|
|
Learning
Technology publication
of IEEE Computer Society |
|
|
Volume 11 Issue 4 |
ISSN 1438-0625 |
October 2009 |
Special Issue on “Learning Objects and Their Supporting
Technologies for Next Generation Learning”
Design of Learning Objects to
Support Constructivist Learning Environments
Learning Object for Conceptual
Learning
Unified Learning Object Repository
Approach Using ER-Course System
Integrating Learning Objects into an
Interactive Simulator for Computer Systems
Immersive Learning Objects for
E-Learning and Collaboration through Second Life
Recommendation on Learning Objects
According to Program Contents
Usability Case Study Learning
Objects for Collaborative Authentic Education
Adaptivity and Adaptability in
Learning Objects
Re-purpose, Re-use: Reconsider
An Interactive Programme to Improve
EFL Reading-Writing Skills
Learning Objects for Adaptive and
Personalized Lifelong Education
Evaluation of Learning Management
Systems for Learning Objects
Special Issue on “Learning Objects and Their Supporting Technologies for
Next Generation Learning”
Welcome to the October
2009 issue of Learning Technology.
Learning objects
are used in many different contexts and applications. This issue discusses
current research about learning objects and their supporting technologies, and
especially their radically new usage for the next-generation learning. The
issue introduces papers dealing with practical frameworks for learning objects,
innovative learning technology solutions, and summaries of research about
specific topics.
The first three articles
are related to the design of learning objects and accordingly their proposed
frameworks/systems. The first article, by Liu, Shi and Shang, discusses the design
of learning objects to support the constructivist approach. The second article
by Churchill specially considers the learning objects to facilitate the
learning of conceptual models. In the third article, Matar, Hunaiti and Matar propose
a unified repository of learning objects managed by the Electronic Resource
(ER) Course system.
The next two
papers focus on some innovative integration of learning objects in various
e-learning applications in which the article by Yeung, Tam and Lam firstly
propose an integration of learning objects into an interactive simulator to
facilitate the learning of various computer systems. Independently, Sullivan,
Baum, Dyer and Braman outline a project to include learning objects in a
virtual environment as the Second Life, and share their valuable experience in creating
learning objects for students in the areas of Interactive Media Design,
Interdisciplinary Object Design and Computer Science.
The next two
papers deal with the flexible and interesting uses of learning objects in
various contexts. Jara, Agila, Sarango, Valdiviezo and Cartuche consider an
appropriate recommendation scheme on learning objects based on the students’ program
contents. Furthermore, Ganoe, Borge, Jiang, Carroll and Rosson carefully
investigate a usability case study on learning objects for collaborative
authentic education.
Subsequently, Rodríguez
and Martín discuss the concept of adaptivity and adaptability applied to design of
learning object interfaces so as to adapt to the end user. This work clearly reveals the potential of learning
objects for personalised learning.
In the next
article, Gilbert shares his insightful reconsideration on the re-purposing or
re-use of learning objects, and also proposes a conceptual model of competence
for intended learning outcomes to facilitate future re-uses.
The last three articles
in this issue belong to the regular article section. First, Depetris, Severini
and Sergi propose an interactive program to enhance the reading-writing
connection for learning English-as-foreign-language (EFL) students. In the next
paper, Peña de Carrillo and Carrillo Caicedo present how their university
provides their students with adaptive and personalized life-long education.
Subsequently, Chawla and Singla critically suggest a set of criteria to
evaluate existing learning management systems and also compare some popular
open source software based on some of their suggested criteria.
We sincerely hope
that this special issue will help in keeping you abreast of the current
research and developments of learning technologies, especially in the area of
learning objects and their supporting technologies, and can stimulate further discussions,
research, and developments in this area.
We also would like
to take the opportunity to invite you to contribute your own work in progress,
project reports, case studies, and events announcements in this newsletter, if
you are involved in research and/or implementation of any aspect of advanced
learning technologies. For more details, please refer to the author guidelines
at http://lttf.ieee.org/learn_tech/authors.html.
Design of Learning Objects to Support Constructivist Learning Environments
Constructivism is a learning theory which
assumes that learning is an active process of constructing knowledge, and
instruction is a process of supporting knowledge construction (Jonassen, 1993;
Henning, 2004; Jonassen, et al., 2004).
In constructivism, learners can
make the best judgment of what to learn and how to learn if they are given the
whole picture and allowed to try various components, and use all learning
materials that they can make sense of to achieve their current learning goal.
After achieving a new level of understanding, they create new learning needs
and goals and can make sense of more things.
Learners usually go through this process iteratively for several times. Thus,
learning materials need to be presented multiple times, differently each time
according to the learner’s knowledge level.
This requires learning materials to be compositional, reconfigurable,
and navigated easily and flexibly.
Some research on learning theory-based
design of learning objects has been conducted (Wiley, 2002). A few researchers (Bannan-Ritland, et al.,
2002; Orrill, 2002) made the effort to combine learning objects and
constructivism focus largely on how learning objects can be used in specific
constructivist learning environments instead of seeking a generic structure to
help learners learn in many possible creative ways.
Guided by the
constructivism learning theory, we design learning objects to facilitate learners
in organizing related learning materials, viewing the materials in appropriate
forms in the iterative learning process, and easily accessing and navigating
the whole set of knowledge. Our learning
object design approach allows learners to easily participate in the construction
of learning objects and makes the learning objects easily changeable throughout
their usage. Learning objects are
rendered according to different view patterns, and the patterns can be further
configured and refined by the learners.
The complete knowledge structure is always presented first and is easily
accessible at any time. Learning objects
are designed for multiple levels of granularity to support reusability,
flexibility, accessibility, and adaptability.
We propose a generic architecture of
learning objects that can be applied to various domains and that authors can
easily work with. The design of a
learning object divides the knowledge into a few levels to be adapted to
various situations. At each level, a set
of attributes are defined to describe the content, including content type,
difficulty level, detail level, etc.
Some attributes are strongly associated with the context where the
learning object is used. For example,
difficulty level and detail level are much more meaningful and accurate when
they are used to compare a set of knowledge units within the same parent
knowledge unit. Some other attributes,
such as content type, are weakly associated with the context.
In our approach, the smallest unit of
knowledge is section whose schema is
shown in Figure 1. A section has one core
and several extensions. The core is the most essential part of a
section. The core summarizes the content
of the section, while extensions can be added to provide more detailed learning
materials of the section. Metadata of a
section is used to provide some other information about the section such as
goal, keywords, background, etc.
Figure
1: Graphic representation of part of the XML schema of a section
Going up the knowledge granularity level,
multiple sections can form a component. Multiple components related to a learning
topic can be grouped to form a cloud. A course is generated from clouds, either
manually by an instructor/author or automatically by the learning environment. When a course is generated by an
instructor/author, the expert experience can be embedded into the configuration
of the course, such as selection of section contents, selection of components,
sequence of components, display modes of components, etc. When it is generated by the learning
environment, certain organizational patterns can be applied to generate a
course corresponding to the learner’s profile and the learning goal.
A student can view the learning materials
in different ways. She can click “view
default” to choose to view the course created by the author/instructor if such
a version is available. Alternatively,
she can choose to have the course generated automatically by the system
according to some patterns. She also has
the choice to view the learning materials by her profile, by which the learning
materials will be generated session by session.
Finally, she can choose to just view all the raw components related to
the topic.
Our approach demonstrates the possibility
of using the constructivism learning theory to guide the design of learning
objects. A prototype is implemented in
the IDEAL e-learning environment (Shi, et al., 2002). The collaboration among
learning object authors is supported, and learners can also actively
participate in the construction of learning objects. It provides a way to allow learners to grasp
the whole picture of the course quickly.
The ease of viewing learning materials iteratively in different ways
assists learners to learn efficiently in constructivist learning environments.
References
Bannan-Ritland,
B., Dabbagh, N., and Murphy, K. (2002). Learning object systems as
constructivist learning environments: related assumptions, theories and
applications. Instructional Use of
Learning Objects, Agency for Instructional Technology. Also available
at http://www.reusability.org/read/.
Henning,
P.H. (2004). Everyday cognition and situated learning. In Jonassen D.H. (Ed.),
Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology, pp. 143-168,
Jonassen,
D.H. (1993). Designing constructivist learning environments. In Duffy, T.M.,
Lowyck, J., and Jonassen, D.H. (Eds), The Design of Constructivistic Learning
Environments: Implications for Instructional Design and the Use of Technology,
Heidelburg,
Jonassen,
D.H., Marra, R.M., and Palmer, B. (2004). Epistemological development: an
Implicit entailment of constructivist learning environments. In Seel, N.M. and
Dijkstra, S. (Eds.), Curriculum, Plans, and Processes in Instructional Design,
pp. 75-88,
Orrill,
C. (2002). Learning objects to support inquiry-based, online learning.
Instructional Use of Learning Objects, Agency for Instructional Technology. Also available
at http://www.reusability.org/read/.
