Orchestrating Learning with IMS LD

1,784 views

Published on

Presented at the ECTEL 2010 in Barcelona

Published in: Education
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,784
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
22
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Orchestrating Learning with IMS LD

  1. 1. Orchestrating Learning using Adaptive Educational Designs in IMS Learning Design Marion R. Gruber, Christian Glahn , Marcus Specht, & Rob Koper CELSTEC, Open University of the Netherlands
  2. 2. IMS Learning Design (IMS LD) <ul><li>Specification providing a formal syntax for expressing educational designs </li></ul><ul><li>IMS approved in 2003 </li></ul><ul><li>3 Complexity Levels </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Level A – Basic process and content </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Level B – Interactivity </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Level C – Event based processes </li></ul></ul>
  3. 3. Personalisation & Adaptation <ul><li>2 perspectives on personalisation </li></ul><ul><li>Processes are tailored towards the individuals </li></ul><ul><li>Individuals take responsibility and control on processes </li></ul>
  4. 4. Personalisation & Adaptation <ul><li>2 perspectives on personalisation </li></ul><ul><li>Processes are tailored towards the individuals </li></ul><ul><li>Individuals take responsibility and control on processes </li></ul>
  5. 5. Research Question <ul><li>How to model personalisation </li></ul><ul><li>in educational designs using IMS Learning Design? </li></ul>
  6. 6. Previous work on Adaptation with IMS LD <ul><li>Personalisation using “properties” and “conditions” (Paramythis & Loisl-Reisinger; Specht & Burgos) </li></ul><ul><li>Content adaptation (Berlanga & Garcia) </li></ul><ul><li>Lifecycle of adaptive courses (van Roosmalen et al.) </li></ul><ul><li>Approaches externalise parts of the educational design to other tools </li></ul>
  7. 7. Previous work on Adaptation with IMS LD <ul><li>Personalisation using “properties” and “conditions” (Paramythis & Loisl-Reisinger; Specht & Burgos) </li></ul><ul><li>Content adaptation (Berlanga & Garcia) </li></ul><ul><li>Lifecycle of adaptive courses (van Roosmalen et al.) </li></ul><ul><li>Approaches externalise parts of the educational design to other tools </li></ul>Adds implicit constraints
  8. 8. Research Question (again) <ul><li>How to model personalisation </li></ul><ul><li>in educational designs using IMS Learning Design? </li></ul><ul><li>We need to understand </li></ul><ul><li>Semantics of IMS LD </li></ul><ul><li>Underpinning concepts of IMS LD and educational design </li></ul>
  9. 9. MODELLING EDUCATIONAL PROCESSES AND NOT PROGRAMMING INTERACTIVE SYSTEMS <ul><li>Remenber </li></ul>
  10. 10. Orchestrating Learning & Educational Design <ul><li>Learning activities </li></ul><ul><li>Learning environment </li></ul><ul><li>Social planes </li></ul><ul><li>Rules and directives </li></ul>
  11. 11. Elements of Orchestrating Learning <ul><li>Learning activities </li></ul><ul><li>Learning environment </li></ul><ul><li>Social planes </li></ul><ul><li>Rules and directives </li></ul><ul><li>Learning-activity </li></ul><ul><li>Support-activity </li></ul><ul><li>Environment </li></ul><ul><li>Role-part (learner/ staff) </li></ul><ul><li>Personal-property (b) </li></ul><ul><li>Role-property (b) </li></ul><ul><li>Property (b) </li></ul><ul><li>Activity-structure </li></ul><ul><li>Play </li></ul><ul><li>Act </li></ul><ul><li>Condition (b) </li></ul><ul><li>Notification (c) </li></ul>
  12. 12. Personalisation <ul><li>Responsibility is based on perceived control </li></ul><ul><li>Tailoring does not guarantee more control </li></ul><ul><li>Distribution of control is part of the educational design </li></ul>
  13. 13. Elements of Personalisation <ul><li>Choice </li></ul><ul><li>Sequence </li></ul><ul><li>Arrangement </li></ul><ul><li>Availability </li></ul><ul><li>Interaction </li></ul>
  14. 14. Elements of Personalisation <ul><li>Choice </li></ul><ul><li>Sequence </li></ul><ul><li>Arrangement </li></ul><ul><li>Availability </li></ul><ul><li>Interaction </li></ul>IMS LD Level A IMS LD Level B IMS LD LevelC IMS LD Level C
  15. 15. EXPRESS EDUCATIONAL IDEAS <ul><li>Designing for Orchestrating and Personalising Learning </li></ul>
  16. 16. Modern Architecture: Skyscrapers and Residential Homes <ul><li>Using OER provided by the MACE Projects </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Frank L. Wright </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Frank O. Gehry </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Mies van der Rohe </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Learn about skyscrapers </li></ul><ul><li>Learn about residential homes </li></ul><ul><li>Learn about the architects </li></ul>
  17. 17. Modern Architecture: Skyscrapers and Residential Homes – MACE Resources <ul><li>Static resources </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Selection of MACE resources </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Dynamic Resources </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Provided by the MACE Search to explore resources </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Interactive Services (widgets) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Additional services </li></ul></ul>
  18. 18. Modelling Choice and Sequence (IMS LD Level A) <ul><li>Using “play” semantics to choose between approaches </li></ul><ul><li>Using “activity-structures” to choose between pathways through a course </li></ul>
  19. 19. Modelling Choice and Sequence (IMS LD Level A)
  20. 20. Modelling Arrangement and Availability (IMS LD Level B) <ul><li>Note-taking controls the the learning path </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Using “conditions” and “properties” for arranging personal learning paths </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Using “show” and “hide” for controlling the access to resources and services </li></ul><ul><li>“conditions” guide the learners based on the concepts they have worked on </li></ul>
  21. 21. Modelling Arrangement and Availability (IMS LD Level B) Learning activity Learning activity Architecture concept Architect Learning activity Learning activity Learning activity Learner note
  22. 22. Modelling Arrangement and Availability (IMS LD Level B)
  23. 23. Modelling Arrangement and Availability (IMS LD Level B)
  24. 24. Gaps and Challenges <ul><li>Level A activity-structures do not seamlessly integrate with Level B </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Activity-structures rely on a restricted process model (e.g. it forbids loops) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Explicit grouping is limited </li></ul><ul><li>Environments cannot get used to activate learning activities </li></ul><ul><li>Interactive contents and services are difficult to integrate </li></ul>
  25. 25. Conclusions <ul><li>Abstraction of educational processes from interaction is critical </li></ul><ul><li>Simple personalisation can get modelled using IMS LD Level A </li></ul><ul><li>For more complex personalisation IMS LD Level B provides sufficient semantics </li></ul><ul><li>Not all simple things can be done, simply </li></ul>
  26. 26. Future Activities <ul><li>IMS LD Level C </li></ul><ul><li>Extending towards new educational scenarios </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Mobile Learning </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Learning with tangibles </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Web2.0 integration </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Limitation of Expressiveness of IMS LD </li></ul>
  27. 27. References <ul><li>http://learningdesigns.blogspot.com </li></ul><ul><li>http://hdl.handle.net/1820/2550 (Level A example) </li></ul><ul><li>http://hdl.handle.net/1820/2551 (Level B example) </li></ul>

×