2017畢業(yè)論文-教學(xué)網(wǎng)站的設(shè)計(jì)與開(kāi)發(fā)--外文翻譯.doc

本科畢業(yè)設(shè)計(jì)（論文）外文翻譯本科畢業(yè)設(shè)計(jì)(論文)外文翻譯譯文：目標(biāo)導(dǎo)向型的創(chuàng)作方法和設(shè)計(jì)學(xué)習(xí)系統(tǒng)一引言自20世紀(jì)初，教學(xué)設(shè)計(jì)領(lǐng)域的研究人員便關(guān)注了結(jié)合數(shù)字技術(shù)的學(xué)習(xí)環(huán)境的過(guò)程建模。其目的是為了創(chuàng)設(shè)一個(gè)學(xué)習(xí)情境，以描述涉及多個(gè)角色（學(xué)生、教師、導(dǎo)師、設(shè)計(jì)者等）的學(xué)習(xí)情境的組織和計(jì)劃。在國(guó)際水平，各種教育建模語(yǔ)言計(jì)劃都以IMS-LD或LDL的形式實(shí)行。教育建模語(yǔ)言的主要挑戰(zhàn)是提出一個(gè)能夠表達(dá)學(xué)習(xí)情境的最廣泛領(lǐng)域并在學(xué)習(xí)管理系統(tǒng)領(lǐng)域許可自動(dòng)生效的中立并共享形式主義。一個(gè)教育建模語(yǔ)言允許通過(guò)對(duì)學(xué)習(xí)目標(biāo)、職工角色、學(xué)習(xí)過(guò)程中的學(xué)習(xí)者、執(zhí)行的活動(dòng)以及學(xué)習(xí)情境必須的環(huán)境和資源之間的關(guān)系的定義。正如IMS-LD作者自己也注意到的，一個(gè)主要以表達(dá)性和互通性為目標(biāo)的教育建模語(yǔ)言并不是給使用者直接操縱的。為了讓設(shè)計(jì)者表達(dá)他們基于他們自己的商業(yè)導(dǎo)向語(yǔ)言和共享練習(xí)的要求并低價(jià)提高他們自己的情境，具體制作系統(tǒng)是必需的。這個(gè)規(guī)劃主要有兩個(gè)相連的目標(biāo)：首先是提供一個(gè)可以翻譯成教育建模語(yǔ)言的“可計(jì)算”描述；其次是這個(gè)描述可以被共享常用詞匯、學(xué)科知識(shí)和教學(xué)訣竅的“領(lǐng)域?qū)＜摇彼斫?。我們的制作方法是為了更好地重視學(xué)習(xí)情境設(shè)計(jì)者的要求和學(xué)習(xí)情境的“業(yè)務(wù)流程”維度，而這正是系統(tǒng)工程和軟件工程中許多工作的主題。我們已經(jīng)特別關(guān)注了對(duì)某些工作的研究，這些工作涉及目標(biāo)定向需求工程，其中正如羅蘭德和普拉卡什的MAP模型，目標(biāo)誘導(dǎo)被認(rèn)為是軟件系統(tǒng)規(guī)程的入口點(diǎn)。我們的目的是提供制作工具，使得那些緊密聯(lián)系實(shí)踐的教師設(shè)計(jì)者能夠設(shè)計(jì)他們的情境來(lái)表達(dá)意圖和策略。二研究?jī)?nèi)容本研究由格勒諾布爾計(jì)算機(jī)實(shí)驗(yàn)室和巴黎國(guó)家教學(xué)研究所合作完成，緊密聯(lián)系了我們想要實(shí)現(xiàn)的教師小組負(fù)責(zé)的詳細(xì)的實(shí)驗(yàn)?zāi)Ｐ?。這項(xiàng)工作引導(dǎo)我們研究當(dāng)前共享方案的實(shí)踐。一些國(guó)際創(chuàng)制旨在提出方案數(shù)據(jù)庫(kù)，以支持教師之間的實(shí)踐共享和再使用。正如法國(guó)教育部長(zhǎng)提議：這些教師設(shè)計(jì)者數(shù)據(jù)庫(kù)EduBase和PrimTice名單場(chǎng)景索引由不同主題的場(chǎng)域而定。他們的描述非常異構(gòu)：從實(shí)踐的敘述結(jié)構(gòu)到更加形式化。他們的多樣性要求我們對(duì)這些表述能力能夠被被別人理解和能在幾個(gè)實(shí)踐者之間共享。在描述這個(gè)研究之前，更精確的限定我們所關(guān)注的特定類(lèi)型的設(shè)計(jì)者是十分必要的。這些設(shè)計(jì)者正是被要求在學(xué)術(shù)方面-更確切的說(shuō)是在法國(guó)中學(xué)教育體制（包括11至18歲的學(xué)生）中-集成數(shù)碼技術(shù)的教師。我們的“教師設(shè)計(jì)師”很好的掌握了教授領(lǐng)域的知識(shí)，或者可稱(chēng)他們?yōu)檫@些領(lǐng)域的專(zhuān)家。他們通過(guò)一系列特殊的訓(xùn)練來(lái)培養(yǎng)教學(xué)能力（如何保證為目標(biāo)聽(tīng)眾提供特定領(lǐng)域的知識(shí)？），獲取教師資格（如何組織規(guī)范有效的學(xué)習(xí)情景？）他們并未獲益于在計(jì)算機(jī)科學(xué)方面的深入培訓(xùn)，但他們要掌握由國(guó)家認(rèn)證機(jī)構(gòu)規(guī)定的一系列基本技能。一般情況下，他們沒(méi)有負(fù)責(zé)實(shí)施的技術(shù)專(zhuān)家的協(xié)助。此外，他們必須配合工作時(shí)間，抽出一小段時(shí)間利用現(xiàn)有的模式，方法或工具來(lái)開(kāi)發(fā)有效的學(xué)習(xí)解決方案。他們屬于由因特網(wǎng)促成的教師實(shí)踐社團(tuán)，這也為實(shí)踐者們彼此資源的共享提供了新的可能性。他們常被暗指為自己所設(shè)計(jì)的學(xué)習(xí)單元的演員，這一特殊性源于在運(yùn)行階段決定的精確設(shè)計(jì)。 為了捕捉需求，我們要求由五個(gè)中學(xué)教師組成的試驗(yàn)組來(lái)查找和分析網(wǎng)絡(luò)資源中可以作為“學(xué)習(xí)方案”的合格資源。他們的目標(biāo)是能夠再次使用和整合他們自身的領(lǐng)域（包括歷史，經(jīng)濟(jì)科學(xué)，德語(yǔ)，英語(yǔ)，技術(shù)）。第一個(gè)給定的任務(wù)是分析搜索策略，各個(gè)網(wǎng)站根據(jù)自身設(shè)計(jì)目標(biāo)，提供并評(píng)估所獲得的結(jié)果的相關(guān)性。第二項(xiàng)任務(wù)是制定一整套綜合性建議來(lái)改善設(shè)計(jì)程序。一整套的常規(guī)結(jié)論與建議已經(jīng)形成，并且可以觀察每個(gè)學(xué)科的一些具體問(wèn)題。首先，有一個(gè)強(qiáng)烈的異質(zhì)性術(shù)語(yǔ)，是關(guān)于各個(gè)主題間和單一主題下的情景方案。