Analysis of Tools and Methods for Describing and Sharing Reusable Pedagogical Scenarios

  • Marina Kurvits
  • Mart LaanpereEmail author
  • Terje Väljataga
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9412)


Even without rigorous empirical research, we know that some teachers are more effective in their teaching approaches than others. We can hypothesise that part of their success can be attributed to the pedagogical methods or scenarios they use, and that these scenarios could also be re-used by other teachers. But it is quite complicated to describe good teaching practices, methods and approaches so that these can easily be adopted by other teachers. Today, several different tools and methods exist for describing and sharing effective pedagogical scenarios, but their biggest disadvantage is a low rate of acceptance among teachers. The paper provides an overview of the state of the art in the domain of software tools for building and sharing pedagogical scenarios, using a two-dimensional analytic framework. As an outcome of this analysis, design guidelines for an alternative scenario-building tool are proposed.


Pedagogical scenarios Pedagogical scripting Design-based research 


  1. 1.
    Schneider, D., Synteta, P., Frété, C., Girardin, F., Morand, S.: Conception and implementation of rich pedagogical scenarios through collaborative portal sites: clear focus and fuzzy edges. In: International Conference on Open and Online Learning, University of Mauritius (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Illeris, K.: Towards a contemporary and comprehensive theory of learning. Int. J. Lifelong Educ. 22(4), 396–406 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Churches, A.: 21st century pedagogy (2008). Accessed 10 July 2015
  4. 4.
    Bingimlas, K.: Barriers to the successful integration of ICT in teaching and learning environments: a review of the literature. EURASIA J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 5(3), 235–245 (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Le Fevre, D.: Barriers to implementing pedagogical change: the role of teachers’ perceptions of risk. Teach. Teacher Educ. 38, 56–64 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Conole, G., Fill, K.: A learning design toolkit to create pedagogically effective learning activities. J. Interact. Media Educ. 8, 1–16 (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Häkkinen, P., Mäkitalo-Siegl, K.: Educational perspectives on scripting CSCL. Scripting Comput. Support. Collaborative Learn. 6, 263–271 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Saettler, P.: The Evolution of American Educational Technology. IAP, Charlotte (1990)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Choi, S.: Application of component display theory in designing and developing CALI. CALICO J. 3(4), 40–45 (1986)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dillenbourg, P., Tchounikine, P.: Flexibility in macro-scripts for CSCL. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 23(1), 1–13 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dillenbourg, P.: Over-scripting CSCL: the risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. In: Kirschner, P.A. (ed.) Three worlds of CSCL. Can we support CSCL, pp. 61–91. Open Universiteit Nederland, Heerlen (2002)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    iTEC Scenarios: (2013) Accessed 10 July 2015
  13. 13.
    Toikkanen, T., Keune, A.: Designing Edukata: a method for educators to create learner centered activities. In: Proceedings of WCEMT 2014, pp. 1476–1483 (2014)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Caeiro, M., Anido, L., Llamas, M.: A critical analysis of IMS learning design. In: Wasson, B., Ludvigsen, S., Hoppe, U. (eds.) Designing for Change in Networked Learning Environments, vol. 2, pp. 363–367. Springer, Netherlands (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dalziel, J.: Lessons from LAMS for IMS learning design. In: Sixth International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, pp. 1101–1102 (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bower, M., Craft, B., Laurillard, D.: Using the learning designer to develop a conceptual framework for linking learning design tools and systems. In: International LAMS and learning Design Conference, pp. 61–71 (2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sobreira, P., Tchounikine, P.: A model for flexibly editing CSCL scripts. Int. J. Comput. Support. Collaborative Learn. 7(4), 567–592 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marina Kurvits
    • 1
  • Mart Laanpere
    • 1
    Email author
  • Terje Väljataga
    • 1
  1. 1.Tallinn UniversityTallinnEstonia

Personalised recommendations