al. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of distance and online learning. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Garrison, D. R. and Anderson, T. E-Learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice. London: Routledge/Falmer, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Gunawardena, C. & Zittle, F. (1997) 'Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer-mediated conferencing environment', American Journal of Distance education, 11(3), pp. 8--26.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Lohman, M.C., Finkelstein, M. Designing groups in problem-based learning to promote problem-solving skill and self-directedness. Instructional Science 28, 291--307 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003927228005Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Lui, S., Gomez, J. & Yen, C. J. (2009) Community College online course retention and final grade. Predictability of social presence. Journal of Interactive Learning, 8(2), 165--182.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Mor, Y., Mellar, H., Warburton, S. and Winters, N. Eds. (2014). Practical design patterns for teaching and learning with technology. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Pask, G. (1975). Conversation, Cognition, and Learning. New York: Elsevier.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Rising, L. Design patterns in communication software. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2001)Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Schümmer, T. and Lukosch, S. (2007). Patterns for computer-mediated interaction. John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Chichester, England.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Warburton, S., Bergin, J., Kohls, C., Köppe, C. & Mor, Y. (2016). Dialogical assessment patterns for learning from others. In: Preprints of the 2016 VikingPLoP Conference. Leerdam, Netherlands: ACM.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Zhou, Y., Zhao, Q., Perry, M. (2002). The Policy Enforcement Pattern, In Proceedings 9th Conference on Pattern Language of Programs 2002, Allerton Park, IL https://www.hillside.net/plop/plop2002/final/ZZPerry_PLOP.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Design patterns for teaching in online settings

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Other conferences
      EuroPLoP '20: Proceedings of the European Conference on Pattern Languages of Programs 2020
      July 2020
      434 pages
      ISBN:9781450377690
      DOI:10.1145/3424771

      Copyright © 2020 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 17 December 2020

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed limited

      Acceptance Rates

      EuroPLoP '20 Paper Acceptance Rate37of58submissions,64%Overall Acceptance Rate216of354submissions,61%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader