The relation of PLE, LMS, and Open Content
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

The relation of PLE, LMS, and Open Content

on

  • 3,225 views

Daniel Müller

Daniel Müller

Statistics

Views

Total Views
3,225
Views on SlideShare
3,200
Embed Views
25

Actions

Likes
5
Downloads
86
Comments
0

4 Embeds 25

http://www.slideshare.net 11
http://342717.uoc.wikispaces.net 10
http://1414463973.nvmodules.netvibes.com 2
http://203.144.133.44 2

Accessibility

Categories

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

The relation of PLE, LMS, and Open Content Presentation Transcript

  • 1. Daniel Müller, IMC The relation of PLE, LMS, and Open Content
  • 2. Session overview
    • WP5 Objectives
    • WP5 Learning Delivery Framework
    • WP5 Key Concepts
      • Learning Environment
    • Open Content
    • WP5 Widget Workshop_5.5.2009_Vienna: results
    • WP5 Widget Task Force
      • Objectives
    • Task Description
  • 3. WP5 Objectives
    • Collect and further develop best practices for learning delivery with focus on the use of interoperable content (= Units of Learning), e.g. IMS-LD based, supporting competency driven higher education
    • Support the delivery of activity-based high-level (learning) scenarios (focus = teacher-learner-interactions), applying (open) content
    • Create guidelines that combine
      • Teaching Methods with
      • Open Content and
      • (Collaboration) Services
    • to create and provide stimulating learning environments under the specific use of IMS-LD
    • Evaluate the usage of IMS-LD to support competency-driven learning
  • 4. WP5 Learning D elivery F ramework: Environments in which different modes and usages of standards for learning delivery will be tested Learning Management Personal Learning / Social Network PRIO 1 PRIO 2 Technical Services Standards Use Cases
    • IMS-LD
    • SCORM
    • Learner:
    • Book UoL
    • Learn within UoL
    • Finish UoL
    Key Concepts
    • Teacher:
    • Search for UoL
    • Upload UoL
    • Match users to roles
    • Publish UoL
    • Teach within UoL
    • IEEE LOM
    • Widgets (W3C)
    • OAI-PMH
    • OpenSocial
    • RSS
    • Unit of Learing (UoL)
    • Learning Environment (LE)
    • Teaching method (curriculum-based, collaborative, resource-based)
    • Service/Tool
    • Learning Object/Content
    • Context
  • 5. WP5 Key Concepts Context Unit of Learning Services Learning Objects Role Learner Learning Supporter Lesson Course Module Learning Environment gives meaning to gives meaning to defines is a uses Teaching Method is specified in implements implements uses uses uses
  • 6.
    • Area or location in which learning happens
      • consists of a a structured collection of components (e.g. learning objects) to support learning activities in a physical or virtual setting
      • from a technological perspective, a learning environment consists of a range of services and software technologies
    • A typical managed learning environment is based on Learning Management System in combination with various educational tools like virtual classrooms. “It delivers the learning to the users”
    • Other types of learning environments are so called “Personal Learning Environments” or “Social Learning Networks” , which differ in their degree of pre-structuring learning (activities)
    • (in accordance with Sandberg, J. A. (1994). Educational paradigms: issues and trends. In Lewis, R. Mendelsohn, P., (ed.), Lessons from Learning, (IFIP TC3/WG3.3 Working Conference 1993), pages 13--22, Amsterdam. North-Holland).
    WP5 Key Concepts: Learning Environment
  • 7. Learning Environment: LMS Scenario Description
    • Organizations
      • manage the system
      • by specifying the functionality within course rooms, and
      • providing the learning materials
    • Instructors
      • create courses
      • by using preconfigured learning scenarios
    • Learners
      • „ just“ learn
      • do not need to configure their environment
  • 8.
    • The common idea behind Learning Management Systems (LMS) is that e-learning is organized and managed within an integrated system
