Design And Technology Tools Pdf
Griffiths, D., Blat, J., Garcia, R., Vogten, H. & Kwong, KL. (2005). Learning Design Tools. In: Koper, R. & Tattersall, C., Learning Design: A Handbook on Modelling and Delivering Networked Education and Training (pp. 109-136). Berlin-Heidelberg: Springer Verlag.
Figures - uploaded by Josep Blat
Author content
All figure content in this area was uploaded by Josep Blat
Content may be subject to copyright.
Discover the world's research
- 20+ million members
- 135+ million publications
- 700k+ research projects
Join for free
Chapter 4. Learning Design Tools.
Chapter 4. Learning Design Tools
David Griffiths, Josep Blat, Rocio Garcia, Hubert Vogten, KL Kwong
Final draft of paper published as:
Griffiths, D., et al., Learning Design Tools, in Learning Design: modelling and implementing
network-based education & training, R. Koper and C. Tattersall, Editors. 2005, Springer Verlag.
p. 109-135.
Introduction
In this chapter we provide an overview of the tools required for working with the IMS Learning
Design (IMS-LD) specification, if it is to be widely adopted. These include editors for creating
Units of Learning (UoLs), run time players, and repositories for storing UoLs.
We first examine the context provided by the Valkenburg Reference Architecture, identifying
those parts which can be handled using general purpose tools, and those which require the
development of tools which are specific to IMS-LD. We then move on to discuss user roles, and
the tools which they require. A framework is offered which enables authoring tools to be
situated in terms of their degree of specialization, and the degree to which they require the user
to work directly with the specification vocabulary and syntax.
We then move on to classify and examine the tools which are specific to IMS-LD which have
so far been produced, or are currently being developed. The discussion is organized as shown in
figure 4.1 below, which indicates the main topics and examples.
Design time
Tree based editors
- Reload
- aLFanet LD
Editor
- Komposer
High level editors
- MOT
- LAMS
Tools for developers
- Enabling framework
- Compliance testing
Run time
Players
- Edubox
- Specialized
players
- Reference
runtime
Tools for developers
- CopperCore
Repositories
Valkenburg Architecture
Specialised tools
Run time
Stylesheet editor.
Design time
Materials
repository
Materials editor
Constraint editor
Stylesheet editor.
Metadata editor
Chapter 4. Learning Design Tools.
Fig. 4.1. Overview of IMS-LD tools
General purpose tools
In the previous chapter we have seen how the Valkenburg Learning Design Reference
Architecture provides a set of subsystems which define the structures and expected behaviors
required by authors and learning managers. It is not necessary to develop specialist Learning
Design tools for all these functionalities, as some can be met by general purpose tools. Indeed,
the OUNL, which develops and delivers large numbers of EML courses to cohorts of learners,
develops and manages its EML UoLs using Adobe Framemaker and other generic tools, and
only the final delivery to the browser is through the specially developed Edubox server
application1 . If Learning Design is to be widely adopted, however, the process of creating and
using UoLs has to be made much easier than can be achieved with generic tools.
Pieces of the Valkenburg Reference Architecture which do not require special
tools
Since the establishment of the reference architecture there has been a tacit agreement among the
members of the Valkenburg Group that the following pieces of architecture do not require the
development of special tools. These are as follows:
•Materials repository. The learning materials used in a Learning Design, such as web pages,
Acrobat documents, Flash documents, etc. do not have any IMS-LD specific characteristics,
and so any generic materials repository may be used to store them. For example DSpace is a
digital library system developed by MIT Libraries and Hewlett-Packard, which is freely
available and open source2. Another alternative is Intralibrary, a Learning-Object
Management System produced by Intrallect3.
•Materials editor. The choice of editor depends on the format used in the materials. No special
IMS-LD features are required, and any of the popular authoring tools may be used, such as
OpenOffice, Microsoft Word, Adobe Acrobat, Macromedia Dreamweaver, etc.
•Constraint editor. In order to limit the range of Learning Designs produced by an institution
or group of users the base IMS-LD schema can be constrained. This both simplifies the
authoring process and ensures pedagogic consistency. This task will typically be carried out
infrequently by expert users. Consequently specialist tools have not been considered
necessary, as expert users are familiar with standard tools which have the required
functionality, such as XML Spy4.
•Stylesheet editor. A runtime player will typically use stylesheets to control the appearance of
UoLs. These may be edited by expert users using generic tools such as XML Spy.
Alternatively a simpler interface could be provided as part of the player. In either case there
is no need to develop a special Learning Design Stylesheet Editor.
•Metadata editor. IMS-LD metadata is handled by the IMS LOM specification. A number of
tools are already available to work with LOM, such as Reload, the Aloha editor, or any
SCORM editor.
With the above functionalities being met by generic tools, the focus of Learning Design
tooling has been on those pieces of the architecture where the development of specific Learning
Design tools is seen to be essential if the development and delivery of UoLs is to be a viable
option for learning professionals and institutions. These elements are
1 See Chapter 16 in this volume, Learning Design Players (Edubox).
2 See http://www.dspace.org/
3 See http://www.intrallect.com/
4 See http://www.altova.com/
Chapter 4. Learning Design Tools.
•Runtime player
•Reference runtime
•Learning Design Editor
•Learning Design Repository
Before moving on to a discussion of these applications, we first provide an overview of users
roles, and reflect on the various tools which they require.
User roles
At a high level of description we identify five basic user roles 5 for IMS-LD tools. These roles
are not exclusive, and users may shift between two or three roles at various times, depending on
the authoring workflow and the pedagogy being used. The roles are outlined below, with a brief
discussion of the types of tools which they require.
1) Learners and teachers participating in educational activities
Learners need to be able to access the learning activities and resources which are appropriate to
their role and their progress within the learning design. Services such as conference systems and
questionnaires also need to be provided, and learners should normally also be able to access
their own learning record and administrative information. Teachers need to be able to launch
activities, monitor the progress of the learners, and intervene in the educational process as
required by the UoL and the dynamics of the learner interactions.
Learners and teachers in this role interact with an application called a player. This accepts a
Learning Design compliant XML file as an input, and generates the corresponding learning
activities. At the appropriate times it provides access to the specified learning objects, tests,
tools, etc., and co-ordinates the learners interactions throughout the duration of the activity.
Players may be specialized in various ways. For example if they are intended to be used in a
clearly defined and constrained pedagogic context they may only need to implement a subset of
IMS-LD,
The interface and appearance of players may need to be specialized for particular pedagogies
and learner groups in order to maximize usability.
2) Staff who set up UoLs to be run with learners
Each time a UoL is used with learners it needs to be set up for a new run. To do this a member
of staff has to enter the learner information for the new cohort, and set a date when the run will
commence. This does not change the UoL itself, and the required functionality is provided by
the player application. These staff members may also need to find appropriate UoLs to run with
a certain cohort of learners, and they will do this by using a repository.
3) Adaptors and assemblers of UoLs
Users in this role are teachers who carry out high level editing to adapt UoLs to their learners'
needs, or to assemble them from high level components. They need to be able to
−search for suitable learning designs which are close to their requirements
−Incorporate new learning resources which they have found or created into the existing UoL
structure.
−Edit the activities to be carried out.
Users in this role use a repository to find suitable UoLs, and components of UoLs.
If they are adapting an existing UoL then they need to be able to be able to edit a subset of
the Learning Design elements which compose that UoL. In practice this will generally involve
modifying a template, which enables them to edit certain exposed elements, for example, the
learning resources used in a UoL. This approach is useful if an institution wants to maintain a
consistent pedagogic approach in classes taught by different teachers, or across subject areas.
5 There are of course others, such as educational administrators, technical support and systems
administrators.
Chapter 4. Learning Design Tools.
