Abstract.

Even if eLearning approaches are manifold, specific theoretical and methodological distinctions can be made. Looking at such approaches, they are guided and inspired by Instructional Design or by European didactics. Because of the growing need to develop frameworks, guidelines and to provide support for the development of eLearning, these methodologies need to be examined in detail. Whereas Instructional design models focus mainly on the structural and systematic planning (Reigeluth, 1999) of eLearning the didactics tradition concentrate on the content to be selected, structured and to be offered meaningfully to the learner (Klafki, 2002).

Both methodologies seeking to support the development, planning and conduction of eLearning.  It is apparent that these methodologies based on different educational traditions are influencing each other: in the recent past the U.S. e-learning design theories have become a meaningful part in rich or complex learning environments in Europe (Hillen & Landis, 2014). The analysis of both frameworks will help to detect the essential elements for eLearning applications and reflect mutually unsolved problems within their frameworks themselves. This seems to be urgent because eLearning itself becomes internationalized without scrutinizing specifically its underlying diverse roots.

One example of a European trend, which can be observed in eLearning, is the so-called didactic design. Didactic design is seen as the development of an environment that supports learning from its conceptualizing phase until its evaluation (Kerres, 2007). It is somehow valued as a prescriptive approach that aims at the design and construction of environments to offer learning (Reinmann, 2013). One could ask if this trend is a new semantics that points to a partly inclusion of patterns of ID or if this trend create a platform for a European perspective on eLearning didactics?

The symposium’s objective is to discuss and analyze the today’s approaches for eLearning, within their methodological frameworks.  In specific, it will be asked how eLearning and eLearning situations are framed and shaped by these educational methodologies. In addition, the existing discussion on the change of educational paradigms (content vs outcome) will be included, because it influences today’s eLearning approaches as well.

Hillen, S., & Landis, M. (2014). Two Perspectives on e-Learning Design: A Synopsis of a U. S. and a European Analysis. The international Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning (IRRODL) 15(4). To be retrieved from: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/issue/view/63 Kerres, M. (2006). Didaktisches Design und E-Learning [Didactic design and E-Learning; in German] (pp. 156-182). In D. Miller (Ed.), eLearning. Eine multiperspektivische Standortbestimmung. Bern: Hauptverlag. Klafki, W. (2002). Characteristics of Critical-Constructive Didaktik. In B. B. Gundem, & S. Hopmann (Eds.), Didaktik and /or Curriculum. An international Dialogue (pp. 307-330). Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Meyer, B. (2011). It-didaktisk design (Vol. 2011). Institut for Uddannelse og Pædagogik (DPU). Aarhus Universitet. Porter, W. W., Graham, C. R., Spring, K. A., & Welch, K. R. (2014). Blended learning in higher education: Institutional adoption and implementation. Computers & Education, 75, 185–195. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.02.011 Selander, S. (2009). Didaktisk design. I S. Selander, & E. Svärdemo Åberg (eds.), Didaktisk design i digital miljö: nya möjligheter för lärande (pp. 17-36). Stockholm: Liber. Tennyson, R. D. (2010). Historical Reflection on Learning Theories and Instructional Design. Contemporary Educational Technology, 1(1), 1-16.