    • [C. Dalsgaard, “Social software: E-learning beyond learning management systems”, European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, http://www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/2006/Christian_Dalsgaard.htm, accessed on the 18.02.2009]
    • Learning Management Systems have been widely adopted by institutions and instructional designers in order to fulfill certain needs and requirements in a field of ever increasing demands for effective, and fast […] education and training
    • [P. Avgeriou, A. Papasalouros, and S. Retalis, “Towards a Pattern Language for Learning Management Systems”, Journal of Educational Technology & Society. http://www.ifets.info/journals/6_2/2.pdf , accessed on the 18.02.2009]
    • This is in line with the understanding that “the institutional imperative is to manage the learning process and the technologies adopted are those which reinforce traditional modes of working
    • [S. Schaffert, and W. Hilzensauer, „On the way towards Personal Learning Environments: Seven crucial aspects”, http://www.elearningeuropa.info/files/media/media15971.pdf , accessed on the 18.02.2009]
    LMS: Opportunities
  • 9.
    • A LMS supports the management of learning content and learning activities, but with a focus on the traditional roles in a learning environment (teacher / learner) and provide efficiency gains rather than new pedagogical opportunities”
    • [C. D. Milligan, P. Beauvoir, M. W. Johnson, P. Sharples, S. Wilson, and O. Liber, “Developing a Reference Model to Describe the Personal Learning Environment”; in: W. Nejdl, and K. Tochtermann (Eds.), EC-TEL 2006, LNCS 4227, Springer, pp. 506-511]
    • LMS may be characterized as follows:
      • Focus on integration of tools and data within a course context
      • asymmetric relationships
      • homogenous experience of context
      • use of open e-learning standards for incorporating packaged learning materials (e.g. SCORM, IMS Content Packaging), and for incorporating automated assessments (e.g. IMS QTI),
      • access control and rights management
      • organizational scope (organization installs and manages the software)
    • [S. Wilson, O. Liber, P. Beauvoir, C. Milligan, M. Johnson, and P. Sharples, “Personal Learning Environments: Challenging the dominant design of educational systems”, Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society”, Giunti, Genoa, 2007, http://www.je-lks.it/en/07_02/04Art_wilson_inglese.pdf , accessed on the 18.02.2009, pp. 27-38]
    LMS: Opportunities
  • 10.
    • The LMS should support the development and execution of four basic tasks via a simple, friendly and uniform user-interface:
      • Information distribution, e.g. announcing the tips of the day, calendar, glossary, etc.
      • Management of learning material, e.g. customisation of the user interface to the needs of the instructor, updating the learning material, etc.
      • Offer of Multiple communication facilities, e.g. asynchronous and synchronous communication.
      • Class management, e.g. on-line marking of students’ assessments, tracking learners’ participation, management of learners profiles, etc.
    • [C. McCormack, and J.D. Jones, Building a Web-based Education System, Wiley Computer Publishing, New York, 1997]
    • LMS provide a number of benefits to students and staff within an institution.
      • For the tutors: a simple set of integrated tools allows the creation of learning content without specialist computer skills, whilst class administration tools facilitate communication between tutor and cohort (for class announcements) and individual learners (for feedback)
      • For the learner: a single environment within which all online content can be accessed and communication can be managed.
      • [C. D. Milligan, P. Beauvoir, M. W. Johnson, P. Sharples, S. Wilson, and O. Liber, “Developing a Reference Model to Describe the Personal Learning Environment”; in: W. Nejdl, and K. Tochtermann (Eds.), EC-TEL 2006, LNCS 4227, Springer, pp. 506-511]
    LMS: Strenghts
  • 11.
    • According to the OECD, the success of LMS on campus-based universities has primarily been in relation to administrative and not pedagogical purposes .