Another possible approach is to assemble a sequence of predefined learning activities which
are at a lower level of granularity than an entire UoL, such as "discussion group", "comment on
a text", or "negotiation activity". These activities would be composed of a number of IMS-LD
elements, for example a role part, an activity, an environment and a service, but would appear to
the user as single editable object.6 This approach is valuable when it is desirable to give the
teacher substantial autonomy in defining the pedagogy which she or he wishes to use.
When the new or adapted UoL is ready, the user then needs to be able to preview it in a
player, or in a preview component incorporated into the editor.
4) Designers of UoLs
These users, who may be pedagogic experts, course planners, and learning or instructional
designers, need to be able to define roles, resources and the flow of activities together with the
various branching conditions, either for use as a single design or as a template or component.
These users need access to repositories of learning designs where they can find parts of learning
designs which they can reuse. They also require an editor which enables them to define the
entire range of Learning Design elements. Depending on the tasks which they have to carry out,
they may also need a tool for creating the templates and components for assembly described in
point 3 above. Depending on the workflow used in the design process, tools for specific parts of
the authoring process may be valuable, for example, activity authoring. Finally tools that
support particular learning approaches and pedagogies will be needed. The Learning Design
specification enables a pedagogical scenario which is usually described in terms which do not
have a precise and agreed definition (such as 'constructivist', 'problem solving', or 'drill and test')
to be represented without ambiguity in a form which supports reuse and facilitates the use of
technology. This also means, however, that any given learning design may be understood in
different ways by different users, who participate in different discourses, and may need to
describe it in different ways in order to understand it, and edit it. They may also want
specialized tools which provide them with easy ways to author the structures which are typically
used within their pedagogy. To some extent these needs may be met by templates, but they may
also require more general editors which use particular metaphors and editing techniques and
procedures.
5) Developers of tools for IMS Learning Design
Developers also have their own tooling needs. These include software for testing that the code
produced by editing tools complies with the specification, a reference runtime implementation
to ensure consistent interpretation of the specification when creating run time systems, and
engines and libraries to assist in the development process.
A framework for situating IMS Learning Design authoring tools
We now focus on authoring tools and situate them along to axes, according how closely their
interface follows the specification, and their degree of specialized focus.
Higher vs. lower level tools
The tools described for the five categories of user above vary greatly in the degree to which they
require users to be knowledgeable about the specification. As mentioned in the section on
general purpose tools above, UoLs are sometimes created with a general purpose XML editor.
An author working with such a tool has to have a detailed knowledge of the elements of
Learning Design and their function in order to create a UoL, and has to provide both the
Learning Design elements and their values. Such an author is working at a low level, as close as
possible to the specification. This is not, however a typical situation for a Learning Design
author. The XML binding for IMS-LD was created as an interoperable machine readable
6 For an example of this assembly approach see the section on LAMS below. Please note, however, that
LAMS is not at present IMS Learning Design compliant.
Chapter 4. Learning Design Tools.
format, and when it was proposed was not envisaged that people would author UoLs directly
with the XML7. Authoring tools need to represent authors work with the specification in a way
which is appropriate to the user. This applies to both experts in the specification and those who
know nothing about it, but the interfaces and support which they require vary greatly.
XML experts will be helped in authoring Learning Design documents by having access to
tools which enable them to easily access the parts of an Learning Design document on which
they want to work, avoid them having to enter repetitive text, and to have their document
checked for integrity. The ability to work close to the specification may be particularly valuable
in debugging UoLs. The users of these low level tools include professional producers of
educational resources, and technical support staff within educational institutions.
Other authors will find the structures and terminology of Learning Design incomprehensible,
and need high level tools which have vocabularies and representations that they recognize. Thus
teachers, designers, etc. are familiar with terms such as lesson, curriculum, and so on, and need
to be able to specify and visualize their designs in these terms, which do not necessarily have a
direct equivalent in Learning Design. It should be noted that while terminology is an important
aspect of this issue, it is also the case that the categories do not always match. Thus while the
everyday concept of learner has a formal equivalent in Learning Design, the same is not true of
homework, lesson plan, curriculum and other everyday educational terms. It will greatly help
users who are not technical experts if they can be given assistance in mapping such concepts
onto the formal language of learning design. Thus a spectrum of tools may be established, going
from those which are presented in terms and structures which remain close to the specification,
and those which are presented in non-formal colloquial terms which are distant from the
specification and use a hidden mapping between the users' interactions and the Learning Design
document which is being edited8. Similarly a variety of interfaces which are distant from the
specification may be required to represent the learning design within the concepts and
terminology which are accepted within a particular pedagogic practice.
General purpose vs. specific purpose tools
As has been observed above in the section on user roles, not all users need access to the whole
specification. In a context where a users role in a workflow means that they only have to
perform certain kinds of action the complexity of tools can be greatly reduced by only
presenting users with the functionality which they need. Similarly in institutions with a clearly
defined pedagogic approach more tightly focused tools guide authors towards a particular type
of UoL are appropriate. This can be achieved using constrained schemas, or templates, or
environments where UoLs can be constructed out of predefined components. On the other hand
some authors require access to the whole of IMS-LD. Pedagogy specialists and experts in areas
of knowledge who create new Units of Learning, fall into this category, as do specialists in the
technical aspects of UoL authoring and delivery.
These two axes create a quadrant within which tools may be situated, as shown in figure 4.2
below.
The need for tools in all four quadrants depends on the context within which Learning Design
is to be implemented, and the perspectives one has of the purpose and application of Learning
Design. As has been explained in chapter 2, Learning Design emerged from OUNL EML, and
was developed by a large scale distance learning provider, where UoLs are produced by large
teams of experts. In this environment the production of courses (both traditional and eLearning)
usually involves a large budget, and the involvement of teams of professionals, including
experts in the subject area, pedagogy, design and technical issues. This team based workflow,
for example, is current practice in the development of EML based courses at OUNL, the only
institution which has so far produced EML or Learning Design courses on a large scale, and it is
carried out with general purpose tools which are close to the specification.
7 Bill Olivier, who is one of the authors of the specification,. Personal communication.
8 Spanish speaking readers will find a discussion of this issue in relation to IMS-QTI in Evaluación de
una aplicación sencilla de eLearning (Sayago 2004)
Chapter 4. Learning Design Tools.
Fig. 4.2. Two dimensions of IMS Learning Design tool design
While Learning Design was developed in the context of large scale institutional development,
however, it also has the potential to be applied in other contexts, indeed this was part of the
intent in providing it as a general use specification. In particular Learning Design is significant
in the potential it has for representing the range of teachers' practice. Previous eLearning
standards have often been seen by teachers as forcing learning designers to adopt the "conduit"
metaphor for learning9 which focuses on the role of content while it marginalizes or constricts
the actions of the teacher.10. In contrast one of the great strengths of Learning Design is that it
can be used to capture teachers' practice, and make it available to learners and other teachers in
a standard and machine readable way. The enthusiasm which many teachers for sharing their
practice was shown some years ago by the very much more informal repositories set up using
Apple's Unit of Practice methodology, described by Debra Rein (Rein 2000). From this
perspective a general purpose authoring tool for non experts is clearly important. Such a tool
would have potential application even outside the context of eLearning, as there is at present no
standard way of describing teaching practice or planning for learning activities, and Learning
Design is well placed to provide meet this need, as discussed by McAndrew and Weller in
Chapter 14 of this volume. Thus there may be a use for such tools even if the Learning Designs
9 This metaphor is identified by Lakoff as being: Ideas (or meanings) are objects, linguistic expressions
are containers, communication is sending (Lakoff, 1980)
10 This was the case in the Prometheus Conference 2002 in Paris, where David Griffiths, one of the
present authors, was a raporteur. The education professionals who participated saw standards as vital,
but also controversial and dangerous. Particular concerns were raised about the restrictions imposed by
the standards, the bias inherent in the tools used to implement them, and the idea that eLearning
standards make it possible to carry out education without teachers in the same way that the Jacard
loom made weavers redundant.
http://www.prometeus.org/PromDocs/hb_arttic_be_15-10-02_16-24-15.ppt
Users:
Teachers adapting units
of learning. Authors of
new units of learning with
constrained pedagogy or
learning resources
Tools :: Custom built,
database driven.
