E learning fitness methodologies & technologies uniroma1 marco temperini

778 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
778
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
17
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Definition of learning objects and packages: the format of the things that are given to an LMS; XML, PKZIP Content behavior/treatment in the LMS Flow of activity or study for the student along the sequence of Los; it might be not a sequence; moving and navigating is driven by rules though; This flow is specified following the standard and is applied by the LMS (using the API functions that it provides)
  • Definition of learning objects and packages: the format of the things that are given to an LMS; XML, PKZIP Content behavior/treatment in the LMS Flow of activity or study for the student along the sequence of Los; it might be not a sequence; moving and navigating is driven by rules though; This flow is specified following the standard and is applied by the LMS (using the API functions that it provides)
  • Definition of learning objects and packages: the format of the things that are given to an LMS; XML, PKZIP Content behavior/treatment in the LMS Flow of activity or study for the student along the sequence of Los; it might be not a sequence; moving and navigating is driven by rules though; This flow is specified following the standard and is applied by the LMS (using the API functions that it provides)
  • E learning fitness methodologies & technologies uniroma1 marco temperini

    1. 1. <ul><li>eLearning </li></ul><ul><li>Metodologies & Technologies </li></ul>Marco Temperini eLearning Fitness www.elearningfitness.eu
    2. 2. eLF – elearning Methodologies & Technologies eLF: A hybrid system composed by web-based subsystems designed to comply with … the aims
    3. 3. <ul><li>elearning Personalization </li></ul><ul><li>Social and collaborative elearning </li></ul><ul><li>Standards for e-learning </li></ul><ul><li>LMSs (with René ) </li></ul>elearning M&T issues
    4. 4. <ul><li>Student model = {what she knows, how well, what are the learning preferences} </li></ul><ul><li>the course is personalized to the individual model </li></ul>TK SK initial knowledge knowledge imparted by the course target knowledge elearning personalization - 1/2 knowledge domain KD
    5. 5. <ul><li>very dynamic management of the LEARNING OBJECT REPOSITORY </li></ul><ul><li>Course = {set of learning objects} </li></ul><ul><ul><li>sometimes a sequence: LOS = { LO 1 , ..., LO n } </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>sometimes something less organized </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>conditions to step from a LO to the “next” </li></ul></ul><ul><li>The course is adapted to learner’s progress </li></ul><ul><ul><li>CHANGES in Content / ways of moving through LOs </li></ul></ul>elearning personalization - 2/2 This is research work LMSs are immature in this respect; We have prototypes and not production platforms Learning content construction needs care …
    6. 6. <ul><li>Vygotskij (1978): learning happens through social interaction in the ZPD </li></ul>APS : Autonomous Problem Solving ZPD : Zone of Proximal Development UPS : Unreachable Problem Solving Social Collaborative elearning (one way to see it) - 1/2
    7. 7. <ul><li>Students cooperate on learning activities (indirectly and directly) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Social interaction through discussions and FAQ </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Products (e.g. solutions for exercises) are reused and peer evaluated </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Group projects are managed with interactions between groups </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Peer and self assessment of groups </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Students gain reputation, which is made of: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Involvement - Usefulness </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Competence - Critical appraisal </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Judgment - Self judgment </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Group reputation </li></ul></ul></ul>Social Collaborative elearning (one way to see it) - 2/2 Basically … same conclusion as earlier
    8. 8. <ul><li>Need for it, to foster Reuse, Durability, Interoperability, Accessibility </li></ul><ul><li>of learning objects </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Learning object = learning content and activities, plus their “specification” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>They are modular (more or less “finely grained”) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>They can be grouped to make lessons, modules, courses </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>They are … Java applet, Flash animation, audio/video clip, web page, pdf documents, ppt/odp, doc/odt (office/openOffice documents) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>through standard functionalities (API) of the LMSs </li></ul><ul><ul><li>There are services in the LMS, to administer learning objects during the course (activate, present, let interact, join in sequences, make available on conditions …) </li></ul></ul>Standards for e-Learning – 1/2
    9. 9. <ul><li>An LMS that has the services to manage standard-defined </li></ul><ul><li>learning objects and … things is a Standard Compliant LMSs </li></ul><ul><li>Suitable authoring systems (not necessarily embedded in LMSs) allow to build standard learning objects (…and things) </li></ul><ul><li>SCORM </li></ul><ul><ul><li>is a standard; as well as IMS, LOM, AICC, Dubliln Core, Ariadne … </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Following it a learning object can be </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Specified (wrapping one or more learning resources/contents) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Joined with other learning objects to build a package </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>(a lesson; and lessons compose modules, that compose courses that …) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>its components </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Content Aggregation Model (CAM): the format of things </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>RunTime Env. (RTE): content behavior/treatment in the LMSs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Sequencing and Navigation (SN): the student travel through the course’s LOs </li></ul></ul>Standards for e-Learning – 2/2 Making eLF “modules” as (collection of) standard learning objects makes them independent of platform (well, if it is a compliant LMS); an authoring tool should be used for our learning objects (  with assistance)
    10. 10. <ul><li>Conclusion of the first part … </li></ul><ul><li>We can do very good job with some (not too much on the frontier) tools (CMS, LMS, …) </li></ul>eLF – elearning Methodologies & Technologies E-L Registry Social information exchange Free access information LMS CMS Augmented CMS
    11. 11. 10 minutes – We have to ... <ul><li>1) design the portal and the subsystems </li></ul><ul><ul><li>on the basis of requisites coming from … </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>what can be done by whom? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Feasibility of the application mentioned, for the LMS/CMS roles? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>2) Implement a prototype </li></ul><ul><li>What can be done by whom </li></ul><ul><li>3) Create a workflow, to feed the portal with </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Information </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Learning content for the eL </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Information for the Registry </li></ul></ul><ul><li>4) Support a pre-experimental phase, to finalize implementations </li></ul><ul><li>5) Support the pilots </li></ul>
    12. 12. 10 minutes – We need <ul><li>Deeper presentation of the partners, to confirm or spot roles </li></ul><ul><li>Consideration of the dependencies on </li></ul><ul><ul><li>WP5: they manage the integration of learning content in the LMS, and the definition of courses: Do they have requisites for us? What interaction with them? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>WP4: they are interested in the authoring factors. Do they have requisites for us? What interaction with them? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>WP6: requisites for the Registry design &implementation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>WP7: do we need to state criteria for them to evaluate the portal? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>WP8: They have access to the information delivery areas. Do they have requisites for us? What interaction with them? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>(ambassadors) </li></ul>
    13. 13. 10 minutes – Agenda for the 75 minutes <ul><li>Other initiatives known? </li></ul><ul><li>Suggestions about software applications that may be used for the portal </li></ul><ul><li>Description sheets (to devise now and collect later) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>for the suggestions about software, to prepare a decision </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Sufficiently advanced requisites for e-L, after consultation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Idem for Registry </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Localization related issues </li></ul><ul><ul><li>What for e-L, besides translation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Idem for the Registry (and that’s probably more crucial) </li></ul></ul>

    ×