Shi,
H., Rodriguez, O., Shang, Y., and Chen, S. (2002). Integrating adaptive and
intelligent techniques into a web-based environment for active learning. In C.
T. Leondes (Ed.), Intelligent Systems: Technology and Applications, Volume 4,
Chapter 10, pp. 229-260,
Wiley,
D. (2002). Connecting learning objects to
instructional design theory: a definition, a metaphor, and a taxonomy. Instructional
Use of Learning Objects, Agency for Instructional Technology. Also available
at http://www.reusability.org/read/.
|
Yuanliang Liu Department of Computer Science University of Missouri-Columbia Hongchi Shi Department of Computer Science Texas State University-San Marcos Yi Shang Department of Computer Science University of Missouri-Columbia |
Learning Object for Conceptual Learning
Introduction
A conceptual model
is a particular type of a learning object from a classification consisting of
the following types: presentation objects, practice objects, simulation
objects, information objects, contextual representation objects and conceptual
models (Churchill, 2007). A conceptual model is designed to represent one or
more related concepts (e.g., triangle, acceleration, inflation, volcano, and
migration). Primarily, the conceptual model is a multimedia representation
designed to facilitate development of learners’ conceptual knowledge, and
support learning tasks where relevant conceptual knowledge is required.
Learning should not simply include remembering facts but also the development
of conceptual knowledge. The conceptual model might serve as a useful tool to
support conceptual learning. If appropriately designed, the conceptual model
can be effectively delivered to a variety of learning environments via
computers, personal digital assistants and mobile phones. The conceptual model
can be provided to teachers, who must then decide how to integrate it in
instructions, to students for use in their independent learning, or to
instructional designers to use as a media object for integration in larger
structures such as computer-based instructional packages.
Examples of Learning
Objects for Conceptual Learning
Here are some examples of conceptual models (Churchill & Hedberg,
2008):
·
a representation
that enables a learner to construct an internal model of a rule to be used in
solving algorithmic problems, such as a representation of how to divide two
numbers
·
a conceptual
model that allows a learner to explore if-then or cause-and-effect scenarios
(e.g., effect of spread of bird flu in Asia)
·
a representation
of a concept that guides an expert in diagnosing a problem and proposing a solution,
like a concept of Ohm’s Law
·
a representation
of a value system held by an expert that supports his or her judgment (e.g.,
value system of a movie producer who produced a controversial film)
A more descriptive example of a conceptual model is presented in Figure 1. This conceptual model contains information about a number of important river parameters, enables calculations of river discharge, presents the impact on flow rates caused by the shape of a riverbed, and allows identification of common bedrocks at different locations along the river. Various items of information are presented based on a learner’s interaction with the conceptual model. A student can arrive at an understanding of the issues affecting the river through interaction and manipulation of specific parameters, such as how the cross-section of the river changes as one moves down the river, and by systematic exploration of specific information (e.g., how the river discharge is calculated based on values of width, depth and velocity).
Figure 1: “River” conceptual model
Models for Teaching and
Learning – Theoretical Background
Models have been described as powerful tools for learning, and their
educational use has been described as model-centered learning and instruction
(e.g., Seel, 2003, Gibbons, 2008). Lesh and Doerr (2003) define a model as a
conceptual system “consisting of elements, relations, operations, and rules
governing interactions” that are used to “construct, describe, or explain the
behavior of other system(s)”. For
Contemporary technology enables design of conceptual models in a
effective multimedia form. This form is predominantly interactive (sliders,
buttons, hot-spots, text-entry) and visual (diagrams, illustrations, pictures,
videos, animations). It can also contain other modalities such as text and
audio. This idea of a conceptual model as visual and interactive digital
representation is influenced by theoretical work such as: external multimedia
representations (Schnotz & Lowe, 2003), dynamic visualization (Ploetzner
& Lowe, 2004), information visualization (Bederson & Shneiderman,
2003), visual explanations and envisioning information (Tufte, 1990; Tufte,
1997; Tufte, 2001), visual and multimedia displays and conceptual models
(Mayer, 1998; Mayer 2003), conceptual models (Norman, 1983), multiple
representations (Van Someren, 1998), modality and multimodality (De Jong et al.
1998; van Someren et al. 1998) and pedagogical models (Fraser, 1999). Overall,
the literature suggests that technology creates opportunity for design and
application of conceptual models and other forms of technology-based
representations that can effectively support teaching and learning (e.g., De Jong
et al., 1998; Fraser, 1999; Norman, 1983; Johnson & Lesh, 2003; Van
Someren, 1998). It is also suggested that learning with these representations
is supported through activation of certain cognitive processes such as mind
modeling and linking between internal representations (Churchill, 2008; Seel,
2003; Mayer, 1989; Mayer, 2003).
Overall, when appropriately designed, the conceptual model can support development of more advanced forms of knowledge such as conceptual knowledge and mental models. Curriculum content can be analyzed to identify key concepts. These concepts can be represented through conceptual models that can serve as powerful tools for teaching, learning and instructional design, and that can be effectively delivered to learning environments via a variety of technologies, such as computers, handheld personal devices or mobile phones.
References
Bederson, B. B., & Shneiderman, B.
(2003). The craft of information
visualization: readings and reflections.
Churchill, D. (2008). Mental models. In L.
Tomei (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Information
Technology Curriculum Integration (pp. 575-582).
Churchill, D. (2007). Towards a useful
classification of learning objects. Education
Technology Research and Development, 55(5), 479-497.
Dawson, M. R. (2004). Minds and machines: connectionism and psychological modeling.
De Jong, T. et al. (1998). Acquiring
knowledge in science and mathematics: the use of multiple representations in
technology-based learning environments. In A. Van Someren (Eds.), Learning with multiple representations
(pp. 9-40).
Fraser, A. (1999). Web visualization for teachers. Retrieved
Gibbons, A. (2008). Model-centered
instruction, the design and the designer. In D. Ifenthaler, P. Piarnay-Dummer,
& J. M. Spector (Eds.), Understanding models for learning and instruction.
(pp. 161-173).
Johnson, T., & Lesh, R. (2003). A
models and modeling perspective on technology-based representational media. In
R. Lesh & H. Doerr (Eds.) Beyond
constructivisim: a models and modeling perspectives on mathematics problem
solving, learning and teaching, (pp. 3-34).
Lesh, R., & Doerr, H. (2003).
Foundations of a models and modelling perspective on mathematics teaching,
learning and problem solving. In R. Lesh & H. Doerr (Eds.) Beyond constructivisim: a models and
modeling perspectives on mathematics problem solving, learning and teaching, (pp.
3-34).
Mayer, R. E. (1989). Models for
understanding. Review of Educational
Research, 59(1), 43-64.
Mayer, R. E. (2003). The promise of
multimedia learning: using the same instructional design methods across
different media. Learning and
Instruction, 13, 125-139.
Norman, D.A. (1983). Some observation on
mental models. In Gentner, D., & Stevens, A.L. (Eds), Mental Models, (pp.7-14).
Ploetzner, R., & Lowe, R. (2004).
Dynamic visualizations and learning. Learning
and Instruction, 14(3), 235-240.
Schnotz, W., & Lowe, R. (2003).
External and internal representations in multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 13(2),
117-123.
Seel, N. M. (2003). Model-centered learning
and instruction. Technology, Instruction,
Cognition and Instruction, 1(1), 59-85.
Tufte, E (1997). Visual explanations.
Tufte, E (2001). The visual display of quantitative information.
Tufte, E. (1990). Envisioning information.
Van Someren, A. (Eds.) (1998). Learning with multiple representations.
Van Someren, A., Boshuizen, P.A., de Jong,
T., & Reimann, P. (1998). Introduction. In A. Van Someren (Eds.), Learning with multiple representations
(pp. 1-5).
|
Daniel Churchill Faculty of
Education The |
Unified Learning Object Repository Approach Using ER-Course System
Introduction
In many Arab countries in the
The same study showed that the quantity of e-course in the Middle East
region is between 5% and 15% out of the 41% universities that adopted
e-learning. This is a result of different factors that are hindering the
advancement of e-learning in the Middle East region, the most important factor being
the lack of knowledge and preparation for creating learning objects, especially
since many tools do not support the Arabic language alphabet [1].
To overcome those obstacles since no abstract solution exists for such
universities, a learning object repository should be provided that addresses
their needs with respect to the diversity of learning courses and the language
of instruction used (either Arabic or English) [2].
Such a solution should emphasize on sharing the available learning
objects from different universities in order to save time and cost and not to
be caught in the reinvention wheel concept [3].