這些條款（情景，相位，活動(dòng)，會(huì)議，娛樂(lè)，行為，能力，技術(shù)訣竅，主題等）很少明確界定，而這也常常會(huì)使他人開(kāi)發(fā)的情景撥款復(fù)雜化。這一事實(shí)強(qiáng)調(diào)更好定義概念的語(yǔ)料處理的重要性，推廣互助性的實(shí)際做法。第二，一些方案描述并不處理類(lèi)似于學(xué)習(xí)知識(shí)或方案之類(lèi)的概念。這種缺乏導(dǎo)致了很難在一個(gè)特定主題中找到相關(guān)方案，并確定設(shè)計(jì)人員的意圖，在大多數(shù)情況下，他們意于解決有關(guān)于學(xué)習(xí)某些特定的知識(shí)，或掌握某些特定問(wèn)題的能力與技巧的問(wèn)題。然后，對(duì)于一個(gè)給定的情況下，教學(xué)或教育方法的策略是不經(jīng)常澄清的（例如，一個(gè)“講解式”方式的選擇或一種更多參與性方式的選擇，就像集體問(wèn)題的解決）。 這種啟發(fā)性的缺乏常常意味著一個(gè)非常完美精確的場(chǎng)景分析將從策略和做法中脫穎而出，這也可能成為一個(gè)重要的選擇標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。最后，教師提出通過(guò)提供典型策略，方案，或是各種細(xì)微情境的數(shù)據(jù)庫(kù)來(lái)簡(jiǎn)化設(shè)計(jì)任務(wù)。上述的每個(gè)組成部分必須附上具體重復(fù)性實(shí)例予以說(shuō)明。在以下部分我們將展示有助于覆蓋這些需求，并為我們的解決方法奠定基礎(chǔ)的理論背景。 三 概念結(jié)構(gòu)的命題 我們所有的觀察研究并非將我們導(dǎo)向一個(gè)對(duì)EMLs模棱兩可的解決方案，而是一個(gè)為非計(jì)算機(jī)專(zhuān)家提供模式，方法和工具以維持設(shè)計(jì)和重復(fù)利用的完善的解決方案。這一課題的第二部分，在此處并未詳細(xì)闡述，主要為不同的EML提供以經(jīng)濟(jì)為導(dǎo)向的模式的翻譯機(jī)制。3.1 理論背景我們的研究主要關(guān)注教師設(shè)計(jì)者的積極性。我們?cè)诋?dāng)前一系列有關(guān)積極性的理論著作的基礎(chǔ)上提出我們的方法。- -活動(dòng)的組織，由俄羅斯心理學(xué)家，例如Leontiev 11提出，規(guī)定了不同等級(jí)的水平（活動(dòng)，行動(dòng)，操作）-賦予活動(dòng)獨(dú)特的，刻意的，策略性及戰(zhàn)術(shù)性的各個(gè)方面。- -已被定位的活動(dòng)的特點(diǎn)，是由Lave 和 Wenger 12研究提出的，他們堅(jiān)定認(rèn)為活動(dòng)再怎樣的情境下進(jìn)行至關(guān)重要。- -常規(guī)和計(jì)劃的重要性成了特殊情境下的周期性問(wèn)題提供典型的解決方案的代表。這些特點(diǎn)已經(jīng)由Schank 和 Abelson在教學(xué)活動(dòng)的情境下專(zhuān)門(mén)研究過(guò)13。 正如前文所提及的那樣，我們也十分關(guān)注近來(lái)關(guān)于的商務(wù)程序工程學(xué)和目標(biāo)定向的需要工程學(xué)的著作，并在學(xué)習(xí)遠(yuǎn)景方案設(shè)計(jì)的特殊情境下為它們提供實(shí)例。 例如，在MAP 模式中 8，一般認(rèn)為目標(biāo)和意圖的概念是一樣的。MAP模式一般被描述為：“地圖是從目標(biāo)驅(qū)動(dòng)的角度來(lái)表達(dá)的程序模型。它為我們提供建立在非確定順序的目標(biāo)和策略基礎(chǔ)上的程序代表體系。地圖是以標(biāo)簽為導(dǎo)向的圖畫(huà)，以目標(biāo)為結(jié)點(diǎn)，以策略為結(jié)點(diǎn)間的棱。”“策略是一種為實(shí)現(xiàn)目標(biāo)而使用的途徑與方式。” 在我們實(shí)驗(yàn)性的情境之下，我們使教師設(shè)計(jì)者們正視這些意圖與策略的概念。將這些概念與他們的常規(guī)應(yīng)用聯(lián)系起來(lái)，他們便能夠精確的定義兩個(gè)不同層面的闡述：首先在教學(xué)層面解決特殊領(lǐng)域知識(shí)的問(wèn)題，其次在教學(xué)法的層面解決組織學(xué)習(xí)情形的問(wèn)題。在各個(gè)層面，他們都能準(zhǔn)確界定目的與策略。在這種背景下，在經(jīng)過(guò)一個(gè)時(shí)長(zhǎng)兩年與教師設(shè)計(jì)者緊密相連的課題研究后，我們逐漸詳細(xì)制定了一個(gè)以商業(yè)為導(dǎo)向的ISiS（意圖，策略，相互作用的環(huán)境）模式。對(duì)不同的著作中提出的在學(xué)習(xí)設(shè)計(jì)方面的方案5, 6進(jìn)行評(píng)估后，我們選擇了在ISiS模式的基礎(chǔ)上發(fā)展繪畫(huà)環(huán)境的ScenEdit14。33.2 在學(xué)習(xí)遠(yuǎn)景語(yǔ)境下的目標(biāo)與策略以協(xié)力完成的學(xué)習(xí)遠(yuǎn)景調(diào)查為基礎(chǔ)，我們用一個(gè)例子來(lái)闡明我們的模式。學(xué)習(xí)遠(yuǎn)景研究致力于“一個(gè)電燈泡的功率”在中學(xué)電學(xué)領(lǐng)域的概念。在這一方案中，教師首先的教學(xué)意圖要打破電學(xué)專(zhuān)業(yè)學(xué)生頻繁出現(xiàn)的誤解-“接近電池會(huì)對(duì)電流的強(qiáng)度產(chǎn)生影響”。圖表2提供了一個(gè)ISiS模式的梗概圖，建議建構(gòu)一個(gè)描述組織方案的設(shè)計(jì)，規(guī)劃對(duì)學(xué)習(xí)單元的執(zhí)行步驟： -目標(biāo)方面允許描述設(shè)計(jì)者的意圖。在我們的領(lǐng)域內(nèi)，意圖與定義目標(biāo)指示條目（概念，觀點(diǎn)，技能，技巧，能力，構(gòu)想，誤解等）的知識(shí)語(yǔ)境密切相關(guān)。對(duì)于設(shè)計(jì)者來(lái)說(shuō)，意圖可以用以增強(qiáng)在電學(xué)方面的特殊技能，也利于對(duì)一些觀念的發(fā)掘，和對(duì)常見(jiàn)的錯(cuò)誤觀念的打破等。- -策略方面與策略的特點(diǎn)有關(guān)。為了實(shí)現(xiàn)在前一水平構(gòu)思的目標(biāo)，設(shè)計(jì)者將選擇他認(rèn)為最合適的策略。