2008
DOI: 10.5334/2008-26
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Transversal Analysis of Different Learning Design Approaches

Abstract: Abstract:The goal of the ICALT workshop "Comparing Educational Modelling* Languages on a Case Study" was to compare different Learning Design approaches. Various teams were asked to design and implement a common case study and to answer common given challenges. Then, a special issue on "Comparing Educational Modelling Languages on the "Planet Game Case Study" was proposed to give the workshop challengers the opportunity to describe their solution in more detail. It is now time to make the comparison. Based on … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

0
9
0
9

Year Published

2010
2010
2014
2014

Publication Types

Select...
4
1
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(18 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
0
9
0
9
Order By: Relevance
“…Though there is no widely-agreed consensus, they could be roughly summarized in the following ones (see Figure 1): the design of the learning scenario (Vignollet et al, 2008;Sobreira and Tchounikine, 2012); the instantiation of the designed activities to address the concrete tool instances, participants and groups that will be involved in the learning scenario (Dillenbourg and Tchounikine, 2007;Sobreira and Tchounikine, 2012); the execution of the activities themselves and their run-time management (Dillenbourg and Tchounikine, 2007;Sobreira and Tchounikine, 2012); and, eventually, the evaluation of those activities (Vignollet et al, 2008). Though this article deals with the management phase, in this section, we introduce our overall proposal, describing the connections between the design and management phases.…”
Section: General Approach: Scripting and Monitoring Alignment In Csclmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Though there is no widely-agreed consensus, they could be roughly summarized in the following ones (see Figure 1): the design of the learning scenario (Vignollet et al, 2008;Sobreira and Tchounikine, 2012); the instantiation of the designed activities to address the concrete tool instances, participants and groups that will be involved in the learning scenario (Dillenbourg and Tchounikine, 2007;Sobreira and Tchounikine, 2012); the execution of the activities themselves and their run-time management (Dillenbourg and Tchounikine, 2007;Sobreira and Tchounikine, 2012); and, eventually, the evaluation of those activities (Vignollet et al, 2008). Though this article deals with the management phase, in this section, we introduce our overall proposal, describing the connections between the design and management phases.…”
Section: General Approach: Scripting and Monitoring Alignment In Csclmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Moreover, the script life-cycle does not need to be lineal, with perfectly differentiated phases [6]. Nevertheless, different approaches have in common that, from the CSCL script's conception in the mind of its author, up to its final form ready to be used in a concrete computersupported scenario, the script has to traverse different human or computer agents, in which it is completed, particularized or modified.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Additionally, operationalization is used instead of instantiation (i.e. design, operationalization and execution) in [6].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…This is the case of Vignollet [Vig08], who suggests a linear life cycle composed of three phases: modeling, operationalization and execution. This life cycle emerges from applying the three levels de ned in the IMS LD speci cation [IMS03] for the de nition of collaborative scripts.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%