ER-Course - Learning Object Repository as a Solution
A prototype solution has been presented and tested towards enhancing
the adaptation of e-learning by making the creation of e-courses and the integration
of learning objects into those e-courses an easy process, which requires no
sophisticated or prerequisite expertise in creating and integrating those
learning objects into the e-courses.
The ER-Course System (which stands for Electronic Resources Course) also
provides an option for choosing learning objects that have been created in
Arabic alphabet or language, which makes the selection of learning objects an
easy process for many faculty members while creating their e-courses.
The ER-Course system can be used as a standalone system since it is
specialized in storing and sharing learning objects according to a predefined
structure, or can be integrated with different learning management systems in
order to use different facilities such as chatting and assessment, etc. [1].
A website (see Figure 1) was built that implements the novel idea which
was called ER-Course and it is operating on the following domain: http://www.u-elearning.net.
Figure 1: ER Course Website
ER-Course Functionality
The ER-Course system includes 3 different parts towards providing its
services that are controlled by 3 different users (Site Administrator,
Instructors, Students).
The system’s main block depends on building the main course structure
for any taught subject by a specialized committee of instructors from the
participating universities, where they come up with a final document that
illustrates the needed structure of the course. The person responsible for
implementing the structure on the site is the site administrator.
This structure will show the needed chapters and topics with a detailed description for each part of the structure, as it is show in Figure 2.
A. Instructors’ Role
Each registered instructor can participate in uploading the learning
objects they have for the course according to the provided topics and based on
the description attached to each topic.
Adding resources to the system should be based on collaborative efforts
from all participating instructors from different universities. Each instructor
can add the available resources either as files or as URL, and each instructor
is responsible for the resources he is adding in terms of copyright
regulations.
Instructors use the repository to build their courses and for sharing
learning objects they have for other instructors to incorporate them into their
e-courses.
Figure 2: Course structure
The creation of e-courses is implemented through the use of easy steps
which start by adding a course name, selecting the course, then selecting the
needed chapters that are defined by the university syllabus, finally selecting
the needed topics and finishing by selecting the appropriate resources for each
topic either by the rank of the learning object which is set by the users or by
the language specification.
Through the previous techniques, instructors can generate e-courses targeted to specific problems. Such flexibility has proven to be helpful for organizing courses and producing better learning outcomes.
B. Students’ Role
Registered
students create their own ER-Course as a copy of the instructor’s e-course
structure along with the selected learning objects. Students can add more
learning objects to each topic according to their preferred learning style.
Within each displayed resource there is a set of buttons to rank and add more
resources if they feel that they need more learning objects to master the
learning context provided for the topic. Students can view all the learning
objects in the repository with respect to the main course structure, and they
can also select the resources based on the rank number or the needed language.
Providing
such flexibility has been appreciated by students, as they are not constrained
to the one size-fits-all, which is provided by the current leaning content and
management systems.
Figure
3 illustrates the functionality of the system from different angles based on
the users that interact with the system.
Figure 3: Functionality of the ER Course
system
Conclusion
The limited availability of different
learning objects is the main reason for the low penetration of e-learning in
the Arab Universities in the Middle East region.
The ER-Course system facilitates sharing
different learning objects in an easy way, through a predefined structure for
the course contents. The ER-Course system is not a complete environment for
e-learning, but it is a prototype tool for effective sharing of learning
objects between different universities.
References
[1] Matar,
N., Halling, S. and Hunaiti, Z. (2008),
“Electronic Ticket: A Distinct Roadmap to Adaptive Unified E-learning System”,
The 3rd International Conference on
[2] Richards,
G., Hatala, M., & McGreal, R. (2004).
[3] Richards,
G., McGreal, R., & Friesen, N. (2002, June). Learning object repository
technologies for telelearning: The evolution of
|
Nasim Matar Faculty of
Science and Technology United Kingdom Ziad Hunaiti Faculty of
Science and Technology Shadi Matar |
Integrating Learning
Objects into an Interactive Simulator for Computer Systems
Abstract: In the 21st
century, learning is an important concern to most people. However, some
e-learning applications contain complicated knowledge structures that may hinder
reuse and sharing of knowledge. Previously, we developed a simulator to
facilitate the understanding of advanced concepts related to computer systems
through live animations. To encourage the sharing and reuses of knowledge, we
propose to integrate learning objects and relevant technologies into our
interactive simulator. By adopting the IEEE learning object metadata (LOM)
standard, our simulator may easily exchange or reuse learning objects of
relevant concepts with other e-learning systems.
Introduction
The IEEE Learning Object Metadata (LOM)
standard [3] has become more and more popular among the eLearning community. By
properly breaking down the original content into learning objects, course
content developers can easily maintain and update the knowledge structure of
the underlying subjects, and also make the content easily available to
encourage the sharing or reuse of relevant materials, especially to facilitate
interactive discussion during and after classes.
In a previous e-learning project funded by
Microsoft Research Asia (MSRA), we built the COMPAD simulator to facilitate the
understanding of concepts related to computer systems through live animations
of events for program execution on relevant components [5]. To promote the
advantage of learning objects and related technologies in our educational
simulator, we propose to integrate a flexible LOM editor and general-purpose
multimedia system to enhance knowledge sharing. The functions of the system
includes simulating the execution of an assembly program on the selected
computer architecture, implementing relevant concepts as learning objects into
the simulator so that users can modify the existing learning objects to create
his/her learning objects based on the underlying application domain. Also, it
provides a platform for users to create new computer architectures using
learning objects depending on their own needs and preferences, with a multi-media system [2] that can be
selected by users to show and display the resources and information provided for the selected learning objects.
The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 reviews the system architecture design of the resulting simulator. Section 3 shows the prototype implementation and evaluation. Finally, the conclusions and future directions are described in Section 4.
The Architecture Design
of the Simulator System
The core functions offered by the COMPAD simulator are provided by the
simulation engine [1] and the multi-media controller. The roles of these two
components are shown in the system architecture design in Figure 1.
Basically, the simulation engine reads in the three configuration files
and the source program to generate a sequence of attractive animation. On the
other hand, the multi-media control reads information of the metadata for
learning objects and the corresponding users’ options to retrieve a specific
multi-media file, such as an image or video, stored in the local server.
Figure 1: System Architecture
In general, users can simply import the saved assembly program or directly key in the program in the COMPAD simulator. The results generated after the simulation will then be displayed in the simulator. Users can learn more from the information provided in the field of the schema design. There is a platform provided for them to view the related information of the selected learning object so that they can have a clear idea of what the learning object is doing and their inter-relationship more quickly. For more experienced users and designers, they use not only what is provided in the simulator, but also creating something new according to their knowledge about the computer architecture and ultimately integrating them into their designs. They can also search for information that is stored in the schema according to their preference and show it in different media by displaying the images or videos that are stored in the definitions of relevant learning objects.
Prototype Implementation
and Evaluation
We have successfully built a simulator
embedded with a platform to help users to tackle with their problems regarding
computer architecture by retrieving relevant information. The role of LOM in
our project is to capture explicit knowledge, context, perspectives, and
opinions. The information retrieved can
be obtained either from the web or from the database in the form of textual,
images or videos, which is monitored by the multi-media controller. Thus, each
user will be able to access, discover and find information. Hence, the
processes of learning and knowledge creation can be enhanced and accelerated.
Figure 2 and 3 show the LOM editor and the
multimedia control developed respectively for our COMPAD simulator.
|
|
|
|
Figure 2: The
LOM Editor |
Figure 3: The
Multimedia Control |
Through the resulting simulator integrated with the LOM editor and multimedia system, users can create the learning objects to suit their needs simply by drag-and-drop, and linking them together according to their relations. For the schema of learning objects, the LOM editor provides convenient facilities to add, modify or remove any content of the learning objects in the schema so as to create their own definitions. Besides, the multimedia system gives flexible supports to display images or videos as readily embedded in each learning object.
Conclusions
We integrate a learning
object metadata (LOM) facility into an educational simulator for users to
create and work with the specific learning objects in the underlying subject
area. The system is generic so that users may reuse or modify the information
inside the existing learning objects so as to create their own learning objects
to suit their needs. This will help to shorten the development time of relevant
course or simulation materials. All in all, our work has many possible future
extensions including the use of sophisticated visualization techniques to guide
the systematic structure of learning objects in a specific field, or the
integration of an interactive discussion forum to foster the exchange of ideas
among students over a peer-to-peer network.
References
[2] T. Kleinberger and P.
Müller. “Content Management in
Web Based Education”. In Proceedings
of Webnet 2000 Conference on the
[3] The IEEE WG12 Working Group. “Draft Standard for Learning
Object Metadata”. (IEEE 1484.12.1-2002), URL at:
http://ltsc.ieee.org/wg12/files/LOM_1484_12_1_v1_Final_Draft.pdf, lastly
visited on
[4] J. Vargo, J.C. Nesbit, K. Belfer, and A. Archambault.