Users:
Course authors.
Subject experts.
Tools:
Extensive multi-featured
applications with
run time simulation
Users:
Technical support in
educational institutions.
Content generation experts.
Tools:
Generic XML editors.
Unconstrained LD editors
Users:
Technical support for
teachers and learners
Tools :
Constrained LD editors
Specialized schemas
Close
to
specification
Distant
from
specification
Chapter 4. Learning Design Tools.
produced are never run in a player for learners, or are processed to generate printed lesson plans
and handouts.
The contrast between these perspectives serves to remind us that tools are not neutral, and
that they both emerge from and, in turn, modify the socio-cultural context in which they are
developed and used11. Consequently it is to be expected that a number of different approaches to
Learning Design tooling will emerge, and indeed the first indications of such distinctions may
already be discerned in the developments described in this chapter. This spectrum is not unique
to Learning Design, and the same is true, for example, of HTML tools. Indeed that precedent
suggests that the easiest tools to create, and the earliest to be produced, are those which
correspond closely to the specification, while it takes an intense design effort and several
iterations to produce a tool which is effective for the non-technical user and which produces
well formed code.
Design time tools
Tree based editors
A tree based editor presents the of elements of IMS-LD as a branching tree. An interface is
provided to enable the author to navigate through the tree, and to enter values for the elements.
A good example of an editor of this type is the Perot LD Editor12. This was the first tool to be
designed to edit EML, the specification which it currently supports, but it is not been marketed.
It was designed as a tool for expert users who handled the technical aspects of UoL authoring,
while others were responsible for pedagogic design and resource authoring.
IMS-LD does not stand alone, it builds on and integrates other IMS Specifications, notably
Content Packaging but also Meta-Data, IMS-QTI and Simple Sequencing. Tree based editors
are often used for these specifications, and so it is natural to extend this approach to IMS-LD.
There is a particularly strong link between Learning Design and IMS Content Packaging, and
this is made clear in paragraph 2.2.3 of the IMS-LD Information Model (IMS Global Learning
Consortium, Inc, 2003) which states that "The primary use of IMS-LD is to model units of
learning by including an IMS Learning Design in a content package". In some respects this
association is more of a marriage of convenience than a structural relationship, as is discussed
by other authors in this volume, but nevertheless, this has led to the design of tools which enable
users to author both specifications. As CP is both simpler than Learning Design and also of
wider application, it is a natural choice to take a tagging tool which works for CP, and then add
Learning Design functionality. This has been the approach taken by both RELOAD and GTK
Komposer.
Both these applications provide users with access to the elements of CP, and enable them to
navigate through a tree structure which directly reflects the specification, adding parameters and
resources. To this extent they are "close to the specification", but they are some distance away
from the base line. Reload does not require the user to edit any XML code, simply to drag
resources into a tree structure, leaving the application to generate all the code to represent the
tree. Moreover Reload inspects the resources included by the author and manages all the
references to the components of those resources. For example if an HTML resource is used, all
the references to image files will be identified and handled transparently, without the author
having be aware of it. This is a good solution for Content Packaging, as the specification is
relatively simple. In adding Learning Design to a "close to the specification" Content Packaging
editor, however, as is planned for Reload, or in creating a new editor using the same principal,
such as ALFanet, the increase in complexity is considerable, as is made clear in paragraph 2.3
of the IMS-LD Information Model (IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc, 2003).
11 This interaction has been illuminated by Activity Theory, particularly by Engeström (Engeström
1987).
12 The Perot LD editor is discussed in Chapter 20 of this volume, Two Exploratory Case Studies.
Chapter 4. Learning Design Tools.
"a 'unit of learning' represents more than just a collection of ordered resources to learn, it includes a
variety of prescribed activities (problem solving activities, search activities, discussion activities, peer
assessment activities, etcetera), assessments, services and support facilities provided by teachers, trainers
and other staff members. Which activities, which resources, which roles and which workflow is
dependent on the learning design in the unit of learning."
Less expert users can cope with the relatively simple structures of Content Packaging, in part
because the process of building a content package is analogous to the familiar task of building
an index, and a tree is an intuitive representation of this. IMS-LD structures are much more
complex, and the trees are correspondingly extensive, and their relationship with the end
product more obscure. In IMS-LD, moreover, the creation of properties and conditions falls
outside the scope of the tree metaphor, and as a result tree based editors are much less intuitive.
These users may be lost when confronted by the much more complex Learning Design
structures, where the trees are much more extensive, and their relationship with the end product
much more obscure.
Because of these circumstances the ALFanet Learning Design Editor, which uses a tree based
interface, is intended for users who already know the Learning Design specification in detail.
Like Komposer, this editor is embedded in another application which provides it with services,
but in contrast to the Microsoft Word and Web services solution used by Komposer, ALFanet is
built on top of the Groove peer to peer application.
Given this degree of complexity, the designers of such tree based tool interfaces for Learning
Design need to consider how they can maximize the support for authors in understanding the
specification and the editing actions which they are being invited to perform. This may be
through templates, automatic completion of elements with default values, drop down menus, or
in terms of changing the vocabulary from that used in the specification to one which is more
familiar to their working context. The ALFanet editor provides basic support for authors by
ensuring that any file which it generates is valid by filling in the non optional fields with
defaults. Reload will provide additional support by presenting the interface for authoring in a
series of modules. The screen layout for the Play/Act/Role-part editor is shown in figure 4.3.
Fig. 4.3 Proposed author's View of an LD Play / Act / Role-part Builder
Komposer, under development at the time of writing, establishes a quite different trade off
between power and ease of use. The strength of this approach is that it is strongly focused on the
needs of a particular user group: teachers and other content creators with limited technological
skills. It supports them by offering them predefined pedagogic activities, and a workflow which
takes them from authoring to delivery.
Chapter 4. Learning Design Tools.
In the Komposer Authoring Platform, which is a tree based editor, the complexity of the task
facing the author is reduced by restricting Units of Learning to one role and a single path, and
using a interface which is familiar from another context for authoring.
In creating Web based learning resources, authors often format their content to provide the
look and feel they see appropriate. (Bartz, 2002), and Komposer builds on this familiarity with
the use of styles for Web resources. Microsoft Word is used as the authoring platform as it
presents a WYSIWYG front end to the authors, and provides familiar formatting tools to
minimize the training effort which may be foreseen when users start to adopt the system. Within
this familiar context a UoL template is provided using Word styles, which constrains the
complexity (and expressive power) presented to the author by restricting Units of Learning to
one role and a single learning path. Several generic Word templates (DOT files) are provided in
the Authoring Platform so that the users can work within the IMS-LD structures given in the
templates. Users familiar with the Learning Design Learning Activity Structure may develop
their own templates for the writers.
Figure 4.3 below shows how this approach results in a template structure which is a great
deal more approachable for a non-expert content than is a full featured editor such as Reload or
ALFanet LD Editor.
Support for users of the Authoring Platform is also provided by situating the IMS-LD
authoring process within the wider Komposer workflow. This guides authors to (i) prepare their
manuscripts in Word; (ii) use the "Styling" function to disaggregate the documents into smaller
modules and to provide the look and feel of the course; and (iii) use the "Insert" function to
aggregate other external and web resources. When the course document is completed, the CP-
Generator of the authoring platform, the Komposer® Suite, converts the Word document into a
set of XHTML files according to the styles provided in the document. A manifest is generated at
the same time, and the organization structure is defined in accordance with the layout used in
the Word document. The location of the resulting resource files is listed in the manifest. A
Content Packaging Editor is provided to edit the metadata, the organization structure of the
manifest, and to add and delete the resources files. A Player will be included in the tool to play
any IMS Content Packaging compliant packages.
