Drawing on traditions of design
science and participatory design, we offer an innovative approach for
designing technology-enhanced learning environments. This approach
extends Alexander’s design patterns (Alexander, 1977) and
supplements them with a set of bespoke on-line collaborative tools.
These tools were used by a group of experts to develop a language of
patterns for game-based mathematical learning. This language was
refined through a series of workshops. We propose these workshops as
a model for multi-disciplinary participatory design of educational
technologies.
The design of a
technology enhanced learning (TEL) tool, and specifically of
Interactive Learning Environments (ILEs), is a major challenge. This
is because it must address issues ranging from learning theory to
software engineering. Developers face fundamental challenges in
building tools to adequately address the issues raised during the
design process. However, understanding and resolving each of the
requirements and the tensions between participants has long been
recognized as fundamental to any tool's success. Mor & Winters
(in press) present a thematic review of design approaches in TEL,
highlight some of the key challenges and suggest that a design
pattern approach may offer a way forward.
We work from the
premise that designing and deploying technology learning is a
difficult task because it requires the assimilation and integration
of deep knowledge from diverse domains of expertise including content
knowledge, interface and interaction engineering, software
engineering, learning and teaching. We see all these aspects of
knowledge as various facets of design knowledge. The content
dimension pertains to the question of selecting and connecting
elements of domain knowledge – a question of designing ontological
structures. The question of pedagogy is a question of designing
instructional structures, and so on. While each party may have
expertise in several of the associated domains, no single party has
expertise in all of them. The complexity of each of the various
bodies of knowledge means that it is often hard to communicate ideas
between parties. Each community has developed its own lore and
jargon. The result of this fragmentation of knowledge is that most
games emerge from a particular, often restricted viewpoint. For
example, when developing mathematical games, a game that embodies
deep mathematical can be poorly designed in terms of the gaming
experience, whereas a sleek and entertaining game may be simplistic
in its pedagogical intent.
Design approaches in
technology-enhanced learning generally and Interactive Learning
Environments in particular, are strongly influenced by the seminal
work of Simon (1969), who was the first to refer to design as a
science. Simon distinguishes between the natural sciences and the
sciences of the artificial, challenging the view of the latter as
‘practical’ science or ‘vocational arts’. At the core of the
study of the artificial, Simon places the science of design. In his
words, “everyone designs who devises courses of action aimed at
changing existing situations into desired ones” (Simon, 1969, p
129). We identify three key elements in Simon’s approach which
guide our work:
A
prescriptive agenda. Whereas natural science is concerned with what
is, design science asks what ought to be.
Function
as the axis of decomposition. Whereas natural science progresses by
structural decomposition and synthesis, design science analyses its
objects of study by their purpose and the aims they claim to serve.
Centricity
of representation. Our capacity to solve problems is contingent on
the way these problems are represented.
We argue that design
patterns (Alexander et al., 1977) hold a powerful promise for
recording, calibrating and collaboratively refining expert knowledge.
Patterns are flexible enough to address a very broad spectrum of
practices, from in-depth technical development to deployment issues
in classrooms. In addition, they are rigid enough to oblige the
pattern writer to focus on and concisely capture their own best
practice. The design patterns approach was developed as a form of
design language within architecture. This was done with the explicit
aim of externalizing knowledge to allow accumulation and
generalization of solutions and to allow all members of a community
or design group to participate in discussion relating to the design.
A design pattern "describes a problem which occurs over and over
again in our environment, and then describes the core of the solution
to that problem, in such a way that you can use this solution a
million times over, without ever doing it the same way twice"
(Alexander et al., 1977, p. X). Design patterns have the explicit aim
of externalizing knowledge to allow accumulation and generalization
of solutions and to allow all members of a community or design group
to participate in discussion relating to the design. Patterns are
organized into coherent systems called pattern languages where
patterns are related to each other. Although the use of design
patterns never achieved a large following among professional
architects, the idea has been embraced in several other disciplines,
including software engineering (Gamma et al., 1995), hypermedia
(German & Cowan, 2000) and interaction design (Erickson, 2000;
Borcher, 2001). The approach has also found application in
educational domains including e-learning systems (Derntl &
Motschnig-Pitrik, 2004) and the design of computer science courses
(Bergin, 2000).
The
Kaleidoscope project Learning Patterns for the Design and Deployment
of Games for Mathematical Learning (http://lp.noe-kaleidoscope.org)
aims to formalize expert insights from the different domains of
design knowledge using the pattern approach. Our learning patterns
are intended to serve the needs of researchers, practitioners and
designers as one. The structure of these patterns is based on the
long-standing tradition of pattern languages in various fields,
adopted to the special focus of games and learning. We began with a
process of collaborative reflection on our own experiences, and have
expanded this process to include other researchers and practitioners
through an on-going series of workshops. Our language of patterns,
and the collaborative on-line tool that support it, is evolving
continuously as our knowledge grows. We do not claim to offer a
comprehensive set of patterns, but we do strive to construct a
coherent language, which has few holes and many open ends. Our aim is
it to address issues across a broad range of aspects pertaining to
the process of designing, implementing and deploying games for
mathematical learning. The learning patterns we developed attempt to
strike a balance between problem solving and being feature specific.
Some patterns address the process of game development and in doing so
emerged from problems we were trying to overcome. As such, they can
be viewed as problem solving patterns. Others are directly concerned
with particular game features and interaction issues and are
considered feature specific. However, in describing the patterns we
use the generic term ‘problem’ to encompass both perspectives.