“Learning Object Evaluation: Computer-mediated collaboration and inter-rater
reliability”, International Journal of Computers and Applications, Vol. 25, No.
3, p. 198 – 205, 2003.
[5] J.
Yeung, V. Tam, E.Y. Lam, and C.H. Leung. “Developing An Innovative and
Pen-Based Simulator to Enhance Education and Research in Computer Systems”, In Proceedings of 9th IEEE
International Conference on Advanced Teaching Technologies (ICALT 2009), pp.
267 – 269, the IEEE Computer Society Press,
|
Johnny Yeung Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, The Vincent Tam Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, The Edmund Y. Lam Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, The |
Immersive Learning
Objects for E-Learning and Collaboration through Second Life
Introduction
With
increased interest in using internet based virtual worlds as a teaching tool, a
vast number of different approaches and classroom activities have been designed
and implemented to use these spaces effectively. While web based learning
platforms often bypass norms of traditional face-to-face styles of interaction,
virtual environments such as Second Life, present new challenges to educators.
With these challenges however, this type of media allow instructors to adopt
their pedagogy to the information age by providing a malleable immersive
environment. This paper briefly outlines our initial work in Second Life (SL)
and our experiences in creating learning objects for students in the areas of
Interactive Media Design, Interdisciplinary Object Design and Computer Science.
The Towson
Instead of
using typical web based tools for online learning, we are extending the
classroom experience virtually through Second Life. The Towson Innovation Lab
is a 3D virtual campus, designed for the use of faculty collaborators, their
students, and the Center of the Advancement of Instructional Technology outreach
and training programs. Here students have access to an international venue of
research opportunities, social networking, classroom activities, online
lectures and personal interaction with instructors involved in the project. Students can also showcase the results of
their academic and creative endeavors. Over several semesters, the authors have
utilized SL in many ways, receiving positive reactions from their students with
encouraging results (Sullivan, Baum, Braman, Dyer, 2009; Wang & Braman,
2009).
Towson Innovation Lab
Virtual Learning Objects
While
Second Life is not by itself a typical Learning Management System, it does nevertheless
posses several similar characteristics. The platform can be augmented by
linking 3D objects to external applications and web content. We see learning
objects as reusable virtual artifacts within an educational context that can
enhance the learning process through methods that allow the creation,
manipulation and interaction of such objects in an immersive environment.
Once
created, SL objects can be reused, duplicated and distributed similarity as
other encapsulated learning objects as in other web based platforms. SL objects
are limited however to exist only within its environment. Extending the
inherent visual aspect of learning, these objects can be enhanced through the
integration with external data objects, websites and databases through the
Linden Scripting Language (LSL), an in-world scripting language.
Interactive Media Design
Interactive
Media Design students in an online web design course utilized interactive
presentation boards to learn basic SL concepts and building techniques.
Students created scripted presentation board objects for in-world critiques of
their real life website designs. The learning objects created were simple in
design, yet a useful resource as students worked in-world. Student building
skills and confidence increased as their level of familiarity and experience
grew (Sullivan et al, 2009). The
nature of Second Life lends itself to pedagogy as learners are immersed in an
interactive space encouraging alternative perspectives and expanded creativity.
Some students designed entire buildings to display 3D versions of real life
designs. Another project included the simulation of a portion of the real
Towson University Campus. Working in Second Life afforded students the
opportunity to analyze the impact of 3D environments on future trends in
interactive media design (Sullivan, 2009).
Presentation Board Example Computer Objects Linked
to Web Content
Interdisciplinary Object Design
Creating immersive
environments for artistic brands, product lines, exhibitions, and portfolios,
Interdisciplinary Object Design students use Second Life as a visualization
tool (Baum, in press). Students work collaboratively to reach new markets for
their products and work, test marketing strategies, and strive to reach new and
global audiences. Design solutions for presentation methodology are explored in
an unparalleled manner through SL. Students can meet and work collaboratively
with peers and experts from distant geographical locations. Second Life and
similar environments provide new revenue streams and the opportunity for young
professionals to test market strategies using an array of digital tools linked
into SL such as product specific websites and Twitter. Virtual worlds provide
numerous opportunities to expose/train students in methodologies for next
generation learning while permitting access to new global audiences.
Example of Student Exhibition Student
Created Designs
Learning Computer Science Fundamentals
Certain topics in Computer Science curriculums can be challenging for
students to understand due to the high levels of abstraction, particularly when
it comes to learning data structures. Second Life in particular has potential
to be a useful tool to help students visualize these concepts by allowing
students to “see”, “feel” and interact with these concepts. Students can walk
up to a structure, click buttons to activate animations within SL or link to
external content on the web for more information. Interactive data structures
can be designed that allows students to visualize concepts as well as interact
with them in a “natural” space (Braman, Vincenti, Arboleda, Jinman, 2009).
Stack Data Structure Visual
Tree Example
References
Baum, J.
(in-press) MUVEs, Object Design, and the Design Studio Classroom. Teaching
through Multi-User Virtual Environments: Applying Dynamic Elements to the
Modern Classroom. Information Science
Reference.
Braman, J.
Vincenti, G. Arboleda, A. Jinman, A . (July 2009) Learning Computer Science
Fundamentals through Virtual Environments. 13th HCI International Conference on
Online Communities and Social Computing.
Sullivan, B.
(in-press) Online Studio Design Pedagogy: community, personality, graphic
design, usability -
Sullivan, B.
Baum, J. Braman, J. Dyer, L. (May 2009)
Teaching Design in Second Life: Institutional, Program and Course Level
Implementation Strategies. UCDA Design Education
Wang, Y. Braman,
J. (July 2009) Extending the Classroom
through Second Life. Journal of
Information Systems. Impacts of Web 2.0 and Virtual World Technologies on IS
Education. Vol. 20, Num. 2. Pp 235-247.
|
Bridget
Z. Sullivan Department of Art+Design
Jan
Baum Department of Art+Design
LaTonya
Dyer Center for Instructional
Advancement and Technology James
Braman Department of Computer and |
Recommendation on
Learning Objects According to Program Contents
Nowadays, service
customization is an area that different types of institutions and companies,
including online education providers, consider it as very important. It is therefore essential to customize the
educational process, that is, according to the characteristics
and preferences of individual students. At the Universidad Técnica Particular de Loja (UTPL), the teaching
objectives within the educational process are mainly based on educational
materials, tutorials and exams.
Educational materials are comprised of: textbooks (printing of UTPL
publications), didactic guides and learning
objects (LO), which are complementary to the educational process.
According to the
IEEE, a learning object is defined as “any digital entity which can be used,
reused or referenced during technology supported learning”. [1]
Learning objects are
managed (developed, organized and stored) via a learning object repository,
which can be open source, including DSpace, PlanetDR and Door. For the
management of learning objects, UTPL utilizes the institutional repository
Dspace[1].
DSpace works with the metadata standard Dublin Core (DC)[2]
[2], in which 2 levels are established: simple and qualified [3]. The first
level consists of 15 elements. For the second level, 3 elements are added to
the previous level.
Table 1. Dublin Core
Levels
|
FIRST LEVEL |
SECOND LEVEL |
||
|
Resource Content |
Resource Viewed as
intellectual property |
Resource Entries |
Added elements |
|
Title Author Description Subject |
Type Date Format Identifier Contributer |
Origin Language Coverage Point of Reference Laws |
Audience Origin Copyright |
Having used DSpace as
a repository for educational materials, it was necessary to change the Dublin
Core scheme to LOM v1.0 metadata (Learning Object Metadata) at the UTPL. The
objective was to promote the interoperability of the LO. The key component of
DSpace is its search engine (Lucene); it is identified by the indexing that is
performed via elementary units known as documents.
Each of these documents has a name and a textual value. Lucene provides
support for a specific type of query called query
range. In essence, it restores indexes using alphabetically arranged
strings using a low- and upper-limit range.
These individual searches can be improved using the semantic mapping of
contents. Hence, a ontology[3]
was developed which represents the LOM standard used in the DSpace repository
for LO labelling.
At the UTPL, the
teaching-learning process is supported by a Virtual Learning Environment
(VLE-Moodle). Students are provided with access to tutorials and resources as
well as resources that are stored or available in DSpace. In order to simplify
usage, modification, and re-elaboration of the LO, a link from VLE to the
DSpace repository was introduced.
In order to fully
support the learning process, a mechanism was developed that suggests learning
objects to students, i.e., in accordance with the course contents that are
being studied. This component runs when the student is logged in VLE, it
detects the program and courses that the student is following, and with those
parameters the component searches in the ontology inferring from the instances
the program content of each course, and the learning objects stored in DSPACE.