Fig. 4.4. The Komposer Authoring Platform
Higher level general purpose editors
For some purposes tree based editors will not be satisfactory, however much support is provided
for the user, and an interface will be required which is further from the specification. One of the
reasons for this is that Learning Design specification addresses real world problems of learning
and teaching, and seeks to resolve them by harnessing the power of a formal language. Thus a
pedagogical scenario which is usually described in terms which do not have a precise and
Chapter 4. Learning Design Tools.
agreed definition (such as 'constructivist', 'problem solving', or 'drill and test') can be
represented without ambiguity in a form which supports reuse and facilitates the use of
technology. This also means, however, that any given learning design may be understood in
different ways by different users, who may want to describe it in different ways. Consequently
there is a need for high level tools which enable authors to define learning designs in terms of
their own pedagogic skills and experience.
These can be either general editors, which give authors access to the full power of the
specification (with the accompanying complexity which this brings) or editors for specific
purposes or constrained pedagogic approaches. Such tools typically reveal the structure of a
UoL in graphical terms, so that designers (and particularly non-expert designers) can obtain an
overview, and navigate to the parts which they want to edit. The nature of this representation,
and the forms which it might take, is one of the most interesting (and open) issues around the
design of tools for Learning Design authors. One possible solution is the use of UML as an
authoring tool, as this is already used in best practice in designing UoLs. This is, however,
unlikely to be a universal solution. Firstly, it requires users to learn UML, and, secondly,
because authors conceive of UoLs in many different ways, a variety of graphical representations
will be needed to support these different approaches to teaching and learning.
A particularly interesting example of a general purpose high level editor is the MOT+ system
described by Paquette teal. in the chapter An Instructional Engineering Method and a Modeling
Tool to Build IMS-LD Specifications in this book, They describe how the high level graphical
editor MOT+ can configured as an Learning Design editor, and the learning designs created
within MOT+ can be exported as Learning Design XML files. As their chapter provides a
detailed description of the system, we do not discuss it in detail here. It should be noted,
however, that their work is significant, not only because it provides an example of a powerful
and expressive high level IMS-LD editor, but also because the structures of IMS-LD are
mapped onto a graphic language which appears to be very remote from the specification. Indeed
the graphic language used was established some years prior to the publication of the IMS-LD
specification, as the fruit of many years of practice in defining instructional design structures.
The ability to produce valid Learning Designs from this system clearly demonstrates that the
metaphors and structures used to define Units of Learning can be quite distinct from the terms
and structures used in the specification. This authoring system is therefore distant from the
specification in the terms we have described. In their chapter Paquette et.al. provide a specific
example of this, showing how the Versailles Negotiation in the IMS-LD Best Practice Guide
(IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc, 2003) can be represented in MOT+. The challenge to be
addressed by tools developers is to identify the metaphors and procedures which are most
appropriate for the various user groups, both in terms of their skills and understanding Learning
Design, but more importantly their traditions of educational practice.
Specialized high level editors
MOT+, described above, provides a powerful graphical language which aims to provide
learning designers with the tools which they require to define any structure which they may
need. There is, however, an irreducible level of complexity in editing Learning Design
documents, in part because of the wide range of structures and properties, and in part because of
the formality of a learning design. Some authors will prefer to have a more constrained editor,
which meets their needs without providing them with access to the whole of Learning Design.
This is the role of specialized high level editors.
Templates for learning designs
For teachers who simply want to be to be able to teach with online resources, using one of a few
basic pedagogic models it is very helpful to have templates which provide a range of
pedagogical structures which they can populate with resources and learners. It is to be hoped
that a range of IMS-LD templates will develop as the specification becomes more widely
adopted, and that these will cluster around particular communities of teachers and learners.
Chapter 4. Learning Design Tools.
The first tool which provides explicit support for templates is EduploneLearningSequence, an
open source authoring and runtime player application released under the GNU General Public
License. In the workflow established by the application, the topics required in a learning
environment are identified, and then templates which define the pedagogic models to be used by
the learner are added. This makes it easy to produce multiple ways of sequencing the same
learning resources13. The learning strategies supported range from guided tours of the resources,
to more explorative strategies, and are based on the vocabulary of didactic metadata in
Webdidactics14 , which has been adopted by the developers. Within Eduplone these strategies can
be altered, and new strategies added, by scripting in the Python language. The results are
intended to be delivered to the learner through an Eduplone server, which functions as a
specialized IMS-LD player. Both authoring tools and runtime are delivered through a web
interface. The Units of Learning which are created by the system can, however, be exported as
standard Learning Design XML files, and can be run on any compatible player.
To support this functionality the developers have used Python to implement a subset of IMS-
LD. The system is built on the Plone content management system, which in turn uses the Zope
server infrastructure.
Similarly eLive Learning Design, a German based company, in co-operation with cogito
GmbH, has released an integrated Learning Design toolset for design, documentation and
optimization of didactic scenarios, called "eLive LD-Suite". The documentation for this suite
states that it also makes use of pre-modeled methodical structures, templates and pedagogic
patterns, while enabling the user to extend the existing repository and interchange effective
patterns and scenarios.
LAMS
LAMS (Learning Activity Management System) is also a specialized high level editor, but
unlike EduploneLearningSequence it takes as its starting point the sequencing of a set of preset
activities, rather than the application of pedagogic templates to content. LAMS is produced by
WebMCQ and Macquarie E-learning Centre of Excellence (MELCOE) Macquarie University,
AUSTRALIA. It does not at present produce or run IMS-LD code, but is explicitly inspired by
Learning Design, and is designed to illustrate examples of the approach taken by the
specification, as discussed by Dalziel in Chapter 17 of this volume and in a related paper
(Dalziel 2003). LAMS is has a full run time system and learner administration facilities, but as
it is not a compliant system much of the detail is not relevant to this chapter. The component for
teacher authoring/adaptation of sequences is, however, a valuable example of how a specialized
high level Learning Design editor could function. The author can drag and drop items onto a
flow chart. In LAMS these items are called "activities", but the word is used differently from
the same term in IMS-LD, and so avoided here. The items include synchronous discussion
(chat), web polls, students posting material and structured debates. Learning resources can be
added, and a series of online lessons can be planned and run. The components which can be
used are fixed, but these cover many of the basic activities carried out in the classroom. This use
of familiar elements makes the application easy for teachers to comprehend, as this is the way
that conventional lessons are planned.
Thus the LAMS authoring application is specialized in the sense that it offers a set menu of
learning activities which can be sequenced. If the proposed Learning Design compliance were
added, then it would be an appropriate tool for the assemblers of UoLs described in point 3 of
the section User Roles above. Some of the items assembled in LAMS would, if implemented in
13 A similar approach was taken in the SCOPE project. For further information, see Chapter 20 of this
volume, and http://www.tecn.upf.es/scope/
14 Webdidaktik was developed by Norbert Meder (now: University of Duisburg-Essen) and his team
during the project "L3 - Lebenslanges Lernen", a major research project funded by the German
ministry of education and research. Webdidaktik combines theoretical approaches of educational
theory, media theory and knowledge organization. A multidimensional ontology of didactical metadata
is used for organizing learning resources. For some of the core concepts see:
http://www.eduplone.net/concepts/webdidaktik/
Chapter 4. Learning Design Tools.
IMS-LD, require the combination of, for example, an environment and a service in a single
entity which to a higher level user appears to be a single object. Indeed one of the valuable
contributions of LAMS has been to make clear the need for a lower level tool for the creation of
these reusable items.
Fig. 4.5. The LAMS authoring component
Tools which are standards compliant, but not standards oriented.