For example, to address a particular problem the designer may add a
specific feature.
Our pattern language
and its associated interactive tools are presented as resources to be
used by researchers and practitioners in several ways. As an
analytical asset, design patterns are a means of making visible
implicit design decisions. Researchers and designers can reflect on
their own work by mapping it to patterns in our language, or by
extending the language to account for aspects we do not cover.
Identifying the underlying patterns can help understand the strengths
and weaknesses of existing games and the ways in which they are used.
Once a pattern has been mapped to a case under observation, the
context noted in the pattern can be compared to the details of the
actual case, and conflicts can be discussed. On the other hand, the
related patterns should be explored, to identify possible extensions
and enhancements. As a design aid, practitioners from various fields
who are involved in game design and deployment can consult the
patterns in different stages of their process, and chose those which
address the particular questions they are confronted with. Some of
our patterns address the flow of the process as a whole, some address
specific phases - such as 'bootstrapping' design, and some offer
concrete structural elements which can by used as building blocks. It
is important to note that patterns are not cookbooks. They do not
devolve responsibility from the designer, but only help her
understand the scope of the issues to consider and scaffold her
attempts to resolve these.
However, the
most important facet of the pattern language is its potential as a
framework for discussing and collaboratively refining design. In
fact, this is precisely why it is called a pattern language,
and not collection or set. This language grew through its use in
various assemblies of designers, researchers and educators. Our
workshops are structured around the language and the tools, and have
used them successfully to sustain effective communication among
experts from varied backgrounds. In this function, our pattern
language should be seen as a starting point, an example - from which
each community will derive and develop its own language. The process
of creating, or 'distilling' a pattern begins with reflection on
expert knowledge represented as a case study of good practice. The
pattern authors identify a single element of design which contributed
to the success of this case study. This element is phrased in a
manner which detaches it from the single example, but avoids
over-abstraction. The pattern is carefully named: names need to be
descriptive, concise and attractive. Its details are then moulded
into the pattern template. Once the pattern has been described, it is
mapped to other case studies and to other patterns in the language.
By comparing to similar case studies we can refine the pattern and
identify its critical features. This may lead to the need to define
new patterns - as special cases of this one or as generalizations of
it. At the same time, we classify new pattern using the hierarchical
structure of the language and look for related patterns which are
already in our collection. The pattern language was developed
iteratively and collaboratively by the project team, in dialogue with
a wider community of designers, researchers and teachers. Due to the
distributed nature of the team, the availability of on-line tools
played an important role in our ability to conduct this process
effectively. These tools were developed in parallel with the
language, as our understanding of the process we were engaged in
evolved.
Alongside the
development of the pattern language, we have developed a set of
interactive tools to support it. The primary functions of these tools
are to allow us to efficiently manage the pattern language, and at
the same time make it easy to use by any interested reader. These
tools provide various methods of browsing, reading, editing and
organizing patterns. The pattern browser is the central tool in our
system. It provides several modes for viewing the patterns, as well
as entry points to tools for creating new patterns and structuring
the language. All patterns are listed in a database, and can be
viewed in table mode and sorted by various keys. The hierarchical
structure of the language is represented in a FreeMind
map, which can be viewed and used as a navigation scheme for
accessing pattern pages. Patterns are edited using an on-line rich
text editor. This editor is based on an open source tool with slight
modifications and enhancements. A pattern page begins with a header
which displays an expanded view of the meta-data listed in the
browser index view. Pattern pages are generated from a template,
which scaffolds the author to use a common structure. This structure
includes a concise statement of the pattern's intent or the problem
it addresses, a detailed delineation of its context, a description of
the pattern itself, its relations to other patterns, additional notes
and examples. The notes will typically refer to underlying
educational research. The examples point to the relevant case studies
in our collection.
At the workshop we will briefly
present the theoretical underpinnings of our work, and position the
design pattern approach in relation to several other constructs, such
as design principles (Kali, 2006), Scriptlets (Schank) and Situated
Abstraction (Noss & Hoyles, 1996). We then proceed to demonstrate
our methods by working through selected examples. The workshop
structure will encourage audience participation and active debate. We
will conclude with a discussion on possible applications of the
design patterns approach to participants' practice. We invite
interested parties to use our tools and methods and develop their own
pattern languages.
References
Alexander, C.,
Ishikawa, S. and Silverstein, M. (1977) A Pattern Language: Towns,
Buildings, Construction (Center for Environmental Structure Series),
Oxford University Press, New York.
Bergin, J. (2000)
Fourteen Pedagogical Patterns. Proceedings of the Fifth
European Conference on Pattern Languages of Programs.
Borchers, J. (2001) A
Pattern Approach to Interaction Design, John Wiley and Sons,
Chichister, England.
Derntl, M. and
Motschnig-Pitrik, R. (2004) Patterns for blended, Person-Centered
learning: strategy, concepts, experiences, and evaluation. In
Proceedings of ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC), pp. 916-923.
Erickson, T. (2000)
Lingua Francas for design: sacred places and pattern languages.
In Proceedings of conference on Designing interactive systems. ACM
Press, New York, pp. 357-368.
German, D. M. and
Cowan, D. D. (2000) Towards a unified catalog of hypermedia design
patterns. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences, pp. 6067-6075.
Kali, Y. (2006)
Collaborative knowledge building using a design principles
database. ijcscl, 1, 187-201.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike2.5 License. 
log in