Based on this
objective, the previously mentioned ontology was used. Another ontology (Figure
1) was created, which represents part of the UTPL academic offer, namely
academic subjects, programs, courses, and contents. For the development and
integration of both ontologies, Methontology[4]
was chosen, this is based on the IEEE 1074 standard software life cycle;
Protégé 3.3.2 for formalization; OWL-DL
(as ontology language), and, Racer Pro and Jess (to validate taxonomy concepts
and inference rules respectively).
|
|
|
Figure 1: Protégé
Ontology
Figure 2 shows the
results of the pre-programmed block in the VLE system for using the created ontologies.
Figure 2: LO
Recommendation as seen on the VLE system
Future Projects
The virtual
teaching-learning process will continue to advance in the future in accordance to
how technology progresses and develops. In this specific case, the UTPL made a
first step in the implementation of semantic definitions, pragmatic content,
and learning objects (recommendations of learning objects). This has allowed us
to provide students with LO that is related to the pragmatic contents of the
courses they are studying.
In order to
strengthen the development of the semantic applications, it is necessary to
research and develop components additional to ontologies such as “intelligent
agents”. These help to provide more
personalized recommendations based on the different user profiles.
References
[1] Martínez, J.(s.f). Objetos
de aprendizaje. Una aplicación educativa de Internet 2. Retrieved 20 March,
2009, from http://eae.ilce.edu.mx/
objetosaprendizaje.htm
[2] Dublin Core Metadata Initiative-DCMI
Metadata Terms. (14 de Enero de 2008). Retrieved 20 February, 2008, from http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/
[3] Dublin Core Metadata Initiative-Using
Dublin Core - Dublin Core Qualifiers. (07 de Noviembre de 2005). Retrieved
20 February, 2008, from http://dublincore.org/documents/usageguide/qualifiers.shtml.
|
Inés Jara R. Virtualization
Department Universidad Técnica Particular de Loja Martha Agila Universidad Técnica Particular de Loja Paola Sarango Universidad Técnica Particular de Loja Priscila Valdiviezo Universidad Técnica Particular de Loja Manuel
Cartuche Universidad Técnica Particular de Loja |
Usability Case Study Learning Objects for Collaborative Authentic Education
Authentic learning
was a call for instruction to be more contextually bound in real world
situations rather than confined to abstract concepts for students to memorize (Resnick,
1987; Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989). The argument being that by
connecting concepts to real world problems the application of knowledge can be
emphasized, helping students transfer what they learn in a classroom to
authentic practice. Towards this aim we developed a usability case studies
(UCS) library website (http://ucs.ist.psu.edu/)
with detailed design cases of software projects developed by companies and
other organizations. These cases serve as learning objects for students as they
are a reusable, structured way to tie usability concepts and methods to real
world practice; they demonstrate for students what usability methods look like
in practice and provide students with opportunities to evaluate and reflect on
the process of scenario based usability engineering design.
Case studies in
the UCS library are not brief narratives; they are extensive hypertext
collections, including actual design sketches and other design documents
(Figure 1). The case schema corresponds to standard phases of a system’s development
process: requirements analysis, activity
design, information design, interaction design, documentation design, and
evaluation (Rosson & Carroll 2001). The phases further decompose into sets
of 3-4 activities that take place during each phase, making 20 categories of
software design activity.
Figure 1: Detailed view of part of a case in the
original UCS Library including an embedded image of an original design
document.
A user navigates
the library through the categories within each case. Categories are populated
with sets of scenarios, artifact descriptions, claims and their pros and cons,
along with associated media. For example, the requirements analysis category
typically contains early statements of the design concept, results from requirements
surveys, focus groups, and other market research (including, where possible,
instrumental documents such as advertisements used to recruit participants into
focus groups). Other phases contain complementary content.
Initially, the case library site was built on a database with tables of scenarios, artifact descriptions, claims and pros/cons related to claims. Taking advantage of these structures, we integrated our collaborative BRIDGE workspace (Ganoe et al. 2003) with the case library to provide a tool (Figure 2) for student teams to collaboratively interact around individual elements of case content through comments (Xiao et al 2008). This led to the realization that allowing students to be able to collaboratively interact with individual pieces of content within a case is a powerful concept.
We also found
other practitioners and educators who wanted to contribute new cases and use
the cases in their own courses. This initiated a redesign of the case library
to support collaborative construction of case content and collaboration around
that content. The original case library was essentially just a website with a
database backend. Photographs, scanned documents, etc. that were parts of the
cases were stored as separate files on the web server and linked in with HTML
tags embedded in the database record text. New requirements became distributed
authoring of new cases by providing space for cases under development as well
as those that were part of student activities, hidden from the published cases.
We wanted an architecture that would embed media files in with the rest of the
case content. Finally, we wanted to construct these content objects under a
software application programmer’s interface (
We chose Fedora (http://www.fedora.info/) for our underlying
architecture because it supports the object-oriented content features in our
requirements. Technologies like Fedora (similarly Java Content Repositories http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=170)
provide an ideal mechanism for the underlying management of learning objects.
They do so by making it easy to create data objects with designer specified
attributes, providing easy storage mechanisms for media data streams: audio,
images, video, etc., and allowing for arbitrary linkages between the objects.
Constructing a case library from well-defined repository objects allows for
easier design of tools that interact with the objects in the system. For
example, a repository object can support many user-specified content fields,
while also easily adopting standard learning object metadata (e.g. IEEE 1484).
We have competed work on the redesigned case
library (Figure 3; Jiang et al. to appear). We are now focusing on constructing
a workspace where users can construct shared views of the content specific to
their context. For example, if an instructor wants to have a lesson on the use
of metaphor in design, he could create a custom view that aggregates examples
of metaphor in design across all the cases, and he can annotate those results
with lesson materials for the class. This aggregated view could be saved as a
template in the repository and passed on to student groups as a design
activity. The view could also be made public as a learning object to be reused
by others. We see ability to flexibly aggregate of case content into authentic
learning activities an important part of constructing next generation learning
objects.
We are also continually developing activities
connected to the case library to further facilitate students' ability to apply
important usability engineering concepts. Currently, we are experimenting with
partially distributed team assignments in an upper-level undergraduate course
on Usability Engineering (details at http://ist413.ist.psu.edu/).
These assignments employ case-based
learning (Carroll & Rosson 2005) where students analyze and apply ideas
from the case library to their own design projects. The assignments also employ
distributed collaborative learning
(Ganoe et al. 2003; Xiao et al. 2008); student teams are asked to work together
outside of class using collaborative software over a period of several days to
several weeks to develop a design analysis or prototype, and a report
describing their work. Our software provides tools to collaboratively comment
on case content, construct cases, and write reports. In this research, we are
not only interested in constructing a digital library of learning objects from
usability engineering cases, but also in developing and maintaining a
collection of collaborative activities that engage students in both the
products and processes of usability engineering.
References
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P.
(1989). Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning. Educational Researcher,
18(1), 32-42.
Carroll, J.M. & Rosson, M.B. (2005). A
Case Library for Teaching Usability Engineering: Design Rationale, Development,
and Classroom Experience. ACM Journal of Educational Resources in Computing,
5(1), Article 3, pp. 1-22.
Ganoe, C.H., Somervell, J.P.,
Jiang, H., Ganoe, C.H. and Carroll, J.M.
(to appear). Four requirements for Digital Case Study Libraries. Education and
Information Technologies.
Resnick, L. (1987). Learning in school and
out. Educational Researcher, 16(9), 13-20.
Rosson, M.B. & Carroll, J.M. (2001).
Usability Engineering: Scenario-Based Development of Human-Computer
Interaction. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
Xiao, L., Carroll, J.M., Clemson, P. &
Rosson, M.B. (2008) Support of Case-based Authentic Learning Activities: A
Collaborative Case Commenting Tool and A Collaborative Case Builder. Proc. of
HICSS 41:
|
Craig H.
Ganoe The University Park, PA 16801, USA Marcela
Borge The University Park, PA 16801, USA Hao Jiang The University Park, PA 16801, USA John M.
Carroll The University Park, PA 16801, USA Mary Beth
Rosson The University Park, PA 16801, USA |
Adaptivity and
Adaptability in Learning Objects
Abstract: This paper discusses the concepts of adaptivity and adaptability applied
to the design of learning object interfaces. In this regard, adaptivity means
the capability of learning objects to automatically adapt to the user, based on
assumptions about him/her. Adaptability, on the other hand, regards the
possibility of allowing the user to modify some parameters of the learning
objects’ interface. In this way, the aim for the learning object is to adapt to
the user, not the other way around.
Keywords: learning object, adaptivity, adaptability,
mediatic object, user model, instructional design, customization.
