Propelling Standards-based Sharing and Reuse in Instructional Modeling Communities – The Open Graphical Learning Modeler (OpenGLM)
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Propelling Standards-based Sharing and Reuse in Instructional Modeling Communities – The Open Graphical Learning Modeler (OpenGLM)

on

  • 711 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
711
Views on SlideShare
711
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Propelling Standards-based Sharing and Reuse in Instructional Modeling Communities – The Open Graphical Learning Modeler (OpenGLM) Propelling Standards-based Sharing and Reuse in Instructional Modeling Communities – The Open Graphical Learning Modeler (OpenGLM) Presentation Transcript

  • Propelling Standards-based Sharing and Reuse in Instructional Modeling Communities– The Open Graphical Learning Modeler (OpenGLM)
    M. Derntl1, S. Neumann2, P. Oberhuemer2
    1 Information Systems & Databases, RWTH Aachen University, Germany
    2 Center for Teaching and Learning, University of Vienna, Austria
    derntl@dbis.rwth-aachen.de

  • Context
    Adoption ofstandards & specs
    Technical interoperability in TEL
    Here: focus on instructionalmodeling
    Future gazing
    Mapping androadmappingfor TEL
  • Instructionalmodeling
    Process of producing instructional models (IM)
    IM can be teaching method, assessment method, conrete teaching and assessment units.
    Involves different artifacts and tools
    Many available standards and specs for different artifacts, e.g. SCORM or IMS LD for activities, IMS QTI for assessments, IMS CP for content packaging, LOM or DC for metadata, IEEE RCD for outcome definition …
    View slide
  • Objective: Standards-based Sharing
    Formal abstractdescriptionsofteachingand/orlearningsituations – interoperabilityandreuse!
    Manytoolsthatimplement a standardmodelinglanguage(Reload, ReCourse, MOT+, ASK-LDT, etc)
    Manytoolsenableintegratedcommnuityfeatures(egCompendiumLD, LAMS etc)
    The intersectionisverysmall
    Objective: Standards-basedimplementationofcommunityusecasesseamlesslywithinthemodelingtool
    View slide
  • Instrucitonalmodelingcommunityusecases
    Search
    Retrieve
    Annotate
    Enrich
    Share
  • Implementation: OpenGLM
    PROLIX GLM – modelingonly; based on Reloadcodebase
    OpenGLMimplemented on top of PROLIX GLM
    Sharing space: Open ICOPER Content Space
  • Open ICOPER Content Space (OICS)
  • Open ICOPER Content Space (OICS)
  • Artifacts
  • “Intelligent” LOM record construction
    “Electronic forms must die!”
    Title (1.2), general description (1.4) from IMS LD manifest
    Lifecycle (2.*), meta-metadata (3.*) from OICS/OpenGLM user data
    Educational description (5.10) from activity descriptions
    Resource type (5.2) is LD if content objects attached, otherwise TM
    Relations (7.*) extracted from OICS learning objects used and TMs implemented
    Intended learning outcomes (ext. 5.12) from IEEE RCD compliant outcome definitions
  • Application
    Examplescenario:
    Reuse existing instructional models to develop a new LD for an “Academic writing” course
  • Search andimportsomethingtobuild on
  • Editinggeneralinfo
  • Adaptingintendedoutcomes
  • Definingactivities
  • Add content
  • Upload torepository
    Couldbe a personal repository, an open/publicrepository, an institutionalrepository, a program-specificrepository, …
  • End-user evaluation
    2 universities, 11 users
    Performdesgintask, thenstructured interview
    Findings:
    Work integration: real-liferelevance?  portfolios, workloadcalculation
    Training: helprequired  stafftraining
    Terminology: sometimesconfusing  adapttoinstitution
    Content quality: unsure, lack ofinfo  qualitycontrolledrepositories
    Sharing & development: wellreceived  discourse on teaching
  • Benefits
    Reuse of IMs, LODs, content – building on goodpractice
    Shared LOD pool
    Institutionalcontrol
    Outcome-basedcommunities
    Institutionalrepositories
    Workflow supportat different managementlayers
    Documentation, interoperability and visibility of teachingpractices
  • Limitations
    IT literacy
    Obstaclestosharing
    Lack ofmotivation,
    Lack ofcriticalmass,
    Lack ofqualitycontrol
    IPR
    $$$
  • Conclusion
    Strong opportunities of supporting instructional modeling CoPs, personal and organizational
    What’s needed?
    Institutionalized provision and quality control
    Higher impact of teaching on academic career
    Effective spaces for sharing of good practice
    Join the conversation on shaping TEL futures
    http://learningfrontiers.eu- “TEL-Future” tab
  • http://is.gd/icaltcommunity