Book Paid Sonagachi Call Girls Kolkata 𖠋 8250192130 𖠋Low Budget Full Independ...
L ders design for a teacher ld workshop (english)
1. Design for a
Teacher workshop on designing and
enacting non-trivial CSCL activities
Yannis Dimitriadis Iván Jorrín
Luis P. Prieto Sara Villagrá
GSIC-EMIC, Universidad de Valladolid
Valladolid, 23.06.2011
14/10/2011 0
2. Context
• (part of the) Design for a teacher workshop on LD and
enactment of CSCL activities
– Using concrete ICT tools: Moodle, web 2.0 tools (e.g.
GoogleDocs), IWB, ...
– Using a pattern-based approach (CLFPs + “atomic
patterns”)
• Audience: 20 university teachers, different degrees of
tech-savvy-ness
• Face-to-face, 3hr session (out of a blended, 10hr
workshop)
• Tools: Pen/paper, Moodle, GDocs, Dabbleboard, IWB
14/10/2011 1
3. Goals
• Learn a way of designing (and enacting) non-
trivial CSCL activities
– non-trivial = not just a Moodle forum
• Learn about pedagogical uses of technologies
already available to teachers (Moodle, GDocs,
IWBs...)
• Reflect and discuss on problems when
enacting this kind of designs
14/10/2011 2
4. Approach
• Workshop: learn by doing (collaboratively and
individually, using ICT and pen/paper)
– Here, only one collaborative part of the workshop!
– Task: produce a learning design
– Work on a fictitious but realistic situation
• Use design patterns of different kinds and
granularity levels
• Focus on medium-granularity designs (blended
learning, around 10hrs of student work)
• Modeling: we used the same CSCL aproach,
patterns and ICT support that were being taught
14/10/2011 3
6. Session structure
1. Introduction (15’)
– Motivation, session structure, ICT support, target scenario
2. First approach to LD (25’)
– Groups of 2-3 people, using Pyramid CLFP and design-time atomic
patterns (cards, whiteboard)
3. Peer review of first designs (10’)
– Groups of 2-3 people, using template (GoogleDocs)
4. Second approach to LD (25’)
– Groups of 5-6, using implementation atomic patterns (cards,
Dabbleboard)
5. Break (10’)
6. (big groups) Presentation of LDs and (class-wide) debate over the
designs (40’)
7. Reflection: the workshop as LD example and closing remarks (25’)
14/10/2011 5
8. Epilogue: what really happened
• On-the-fly changes had to be made:
– There was a latecomer: in total, 21 participants
– Activities 1 & 2 took more time than expected
– In activity 4, Dabbleboard became unavailable,
and we had to resort to pen/paper
– In activity 6, there was no time for real debate
(resorted to asynchronous Moodle forum)
14/10/2011 7