其中有兩種特別需要注意的策略：先后順序策略以組織安排邏輯順序（例如一個(gè)科學(xué)調(diào)查策略能被制作為一系列的四個(gè)階段的模型），分配策略為特定的案例策劃不同的解決方案（例如一個(gè)要考慮三種可能的掌握水平的區(qū)分策略）。策略與策略之間能被連續(xù)的改良所結(jié)合：例如一個(gè)先后順序的策略可以使一個(gè)分配策略的個(gè)案更加精確。- -相互作用的環(huán)境方面描述了策略的水平，例如，為實(shí)行所構(gòu)想的目標(biāo)與策略而提出的解決方案。我們認(rèn)為，對(duì)于一個(gè)新的問(wèn)題，教師設(shè)計(jì)者并非從一個(gè)新的特別的方案的片段中重建。就像有關(guān)教學(xué)活動(dòng)13計(jì)劃與常規(guī)的著作所強(qiáng)調(diào)的那樣，在已經(jīng)掌握的解決方案庫(kù)的基礎(chǔ)上，因一些特殊事件的觸發(fā)，教師對(duì)教學(xué)活動(dòng)進(jìn)行計(jì)劃與調(diào)整。同樣的，我們假設(shè)一個(gè)方案設(shè)計(jì)者從他的能力儲(chǔ)備庫(kù)中選擇了適用于他的目標(biāo)與策略的情景。每個(gè)成分，一個(gè)相互作用的情景，是根據(jù)他們相互作用的語(yǔ)境，由一系列特殊角色，工具，資源相互合作的集合組成的。這些情景因著一系列變量，例如能夠被熟練的控制以支持活動(dòng)的資源（文件，工具，服務(wù)）；能夠舉行活動(dòng)的地理位置；活動(dòng)中必須預(yù)定的計(jì)劃元素或?qū)W習(xí)者數(shù)量；能分配的角色。比如說(shuō)，為了使以協(xié)作的方式解答經(jīng)營(yíng)成果階段以及對(duì)遠(yuǎn)程學(xué)習(xí)者提供的方案更加精確，設(shè)計(jì)者可以選擇一個(gè)被稱(chēng)為“經(jīng)過(guò)辯論后達(dá)成共識(shí)的論壇”的典型情況。在另一種情況下，比如在課堂中遇到困難的學(xué)生，他可以選擇一個(gè)更加獨(dú)立的情況，就如在不同可能的建議中，通過(guò)使用MCO工具選擇一個(gè)解決方案。- -在操作方面，允許精確地描述各個(gè)情形的細(xì)節(jié)，例如每個(gè)相互作用的情形的組織和進(jìn)程。如今，EMLs 根本上關(guān)注的是通過(guò)運(yùn)用所提供的語(yǔ)言對(duì)不同的參與者，活動(dòng)以及資源之間的關(guān)系的組織來(lái)描述操作。 ISiS 模式建議詳述上述的幾個(gè)普遍未被當(dāng)前的方法與工具精確定義的方面（目標(biāo)，策略，相互作用）3.3 對(duì)ISiS模式的貫徹：朝靈活的延續(xù)的設(shè)計(jì)程序ISiS結(jié)構(gòu)并非一個(gè)適當(dāng)?shù)姆椒?，也不建議以特殊的順序把設(shè)計(jì)步驟結(jié)合起來(lái)。ISiS 是建立在“方案的各個(gè)方面必須被引出和鏈接來(lái)制定更便易的設(shè)計(jì)、分享和重復(fù)使用”的假說(shuō)之上的。在我們的實(shí)驗(yàn)中，我們分析了由教師設(shè)計(jì)者主導(dǎo)的任務(wù)10。許多設(shè)計(jì)程序可能被展示在我們與教師設(shè)計(jì)者主導(dǎo)的不同的研究中。有些老師可能會(huì)通過(guò)分等級(jí)的定義他們的目標(biāo)、策略和情景等等來(lái)選擇自上而下的方法，然而其他人則更喜歡選擇自下而上從他們想結(jié)合的資源和模式中重建一個(gè)方案。然后，我們的假設(shè)之一是學(xué)習(xí)方案不可能被制作成一個(gè)流線(xiàn)程序的模式而不顯著地減少設(shè)計(jì)者的創(chuàng)造性。根據(jù)設(shè)計(jì)者的類(lèi)型，根據(jù)精確的實(shí)踐社團(tuán)的應(yīng)用，各種目標(biāo)和方法都已被大家分享。所以，資源，教學(xué)方法，典型的情形能夠建構(gòu)一個(gè)能連接設(shè)計(jì)步驟的入口點(diǎn)（例如典型的相互作用情形），設(shè)計(jì)者們可能二選一或遞歸地實(shí)行設(shè)計(jì)任務(wù)。從這一原理出發(fā)，ISiS通過(guò)不同種類(lèi)的工具被連續(xù)貫徹（圖標(biāo)設(shè)計(jì)者或思維構(gòu)圖軟件）。第一步，我們有精心制作的論文格式，來(lái)表達(dá)設(shè)計(jì)的不同方面（知識(shí)語(yǔ)境，情景語(yǔ)境，目標(biāo)，策略相互作用情景，活動(dòng)等）。我們還采用思維構(gòu)圖軟件，其中各個(gè)節(jié)點(diǎn)能描述一個(gè)概念（例如策略，階段，相互作用的情景）而且能通過(guò)特殊的電子格式編輯。四 結(jié)束語(yǔ) 在本文中,我們提出過(guò)的概述,“伊希斯模型為主的商業(yè)過(guò)程”,其目的是為了協(xié)助教師學(xué)習(xí)的設(shè)計(jì)方案和共享和重用青睞的做法。該模型,利用面板co-elaborated的使用者,似乎是有效的,根據(jù)第一次實(shí)驗(yàn)。我們實(shí)際的首要任務(wù)是要試驗(yàn)了專(zhuān)用的創(chuàng)作環(huán)境,我們已經(jīng)開(kāi)發(fā)出從我們的概念模型,血?dú)?。這個(gè)實(shí)驗(yàn)的目的是本質(zhì)上的視覺(jué)呈現(xiàn),以驗(yàn)證我們提出的一個(gè)場(chǎng)景,來(lái)提高系統(tǒng)的以圖案或組件允許新的有效實(shí)踐的分享與再利用。原文： Goal-Oriented Authoring Approach and Design ofLearning Systems1 Introduction Since the beginning of 2000s, a set of researches in the field of Learning Design 1 concerns process modelling of learning situations integrating digital technologies. The purpose is to produce a “l(fā)earning scenario” describing organization and sched- ule of learning situations implying various actors (student, teacher, tutor, designer, etc.). At international level, various proposals of Educational Modeling Languages (EMLs) have been carried out as IMS-LD 2 or LDL 3. The main challenge of EMLs is to propose a neutral and shared formalism, able to express the widest range of learning situations and to be implemented more or less automatically towards specific Informations Systems (called Learning Management Systems). An EML allows the definition of relationships between learning goals, roles of staff and learners in the learning process, performed activities, environment and resources necessary to the learning situation. As noticed by IMS-LD authors themselves 4, an EML, which mainly aims expressiveness and interoperability, is not intended to be directly manipulated by human users. Specific authoring systems 5 must be provided 6 in order to allow designers to express their requirements based on theirown business-oriented languages and shared practices, and to develop at a lower cost their own scenarios. This formulation aims two combined goals: to provide a “computable” description able to be translated in an EML and to be understood by “domain specialists” sharing common vocabulary, disciplinary knowledge and pedagogical know-how. Our authoring approach 5 aims to better take into account learning scenario designers requirements and “business process” dimensions of learning scenario design which are subjects of many works in Systems Engineering and Software Engineering. We have particularly focus our researches on works concerning Goal-Oriented Requirements Engineering 7 where elicitation of goals is considered as an entry point of the specification of software systems as in Rol- land and Prakash MAP model 8. Our purpose is to provide authoring tools allow- ing teachers-designers belonging to close communities of practice to design their scenarios expressing intentions and adopted strategies.This paper is organized in 4 sections following this introduction. In section 2, we describe more precisely our context, our goals and the specificity of our typical audi- ence. Section 3 describes, with an example of scenario, our conceptual framework: ISiS model (Intentions-Strategies-Interactional situations) we propose to structure the design of learning scenarios. Before concluding, section 4 proposes a short compari- son between ISiS and MAP model.2 Context of Research This research, made in collaboration between Laboratoire Informatique de Grenoble and Institut National de Recherche Pedagogique, closely associates panels of teachers in charge to co-elaborate and experiment models we want to implement. This work led us to study existing practices of sharing scenarios. Some international initiatives aim to propose scenarios databases in order to favour sharing and reuse practices between teachers, such as IDLD 9. These databases for teachers-designers, as the one proposed by french minister of education: EduBase and PrimTice list scenarios indexed with different fields depending on the domain or subject. Their descriptions are very heterogeneous: from practice narrations to more structured