The rapid rise of massive open online courses (MOOCS) has revived interest in the broader spectrum of open online teaching and learning. This “renaissance” has highlighted the challenges and potentials associated to the design of such educational environments. Arguably, the accelerated expansion of open online education creates risks forpedagogical quality and learner experience. There is an urgent need to articulate, share and critique design knowledge in this field.
We are witnessing a wealth of different approaches to the delivery, pedagogy, functionalities and support mechanisms for Open Online Learning. Some have these have been successful and others not so successful – for an example we can see high variability in the documented retention rates across different MOOC offerings.
Design patterns and pattern languages have been proposed as effective means to facilitate rigorous discourse, bridging theory and practice (Bergin et al, 2012; Conole et al, 2010; Goodyear, 2005; Mor et al, 2012; Mor et al, 2014; Sharp et al, 2003). The Design patterns paradigm was proposed by Christopher Alexander as a form of design language within architecture. A design pattern describes a recurring problem, or design challenge, the characteristics of the context in which it occurs, and a possible method of solution. These patterns were organized into coherent systems called pattern languages where patterns are related to each other.
Some of the key questions within this call are underpinned by a desire to understand the design processes and mechanisms by which we come to create and deliver open online learning at scale and by extension how we can formulate this into sharable design solutions that can be applied by others. Particularly where we are observing differentiation and varying degrees of success in the current landscape as defined by:
●Delivery modes and platform choices;
●Style of open online courses;
●Reported experiences of learners;
●Reported experiences of tutors;
●Assessment and accreditation mechanisms;
●Increasing use of motivational schemes such as badging and micro-certification;
●Retention and progression;
●Increasing use of analytics;
In this issue, we are seeking either pattern papers, pattern review papers or papers which discuss the process of eliciting and using design patterns in the design and delivery of open online education. This may include the following:
1.Papers reviewing existing pattern languages applicable to online learning;
2.Theory and methodology for mining / using patterns in relation to designing for Open Online Courses;
3.Pattern papers, including design narrative(s), design pattern(s) and scenario(s);
4.Application of patterns to design problems in open online learning.
For examples of pattern papers, please see the references below. You might also want to explore http://ilde.upf.edu/moocs/ as an environment for authoring and sharing design narratives, design paterns and design scenarios.
In this issue we will not be accepting “from the field” articles. We expect two categories of submissions:
Design pattern papers focus on design as a mode of action (identifying a need and creating new “things” to address it) and as a mode of inquiry (understanding human experience by introducing innovations and observing their effect).Design research asks not “what is” but “how do we make it better?”. Design papers are expected to presentdesign principles, design guidelines or design patterns, supported by empirical evidence (qualitative, quantitative or mixed) and theoretical justification.
In good editorial form: Selected articles are clear and precise. They should identify a framework of reference and exhibit a dual commitment to the advancement of both theory and practice.
Length: Should not exceed 6,000 words.
In-Depth articles are full-length texts that discuss current findings from research or long-term studies. They should have the following characteristics:
Academic focus: Articles must be original, scientifically accurate and informative, reporting on new developments and recently concluded projects.
In good editorial form: Selected articles are clear and precise. They should develop their argument coherently and present unity of thought.
Length: Should range from 4,000 to 6,000 words.
Bergin, J.; Eckstein, J.; Volter, M.; Sipos, M.; Wallingford, E.; Marquardt, K.; Chandler, J.; Sharp, H. & Manns, M. L. (2012), Pedagogical Patterns: Advice For Educators , Joseph Bergin Software Tools .
Conole, G.; McAndrew, P. & Dimitriadis, Y. (2010), The role of CSCL pedagogical patterns as mediating artefacts for repurposing Open Educational Resources, in F. Pozzi & D. Persico, ed., 'Techniques for Fostering Collaboration in Online Learning Communities: Theoretical and Practical Perspectives' , Hershey, New York , pp. 206-223 .
Goodyear, P. (2005), 'Educational design and networked learning: Patterns, pattern languages and design practice',Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 21 (1) , 82-101.
Mor, Y. (2013), SNaP! Re-using, sharing and communicating designs and design knowledge using Scenarios, Narratives and Patterns, in Rosemary Luckin; Peter Goodyear; Barbara Grabowski; Sadhana Puntambekar; Niall Winters & Joshua Underwood, ed., 'Handbook of Design in Educational Technology' , Routledge, , pp. 189-200
Mor, Y.; Mellar, H.; Warburton, S. & Winters, N., ed. (2014), Practical Design Patterns for Teaching and Learning with Technology. Sense: Rotterdam/Boston/Taipei. https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/technology-enhanced-learning-1/practical-design-patterns-for-teaching-and-learning-with-technology/
Mor, Y.; Warburton, S. & Winters, N. (2012), 'Participatory Pattern Workshops: A Methodology for Open Learning Design Inquiry', Research in Learning Technology 20.
Sharp, H.; Manns, M. L. & Eckstein, J. (2003), 'Evolving Pedagogical Patterns: The Work of the Pedagogical Patterns Project', Computer Science Education 13 , 315-330 .