It may that if teachers are to work effectively with high level tools, then they will need to
manipulate IMS-LD in combination with other specifications. For example it may be useful to
have a reusable item which combines an evaluation activity using IMS-QTI integrated with the
use of a learning resource. This functionality should be transparent to teachers who adapt and
reuse components, who should not need to know that at one point they are generating IMS-QTI
and at another Learning Design. In other words, for many purposes tools for the end user
(teacher or learner) should be standards compliant (in their outputs), but not standards oriented
(in their interface). Such tools should be designed in terms of the tasks which they carry out,
rather than being structured according to the enabling technology, in this case the IMS suite of
eLearning standards. The development of tools which can create reusable components which
make use of a number of complementary specifications is clearly a significant challenge.
An enabling framework for editor development
The creation of an all encompassing Learning Design Editor is a major development project,
which may be beyond the capabilities of a single organization. The Valkenburg Group
Reference Architecture documentation also discusses the way that this problem may be
overcome, by creating an LD editor "framework" in which the various components of an editor
can be "plugged in". It is proposed that there should be two frameworks; one that controls the
underlying data model of the Learning Design instance, and another that handles the
management of the user interface. The data model layer is also a logical point at which to
enforce constraints, either embedded within the application by incorporating XML schema
checking, or through delegation to an external constraint handling service.
Chapter 4. Learning Design Tools.
Plug-In tools provide controllers and views that fit into the presentation layer framework, and
access the instance data model through the Learning Design model framework. This architecture
is shown in Figure 4.6
Fig. 4.6. Plug-in framework for a Learning Design Editor.
Each Plug-In can provide a particular kind of authoring capability, such as managing roles,
activities or environment (see Figure.), while variations on the same authoring task can also be
provided for different levels of user. For expert users, the editor could also have a "Raw
Learning Design" Plug-In that simply allowed direct editing access to the underlying XML
representation. Other types of Plug-In might include a package that provides import and export
of SCORM files, and a package to support access to the Learning Designs Repository and
Materials Repository.
In actual deployment the two frameworks can be placed behind a single interface or façade to
assist plug-in development. The end result is a tool set for developers which enables them to
avoid handling all the underlying processes involved in manipulating Learning Design
structures, and to focus on the user interface of the editing tool which they are creating. This
greatly facilitates the creation of editing tools for a wide range of different users, with varying
metaphors, pedagogies, scope, terminology, etc.
Open Source Java libraries for developers
A number of libraries and engines have been developed which can be used as the basis of the
Learning Design Model Layer. The simplest approach is to hard code the data model, and
makes it available to programmers, and this was how the open source LD libraries created by
the Interactive Technologies Group of Universitat Pompeu Fabra were produced15. This has the
advantage of simplicity but may be hard to maintain and not easily extendable.
UPF to add a description of the library.
15 This work was carried out in the context of the SCOPE project, funded by the European Community.
For further information see www.tecn.upf.es/scope.
Chapter 4. Learning Design Tools.
The Reload approach
The RELOAD project takes a more complex approach. This responds to the need to allow for
specializations of the schemas to be used for authoring specific UoL templates, and to respond
to possible changes to the specification which will be reflected in the XML Schema files. If the
XML schema has been hard coded, or tied Java class bindings used, then the code will also have
to be in these circumstances. A more generic and maintainable approach is to use the IMS
Schema as the driving data model document. In RELOAD reusability and general application
are enhanced by reading, parsing and modeling a Schema as a Document Object Model
(DOM)16 This schema DOM is used to generate an editable instance DOM which can hold the
entries made by the user.
The advantage of this approach is that a framework is provided which can be applied to the
whole range of IMS specifications, providing a framework which maximizes ease of
development and maintenance of editors for Learning Design and other IMS specifications.
Fig. 4.7. The RELOAD architecture
Run time tools
Learning Design players: delivering the Unit of Learning to the learner
Users in the learner role interact with a Learning Design player, described in point 3 of
User Roles above. Players may be stand alone applications, or a component of a more
extensive environment, and the output to the learner is typically a Web page.
At the time of writing the only full player available is Edubox, produced by Perot for the
Open University of the Netherlands, which works with EML and does not accept Learning
Design input. This situation may change in the future, as Blackboard Inc have signed a strategic
alliance with OUNL with the aim of incorporating Edubox, into Blackboard products, and to
supporting IMS-LD.
16 See
Chapter 4. Learning Design Tools.
Edubox is the delivery system used by the OUNL in all their on-line courses, This player has
been important in the development of Leaning Design as it has demonstrated that the concepts
underlying EML and Learning Design are valid, and that their use as a solution for a large scale
education institution is effective. Edubox is a solution developed to meet the needs of a large
institution, and has to cope with a large number of courses and users. Consequently it is a robust
and scalable system built to industrial standards using IBM's Web Sphere platform. Edubox is
not available on the open market, as Perot Systems Netherlands is principally a solutions
provider rather than a software vendor, but the system can be made available to their clients. It
should be noted that they are confident that it would not be a major development task to adapt
the system to run with Learning Design, using an XSLT stylesheet transformation.
Specialized players
As mentioned above, it is possible to create players for specific purposes which do not
implement the whole of Learning Design. Indeed, the division of Learning Design into three
parts, A, B and C, is specifically intended to make it possible to implement the core
functionality in A without necessarily incorporating the additional features in levels B and C.
The EduploneLearningSequence player is an example of a specialized player, only
implementing those parts of Learning Design which are required to run designs produced by the
pedagogic templates in the editor (see below).
Learning Design reference Runtime
Learners and staff are not the only users of Learning Design players. When an author is creating
a learning design it is not easy to envisage how this will appear to a learner when it is run by a
player. This is not only because the XML code which makes up a Unit of Learning is hard to
understand. If this were the case a simple preview function in the editor (as used in HTML
editors) would resolve the problem. The problem is that the interactions between learners, and
with the Unit of Learning, create many properties and states which are not explicitly stated in
the Learning Design, but are the product of contingencies when the UoL is run. These have to
be tracked in run time, as is well explained in the white paper by Hubert Vogten on the
CopperCore Learning Design Engine (LDE), provided as an appendix to this volume. This
document is essential reading for those who want to understand the way in which a UoL is
delivered. Vogten gives the example of the "completion" status of a particular user at a
particular time, as a property which is not present in the Unit of Learning, and has to be
generated by the player. An author clearly needs an understanding of how these properties will
be handled by the run time system, and this is the function of a reference runtime player. This
provides Learning Design authors with a simple and authoritative view of how their design will
behave, and provides a benchmark for Learning Design players, which should provide the same
basic output, though they may present it in many different ways. There is no reference runtime
player available for Learning Design at the time of writing, but the CopperCore engine provides
an ideal platform for constructing one. This is a high priority in the development of Learning
Design tooling17.
Repositories
One of the fundamental goals of IMS-LD is to support interoperability, reuse and sharing of
learning resources. If this is to be achieved then users need an infrastructure which enables them
to identify and exchange UoLs, and this is the role played by repositories. To ensure that reuse
and sharing can contribute to effective educational practice, it is also essential that users can
17 The Reload project team (www.reload.ac.uk) plan to produce a reference runtime player based on
CopperCore.
Chapter 4. Learning Design Tools.
easily find UoLs which are appropriate to their needs, and repositories can facilitate this
process.
There are many repositories which can store UoLs, together with metadata which describes
them, which can then be searched by potential users. A simple first step in creating an Learning
Design repository would be to reach agreement on how to identify a UoL within the metadata,
and so enable users to search specifically for them. In addition, a repository which can parse the
structure of a content package will have the potential to identify UoLs within searches. This is
an elegant way of finding UoLs, but is a less general solution, as it is only applicable to learning
designs which have been packaged using CP, and is not applicable to fragments such as acts.