formalizations. Their diversity has led us to ask ourselves on the ability of these representations to be understood and shared between several practitioners. Before describing this research, it is necessary to qualify more precisely the spe- cific type of designers we focus on: teachers who are called to integrate digital tech- nologies in academic context, more precisely in the French secondary educational system (pupils from 11 to 18 years). Our teacher-designers have a good knowledge of the domain to be taught and can be considered in a certain way as domain-specialists. They have followed a specific training to master didactical competencies (how insure appropriation of domain-specific knowledge for targeted audiences?) and pedagogical competencies (how to organize or regulate efficient learning situations?). They do not benefit of a deep training in computer science; however, they are supposed to master a certain range of basic competencies defined by a national certification. They are generally not assisted by technical specialists in charge of implementation. They have to use existing models, methods or tools in order to develop effective learning solu- tions, generally in a short time compatible with their job. They may belong to a teach- ers community of practice, whose emergence is made easier by Internet, and which allows new possibilities of sharing and reuse between practionners. They are fre- quently implied as actors of the learning unit they design; this particularity may have consequences on the precision of the design where decisions can be carried out at the runtime phase.In order to capture needs, we asked 10 a pilot group of five teachers in secondary school to find and analyse web resources that can be qualified as “l(fā)earning scenarios”. Their goal was to be able to reuse and integrate them in their own domains (history, economical sciences, German, English, technology). The first given task was to ana- lyse search strategies that the various sites provided and to evaluate the relevance of the obtained results considering their own design goals. The second task was to make a synthesis and a set of suggestions which could allow to improve the design process. A set of common findings and proposals have been formulated whereas it is possible to observe some specific concerns for each subject. Firstly, there is a very strong heterogeneity of terminology concerning scenarios between subjects and within a single subject. The terms (scenario, phase, activity, session, play, act, competence, know-how, theme, etc.) are rarely clearly defined and this often complexify the ap- propriation of scenarios developed by others. This fact underlines the importance to dispose of a corpus of better defined concepts to generalize real practices of mutuali- zation. Secondly, some scenario descriptions do not deal with domain concepts such as studied knowledge or programs. This lack makes it difficult to find relevant scenar- ios in a specific subject, and to identify the