2013 06 14 (uc3m) emadrid calario uva glue architecture integration external tools virtual learning environment

1. GLUE!: An architecture for the
integration of external tools in
Virtual Learning Environments
UNIVERSIDAD DE VALLADOLID
UNIVERSIDAD CARLOS III DE MADRID
Autor
Carlos Alario Hoyos
Tutores
Dr. Miguel L. Bote Lorenzo
Dr. Eduardo Gómez Sánchez
Madrid, June 14th
2013
www.gsic.uva.es/glue

2. 2

3. 3
7200 in Spain!7200 in Spain!
https://moodle.org/stats

4. Outline
 Introduction
 The integration problem
 Overview of GLUE!
 Evaluation
 Conclusions and further work
4

5. Context
5

6. VLEs and external tools
6
 Include a set of 10-25 built-Include a set of 10-25 built-
in toolsin tools [Bow11]
Top 100 Tools for Learning
 Support individual/collaborative
activities
 Tools in the CL life cycleTools in the CL life cycle
– One instance per group in
collaborative activities
 Creation, configuration and assignment

7. Integration of external tools in VLEs
 Limitations of existing integration works:
– High development effortHigh development effort
• One-to-one integration (e.g. Moodle Modules)
• Tight integration (e.g. IMS Learning Tool Interoperability – LTI [IMS06c])
– Strict technological restrictionsStrict technological restrictions (e.g. Apache Wookie [Wil08])
– Limited support to the instantiation and enactment ofLimited support to the instantiation and enactment of
collaborative activitiescollaborative activities (e.g. IMS Basic LTI [IMS10b]) 7

8. Outline
 Introduction
 The integration problem
 Overview of GLUE!
 Evaluation
 Conclusions and further work
8

9. Main stakeholders’ requirements
Stakeholder Tag Requirement
REQ
1
Enable the instantiation of individual andinstantiation of individual and
collaborative activitiescollaborative activities that require the integration of
external tools with an attainable effortattainable effort for educators
REQ
2
Enable the enactment of collaborative activitiesenactment of collaborative activities
that require the integration of external tools, facilitating the
collaboration among participants
REQ
3
Support the integration of existing and popular VLEsexisting and popular VLEs
and toolsand tools
REQ
4
Support the integration of many external toolsmany external tools
REQ
5
Demand an attainable development effortattainable development effort for the
integration of tools and VLEs
REQ
6
Be built over existing VLEs and toolsbuilt over existing VLEs and tools ,, rather than
modifying their implementations
9

10. Design issues and alternatives
10

11. Design decisions
11

12. Outline
 Introduction
 The integration problem
 Overview of GLUE!
 Evaluation
 Conclusions and further work
12

13. Description of the architecture: Technical
13
Tier Purpose
GLUE! core
- Promote a many-to-many integration
Tier Purpose
GLUE! core
- Promote a many-to-many integration
- Homogenize VLE and tool contracts
Tier Purpose
GLUE! core
- Promote a many-to-many integration
- Homogenize VLE and tool contracts
- Assume most of the integration functionality
Tier Purpose
GLUE! core
- Promote a many-to-many integration
- Homogenize VLE and tool technologies
- Assume most of the integration functionality
Tool adapters - Wrap tools connecting them to the GLUE! core
VLE adapters
- Wrap VLEs connecting them to the GLUE!
core

14. Description of the architecture: Functional
14
Tier Purpose
GLUE! core
- Promote a many-to-many integration
Tier Purpose
GLUE! core
- Promote a many-to-many integration
- Homogenize VLE and tool contracts
Tier Purpose
GLUE! core
- Promote a many-to-many integration
- Homogenize VLE and tool contracts
- Assume most of the integration functionality
Tier Functionality
GLUE! core
- Manage requests related to the tool life cycle
- Manage persistent data about created instances
- Manage persistent data about the available tools
Tool adapters
- Translate requests from the GLUElet Manager to tool
contracts
- Provide and process configuration information
- Enable the management and use of external tools within

