Investigating teachers' understanding of IMS Learning Design: Yes they can!


Published on

presented at EC-TEL 2010, Barcelona

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

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

No notes for slide
  • Like architecural blueprint Played by IMSLD compatible players (LMS, etc)
  • Investigating teachers' understanding of IMS Learning Design: Yes they can!

    1. 1. Investigating teachers’ understanding of IMS Learning Design: Yes they can! Michael Derntl 1 , Susanne Neumann 1 , Dai Griffiths 2 , Petra Oberhuemer 1 1 University of Vienna, Austria 2 University of Bolton/CETIS, UK License: CC-BY-SA EC-TEL 2010, 1 Oct 2010, Barcelona, Spain
    2. 2. Context <ul><li>ICOPER Best Practice Network – adoption, evaluation and recommendations for TEL standards and specs </li></ul><ul><li>Instructional modeling WP: Recommendations regarding the use of IMS LD </li></ul><ul><li>Various stakeholders addressed: standardization bodies, technology providers, HE managers, teachers </li></ul><ul><li>Here: Do teachers understand the specification’s structure and elements? </li></ul>
    3. 3. IMS Learning Design (LD) <ul><li>IMS LD is a specification that enables the formal description of learning and teaching processes </li></ul><ul><li>A course or lesson described (authored) using IMS LD is called IMS LD unit of learning (UoL) </li></ul><ul><li>A UoL is a machine-readable package that can be played over and over with different people, technology, … </li></ul><ul><li>IMS LD is geared towards use in computer-managed environments </li></ul>
    4. 4. IMS LD Elements <ul><li>IMS LD distinguishes </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Components : activity, activity structure, property, role, environment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Method : act, role-part, condition </li></ul></ul><ul><li>The method weaves the components into a process following a stage-play metaphor </li></ul>Act 1 Act 2 Act n Role-Part 1 Role-Part n Role Activity Environment Components Method Activity Structure Role-Part 2 Property Condition Acts are executed one after the other All role-parts in the active act are concurrently executed
    5. 5. Study setup <ul><li>Workshops with teachers </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Introduce IMS LD elements + the “tool” to work with </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Show an example </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Give a task to solve </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>+ collect additional structured data </li></ul></ul>
    6. 6. Study setup: participants <ul><li>Total 21 participants from 10 European countries </li></ul><ul><li>Avg. ~10yrs teaching experience, 4/5 in HE </li></ul>
    7. 7. Study setup: The task <ul><li>The following scenario is an online learning scenario. The instructor gives a presentation to learners via a presentation conferencing service about coal-burning power plants as well as their positive and negative side effects. After the presentation, learners can choose to do one of the two following activities: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>set up controversial questions regarding coal-burning power plants (to be used during a later discussion round), or </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>collect credible sources on the World Wide Web regarding new developments in coal-burning power plants (to be used during a later discussion round). </li></ul></ul><ul><li>The outputs learners created in the previous activities will be used during the subsequent discussion activity: The learners engage together with the instructor in the discussion using the questions and materials. After the discussion, learners rate their own agreement with the statement “Coal-burning power plants have a future in Europe’s energy production&quot; (scale of 5, where 5 is the highest agreement). Learners, who rated themselves with a level of at least 3, will next do an activity involving the creation of a (digital) poster on one positive aspect of coal-burning power plants. Learners, who rated themselves at a level of 2 or lower, will next create a (digital) poster on one negative aspect of coal-burning power plants. </li></ul>
    8. 8. Study setup: the authoring tool
    9. 9. Study setup: the tool
    10. 12. Data analysis <ul><li>Matching solutions with a correct prototype solution </li></ul><ul><li>Decomposing solution into 60 actions that needed to be performed – the “checklist” </li></ul><ul><li>Two experts score each solution on the checklist </li></ul>
    11. 14. Results: action layer
    12. 15. Results: action layer
    13. 16. Results: element layer
    14. 17. Results: element layer
    15. 18. Results: components, method, UoL <ul><li>Calculation of overall quality of solutions </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Based on action layer, incl. dependent actions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Average conformity 78% ( ± 20%, min=23.8%, max=100%) </li></ul></ul>
    16. 19. Findings <ul><li>Role-parts </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ Difficult” element, linking roles with other elements </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Particularly for jointly performed activities </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Tended to link only “dominant role” with activities </li></ul></ul>
    17. 20. Findings <ul><li>Conditional activities </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Poster activities: role parts + conditions in method </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Some additional activity structures (selection) </li></ul></ul>
    18. 21. Findings <ul><li>Activity I/O </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Using properties to handle “activity flow” </li></ul></ul>P1 P1
    19. 22. Findings <ul><li>Referencing elements </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Activity – environment, Activity structure – activity </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Sometimes in components and method </li></ul></ul>
    20. 23. Findings <ul><li>Issues protocol </li></ul><ul><li>Greatest troubles </li></ul>
    21. 24. Findings <ul><li>Perceived troubles </li></ul><ul><li>Environment (7 nominations), Property (5), Condition (4) </li></ul><ul><li>Distinguishing elements: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>activity structure vs act </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>activity vs activity structure </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>activity vs environment </li></ul></ul>
    22. 25. Conclusions <ul><li>Teachers can solve moderately complex design task with IMS LD after a 45-minute introduction </li></ul><ul><li>Some conceptual structures present obstacles to teachers (role parts, document flow, conditional activities) </li></ul><ul><li>Some call for a new specification (e.g. SLD 2.0) </li></ul><ul><li>Others call for due diligence when juggling with standards </li></ul>
    23. 26. Recommendation <ul><li>Keep IMS LD unchanged. </li></ul><ul><li>Improve UI metaphors in tools for difficult concepts </li></ul><ul><li>Provide templates to build on (e.g. design patterns) </li></ul>
    24. 27. Full report <ul><li>ISURE: Report on usage and recommendations of specification for instructional models </li></ul><ul><li>ICOPER Deliverable D3.2, to go public in Dec 2010 @ </li></ul>
    25. 28. Call for papers: CD4TEL – Computational Design for Technology Enhanced Learning at ICCSA 2011 Submission deadline: 31 Dec 2010