These approaches are sufficient for many purposes, but there are also good reasons for
building Learning Design awareness into repositories themselves.
1. An IMS-LD aware repository could provide a number of specialized services. For example, it
could provide an ontology of IMS-LD by using templates and good practice examples, or
offer searches for UoLs that have been used with a certain kind of content. It would also be
possible to add a degree of intelligence to the repository, so that it could it could be used to
search for UoLs with a similar pedagogy, or for content that has been used in similar
Learning Designs
2. If a user wants to retrieve a fragment of a UoL so as to incorporate it into their own learning
design, then the repository needs to understand the structure of Learning Design in order to
provide the elements which make up that fragment. For example, if the searcher wants to
retrieve an act, then the repository needs to deliver all the elements of which it is composed,
such as learning resources and roles. This awareness would also be required if an author
wants to point at an act using an XML inclusion, as proposed by W3C 18, and so include it in a
UoL at runtime.
3. An IMS-L aware repository can also provide information to the user on how learning
resources have been used in other UoLs, getting a valuable perspective on the nature of those
resources.
4. The repository could also store metadata provided by users, on what UoLs have been used for
and how successful they were, as this is very valuable information for both learners and
teachers.
The Repository to Reality project, funded by the National Research Council of Canada, is
making a contribution to these issues, and in one of its lines of action Dr. Tom Carey,
University of Waterloo is developing a controlled vocabulary for the description of UoLs. This
is an important first step towards the implementation of repositories for IMS-LD.
Desirable additional functionality includes natural language processing capability, so that
users can search for UoLs which are in a language which they do not understand. Not only may
they want to obtain a translation of the UoL, or use it with learners who do understand it, they
may also be able to reuse fragments of the UoL as it stands. In the medium term the
development of the semantic web will no doubt open up many new possibilities for Learning
Design repositories.
Tools for developers
Learning Design Engine for player development
The development of an IMS-LD player is complex, because the application has to handle
activity scheduling, and keep track of the states of the various learners and activities over time.
Developers need to be relieved of the burden of dealing with these complex issues is they are to
be freed so they can concentrate on the creation of innovative interfaces of a user player. To
meet this need the Learning Design Engine (LDE), was developed by the Open University of
the Netherlands. The LDE is an open source reference implementation of the complex core of a
18 XML Inclusions (XInclude) Version 1.0, W3C Candidate Recommendation 13 April 2004. Available
at http://www.w3.org/
Chapter 4. Learning Design Tools.
player. This is described in detail in an appendix to this volume, and so only an overview is
provided here.
LDE is not itself a player, since all user interface aspects are explicitly excluded from its
scope. Rather, it implements what experience at OUNL has shown to be the biggest hurdle to
development of IMS LD-aware software—the runtime maintenance of individuals' activity lists
as acts and activities complete, properties are changed and their consequences propagated
through conditions, as time limits expire, etc, in both single user and multi-role, multi-user
situations.
LDE is best viewed as a running software process which takes an IMS unit of learning as a
content package as input then responds to queries posed it to according to a published API. The
engine can, for example, return the 'activity tree' for a given individual in a given role at a
given point in the lifetime of a run of a unit of learning. Data is returned as XML, allowing
freedom to transform the results using XSLT into any number of user interfaces. A first
implementation supporting IMS-LD Level A and known as 'CopperCore' was made available
in February 2004. The software is written in Java™ and makes use of the open source J2EE™
Application Server JBoss and the open source database PostgreSQL.
Compliance testing
An important tool for developers is an application which certifies compliance with the
specification. This enables them to test the output of editor applications and ensure that it
conforms to the same criteria for compliance as that used by other developers, thus greatly
improving the prospects for effective interoperability. The TelCert19 project, funded by the IST
program of the European Commission, is developing a testing and conformance system which
will include IMS-LD.
Conclusion
In our discussion of IMS-LD tooling we have sought to present the range and variety of tools
which will be required as the specification becomes widely adopted. The table of available tools
in the following table, on the other hand, shows that at the time of writing the tool set is still
rather restricted.
Table 4.1. IMS Learning Design toolset available or under development at the time of writing
Name Application Type Ownership Specification
supported
Edubox Player General player Proprietary EML
LD Editor Editor Close to specification
general purpose tree editor Proprietary EML
ALFanet Editor Close to specification
general purpose tree editor Open
Source IMS-LD A
GTK Press
Komposer Editor Close to specification tree
editor, linked to high level
Word based resource
authoring.
Proprietary IMS-LD A
Single role,
single path
RELOAD Editor Close to specification,
general purpose tree editor,
with runtime preview.
Open source IMS-LD,
levels A, B
and C
Mot Editor Distant from specification,
general purpose graphical
editor
IMS-LD levels
A, B and C
19 See http://www.opengroup.org/telcert/
Chapter 4. Learning Design Tools.
LAMS Example of
activity
sequencer,
inspired by IMS-
LD
Distant from specification,
specialized editor with
graphical interface.
Proprietary,
some parts
may become
open source
Non compliant,
eLive Editor Distant from specification,
specialized editor Proprietary IMS-LD levels
A and B
Eduplone
Learning
Sequence
Integrated editor
and player Distant from specification,
specialized, editor, template
based.
Open
Source IMS-LD
level A
Learning
Design
Engine
Engine Core of Learning Design
player Open
Source IMS-LD levels
A, B and C
SCOPE
Learning
Design
library
Library Java library Open
Source IMS-LD
level A
Returning to the two dimensions of tool design identified in figure 4.2 above, the authoring
tools from table 4.1. may be classified as shown in the following diagram.
Fig. 4.8. Classification of IMS-LD editing tools
As may be seen from table 4.1, at the time of writing editing tools were more advanced than
players, with a number of systems being demonstrated or in the late stages of development, and
this is in part a reflection of the greater complexity involved in developing a player. It is, of
course, of critical importance that effective players are available so that the power of IMS-LD
can be demonstrated. In this respect the Learning Design Engine is of particular significance, as
it provides an open source platform for the rapid development of multiple players.
The effort involved in adapting existing repositories to provide Learning Design awareness is
relatively small compared with that of developing editing tools and players, and it is to be
eLive
Eduplone Learning
Sequence
Mot
LAMS
Perot LD Editor
aLFanet LD Editor
RELOAD
GTK Press Komposer
Close
to
specification
Distant
from
specification
Chapter 4. Learning Design Tools.
expected that repositories will emerge as the specification becomes more widely used, and large
numbers of UoLs are stored.
Given the time which is required for the development of tools, the limited progress described
in this chapter is impressive rather than a cause for pessimism. There is a strong group of
developers, both within the Valkenburg Group and beyond, and progress is being made on all
aspects of tooling. By the time that the second anniversary of the publication of the specification
arrives there is every reason to expect that a basic toolset for implementing Learning Design
will be in place.
References
Bartz, J (2002). Great Idea, but how do I do it? A practical example of learning object creation using
SGML/XML. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, (28/3) (pp.74-75).
Dalziel, J. R. (2003). Implementing Learning Design: The Learning Activity Management System
(LAMS). In G.Crisp, D.Thiele, I.Scholten, S.Barker and J.Baron (Eds), Interact, Integrate, Impact:
Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in
Tertiary Education. Adelaide, 7-10 December 2003. Available at
http://www.melcoe.mq.edu.au/documents/ASCILITE2003%20Dalziel%20Final.pdf, retrieved 30th
May 2004.
Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding : an Activity-theoretical approach to developmental
research. Orienta-Konsultit Oy, Helsinki.
IMS Learning Design Specification, Version 1.0 Final Specification. IMS Global Learning Consortium,
Inc, 2003. Available at http://www.imsglobal.org/learningdesign/, retrieved 30th May 2004.
Lakoff G, Johnson M (1980) Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London.
