I was talking to Steven Warburton the other day. He mentioned that he wanted to present PPW (the Participatory Patterns Workshop) and the LDS (Learning design studio) models at a recent talk he gave, and started thinking about how the two relate to each other.
We’ve talked about this in the past, but as always, its only when you need to present something that you really work it out in detail. So Steven came up with this diagram:
When he showed it to his audience, someone said “Oh, that’s Tintin!” and so it will be for eternity. I like the picture, although I’ll have to ask Steven to walk me through it before I can explain it properly.
This got me thinking about the commonalities, synergies and differences between the two frameworks.
|Participatory Pattern Workshops (PPW)||Learning Design Studio (LDS)|
|Is a…||Methodology for collaborative reflection on practice. Originally conceived as a device for educational design research, aimed at eliciting expert knowledge and structuring it in the form of design narratives, patterns and scenarios. Through use, emerged as a powerful form of professional development.||Methodology for Design Inquiry of Learning. Developed explicitly as a device for supporting educational practitioners in their professional development through active inquiry of techno-pedagogical innovations.|
|Suitable for…||Domain experts, seasoned practitioners, multi-disciplinary expert teams.||Novices or experienced practitioners who wish to engage with new pedagogies or technologies or both.|
|Mood..||Reflective, semi-structured, analytical, critical||Creative, productive, intuitive, iterative, emergent|
|Outputs..||Transferable educational design knowledge in the form of design narratives, design patterns, design scenarios, and theoretical contributions.||Application of design knowledge in the form of documented and evaluated educational innovations.|
I would be interested to hear from people who participated in workshops and courses based on these models how this maps to their experiences.
Mor, Y. & Mogilevsky, O. (2013), ‘The Learning Design Studio: Collaborative Design Inquiry as Teachers’ Professional Development’, Research in Learning Technology 21 http://www.researchinlearningtechnology.net/index.php/rlt/article/view/22054 (researchgate)
Mor, Y. & Mogilevsky, O. (2013), Learning design studio: educational practice as design inquiry of learning ‘Scaling up Learning for Sustained Impact’ , LNCS, 8095, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 233-245 (researchgate)
Mor, Y.; Winters, N. & Warburton, S. (2012), ‘Participatory Pattern Workshops: A Methodology for Open Collaborative Construction of Design Knowledge in Education’, Research in Learning Technology 20 http://www.researchinlearningtechnology.net/index.php/rlt/article/view/19197 (researchgate)
The passion de jour of my epic struggle with the phd involves coming up with some coherent and consistent description of what you might call a methodlogical framework.
Words (alone) fail me, so I resort to sketch. Does this diagram make sense? Is it useful?
(This is version 2. Version 1 is here)
(cross posted from http://patternlanguagenetwork.org/2009/03/23/cal0/)
Planet is hosting a symposium at CAL’09 tomorrow. If you’re in Brighton, drop in and join the discussion. Our plan is to break away from the usual talking heads format, and devote most of the time for conversation. We’ve set up a web-space for the symposium at:
Where you can find drafts of all the slideshows and a few position papers. We’ve also posted some questions for the panel discussion, and you can add some of yours – either as comments on that page or as tweets tagged #cal09ptns.
We’ve managed to bring together some of the top innovators in design pattern approaches to education and e-learning across Europe, so we look forward to be surprised and having our preconceptions challenged.
Now I should turn my attention back to the speaaker.
15 years ago, few learners had either mobile telephony or internet access as a reliable learning resource. Today most have both, in one 150gr device in their back pocket. The accelerated progress of technology means not just that learning is changing, but that change is changing. We – learners, teachers, researchers – have to respond to developments at a dizzying pace.
The first consequence we need to acknowledge is that the division of roles is being blurred. Teachers need to invest in continuous learning, learners can often take the role of teaching, and all are de-facto researchers: exploring and experimenting with new opportunities daily.
The second, more complex and perhaps more vital recognition is that we are all learning designers. We design learning environment for ourselves and for others by choosing the tools and their configuration, we design our curriculum, choosing which new skills and practices to acquire – and which to defer. We design learning experiences by carefully assembling tasks, tools, activities and social interactions.
These observations call for a renewed attention to learning as a design science. Herbert Simon defined: “everyone designs who devises courses of action aimed at changing existing situations into desired ones” (Simon, 1969, p 129). Hence, design science is, in a nutshell, the science of making a better world. Design science needs a language of its own. A set of “scientific instruments”, modes of capturing and sharing knowledge, and methods of establishing validity. Mor & Winters argue that design patterns and pattern languages hold a promise in this respect, and propose a workshop model for participatory development of pattern languages in education (Mor & Winters, 2007; 2008).
The Pattern Language Network project is developing a methodology, and a set of on-line tools to support it, for pattern-based design research in education. These are being used by communities of practitioners, developers and researchers to capture and share their expertise and examples of good practice as reusable design knowledge.