designers intentions which aim most frequently to solve issues related to learn some particular knowledge or acquire some particular competence or know-how. Then, for a given scenario, the pedagogical or didactical strategy is not often clarified (for example, the choice of an “expositive” approach or the choice of a more participative approach like collective problem solv- ing). This lack of elicitation frequently implies a very precise analysis of the scenario to stand out the strategy or approach which could be an important criterion of choice. Finally, teachers suggest that the design task could be facilitated by providing librar- ies of typical strategies, scenarios, or situations of various granularities. Each of these components should be illustrated by concrete reproducible examples.We present in the following section the theoretical background which can help tocover these needs and on which we base our approach.3 Proposition of a Conceptual Framework All these observations lead us, not to propose an alternative solution to EMLs, but to complete them by offering models, methods and tools to sustain design and reuse by non-computer specialists. A second part of the project, not detailed here, consists in providing mechanisms to translate business-oriented models towards different EML.3.1 Theoretical Background Our research concerns the teacher-designer activity and we base our approach on a set of complementary theoretical works concerning theory of activity: organization of activity, proposed by Russian psychologists such as Leontiev 11, defines hierarchical levels (activity, action, operation) which allow distinguishing intentional, strategic and tactical dimensions in the activity; situated character of the activity, studied by Lave and Wenger 12 insists on the importance of the context in which activities take place. importance of routines or schemas, that represents typical solutions given to recur- rent problems in specific contexts. Those features have been particularly studied by Schank and Abelson in the context of teaching activity 13.As previously said, we also take into account the recent works concerning Business Process Engineering and Goal-Oriented Requirements Engineering and instantiate them in the particular context of learning scenario design.For example, in MAP Model 8, concepts of goal and intention are considered as equivalent. MAP Model is described in these terms: “A map is a process model ex- pressed in a goal driven perspective. It provides a process representation system based on a non-deterministic ordering of goals and strategies. A map is represented as a labeled directed graph with goals as nodes and strategies as edges between goals.” “A Strategy is an approach, a manner to achieve a goal”.In our experimental context, we have confronted teachers-designers with those concepts of intentions and strategies. By linking them to their regular uses, they were able to define two different articulated levels: a first didactical level dealing with