• Dearden et al., 2002Dearden, A., Finlay, J., Allgar, E., & Mcmanus, B. (2002). Evaluating pattern languages in participatory design. In Proceedings of CHI 2002, Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computer Systems. Minneapolis ACM Press. , Dearden et al., 2002Dearden, A., Finlay, J., Allgar, E., & Mcmanus, B. (2002). Patterns Languages in Participatory Design. In Proceedings of People and Computers XVII: Memorable yet Invisible (159--174)., Dearden et al., 2002Dearden, A., Finlay, J., Allgar, E., & McManus, B. (2002). Using pattern languages in participatory design. In Proceedings of the Participatory Design Conference (104--112). , Goodyear et al., 2004Goodyear, P., Avgeriou, P., Baggetun, R., Bartoluzzi, S., Retalis, S., Ronteltap, F., & Rusman, E. (2004). Towards a pattern language for networked learning. In Proceedings of Networked Learning (449--455)., Bergin, 2000Bergin, J. (2000). Fourteen pedagogical patterns. and Bergin, 2002Bergin, J. (2002). A Pattern Language for Course Development in Computer Science.
• assessment, evaluation and analysis of learning and learning systems Gibert-Darras et al., 2005Gibert-Darras, F., Delozanne, E., Le Calvez, F., Merceron, A., Labat, J. M., & Vandebrouck, F. (2005). Towards a design pattern language to track students’ problem-solving abilities, 33.
• growing trend of Pedagogical Design Patterns
  • Anthony, 1996Anthony, D. L. G. (1996). Patterns for classroom education.
  • Bergin, 2000Bergin, J. (2000). Fourteen pedagogical patterns.
  • Eckstein, Bergin & Sharp, 2002Eckstein, J., Bergin, J., & Sharp, H. (2002). Patterns for active learning. In Proceedings of PloP.
• development of software design patterns for educational technology
  • Dearden et al., 2002Dearden, A., Finlay, J., Allgar, E., & McManus, B. (2002). Using pattern languages in participatory design. In Proceedings of the Participatory Design Conference (104--112).
  • Avgeriou et al., 2003Avgeriou, P., Papasalouros, A., Retalis, S., & Skordalakis, M. (2003). Towards a pattern language for learning management systems. Educational Technology \& Society, 6(2), 11--24. Avgeriou et al., 2004Avgeriou, P., Vogiatzis, D., Tzanavari, A., & Retalis, S. (2004). Towards a pattern language for adaptive web-based educational systems. Advanced Technology for Learning, 1(4). )
• search for patterns in related practices, such as evaluation and assessment (Barre, Chaquet & El-Kechaï, 2005Barre, V., Chaquet, C., & El-KechaïH. (2005). Re-engineering of collaborative e-learning systems: evaluation of system, collaboration and acquired knowledge qualities. In Proceedings of Workshop on Usage Analysis in Learning Systems, Proceedings of Artificial Intelligence in Education.)

Goodyear et al., 2004Goodyear, P., Banks, S., Hodgson, V., & McConnell, D. (2004). Research on networked learning: An overview. Advances in research on networked learning, 1--9. In an attempt to distance himself from the dominant approaches in e-learning, Goodyear focuses on what he calls networked learning, where technology is used to promote connections between learners and foster communities which make efficient use of their resources. In this context, Goodyear emphasises patterns as a means of empowering practitioners to utilize accumulated design knowledge. His patterns are succinct and written in plain language.

Notable examples in this field include the E-LEN project (http://www2.tisip.no/E-LEN/) and several initiatives within the IMS-LD framework (http://www.imsglobal.org). Most of the work in this area is focused on the engineering aspects of designing, developing, deploying and evaluating good technology for web- based instruction (Frizell & Hubscher, 2002; Hernández-Leo et al, 2006; Bailey et al, 2006)

initiated by a group of experienced software engineering and computer science educators (Bergin, 2000; Eckstein, Bergin & Sharp, 2002). They proposed a set of patterns dealing with issues ranging from the design of a college course to specific principles of computer science instruction and to concrete problems and their solutions.

Problem: Basic concepts must be reviewed over and over, but this gets boring for many students. New concepts must be introduced, but few can handle more than 10-15% new material.

Constraints and Forces: In addition, each student varies in their “learning style”; whether they learn better from doing something, seeing diagrams or demonstrations, or hearing explanations.

Solution: Iterate over a concept several times. Each time, present the material in a different variation on the learning styles. Each time, mix in some new material with the old.

This both maintains students' interest through the review and helps them absorb the new material.

Related Patterns: “Simulation Games” provide an alternative to exercises for the learning style that learns by doing. “Visible Checklist” provides an extra stimulus for the group that learns by seeing. “Colorful Analogy” provides a boost for the learn by hearing group.