    • [OECD – Centre for Educational Research and Innovation, “E-learning in Tertiary Education: Where do we stand?”, OECD, Paris, 2005, p. 15]
    • In this sense, LMSs are fundamentally a conservative technology; they are a solution to a set of organizational problems:
      • managing students
      • providing tools and delivering content, and
      • whilst they serve the needs of the institution well, they are often ill suited to the needs of learners.
    • [C. D. Milligan, P. Beauvoir, M. W. Johnson, P. Sharples, S. Wilson, and O. Liber, “Developing a Reference Model to Describe the Personal Learning Environment”; in: W. Nejdl, and K. Tochtermann (Eds.), EC-TEL 2006, LNCS 4227, Springer, pp. 506-511]
    • This means that a management system aims primarily at teachers and administrators whereas it does not support the self-governed, problem-based and collaborative work of students
    • [C. Dalsgaard, “Social software: E-learning beyond learning management systems”, European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, http://www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/2006/Christian_Dalsgaard.htm, accessed on the 18.02.2009]
    LMS: Weaknesses / Threats
  • 12. WP5 Learning D elivery F ramework: Environments in which different modes and usages of standards for learning delivery will be tested Learning Management Personal Learning / Social Network PRIO 1 PRIO 2 Technical Services Standards Use Cases
    • IMS-LD
    • SCORM
    • Learner:
    • Book UoL
    • Learn within UoL
    • Finish UoL
    Key Concepts
    • Teacher:
    • Search for UoL
    • Upload UoL
    • Match users to roles
    • Publish UoL
    • Teach within UoL
    • IEEE LOM
    • Widgets (W3C)
    • OAI-PMH
    • OpenSocial
    • RSS
    • Unit of Learing (UoL)
    • Learning Environment (LE)
    • Teaching method (curriculum-based, collaborative, resource-based)
    • Service/Tool
    • Learning Object/Content
    • Context
  • 13. Learning Environment: PLE Scenario Description
    • Learners
      • manage solution
      • by searching, and choosing widgets and mini-apps for learning
    • PLE supports
      • self-paced learning, and
      • self-organized learning
  • 14. PLE: Motivation
    • Learner
      • need “standard interface to different institutions’ e-learning systems”
      • (Van Harmelen 2006, see also Olivier & Liber 2001)
      • want to “maintain portfolio information across institutions”
      • (Van Harmelen 2006, see also Olivier & Liber 2001)
      • want to be mobile and use the system online and offline
      • (Van Harmelen 2006, see also Olivier & Liber 2001)
  • 15. PLE: Characteristics
    • Accessing and searching (Attwell 2009; Neuhaus 2007)
    • Aggregating (Attwell 2009; Wilson 2005)
    • Scaffolding (Attwell 2009) , structuring (Milligan et al. 2006)
    • Manipulating (Attwell 2009), editing (Wilson 2005)
    • Analyzing (Attwell 2009), annotating (Milligan et al. 2006)
    • Storing (Attwell 2009, Wilson 2005, Schaffert & Kalz 2009)
    • Reflecting (Attwell 2009, Wilson 2005)
    • Creating (Milligan et al. 2006), knowledge construction (Schaffert & Kalz 2009), developping ideas (Attwell 2007b)
  • 16. PLE: Towards a Definition
    • Two different point of view:
      • Attwell (2006) for example emphasizes clearly on the pedagogical value of PLEs for learning support.
      • Others (e. g. Van Harmelen 2007, Schaffert & Kalz 2009, Neuhaus 2007) label them systems or applications.
    • Definition:
      • “ A Personal Learning Environment (PLE) is an individually adaptable user interface consisting of Web 2.0 applications which allows learners to manage their lifelong learning in all contexts and situations and to communicate with peers and teachers”
  • 17. PLE: Challenge the Definition!
    • “ Individually adaptable user interface
    • consisting of Web 2.0 applications
    • which allows learners to manage their lifelong learning
    • in all contexts and situations
    • and to communicate with peers and teachers”
      • -pedagogical approach, not tools
      • -web-based applications = supporters
      • -focus on learning processes, then drive potential PLE application area/contexts