15. Reference implementation
15http://gsic.uva.es/glue

16. Examples of usage (I)
16+

17. Examples of usage (II)
+
17

18. Outline
 Introduction
 The integration problem
 Overview of GLUE!
 Evaluation
 Conclusions and further work
18

19. Name AN-2010 AN-2011 SE-2011 ICTE-2012
Content
Development of
distributed systems
Development of
distributed systems
Development of
software projects
New technologies and
media in education
Date November 2010 November 2011 May 2011 February 2012
Duration 1 week 1 week 3 hours 1 week
Kind of
situation
Blended CL situation Blended CL situation Face-to-face CL
situation
Blended CL situation
# educators
2 (technological
background)
2 (technological
background)
1 (technological
background)
1 (pedagogical
background)
# students 47 51 10 25
Group
settings
24 pairs (1-2
students); 7
supergroups (6-8
students)
28 pairs (1-2
students); 8
supergroups (6-8
students)
2 groups of five
students
12 pairs (2-3
students); 5
supergroups (5
students)
VLE
Built-in tools - - - Forum, mind map
External tools
(instances)
DabbleboardDabbleboard (31);
GoogleGoogle
DocumentsDocuments (24);
GoogleGoogle
PresentationsPresentations (7)
DabbleboardDabbleboard (36);
GoogleGoogle
DocumentsDocuments (28);
GoogleGoogle
PresentationsPresentations (8)
Google DocumentsGoogle Documents
(12); You DecideYou Decide
W3C widgetW3C widget (40)
GoogleGoogle
PresentationPresentation (5);
DoodleDoodle (1)
Authentic experiments
19

20. Compliance to REQ1 and REQ2
 Approximate instantiation time
– Example: AN 2011: 72 instances  Great complexityGreat complexity
– 82% of time saved with GLUE!82% of time saved with GLUE!
 Questionnaires to students
– 77% the technological support facilitated much or very much77% the technological support facilitated much or very much
the collaborationthe collaboration
 Open text questions and focus groups
– “It was very easy to see the contributions of my group partners, just by
logging into Moodle.” (AN-2010)
20
Stakeholder Requirement Evaluation methods Data sources
Enable the instantiation of individual and
collaborative activities that require the
integration of external tools with an
attainable effort for educators
Multiple
experiments [Dew01];
mixed method
[Mar03]
Likert scales; open text
questions; interviews;
time and complexity
measurements
Enable the enactment of collaborative
activities that require the integration of
external tools, facilitating the collaboration
among participants
Multiple
experiments; mixed
method
Likert scales; open text
questions; focus groups
[Mor98]

21.  Four authentic experiments
– 5 external tools (Google DocumentsGoogle Documents ,, PresentationsPresentations ,,
Dabbleboard, Doodle and the YouDecide widget)
– 3 VLEs (Moodle, LAMS and MediaWiki)
 At least 1717 external tools available (+ built-in tools)
21
Compliance to REQ3 and REQ4
Stakeholder Requirement Evaluation methods Data sources
Support the integration of existing and
popular VLEs and tools
Multiple experiments;
feature analysis (formal
experiment [Kit96b])
Existing VLE and tool
adapters
Support the integration of many
external tools
Multiple experiments;
feature analysis (formal
experiment)
Existing VLE and tool
adapters

22.  New source lines of code & time invested
– Incremental effort to integrate new tools about 100
lines and 6-8 hours
– More attainable than in ad hoc or tight approaches.
– Similar to other loosely-coupled approaches
 The 3 VLE adapters and the 9 tool adapters were
developed using the interfaces provided by VLEusing the interfaces provided by VLE
and tool providersand tool providers
22
Compliance to REQ5 and REQ6
Stakeholder Requirement Evaluation methods Data sources
Demand an attainable development
effort for the integration of tools and VLEs
Multiple experiments;
new SLOC [Alb83] and
time invested
Code of existing VLE
and tool adapters and
questionnaires
Be built over existing VLEs and tools,
rather than modifying their implementations
Multiple experiments;
feature analysis
(screening mode
[Kit96b])
Existing VLE and tool
adapters

23. Outline
 Introduction
 The integration problem
 Overview of GLUE!
 Evaluation
 Conclusions and further work
23

24. Conclusions (I)
24
 Restricted set of VLE built-in tools
 Integration of existing external tools in existing VLEs for the
support of CL situations
 Defining new integration approaches requires a trade-off:
– RestrictionsRestrictions imposed on VLE and tool providers
– Development effortDevelopment effort demanded to developers
– Functionality offeredFunctionality offered to practitioners

25. Conclusions (II)

– Takes into account the main stakeholders’ requirementsmain stakeholders’ requirements
– Takes into account the main design issues and alternativesmain design issues and alternatives
 Evaluation of
– Meets the stakeholders’ requirementsMeets the stakeholders’ requirements
• Reduces the instantiation time in more than 80%
• Integrates at least 17 tools
• Lower development effort (compared to ad hoc or tight approaches)
25

26. Further work
 Deployment of generic learning designs
– From multiple authoring tools
– In multiple VLEs
 Integration in other platforms (MOOCs?)
26

27. GLUE!: An architecture for the
integration of external tools in
Virtual Learning Environments
UNIVERSIDAD DE VALLADOLID
UNIVERSIDAD CARLOS III DE MADRID
Autor
Carlos Alario Hoyos
Tutores
Dr. Miguel L. Bote Lorenzo
Dr. Eduardo Gómez Sánchez
Madrid, June 14th
2013
www.gsic.uva.es/glue