Orchestrating Learning in a One-to-One Technology Classroom - New Science of Learning - page 451

Group Scribbles, as a delivery system has shown great potential for supporting
a wide range of effective scenarios, with ease of use. However, a well-structured
lesson design may be required for a larger class (more than 20 students) due to
the more complex information flow. For instance, in a brainstorming scenario, if
the teacher asks 25 students for two answers each on one board, there will be 50
sheets on the screen which would be a time consuming process for the teacher to
meaningfully arrange.
For future work, integrating SceDer Authoring and Group Scribbles together
might augment the usefulness of a seamless application (Authoring and Player are
integrated to advantages in LAMS). For even faster design, effective scenario-based
templates (e.g. Brainstorming, ImageMap, etc) might be embedded, so that teachers
can choose an appropriate scenario and use it instantly. At a lower lever of detail, the
teachers could still customise the components (deliver, activity, receiver, e-resource,
space) for each step of the interaction. SceDer has provided an initial demonstration
of the value of teacher-designed orchestration of learning activities in a one-to-one
classroom. Future work will show whether this can be extended to other learning
scenarios and contexts.
References
Anastopoulou, S., Sharples, M., Wright, M., Martin, H., Ainsworth, S., Benford, S., et al. (2008).
Learning 21st century science in context with mobile technologies . In B. C. Traxler John.
Riordan (Ed.), Mlearn 2008 conference (pp. 12-19).
Asensio-Pérez, J., Bote-Lorenzo, M., Vega-Gorgojo, G., Dimitriadis, Y., Gómez-Sánchez, E., &
Villasclaras-Fernández, E. (2008). Adding mash-up based tailorability to VLEs for scripted
collaborative learning . In Proceedings of the first international workshop on mash-up personal
learning environments(mupple08) (Vol. 388, pp. 14-17).
Britain, S. (2004). A review of learning design: Concept, specifications and tools. JISC report, 20.
Chan, T. W., Roschelle, J., Hsi, S., Kinshuk, K., Sharples, M., Brown, T., et al. (2006). One-to-one
technology-enhanced learning: An opportunity for global research collaboration. Research and
Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning , 1 , 3-29.
Dalziel, J. (2003). Implementing learning design: The learning activity anagement system (LAMS) .
In Proceedings of the ascilite 2003 conference, Adelaide (p. 25).
Dalziel, J. R. (2006). Lessons from LAMS for IMS learning design . In Sixth international
conference on advanced learning technologies (p. 1101-1102).
Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL: The risks of blending collaborative learning with
instructional design. In P. A. Kirschner (Ed.), Three worlds of CSCL. Can we support CSCL
(pp. 61-91). Heerlen: Open Universiteit Nederland.
Dillenbourg, P., & Crivelli, Z. (2009). A model of collaborative learning scripts instantiated
with mobile technologies. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning , 1 (1),
36-48.
Ferraris, C., Martel, C., & Vignollet, L. (2007). LDL for collaborative activities. In L. Botturi &
T. Stubbs (Eds.), Handbook of visual languages in instructional design: Theories and practices
(pp. 226-253). Hershey, PA: Idea Group. Chapter XII.
Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Mandl, H., & Haake, J. M. (2007). Scripting computer-supported collabora-
tive learning (Vol. 6). Boston, MA: Springer US.
Giemza, A., Weinbrenner, S., Engler, J., & Hoppe, H. U. (2007). Tuple spaces as a flexible inte-
gration platform for distributed learning environments . Supporting Learning Flow Through
Integrative Tech-nologies, 313-320.