  • 18. PLE: Challenges
    • Questions to be answered:
      • Which requirements does the user fulfill for using Widgets for learning purposes?
      • Which competencies does the learner need?
      • In which study-phase does the learner ask for Widget-driven learning?
      • Where to find task-specific learning Widget(s)?
  • 19. Open Content: Definition – Consumer Perspective
    • “ Digitized materials:
      • offered freely and
      • openly for
      • educators, students and self-learners
      • to use and
      • reuse for teaching, learning and research”
      • (OECD 2007)
  • 20. Open Content: Authoring/Production Perspective
    • Professionals:
      • Professional institute
      • Professor
    • Non-professionals
      • Students
    • POP (point of production)
      • Public
        • Wiki
        • Blog
        • YouTube
      • Non-public
        • Vendor-driven solutions
  • 21. Open Content repositories: Overview
    • iTunesU: http://www.open.ac.uk/itunes/
    • YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/theopenuniversity
    • Slidestar: http://slidestar.de/main.html#
    • Free Foreign Language Lessons: http://www.openculture.com/2006/10/foreign_languag.html
    • Free Lectures & Courses from great universities: http://www.openculture.com/2007/07/freeonlinecourses.html
    • MIT Open Courseware: http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/web/home/home/index.htm
  • 22. Learning with Open Content: Do a SWOT analysis!
    • Strenght
      • Cheap
      • Available
      • I can contribute to it
      • Common knowledge
      • You get the credit for it
    • Weaknesses
      • Quality assurance
      • You don‘t get the credits
      • Fear of non-aknowledgments
    • Opportunities
      • Makes up the different contexts (different disciplines)
      • Bridging the digital devide
      • Channel OC, try to find processes to make advantage of OC
    • Threats
      • Bancrupcy…
  • 23. WP5 Widget Workshop_5.5.09_Vienna: general info
    • Vision: “towards the iCoper Learning Widget(s) to foster competence” 
    • Objective: definition of learning-related Widget requirements with regard to the WP5 learning delivery environments Personal Learning Environment, and Social Network
    • Target group: iCoper WPLs/partners, and beyond
    • Number of participants: 32, two of them from JISC-CETIS, and further two participants from the ROLE and GRAPPLE projects
    • Information are available here:
    • http://www.educanext.org/dotlrn/clubs/icoper/wp5/new-lors//WP5_Widget_Workshop_Vienna
  • 24. WP5 Widget Workshop_5.5.09_Vienna: results
    • Task: design a PLE
      • Challenge for the end user to find the right widgets
      • General search skills are required (Information literacy issue)
      • Finding the core set of «learning widgets»
      • The teacher don’t know what widgets the students are using
      • Authoring environment/guidelines for the teacher to create widgets
      • Interoperability between platforms
  • 25. Facilities that solve the raised problems: Recommender http://www.google.com/ig/directory?q=open+university&root=%2Fig&dpos=top&url=hosting.gmodules.com/ig/gadgets/file/109972500286724663473/fact-of-the-day.xml
  • 26. Facilities that solve the raised problems: Widget maker http://www.google.com/ig/gmchoices?source=gdha
  • 27. Facilities that solve the raised problems: Widget repository http://www.widgetbox.com/search?q=learning
  • 28. WP5 Widget Workshop_5.5.09_Vienna: results
    • Task: Widgets for learning delivery
    Production Asynchronous communication Synchronous communication Interaction Wiki Weblog shared writing
    • Mail
    • - gmail
    • - popmail (general)
    • Forum/Messages
    • http://www.widgetbox.com/widget/comments
    • Tagging
    • Delicious
    • Tag-notification
    • http://www.widgetbox.com/widget/related
    • Social network
    • - Facebook
    • Chat:
    • instant messaging
    • video conferencing
    • audio conferencing
    • http://www.widgetbox.com/widget/youcamscom---webcam-chat-widget
    • micro-blogging
    • http://widgets.opera.com/widget/7206/
    • Search engine
    • general search
    • specific search(OR)
