Abstract
We use different criteria to judge teaching methods and learning environments as researchers and teachers. As researchers, we tend to rely on learning gains measured in controlled conditions. As teachers and designers, the skilled management of classroom constraints results in the impression that a design “works well.” We argue that the generalizability of educational research requires that we take into account curriculum, assessment, time, energy, space and safety constraints when designing methods and environments. We systematically describe 14 design factors related to the notions of classroom orchestration and learning ecosystems and illustrate their embodiment in three learning environments from our own research. The design factors provide a teacher-centric, integrated view of educational technology design for face-to-face classroom activities which “work well.”
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alavi, H., Dillenbourg, P., & Kaplan, F. (2009) Distributed Awareness for Class Orchestration. Proceedings of the Third European Conference on Technology-Enhanced Learning (EC-TEL09). Nice France, Sept. 2009
Aronson, E., Blaney, N., Sikes, J., Stephan, G., & Snapp, M. (1978). The jigsaw classroom. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publication.
Bielaczyc, K. (2006). Designing social infrastructure: Critical issues in creating learning environments with technology. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(3), 301–329.
Blaye, A. (1988) Confrontation socio-cognitive et résolution de problèmes. Doctoral dissertation, Centre de Recherche en Psychologie Cognitive, Université de Provence, France.
Bransford, J. D., Sherwood, R. D., Hasselbring, T. S., Kinzer, C. K., & Williams, S. M. (1990). Anchored instruction: Why we need it and how technology can help. In D. Nix & R. Spiro (Eds.), Cognition, education and multimedia: Exploring ideas in high technology (pp. 115–141). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Brophy, J., & Good, T. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.). New York: McMillan.
Brousseau, G. (1998). Théorie des situations didactiques. Grenoble: La Pensée Sauvage.
Brown, J. S., & Adler, R. P. (2008). Minds on fore: Open education, the long tail and learning 2.0. Educause Review, 43(1), 16–32.
Carey, D. M. (1994). Teacher roles and technology integration: Moving from teacher as director to teacher as facilitator. Computers in the Schools, 9(2), 105–118.
Collins, A. (1992). Toward a design science of education. In E. Scanlon &T. O’Shea (Eds.), New directions in educational technology (pp. 15–22). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Copeland, W. D. (1979). Student teachers and cooperating teachers: An ecological relationship. Theory into Practice, 18(3), The Complex Classroom: A Research Focus, 194–199.
DiGiano, C., & Patton, C. (2002). Orchestrating handhelds in the classroom with SRI’s ClassSync™. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Computer support for collaborative learning 2002 (pp. 706–707). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
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.
Dillenbourg, P. (2008). Integrating technologies into educational ecosystems. Distance Education, 29(2), 127–140.
Dillenbourg, P., & Fischer, F. (2007). Basics of computer-supported collaborative learning. Zeitschrift für Berufs- und Wirtschaftspädagogik, 21, 111–130.
Dillenbourg, P., & Hong, F. (2008). The mechanics of CSCL macro scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(1), 5–23.
Dillenbourg, P., & Jermann, P. (2007). Designing integrative scripts. In F. Fischer, H. Mandl, J. Haake & I. Kollar (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning – cognitive, computational, and educational perspectives (pp. 275–301). Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Series. New York: Springer.
Dillenbourg, P., & Tchounikine, P. (2007). Flexibility in macro CSCL scripts. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(1), 1–13.
Ferguson, R. F., Ludwig, J., & Rich, W. (2001). A diagnostic analysis of black-white GPA disparities in shaker heights. Ohio Brookings Papers on Education Policy, 4, 347–414.
Fiala, M. (2005). ARTag, A Fiducial Marker System using Digital Techniques. IEEE Proc. CVPR. San Diego, CA, June 2005.
Fischer, F., Wecker, C., Schrader, J., Gerjets, P. H., & Hesse, F. W. (2005, August). Use-inspired basic research on the orchestration of cognition, instruction and technology in the classroom. Paper presented at the SIG Invited Symposium “Instructional design and empirical research: Experiments and/or design experiments” at the 11th Conference of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI), Nicosia, Cyprus.
Gavota, M., Schneider, D., Betrancourt, M., & Richle, U. (2008). A technology-enhanced learning environment to support learning by sharing professional experience in writing. In Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2008 (pp. 2883–2892). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/28774
Gravier, C., Fayolle, J., Noyel, G., Leleve, A., & Benmohamed, H. (2006), Distance Learning: Closing the Gap between Remote Labs and Learning Management Systems, Proceedings of IEEE First International Conference on E-Learning in Industrial Electronics, Hammamet, Tunisie, December 18–20, pp. 130–134.
Hoppe, H. U., Lingnau, A., Machado, I., Paiva, A., Prada, R., & Tewissen, F. (2000). Supporting Collaborative Activities in Computer Integrated Classrooms - the NIMIS Approach Proc. of 6th International Workshop on Groupware, CRIWG 2000. IEEE CS Press, Madeira, Portugal.