Rein D (2000), What is Effective Integration of Technology, and Does it Make a Difference? Apple
Computer, Inc. Cupertino. Available at http://www.l2l.org/iclt/2000/papers/181a.pdf, retrieved 30th
May 2004.
Sayago S, et.al evaluación de una aplicación sencilla de eLearning, presented at INTERACCIÓN 2004.
V Congreso Internacional Interacción-Persona Ordenador, 3-7 May 2004, Lleida, Spain. Available at
http://www.tecn.upf.es/scope/, retrieved 30th May 2004.
... There are several IMS-LD editors available. As stated in (Griffiths, et. al., 2005) they can be classified in two dimensions: higher vs. lower level tools with respect to the level of expertise in IMS-LD it is required by the user (i.e. how much the tool interface is influenced by IMS-LD and how many specification details it hides) and general purpose vs. specific purpose tools with respect to the pedagogical scope. Te ...
... In order to overcome this difficulty, the scientific community has recently developed and sustained the validity of new theoretical approaches related to the CSCL scripts (Griffiths et al., 2005). The CSCL (or collaboration) scripts are didactic scenarios that specify a sequence of collaborative phases through complex instructions. ...
Cognitive assessment in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) requires assessment processes that achieve significant effect on CSCL and engage learners through accountability and constructive feedback. In order to design a coherent and efficient assessment system for CSCL it is necessary to design an enriched learning experience that predisposes the feedback and awareness in the group. Current collaborative technical support involves online collaborative tools that allow for interacting and learning through socialization. For the sake of socialization, Social Learning (SL) theories play a fundamental role in this context by emphasizing observation and modelling of the behaviours, attitudes, and emotional reactions, in terms of continuous reciprocal interaction between cognitive, behavioural, and environmental influences. These collaborative and social processes can be greatly enhanced by the latest educational, pedagogical and technological approaches, such as Collaborative Complex Learning Object (CC-LO), which virtualizes the knowledge elicited during the live collaborative sessions in order to alleviate the isolation of online learners whilst providing them with social identity, empowerment and effective interactivity. In addition, Social Networks play a major role in CSCL by locating people at the very centre of networks and exploiting the value of people's connections and relations. In this context, Learning Analytics and Social Network Analysis techniques provide a clear way of analyzing the underlying interactive behaviour and network structure to discover the collaborative knowledge hidden in large volumes of structured data. The main goal of this research is to enhance and improve learning engagement and outcomes by means of the virtualization of CSCL and SL enriched with a complete e-assessment framework that evaluate and represent the quantity and quality of the collaborative and social interactions occurring during live CSCL activities. In particular, this thesis aims at showing evidences of the effects of incorporating cognitive and social assessment into an innovative educational and technological approach derived from CC-LO called Collaborative Complex Learning Resources (CC-LR) to support virtualized collaborative learning activities augemented with author information. Overall, the thesis contributes to the CSCL assessment field with the application of popular data analysis techniques that are able to analyze and represent knowledge and social interaction during the live collaborative sessions. The interaction data extracted from social networking and collaborative learning is integrated into a general assessment framework to produce an efficient and personalized awareness and feedback about the collaborative activity and the social behavior of their participants. As a result, the thesis provides conceptual and methodological research approaches of e-assessment applications and tools to augment the CC-LR with effective assessment support. From the results achieved, the proposed assessment framework incorporated in the CC-LR approach in the form of social and cognitive indicators becomes a reliable source of information at different level of learning assessment, such as individual and group performance and dynamics. Although levels of frustration appear, produced by strong expectations to learn faster and easier, high levels of satisfaction are reported with the use of the CC-LR extended with the assessment framework developed and integrated during the thesis.
... In order for the concept of Learning Design to be implemented in the context of online and blended learning, field researchers have developed specifications for digital representation of Learning Designs and tools that allow teachers to create, manage and even enact their Learning Designs [9][10][11]. The bulk of the work done so far in the field concerns the development of the above technologies. ...
- Soultana Karga
-
![Maya Satratzemi]()
Nowadays, researchers in the field of Learning Design are investigating ways to assist teachers in realizing their role as Learning Designers in the context of online and blended learning. This is a major quest for the field researchers due to the fact that it can affect the broader adoption of the Learning Design practices by teachers, with resulting improvements on the quality of teaching and learning outcomes. In this context, this paper investigates teacher-perceived experience and acceptance of a Recommender System (RS) that supports teachers in the designing process, by providing them with Learning Design recommendations. To this end, we conducted a user-centric evaluation experiment, which involved 50 teachers and was based on the ResQue model. According to the results, an RS which proposes existing Learning Designs is a highly accepted technology by teachers. Additionally, teachers believe that the use of the proposed RS can make the designing process easier and faster while it would also favor the sharing of good teaching practices and provide teachers with a valuable source of inspiration. The implications of this study suggest that developers in the Learning Design field should incorporate RSs into existing Learning Design environments in order to facilitate the designing process.
... Learning design involves educational processes used to describe planning, sequencing and management of learning activities [44,101]. There have been a number of orchestration tools that have been implemented using the learning design approach, using basic principles of learning design tools [73]. ...
-
![Lighton Phiri]()
Orchestration of learning involves the real-time management of activities performed by educators in learning environments, with a particular focus on the effective use of technology. While different educational settings present unique problems, the common challenges have been noted to primarily be as a result of multiple heterogeneous activities and their associated intrinsic and extrinsic constraints. In addition to these challenges, this thesis argues that the complexities of orchestration are further amplified due to the ad hoc nature of the approaches and techniques used to orchestrate learning activities. The thesis proposes a streamlined approach to technology-driven orchestration of learning, in order to address these challenges and complexities. Specifically, the thesis proposes an organised approach that focuses on three core aspects of orchestration: activity management, resource management and sequencing of learning activities. Orchestration was comprehensively explored in order to identify the core aspects essential for streamlining technology-driven orchestration. Proof-of-concept orchestration toolkits, based on the proposed orchestration approach, were implemented and evaluated in order to assess the feasibility of the approach, its effectiveness and its potential impact on the teaching experience. Comparative analysis and guided orchestration controlled studies were conducted to compare the effectiveness of ad hoc orchestration with streamlined orchestration and to measure the orchestration load, respectively. In addition, a case study of a course that employed a flipped classroom strategy was conducted to assess the feasibility of the proposed approach. The feasibility was further assessed by integrating a workflow, based on the proposed approach, that facilitates the sharing of reusable orchestration packages. The results from the studies suggest that the streamlined approach is more effective when compared to ad hoc orchestration and has a potential to provide a positive user experience. The results also indicate that the approach imposes acceptable orchestration load during scripting of learning activities. Case studies conducted in authentic educational settings suggest that the approach is feasible, and potentially applicable to useful practical usage scenarios. The long-term implications are that streamlining of technology-driven orchestration could potentially improve the effectiveness of educators when orchestrating learning activities.
... In terms of training for educators on Learning Design it is possible to identify the work from [65,67], there is an initiative to teach accessibility in MOOC courses [66], and exploration of the importance of accessibility in computer science pedagogy [68] and proposals for professional certifications related to accessibility professionals [69][70] but there is a lack of training proposals for educators on how to create accessible content based on the perspective from students with disabilities. ...
The adoption of new technologies for education is changing, and it is reflected for instance, in the use of cloud-based applications for experimental practices in engineering courses and the inclusion of virtual courses in the educational process. Additionally, Educational Institutions are preparing Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) as a tool to offer education to students from all over the world. However, Accessibility in cloud-based applications, virtual platforms and MOOCs has not been widely taken into account in the design process that involves educators, especially in the tasks related to the production of educational resources. The purpose of this study is twofold. On one hand, it aims to promote the inclusion of accessibility features in all phases involved in the online educational process. For this purpose, an open online course was prepared to train teachers on how to design accessible virtual courses. On the other hand, the goal is to identify the competences for educators involved in the creation of accessible digital educational contents in order to suggest a basic curriculum that can be used for Educational Institutions. This work presents the accessibility experiences with engineering courses involving a strong component of scientific content and simulations. This work presents the proposed competences for engineering educators involved in the creation of accessible digital educational contents, with the purpose of implementing a basic curriculum that can be used for Educational Institutions to train their teachers on accessibility from the perspective of a student with disability. It is to be hoped that in some way in the future, the engineering educators will be able to transmit the accessibility awareness to their students, in order to have future engineers that will produce changes for the benefit of all.