    • http://www.widgetbox.com/widget/objectspot
  • 29. iCoper WP5 Widget Workshop_5.5.09_Vienna: results
  • 30. iCoper WP5 Widget Workshop_5.5.09_Vienna: results
  • 31. iCoper WP5 Widget Workshop_5.5.09_Vienna: results
  • 32. iCoper WP5 Widget Workshop_5.5.09_Vienna: results
  • 33. iCoper WP5 Widget Workshop_5.5.09_Vienna: results
  • 34. WP5 Widget Workshop_5.5.09_Vienna: results
    • Task: Widget categorization
      • Technical dimension: web-based, desktop, mobile
      • Usage type: Accessory, application, information [Apple categorization]
      • Usage scope: generic (RSS viewer) vs. domain/purpose-specific (equation simulator)
      • Educational context: Bloom Taxonomy [Krathwohl et al.]
      • Interaction complexity: one interaction (e.g. login) up to flows of interactions (e.g. Google Docs)
      • Dependency on server-side: Ajax vs. WebApp
      • Degree of interoperability: open (APIs) vs. closed, application layer vs. frontend (Microformats)
      • Licensing: open source vs. commercial
      • Personalisation/Customisation
      • Security dimension (privacy, identity, …)
  • 35. WP5 Widget Workshop_5.5.09_Vienna: results
    • Task: iCoper Widget definition
      • “ End-user's conceptualization of an:
        • interactive single purpose application,
        • including code and content,
        • for developing competencies through the display and/or update of data,
        • packaged in a way to allow a single download and installation on any TEL environment”
  • 36. WP5 Widget Workshop_5.5.09_Vienna: results
    • Task: SWOT-analysis – Widgets for learning
      • Strengths
        • Easy to use for both administrator and learner
        • Connectedness
        • Modularity
        • Granularity
        • Adapt environment to personal needs
        • Composability
        • Portability
      • Weaknesses
        • Incoherence – it is necessary to combine widgets into structure
        • Interoperability
  • 37. WP5 Widget Workshop_5.5.09_Vienna: results
    • Task: SWOT-analysis – Widgets for learning
      • Opportunities
        • Pick and mix approach for content authoring and instructional design
        • Maybe dependent on learning styles (autonomy of learners)
      • Threats
        • Loss of control
        • Informative load for students
        • Insensitive to context
        • Distraction
  • 38. WP5 Widget Workshop_5.5.09_Vienna: results
    • Task: mission statement for iCoper widgets
      • Learners and teachers should choose their learning environment
      • Widgets enable in a user-driven perspective:
        • Personalization of content and services
        • Learning in different settings such as PLE, and Social Networks
        • More flexibility for teachers and learners
        • Aggregate content and services from different providers at one learning environment
      • Motivation behind using them is their added value
  • 39. WP5 Widget Workshop_5.5.09_Vienna: in a nutshell
    • It is hard to find learning widgets
    • Configuration of a PLE might be challenging for learners
    • Platforms are NOT interoperable (LLL)
  • 40. WP5 Widget Workshop_5.5.09_Vienna: task force
    • Installation of a follow-upWP5 Widget Task Force
      • Elaborate potential Widget standards as well as technical-/interoperability-centered evaluation criteria for potential Widget platforms in the context of PLE, and SNW
    • All information of the WP5 Widget Task Force are available here:
    • http://www.educanext.org/dotlrn/clubs/icoper/wp5/new-lors//WP5_Widget_Task_Force
  • 41. Task: Create your PLE till Thursday, 18.30
    • Incentive : We will pay you the MUPPLE-fee
    • When : Thursday, 16:15 - 17:30
    • Where : Workshop D
    • What : Present your PLE
    • Your PLE may be:
      • Web-based (choose the platform you want!)
      • Drawings
    • Consider „interoperability“ while creating your PLE
      • Cross-widget
      • Cross-platform
    • Consider:
      • Widgets that deal with OPEN CONTENT (authoring, and using it!)
      • Mashup-widgets
      • Communication between widgets
  • 42. Announcement – MUPPLE @ EC-TEL09_Nice http://www.role-project.eu/?page_id=117
  • 43.