Introduction
The learning
objects’ interfaces usually have the same look and feel for every user,
regardless of his/her learning needs and individual characteristics, which compels
the users’ adaptation to the learning object. There are some interfaces that
are "customizable"; where the user can choose to modify some
characteristics of the interfaces’ visual aspects. However, this does not
entirely satisfy the needs of educational content presentation to the users. It
is also required that the learning objects’ interface adapts to the needs,
interests and characteristics of students, allowing them to efficiently
complete their tasks and learning activities. In order to achieve this, it is
necessary to analyze the interests and preferences of the student, before the
learning objects’ interface can provide an appropriate support for the
teaching-learning process.
Adaptivity and Adaptability
Advances in adaptive
interfaces have improved the design and development stages of customizable user
interfaces; and those advances can now be applied to the learning objects’
context. According to Oppermann [3], adaptivity and adaptability are two
features of a system which make it able to adapt itself, modifying its
interaction with the user.
As stated by Kobsa
[2], adaptability means that the user is able to consciously personalize the
application, while adaptivity refers to the selection and presentation of
content done by the system, for example, according to the user’s interests.
Adaptivity
We consider adaptivity
as the ability of learning objects to automatically adapt to the user, based on
assumptions about him/her. The adaptivity of the learning objects’ interface
includes making decisions about what mediatic object is presented to a specific
user and when, based on his/her interests and the guidelines of instructional
design.
A mediatic object
is a digital entity with different forms of representation (text, illustration,
graphic, video or audio) which is an element of the contents presented on the
learning object interface. The basic function of the mediatic object is to
mediate the educational content based on its representative nature.
Adaptability
Adaptability refers to the user being
able to modify the system settings and adapt it to his/her preferences. In the
context of learning objects, adaptability is related to the ability of a
learning object to match the user’s expectations based on his/her previous
behavior. In this manner, the interface should display the mediatic objects in
place according to the user’s preferences.
Learning Object Interface
Adaptivity and
adaptability of the learning object interface include introducing relevant
content according to the previous interaction between the student and the
mediatic objects contained in the learning objects’ interface. Thus, the
learning objects' interface has to monitor the students’ progress and to keep
them aware of their own progress.
For the interface
of a learning object to be adaptive and adaptable, we must consider the user model, instructional design and customization of the learning object.
User Model
A user model
is a representation of the set of beliefs concerning the interests and
preferences of a particular user, used for the interactions with the learning
object to enable adaptivity and adaptability of the mediatic objects in the
interface. The proposed user model has two key elements:
- User interests. Allow
adaptivity of learning objects, making it possible to decide which
mediatic object to present and when, based on instructional design (Figure 1a).
- User preferences. Allow adaptability,
defined as the personalized visualization of mediatic objects (Figure 1b).
Figure 1: Adaptivity and
Adaptability of Learning Object Interface
Instructional Design
According to the
website of Instructional Design [1], instructional design is the process by
which education is enhanced through the analysis of learning needs and
systematic development of learning materials. Within the context of this work,
we consider the instructional design from two perspectives:
- Instructional design applied to the design of
mediatic objects. Is related to the design and development of each one of
the learning object’s contents.
- Instructional design applied to the design of
learning object. Is related to design between user interaction and
mediatic objects.
Instructional
design must propose what, where, when and how [4] the mediatic object will be
displayed in the learning objects’ interface according to the user’s interests.
In this way, the learning object can recommend the user to interact with a
given mediatic objects, for example according to his/her interests.
Customization
Customization refers
to the user preferences about the location of mediatic objects in a particular
place of the learning objects’ interface. Since these preferences could not be
detected automatically by the learning object, this information will be
provided directly by the user.
Conclusions
Learning object’s interfaces related to adaptivity and adaptability must
allow for the mediatic objects to be displayed in a personalized way, according
to the user’s interests and preferences. The considerations for the development
of learning object’s interfaces regarding to adaptivity and adaptability
involve three key elements: user model,
instructional design and customization.
The user model, the instructional design and the customization let the
learning object to:
1. Analyze the interaction between
user and mediatic objects.
2. Display the mediatic objects in
the interface according to the user’s interests and preferences.
We are working in the development process of a Methodology of Software
Engineering for the Design, Adaptivity, Adaptability and Usability of Learning
Object Interfaces. In this research, we suggest that the design of learning
object interfaces based on the proposed methodology will ensure:
1. the presentation of mediatic objects in an adaptable way, according
to the user needs and interests.
2. the efficient user performance doing the learning tasks, avoiding
confusion and loss of interest due to the overload of mediatic objects in the
interface.
References
[1] Cullata,
Richard. “Instructional Design”,
Developer of the Instructional Design Website. Available online at:
http://www.instructionaldesign.org/
[2] Kobsa,
A., “Adaptive Interfaces”,
[3] Oppermann,
R., “Adaptability and Adaptivity in
Learning Systems”, GMD
[4] Vega, M. “Las implicaciones
|
Verónica
Rodríguez Rodríguez Universidad de las Américas Santa Catarina Mártir, C.P. 72820, México Gerardo Ayala San Martín Universidad de las Américas Santa Catarina Mártir, C.P. 72820, México |
Re-purpose, Re-use: Reconsider
Tam and Lam [1] notes, “learning objects (LOs) are potentially useful
to many innovative applications for next generation learning”, and go on to
suggest that the high complexity of the designed structures for LOs and the
huge costs involved in the re-engineering of existing e-learning platforms will
discourage LO reuse. There may be, however, a more fundamental, and
insurmountable, reason for the lack of re-usability of LOs.
A well-designed LO addresses one or more carefully delineated intended
learning outcomes (ILOs), where the LO activities, assessments, and content are
specifically focussed upon the achievement of those ILOs. Since an ILO is an expression of an
educational purpose, a LO is (or should be) a systematic embodiment of that
purpose. This view derives from Ulrich’s contributions [2] towards the critical
analysis of systems, and may be illustrated by Figure 1. Ulrich’s terminology is shown in bold, while
the corresponding terms to be used in the subsequent discussion are shown in a
smaller point size within parentheses.
Figure 1: The
relations between LO and ILO.
It is often said that one of the main benefits of LOs is that they can
be re-used or “re-purposed”, yet the re-purposing of something which has been
thoroughly engineered to fit a different purpose might be easily thought an
exercise in pointless futility. Assuming no change to the LO content, it is
rather difficult to imagine how it could in fact be fit for its new purpose or
be said to be “re-purposed” (i.e., suited to a different ILO) in any logical or
sensible sincere use of that phrase.
Purposes and ILOs tend to be individual rather than common. A project some years ago at a prestigious UK
university secured a large grant and three years to produce an e-learning
module (what now might be called a set of LOs) on “Introductory statistics”
that would be suitable for engineers, psychologists, and medical doctors. Four years later, the outcome was a high pile
of bitterly contested paper (and nothing else) which no one accepted. Everyone did agree, for example, that there
should be a LO on Student’s t-test. Not
unexpectedly, everyone wanted to use their own domain-specific examples,
exercises, and case studies. But
interestingly, no agreement could be reached on how the subject matter should
be taught, or on the ILOs and their associated assessment.
The point of this unreported but often-repeated (other domains, other
universities, other times) case study is to highlight the significance of
contextual factors which surround seemingly detached, abstracted, and
self-contained ILOs. What each
stakeholder wanted were ILOs (and hence LOs) which suited their individual and
particular ways of teaching, which were relevant to the particular departmental
approaches to the topic, and which were appropriate to their particular subject
matter domains. What the project
attempted was the definition and delivery of re-usable LOs. It all failed.
A development of current ideas surrounding competencies suggests a
conceptual model of ILOs augmented by contextual factors, as illustrated in
Figure 2 [3]. Such augmented ILOs might
be called competences.
Figure 2: A
conceptual model of competence as contextualised ILOs.
The point of highlighting contextual factors in the use (and attempted
re-use) of LOs is to suggest that, while the re-purposing of a LO to some
different ILO might be thought to involve considerable conceptual difficulties,
the re-purposing to a different competence should be considered impossible in
practice and perhaps even impossible in principle. This follows from the richness of context
which is hinted at in Figure 2. While an ILO may be reasonably constrained by
an agreed ontology of capability terms (e.g., Bloom’s taxonomy) and an agreed
subject matter topics list, context is in principle limitless and dependent
upon particulars (if not peculiarities) of the target students, teachers,
locations, times, tools, required mastery levels, available services, etc.
There are circumstances where a LO might be thought capable of
re-purposing. Such a LO would probably have an ILO of such generality that it
would be better described as an aim or goal, capability on Bloom’s hierarchy
that hardly ventured beyond ‘knowledge’ or ‘comprehension’, and content that
focussed on facts rather than on richer material which might be described by
Merrill’s concepts, procedures, or principles [4]. Another way of saying the same thing would be
to suggest that such a LO would likely have negligible value as front-line
learning and teaching material (though it may well have application as
background reference material).