domain specific knowledge and a second pedagogical level dealing with organizing learning situations. For each level, they were able to define intentions and strategies.From this background, we have progressively co-elaborated a “business-oriented” model ISiS (Intentions, Strategies, interactional Situations) after a two-year project tightly associating teachers-designers. After evaluation of different authoring solu- tions in learning design 5, 6, we have chosen to develop a graphical environment ScenEdit 14 based upon ISiS model.3.2 Intentions and Strategy in the Context of Learning Scenarios We illustrate our model with an example based on a collaborative learning scenario, LearnElec Scenario dedicated to the concept of “power of a light bulb” in electricity domain at secondary school. In this scenario, the teachers first didactical intention is “to destabilize” a frequently encountered “misconception” of students in electricity which is that “proximity of the battery has an influence on current intensity”.After having elicited his intention, the teacher-designer may choose the appropriate strategy he wants to use to reach this goal. In our example, the didactical intention is implemented with a specific didactical strategy called “scientific investigation strat- egy” composed of four phases: hypothesis elaboration, solution elaboration, hypothe- sis testing and conclusion as you can see on figure 1.Each phase can be performed through various pedagogical modes and can be re- fined by another intention according to the type of activity, the availability of com- puter services, etc. In our example, the first didactical phase “hypothesis elaboration” is refined by a pedagogical intention called “increase the ability to work in a collabo- rative way”. This intention is implemented with a strategy called “elaborating a pro- posal by making a consensus” composed of two phases: “Make an individual proposal” and “Confront proposals. Obtain a consensus”. For each phase, an interac- tional situation can be defined: “Individual proposal on a wiki” and “Argued debate on a forum with consensus”. During these two phases the teacher has an activity of “Group management” symbolized by an interactional situation called “Group management”.In the following section, we present more formally ISiS conceptual model.3.3 Implementation of ISiS Model: Towards Flexible and Continued DesignProcesses ISiS framework is not properly a method and does not propose a specific order to combine design steps. ISiS is based on the hypothesis that all dimensions of a sce- nario (intentions, strategies, situations, activities, resources) must be elicited and interlinked in order to make easier design, appropriation, sharing and reuse. In our experimentations, we have analyzed the tasks led by teachers-designers 10. Several design processes may be considered as shown by different studies we have led with teachers-designers. Some teachers may choose a top-down approach by hierarchically defining their intentions