Interactions for Learning as Expressed in an IMS LD Runtime Environment


Published on

Presented at IEEE ICALT 2012, July 4-6, 2012, Rome, Italy

Published in: Technology, Business
1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Interactions for Learning as Expressed in an IMS LD Runtime Environment

  1. 1. Interactions for Learning as Expressed in an IMS LD Runtime Environment Michael Derntl1 Susanne Neumann2 Petra Oberhuemer3 1 RWTH Aachen University, Advanced Community Information Systems 2 University of Vienna, Center for Teaching and Learning 3 University of Vienna, Educational Affairs derntl@dbis.rwth-aachen.deLehrstuhl Informatik 5(Information Systems) Prof. Dr. M. Jarke 1 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
  2. 2. Advanced Community Information Systems (ACIS) Responsive Web Engineering Community Web Analytics Open Visualization Community and Information Simulation Systems Community Community Support AnalyticsLehrstuhl Informatik 5 Requirements(Information Systems) Prof. Dr. M. Jarke 2 Engineering
  3. 3. Motivation  IMS Learning Design (LD) was developed as a specification supporting any pedagogical approach [1]  Separation of environments for designing units of learning (i.e. the authoring environment) and running units of learning (i.e. the runtime environment)  Challenge: unclear how a deployed package will appear in a VLE  Much previous research (and tools) about conceptual and authoring issues; little research about expression of pedagogical aspects at runtimeLehrstuhl Informatik 5(Information Systems) Prof. Dr. M. Jarke 3 [1] IMS Global: IMS Learning Design Information Model, Version 1.0. (2003)
  4. 4. IMS LD Structure in a Nutshell Components are weaved into a method following a stage-play metaphor Act 1 Act 2 Act n Role-Part 1 Role-Part 2 Role-Part n Method Components Role Activity Environment Activity Structure Tasks LOs ToolsLehrstuhl Informatik 5(Information Systems) Prof. Dr. M. Jarke 4
  5. 5. Objectives  Analyzing the expression of pedagogical aspects in IMS LD runtime with focus on multi-role settings (interaction) – Visual presentation – Interaction metaphors  Identifying shortcomings and recommendations for IMS LD runtime developersLehrstuhl Informatik 5(Information Systems) Prof. Dr. M. Jarke 5
  6. 6. Methodology (1)  Player selection – Several players are available, e.g. GRAIL, SLeD, CLIX, Astro Player, … – Original plan: SLeD and AstroPlayer – But: AstroPlayer lacked support of some features (e.g. display multiple activity descriptions) – So: SLeD!Lehrstuhl Informatik 5(Information Systems) Prof. Dr. M. Jarke 6
  7. 7. The SLeD Player Navigation Content AreaLehrstuhl Informatik 5(Information Systems) Prof. Dr. M. Jarke 7
  8. 8. Methodology (2)  Selection of framework for pedagogical aspects – Several candidates like Reeves‟ pedagogical dimensions [2] or Reigluth/Moore framework for comparing instructional strategies [3] – Reigeluth/Moore allow precise and multi-faceted analysis of learning interactions [2] Reeves, T.: Evaluating What Really Matters in Computer-Based Education. (1997) – Types of interactions: [3] Reigeluth, C.M., Moore, J.: Cognitive Education and the Cognitive Domain. In: Reigeluth, C.M. (ed.), Instructional- Design Theories and Models, pp. 51-68. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ (1999) Human Non-human Student Student Student Student Student – – Other – – – OtherLehrstuhl Informatik 5(Information Systems) Teacher Student Tools Information Environment Prof. Dr. M. Jarke 8
  9. 9. Methodology (3)  Selection of IMS LD Units of Learning (UoLs) – Solicited real-world UoLs from ICOPER consortium members – Selection based on diversity and feature coverage UoL Features Deconstructivism Learner & teacher roles; Support activities, Project exploration Modern architecture Learner & teacher roles; Brainstorming, reading, preparation of presentation; Resource and tool usage; Support activities Skyscrapers & Homes A Two learner & one teacher role; Reuse of learning objects and activities; Two plays Skyscrapers & Homes B Only learner role; Path selection; Interaction with content; Reflection and summarizing Shared outcome Five roles: teacher, two teams (members + coordinators); Split paths; Role selection; Conditional activity completion; Support activitiesLehrstuhl Informatik 5(Information Systems) Blog collaboration Learner & teacher roles; Content selection; Blogs; Discussion; Final Prof. Dr. M. Jarke 9 reports
  10. 10. Methodology (4)  UoL analysis – Play all paths through each UoL with all roles – Record support and obstacles for any interaction typeLehrstuhl Informatik 5(Information Systems) Prof. Dr. M. Jarke 10