Iansiti, M., & Lakhani, K. R. (2009) SAP AG: Orchestrating the Ecosystem. HBS Case No. 609-069; Harvard Business School Technology & Operations Mgt. Unit. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1408558
Infante, C., Hidalgo, P., Nussbaum, M., Alarcon, R., & Gottlieb, A. (2009). Multiple mice based collaborative one-to-one learning. Computers & Education, 53(2), 393–401.
Jermann, P., & Dillenbourg, P. (1999). An analysis of learner arguments in a collective learning environment. C. Hoadley et J. Roschelle (Eds.), Proceedings of 3rd Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Conference, pp. 265–273, Stanford.
Jermann, P., Zufferey, G., & Dillenbourg, P. (2008) Tinkering or Sketching: Apprentices’ Use of Tangibles and Drawings to Solve Design Problems. Proceedings of the Third European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning (EC-TEL 2008), pp. 167–178, Maastricht (The Netherlands), September 16–19. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer.
Keetoon, M. T., & Tate, P. J. (1978). The bloom in experiential learning. In M. T. Keeton and P. J. State (Eds), Learning by experience – what, why, how (pp. 1–8). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Merrill, M. D., Li, Z., & Jones, M. K. (1992). An introduction to instructional transaction theory. In S. A. Dijkstra, H. P. M. Krammer & J. J. G. van Merrienboer (Eds.), Instructional models in computer-based learning environments. NATO ASI Series F (Vol 104, pp. 15–41). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Moon, J. (2001). How to improve the impact of short courses and workshops (2001). Training & Professional Development. London: Kogan Page.
Mühlpfordt, M., & Wessner, M., (2005). Explicit Referencing in Chat Supports Collaborative Learning. In CSCL’05, 6th International Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 662–671.
Pea, R. (1983). Logo programming and problem solving (Technical Report No.12). New York: Bank Street College of Education, Center for Children and Technology.
Peltz, C. (2003). Web Services Orchestration and Choreography. Computer, 36(10), 46–52.
Resnick, M. (2002). Rethinking learning in the digital age. In G. Kirkman (Ed.), The global information technology report: Readiness for the networked world (pp. 32–37). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rigg, C. M. (2001). Orchestrating ecosystem management: Challenges and lessons from sequoia national forest. Conservation Biology, 15(1), 78–90.
Roschelle, J., & Pea, R. (2002). A walk on the WILD side: How wireless handhelds may change computer-supported collaborative learning. International Journal of Cognition and Technology, 1(2), 145–168.
Rothstein-Fisch, C., & Trumbull, E. (2008) Managing Diverse classrooms. ASCD. http://www.ascd.org
Sandoval, W. A., & Bell, P. L. (2004). Design-based research methods for studying learning in context: Introduction. Educational Psychologist, 39(4), 199–201.
Schneider, B., Jermann, P., Zufferey, G., & Dillenbourg, P. (submitted). Benefits of a Tangible Interface for Collaborative Learning and Interaction. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies.
Schwartz, D. L., & Bransford, J. D. (1998). A time for telling. Cognition and Instruction, 16(4), 475–522.
Stoll, L., & Fink, D. (1996). Changing our schools. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Tetenbaum, T. J., & Mulkeen, T. A. (1984). Logo and the teaching of problem solving: A call for a moratorium. Education Technology, 24(11), 16–19.
Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). The Differentiated Classroom: Responding to the Needs of All Learners, ASCD. http://www.ascd.org
von Inqvald, E. (2009). Teachers’ implementation and orchestration of Cabri: Initial use of a dynamic geometry software package in mathematics teaching. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag.
Weinberger, A., Ertl, B., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2005). Epistemic and social scripts in computer-supported collaborative learning. Instructional Science, 33, 1–30.
Zurita, G., & Nussbaum, M. (2004 A constructivist mobile learning environment supported by a wireless handheld network. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, 235–243.
Acknowledgements
The environments listed in this paper have been developed by Fabrice Hong, Guillaume Zufferey, Son Do-Lenh, Bertrand Schneider, Hamed Alavi, Frédéric Kaplan and Olivier Guédat. We thank the students and teachers who have been involved in the various experiments. The work on the TinkerLamp is supported by Dual-T, a leading house funded by the Swiss Federal Office for Professional Education and Technology. The work on the Lantern is supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (Grant PDFM1-118708). The work on ManyScripts was supported by Swiss Center for Innovation in Learning (St Gallen) and a group of KALEIDOSCOPE, a former European Network of Excellence. The work on orchestration is the theme of a group within STELLAR, a new European Network of Excellence on learning technologies.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Dillenbourg, P., Jermann, P. (2010). Technology for Classroom Orchestration. In: Khine, M., Saleh, I. (eds) New Science of Learning. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-5716-0_26
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-5716-0_26
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4419-5715-3
Online ISBN: 978-1-4419-5716-0
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)