Editing a LO, of course, opens the possibility of better re-using its
content in the service of a re-purposed ILO.
However, this is not what is meant by “re-using a LO”, and for purists
the discussion therefore stops here. We might just explore the potential, though,
of editing LO content to see if such an approach might at least yield some
pedagogic value from re-purposed or re-used material.
We could approach the question by considering the learning transaction
[5], a simple analysis of a learning and teaching situation based upon the
conversational model of Laurillard [6], integrating it with the competence
model of Figure 2, and expressing it as a conceptual model of teaching and
learning compatible with IMS Learning Design (IMS LD) [7]. The result is shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3: Conceptual model of learning and teaching.
The key points to note are that a pedagogically effective IMS LD Unit
of Learning, which could be thought of as a fully elaborated LO, is based upon
learning activities which are entirely connected to the ILO, and upon teaching
activities similarly. Editing LO content
so as to effectively re-purpose it is equivalent to simply originating a (new)
LO in service of a (new) ILO. The
purists are right about the conceptual inadequacy of the idea of editing LO
content and calling the result a “re-used” LO.
We may conclude that we cannot meaningfully (conceptually or
practically) re-purpose a properly executed LO to a different ILO, and we
should not be surprised by little evidence of meaningful LO re-use.
References
[1] Tam,
V. and Lam, E.Y. (2009) Call for articles
- Learning Technology Newsletter Special Issue on Learning Objects and Their
Supporting Technologies for Next Generation Learning.
[2] Ulrich,
W. (2002). Critical Systems Heuristics. In: The
Informed Student Guide to Management Science, ed. by H.G. Daellenbach and
R.L. Flood, London: Thomson Learning.
[3] Sitthisak,
O., Gilbert, L. and Davis, H. (2008). Deriving e-assessment from a competency
model. In: The 8th IEEE International
Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT 2008).
[4] Merrill,
M.D. (1999). Instructional transaction theory (
[5] Gilbert,
L., Sim, Y. W. and Wang, C. (2005). An e-Learning Systems Engineering
Methodology. In: The 5th IEEE International
Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies,
[6] Laurillard,
D. (2001). Rethinking University
Teaching: A Conversational Framework for the Effective Use of Learning
Technologies (2nd ed), Routledge Falmer.
[7] IMS LD (2003). IMS Learning
Design Best Practice and Implementation Guide. Available from
http://www.imsglobal.org/learningdesign/ldv1p0/imsld_bestv1p0.html
|
Lester Gilbert Learning Societies Lab, University of Southampton |
An
Interactive Programme to Improve EFL Reading-Writing Skills
With the upsurge of interest in computer assisted language learning,
researchers and teachers have acknowledged the importance of incorporating
technology in the second language classroom. The reading-writing connection can
actually be strengthened through computer-based tasks by means of which
learners may have access to model texts (as shown in Figure 1) and perform
different activities that will allow them to identify text-type and
organization patterns, formal structure of the text (as shown in Figure 1 and
2), and lexico-grammatical features (as shown in Figure 3) – among others.
Through these reading input learners are provided with a contextual framework
that they will later transfer into their own written productions. Transfer of
skills is not automatic; systematic teaching and student’s ongoing practice so that
the second language (L2)[5] reading / writing
relationship can be effectively used to turn learners into successful writers
(Carson 1990).
Figure 1: Argumentation – This
figure shows the first paragraphs of an opinion essay. The text is shown as a
model for recognition of the rhetoric structure of this text-type (different
stages, transition devices, logical development of ideas), as well as proper
use of vocabulary and syntax required for successful academic writing.
Figure 2: Narrative – This
activity in the program is presented after students read a short recount. It is
intended to raise students’ awareness about the different stages of the
narrative ordering the events in the story through a “dragging” operation.
Figure 3: Descriptions – This
activity appears in the program after a descriptive model text is read and it aims
at evaluating students’ recognition and production of the lexico-grammatical
features commonly present in people’s descriptions. After completing this matching
exercise, readers are expected to use these vocabulary items in their own
written productions.
One of the aims
of the proposed interactive CD is to apply computer technology as a tool to
increase student’s motivation and to improve their writing skills. Regarding L2
writing instruction, exposing students to a wide variety of “text types” will
make them aware of the co-occurrence of similar linguistic patterns in those
texts (Paltridge, 1996). In the EFL[6] class students should be given the opportunity to develop their
reading/writing skills through systematic practice by using multimedia
technology. The interactive programme, Enhancing
the Reading-Writing Connection, has been
developed to enable students - through consciousness raising activities in the
reading phase - to attend features of the input texts which they will later
have to use in the writing phase.
This interactive CD consists of three units
which present, as genre categories, texts labelled as descriptions, narratives
and arguments (Martin, 1989 in Paltridge, 1996). These texts are used as models
for the analysis of the rhetorical organization and lexico-grammatical features
of each text type. Tasks in the three units of the programme promote the
development of strategies that emphasise the reading-writing connection,
leading students to produce their own individual texts. The students’ written
productions will then be typed in a word processor and sent via e-mail to the
teacher for feedback.
As regards the interactivity of the programme,
students can start by selecting one of the three units in the menu. The user
can move along the programme as if “touring around it” and he will only be able
to advance after having completed every exercise in each of the units; once
this is done, the user can go back to the menu and start working with another
unit. The programme offers feedback by allowing only two instances of error in
every task. By clicking on a button
which leads to a specific hyperlink, learners can go back to sample texts,
grammar charts and references, whenever they need further information. The
activities in this interactive CD include multiple choice, drag and
drop and matching exercises.
At the end of each unit the learner completes another set of free production
tasks which will be typed in the programme itself and then e-mailed to the
instructor.
This programme has already been piloted with a group
of university students who manifested they felt satisfied with the layout, the
array of colours, illustrations and emoticons displayed in it. They also made
positive comments regarding the distribution of the information, task design,
the clarity and precision of the prompts, the suitability of content and task
gradation. Finally, they considered the programme as a useful tool for self-access
practice.
It is undoubtedly true that at
the turn of the 21st century we are in the centre of a very important
technological–educational paradigm shift, one which has changed the way
language instructors teach and the way students learn. Even though it is
believed that technology should not take over the language classroom, it must
be embraced so as to allow learners to cope with the necessary skills that
would facilitate their academic development in the foreign language.
References
Carson,
J.
1990. Reading-Writing
connections: toward a description for
second language learners. In
Kroll, B. (ed.) Second Language
Writing.
Carson,
J and Leki,
Linder,
D. 2004. The Internet in every classroom? Using outside computers.
Paltridge,
B. 1996. Genre, text type, and the language learning classroom.
Skehan, P. 1998.
A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning.
|
Silvia
Depetris Universidad Nacional de Río Cuarto Laura Severini Universidad Nacional de Río Cuarto Gabriela Sergi Universidad Nacional de Río Cuarto |
Learning Objects for Adaptive and Personalized Lifelong Education
Nowadays, environments for the professional
development demand the academic formation processes, to extend the range of
abilities in knowledge acquisition focused to understand more deeply “the
making” and in the same way, to generate competences of social content
associated to the communication, dialogue and negotiation proficiency,
assertive thinking and easiness to approach and solve problems.
To fulfill these demands, the educative methodologies
for the existent traditional education systems (that distribute the
just-in-case knowledge) which support face-to-face or distance education
programs are not enough. In consequence, institutional policies have become necessary
to allow the reorganization of the academic curricula introducing the new role
of teachers (reinvented as providers of learning opportunities) and students;
in learning environments oriented to the student empowerment, the enhancement
of his/her capacity and responsibility to express his/her difference, the
enhancement of team work, the mutual help, the learning by doing, etc.
Currently, applied research based on postulates and
prototypes created some years ago through formative research processes[7] is
been carried out by UIS[8]
experts, aiming at consolidate existent learning experiences using ICT, to
enhance the teaching and learning processes, to promote didactic innovation and
to add value to research initiatives, technological transfer and the university
with the society convergence.
Enrolling educators today to integrate technology and
learning is one of the ProSPETIC[9]
challenges to reinforce its postulates. The UIS educators are working hard in
this direction at different levels. Beginners are called to participate in
training experiences with technology by creating and updating his/her own
website using institutional web templates to build it. The structure of these templates allows
teachers to organize online the diary, and teaching contents that support
his/her courses. In this phase teachers acquire abilities to manage web-based
tools, media formats, techniques to respect author copyrights and basic
strategies for online and collaborative learning.