... Para superar los peligros antes reseñados, se han desarrollado enfoques teóricos relacionados con los guiones para CSCL (Collaborative Supported Computer Learning). Los scripts o guiones CSCL ( Griffiths, D. et al., 2005) determinan escenarios de aprendizaje que se desarrollan según una secuencia de fases más o menos definidas. Cada fase viene determinada por elementos específicos: la actividad o actividades, que los estudiantes tienen que realizar, composición del grupo, asignación de roles internos y externos, modos de interacción y sincronización de fases. ...
... In order to empower people to create learning designs, many LD authoring tools have been developed. At the moment there are more then 20 different tools available (see Griffiths et al., 2005 for a discussion and overview). To be mentioned are Reload (2005) As illustrated in figure 8, the Reload LD editor consists of several edit pages and each page supports editing a type of element such as role, activity, environment, method, etc. ...
IMS learning design (IMSLD) is an open standard that can be used to specify a wide range of pedagogical strategies in computer-interpretable models. Such models then can be played in any learning design (LD) compatible execution environment to support teachers and students to conduct online teaching–learning. This chapter introduces the basic knowledge required to effectively use LD. First of all, we present fundamental principles behind LD. Then, we introduce main concepts and their relations in LD and discuss some technical issues about how to make a learning design executable in a computer-based environment. Finally, how to model learning designs using LD is explained through demonstrating the whole procedure to model a use case in Extensible Markup Language (XML). We expect that the readers of this chapter can apply LD to create simple learning designs and understand learning designs with sophisticated features.
... Certain requirements are to be considered when constructing a SL scenario using a CSCL model, such as the ability to observe the modelled behaviour, recall this behaviour and SPECIAL FOCUS PAPER PROVIDING A MULTI-FOLD ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK TO VIRTUALIZED COLLABORATIVE LEARNING IN SUPPORT FOR… reproduce it. Tools such as IMS Learning Design and scripts also help educators construct effective learning experiences though they lack to specify several characteristics of the use of tools that mediate collaboration [12]. A further problem is the use of CSCL and SL scenarios in the context of formal, informal and intentional learning experiences [13]. ...
In previous research we proposed a virtualization process of live collaborative sessions from Web discussion forums and chats with the aim to produce interactive and attractive online learning resources to be played by learners, thus having a positive effect in learner engagement. In order to enhance further learning engagement, in this paper we endow our virtualization process with a multifold assessment framework that provides effective awareness and constructive feedback to learners from the original collaborative interactions amongst group members. The re-search here presented focuses on e-assessment of collabora-tive and social learning and extends it with Learning Ana-lytics and Social Network Analysis techniques that are able to analyze and represent cognitive and social interactions underlying live collaborative sessions. The interaction data extracted from collaborative knowledge and social network-ing is integrated into the virtualized collaborative learning to produce an efficient and personalized awareness and feedback system about the collaborative activity and the so-cial behaviour of the original participants of live collabora-tion. This paper describes both the conceptual and methodological research to build our multi-fold e-assessment framework. The research is evaluated in real context of e-learning and validated by empirical data and interpretation
- Cheolil Lim
- Hyeongjong Han
-
![Daeun Jung]()
- Junghyun Hong
The purpose of this study is to explore an e-learning platform prototype promoting learning design. The importance of learning activity design has been emphasizing for effective learning. In particular, e-learning platforms have been developing in a more comprehensive form, not only containing learning content management systems but also learning activity management system. Despite the significance of the e-learning platform function reflecting the learning design concept, there is a lack of practical research on comprehensively analyzing the e-learning platform containing learning design function and investigating user response to it. Using literature review and case analysis, it was deduced that what are features of e-learning platform supporting learning design. Also, the prototype as storyboard form was developed and responses of eighteen instructors and learners were examined. The principal areas were as follows: instructor support; learning activity support; personalized and adaptive learning support and management; learning content or material development and management; collaboration and communication support; and assessment support and management. The major strengths are as follows: 'making it easier to construct learning activities', 'supporting learning by integrating various features', and 'leading adaptive learning'. For major improvements, enhancing its availability by considering differences in majors, utilization purpose and utilization level of instructors and reducing to functions directly related to learning were suggested.
-
![Gilbert Paquette]()
This chapter is a synthesis on the role of competency models in smart learning environments. A formal definition of competency, integrating the notions of skill/attitudes, knowledge, and performance, provides a foundation for the discussion. Concrete examples and tools will illustrate the role of competencies to help personalize learning scenarios, a central goal for smart learning environments. Competency as an input to and as an outcome of the learning process will be integrated in a learning design methodology, including user models and e-portfolios. A method for comparing competency will serve in the definition of assistance agents or recommenders. Finally, a number of research challenges will be identified.
- Janet Bartz
The educational community is interested in learning objects, what they are, how they are used, and the many benefits derived from their use. Most educators are familiar with the value of learning objects in theory, but on the practical side are wondering what is involved in creating them. This paper offers a "how-to" of learning object implementation, for text, based on four years experience working with Open Learning Agency's structured content development model. Throughout the paper the analogy of a yogurt container will be used to help illustrate the concepts behind implementing a structured content development model.
-
![James Dalziel]()
Learning Design has the potential to revolutionise e-learning by capturing the "process" of education, rather than simply content. By describing sequences of collaborative learning activities, Learning Design offers a new approach to re-use in e-learning. This paper describes the Learning Design approach, a detailed example, and its implementation in the Learning Activity Management System.
- George Lakoff
-
![Mark Johnson]()
The now-classic Metaphors We Live By changed our understanding of metaphor and its role in language and the mind. Metaphor, the authors explain, is a fundamental mechanism of mind, one that allows us to use what we know about our physical and social experience to provide understanding of countless other subjects. Because such metaphors structure our most basic understandings of our experience, they are "metaphors we live by"â€"metaphors that can shape our perceptions and actions without our ever noticing them. In this updated edition of Lakoff and Johnson's influential book, the authors supply an afterword surveying how their theory of metaphor has developed within the cognitive sciences to become central to the contemporary understanding of how we think and how we express our thoughts in language.
- Yrjö Engeström
First published in 1987, Learning by Expanding challenges traditional theories that consider learning a process of acquisition and reorganization of cognitive structures within the closed boundaries of specific tasks or problems. Yrjö Engeström argues that this type of learning increasingly fails to meet the challenges of complex social change and fails to create novel artifacts and ways of life. In response, he presents an innovative theory of expansive learning activity, offering a foundation for understanding and designing learning as a transformation of human activities and organizations. The second edition of this seminal text features a substantive new introduction that illustrates the development and implementation of Engeström's theory since its inception.
al evaluación de una aplicación sencilla de eLearning, presented at INTERACCIÓN 2004. V Congreso Internacional Interacción-Persona Ordenador
- S Sayago
Sayago S, et.al evaluación de una aplicación sencilla de eLearning, presented at INTERACCIÓN 2004. V Congreso Internacional Interacción-Persona Ordenador, 3-7 May 2004, Lleida, Spain. Available at http://www.tecn.upf.es/scope/, retrieved 30 th May 2004.
Design And Technology Tools Pdf
Source: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227035643_Learning_Design_Tools
Posted by: hubbardhithorable.blogspot.com
0 Response to "Design And Technology Tools Pdf"
Post a Comment