  11. 11. Student – Student  Awareness of interaction only when – explicit instructions (e.g. in the activity description) – use of services like chat or forum  Forum – Missing instructions – Unclear which roles are assigned  When individuals assigned to multiple team roles – Unclear when to act in what role – Roles and UoL selection meshed single drop-down listLehrstuhl Informatik 5(Information Systems) Prof. Dr. M. Jarke 11
  12. 12. Student – Teacher  Key interaction; typically teacher in a support role  Problems during runtime – Separate views on the UoL – Unclear when to support which role – Unclear status of supported roles (if known) – e.g. support required, learners„ status of completion …Lehrstuhl Informatik 5 Student (l) vs. teacher (r) view in SLeD(Information Systems) Prof. Dr. M. Jarke 12
  13. 13. Student – Teacher  UoL portion in Astro Player – more structure but no better  Phases (IMS LD act) provide a hint but: – Matching e.g. in Phase II (1 vs 4 activities)? – Requires guessing, but:Lehrstuhl Informatik 5 – No way to see the other role„s view – Guessing impossible Supported roles have no idea that there is any support(Information Systems) Prof. Dr. M. Jarke 13 
  14. 14. Student – Teacher  IMS LD mechanism: learning vs support activity – Support activity optionally (!) has supported role(s) – From the IMS LD spec: “When the optional role-ref element is set, […] the same support activity is repeated for every user in the role(s). When the role-ref is not available, the support activity is a single activity (like the learning-activity)” [1]  Problems – Activity distinction known to be difficult to understand [4] – Same display as learning activities – If role-ref not set the only instruction can come from the description – Strict separation of role views hampers understanding of supporting and supported roleLehrstuhl Informatik 5(Information Systems) Prof. Dr. M. Jarke [4] Neumann, S., Oberhuemer, P.: User Evaluation of a Graphical Modeling Tool for IMS Learning Design. Advances in Web Based 14 Learning – ICWL 2009, pp. 287-296 (2009)
  15. 15. Student – Tool / Environment  Difficult distinction tool – environment/manipulatives – In a VLE context, the tool is and provides the “environment”  In some UoLs there will be VLE external tools  Common practice: show the hierarchical structure in the XML package in the UI – Problematic with Activity Structures (selection, sequence) – Note: “SEQUENCE” / “SELECTION” are part of the titles (by designers)!Lehrstuhl Informatik 5(Information Systems) Prof. Dr. M. Jarke – Where does what end? 15
  16. 16. Student – Tool / Environment  Even more problematic with Role-Part (within Act) Activity Structure multiple activity descriptions Learning Activity and environments Activity Description Item  Beware of conditions! Item Activity Structure – Unexpected appearance / Learning Activity disappearance of activities Activity Description Item – Hard to discern these activities Item (only the icon distinguishes) Environment Learning Object – Impossible to anticipate the Item upcoming path Item Learning Activity – No qualitative info presented on Activity DescriptionLehrstuhl Informatik 5 UoL design Item(Information Systems) Prof. Dr. M. Jarke Item 16
  17. 17. Student – Information  Here: interactions with activities and learning objects  Difficult to understand difference between activity descriptions (AD) and learning objects (LO) – AD attached to activity – LO attached to environments linked to activity – LOs mentioned in the ADs need manual lookup in the navigation tree; activity as referencing element only – In SLeD multiple ADs appear awkwardly  Solutions? – Integrate LOs more tightly with the activity GUI – SLD 2.0 does not consider environments at all [5]Lehrstuhl Informatik 5(Information Systems) Prof. Dr. M. Jarke 17 [5] Durand, G., Belliveau, L., Craig, B.: SLD 2.0 XML Binding. (2010)
  18. 18. Wrap Up  No explicit linkage between activity description (main area) and environment objects (navigation) – Requires LD authors to provide this info  contradicts the design/runtime split Provide in-place access to information within an activity  Roles and their interaction poorly represented – Unclear “impersonation” status – Missing info on currently collaborating and supported/supporting roles Explicitly display this info (USP of IMS LD?!)  Tree based navigation – Little process-related hints in a tree Depict the process, the current status, and the changesLehrstuhl Informatik 5(Information Systems) Prof. Dr. M. Jarke 18