Advanced
teachers are working together in transforming the traditional course curricula
to a more innovative one that considers competence formation. This process is carried out using the functional
analysis model (designed to develop labor competence) adapted to support
academic program requirements. The Bloom cognitive domain taxonomy and the
Felder learning style model premises are combined to allow in the curricular
planning, the definition of instructional strategies and media needs that
should guide the design and digital content production (Learning Objects – LO)
focused to achieve meaningful and personalized learning in this emerging
educational paradigm.
At the UIS context, lifelong
learning necessities for all are identified to design and produce those digital
contents to be exploited in adaptive virtual environments. The use of
educational modeling languages and instructional engineering methodologies
helped us to decide the LO articulation to ease the knowledge management and to
promote active and personalized learning. Furthermore, the e-learning standards
play an important role to guide the tools and LO design in levels concerning
the technology to use, the implementation policies, the compatible formats and
access devices used to allow the learning at any place, anytime, anywhere and
any pace. That is why the SCORM specification was chosen to build the core of
the e-escen@ri[10] architecture, composed basically by contents,
students and interoperability elements. The following list explains details of
these elements.
·
Contents are considered immersed in a domain model (resources
and didactic materials in different media, designed to match different learning
styles) and a pedagogic model (logical structuring of the formation activities
according to the curricular planning specification). This content design is
based on strategies to: learn how to learn; build learning; establish
relationships among knowledge; make easy the random and configured assessment
and control the learning process; learn how to analyze and apply knowledge;
and, recruit and motivate the student. For their production, multimedia
principles are applied to help establishing a perceptive and open pedagogic
frame and to guide the didactic innovation possibility given by the
technological and cultural advances (to avoid using the same speech for all).
Figure 1 shows an
example of the e-escen@ri template used to offer contents following directions
of Felder’s learning style model and Bloom’s cognitive theory. Buttons of the
right hand side allow the presentation of the same contents using different
perspectives (verbal formats as pdf texts or audio tips; visual formats as
video clips, graphics or schemas; interactive formats as simulation software or
animations, etc.). In this case, the teaching unit and its contents are derived
from the curricular planning structure created by means of conceptual maps.
Figure 1: A set of learning objects articulated in a
template of the e-escen@ri Learning Management System
·
Student information matches the student preferences, abilities and skills
“captured” in the context of a student's model (interaction registrations,
competences, subjective likes, learning styles, etc.). This model behavior
defines the adaptive level of the virtual learning environment.
·
Interoperability is concerned the Learning Management System (LMS)
components involved in the integration of learning objects (protocols,
architectures, user's interfaces, etc.) and the interconnection for their
access with multiple LMSs. The construction of the IMSmanifest.xml (the gateway
file used to define attributes for the resource integration) defined in the
SCORM specification, is key to guarantee this interoperability. Likewise, if a
user-friendly interface exists to help teachers or content authors to give
sense in an intuitive way to the articulation of the domain and pedagogic
model, this process will be widely accepted and will make easier the use of the
technology in education. Figure 2 shows the e-escen@ri learning desktop
assisted by a user-friendly intelligent agent (a recommender agent).
Figure 2: A learning session assisted by a recommender
agent
Clara
Inés Peña de Carrillo
Universidad
Industrial de Santander
Bucaramanga,
Colombia
Gilberto
Carrillo Caicedo
Universidad
Industrial de Santander
Bucaramanga,
Colombia
Evaluation of Learning Management Systems
for Learning Objects
Abstract: The paper specifies the criteria for evaluating LMSs and draws a
comparative chart of popular Open Source Software available for
Introduction
Learning objects
can be combined to make up modules, courses and individual learning experiences
[1] [2].
Downes [3] notes
that a learning object “can only be determined by its use, not by its nature”. LMSs
are known to be very useful in the delivery and engagement phase of learning
objects [8]. They present a range of
tools and technologies to facilitate collaboration, co-operation, feedback,
practice, application, communities of practice, tracking, resource sharing,
accessing, downloading, etc. [4][5]
Methodology of Research
To
select and evaluate the right OSS
- What
types of organizations are using
- Where
- What
vertical industries have the largest number of
- Which
systems are
- Average
size, staffing of
- Total
number of
- Total
number of registered e-learners
- Largest
hosted implementations
- Largest
locally installed, behind-the-firewall implementations
- Amount
of money spent on
- Servers/databases
most typically supported
- Most
frequent ERP , other back-office integrations
- Depth
of ERP integration in typical
- Third-party
content most often interoperable with
- Authoring
tools , LCMS ,
- Common
LMS functionalities
- Classroom management
- Competency and performance management
- Built-in content development and management tools
- Average number of report templates
- Analytics (calculate ROI for training)
- Multiple domain support
- AICC certified/compliant
- SCORM certified/conformant
- Built-in collaboration tools
- Languages supported
- Hosted vs. locally installed solutions
- Built-in e-commerce
- Average
implementation time for an
Conclusion
Our review indicates
(as shown in Tab. 1) that Moodle, Manhattan Virtual Classroom, and ATutor are preferred
if there is support to set up and run platforms on a remote server. dotLRN is also
very usable, but it is very complex as well. Moodle is the most suitable choice
since it is stable, reliable, accessible, flexible, easy to navigate and locate
components. It is also quick to upload files and assignments, provides
contextual help, learner control, and supports easy course development,
importing and updating content, exporting reports, grades, etc. Research also revealed
that over 66% of Moodle users are teachers, on-line learning researchers, educational
administrators. One strength of Moodle is the strong community support as
developers/users participate in Moodle's active discussion forums, sharing
tips, posting code snippets, helping new users, and sharing resources. Moodle's
low cost, flexibility and ease of use helps bring
Table
1. Evaluation results
|
Platform Name |
Site runs on public server |
Overall Appearance |
Menu Appearance |
Ease of Use |
Displays picture of student/ teacher with message |
Can upload files |
Polling? |
Discussion Forums? |
Live chat? |
Multiple languages? |
Calendar? |
|
Yahoo! Groups |
Yes |
A bit busy, |
Good, clear categories |
Fine, when registered and kinks handled |
No |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
|
BSCW |
Public server OR own server |
Uncluttered, no ads |
Clear |
Easy to use |
No |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Fle3 |
No |
Very basic |
A bit confusing |
Messages can be displayed by thread, by author, etc¹ |
Yes! |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
No |
|
The |
No |
Fine |
Excellent |
Quite easy to navigate; |
No |
Yes |
Probably |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
ATutor |
No |
Very sleek, easily modified by individual user |
Somewhat similar to Blackboard |
Preferable for students with computer knowledge |
No |
Yes |
No, but test function could be adapted |
Yes |
Yes |
In the near future |
No |
|
dotLRN |
No |
Look & functionality like Yahoo! Groups |
Very sleek |
Easy to use, navigation is very logical |
No |
Yes |
Yes simple and advanced |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
|
Moodle |
No, but site can be hosted for a small price |
Themes/skins allow for easy font/color/layout, etc. to suit
local needs |
Excellent! |
Fantastic! |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes, plus easy navigation between languages |
Yes |
References
[1] Polsani,
P. R. (2003), “Use and Abuse of Reusable Learning object”. Journal of
Digital Information, vol. 3, issue 4, article no. 164, http://jodi.ecs.soton.ac.uk/Articles/v03/i04/Polsani/
[2] Laurillard,
D. (2002), “Re-thinking University Teaching”. A Conversational Framework for
the Effective use of Learning Technologies, Routledge, pp 83-89.
[3] Laurillard,
D. and McAndrew, P. (2003), “Reusable Educational Software: a Basis for Generic
Learning Activities” in Littlejohn, A. , Reusing Online Resources – a
Sustainable Approach to e-learning,
[4] Wiley,
D. A. (2000), “Learning object Design and Sequencing Theory”. http://davidwiley.com/papers/dissertation/dissertation.pdf.
[5] Wiley1,
D. A. (2000), “Connecting Learning object to Instructional Design Theory: A
Definition, a Metaphor, and a Taxonomy” in D. A. Wiley . The Instructional
Use of Learning object, http://reusability.org/read/chapters/wiley.doc
[6] Hodgins,
H. W. (2000), “The Future of Learning object” in D. A. Wiley , The
Instructional Use of Learning object, http://reusability.org/read/chapters/hodgins.doc
[7] Allegra,
M., Davide, M. & Fulantelli, G. (2008), “The Open Learning object model
to promote Open Educational Resources”. JIME, http://jime.open.ac.uk/2008/09
[8] IEEE.
(2004) “IEEE Learning Technology Standards Committee: Specifications”. http://ltsc.ieee.org.
[9] MERLOT.
(2008): www.merlot.org.
[10] Moodle.
(2007) http://moodle.org/.
[11] SCORM
(2006)http://www.adlnet.org
|
Sonal
Chawla Dept of Computer Science & Applications Panjab University,Chandigarh. India R.K. Singla Dept of Computer Science & Applications Panjab University,Chandigarh. India |