1. 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 …

2. Context Adoption ofstandards & specs Technical interoperability in TEL Here: focus on instructionalmodeling Future gazing Mapping androadmappingfor TEL

3. 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 …

4. 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

5. Instrucitonalmodelingcommunityusecases Search Retrieve Annotate Enrich Share

6. Implementation: OpenGLM PROLIX GLM – modelingonly; based on Reloadcodebase OpenGLMimplemented on top of PROLIX GLM Sharing space: Open ICOPER Content Space

7. Open ICOPER Content Space (OICS)

8. Open ICOPER Content Space (OICS)

9. Artifacts

10. “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

11. Application Examplescenario: Reuse existing instructional models to develop a new LD for an “Academic writing” course

12. Search andimportsomethingtobuild on

13. Editinggeneralinfo

14. Adaptingintendedoutcomes

15. Definingactivities

16. Add content

17. Upload torepository Couldbe a personal repository, an open/publicrepository, an institutionalrepository, a program-specificrepository, …

18. 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

19. 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

20. Limitations IT literacy Obstaclestosharing Lack ofmotivation, Lack ofcriticalmass, Lack ofqualitycontrol IPR $$$

21. 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

22. http://is.gd/icaltcommunity