Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

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

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

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

  1. 1. Propelling Standards-based Sharing and Reuse in Instructional Modeling Communities– The Open Graphical Learning Modeler (OpenGLM)<br />M. Derntl1, S. Neumann2, P. Oberhuemer2<br />1 Information Systems & Databases, RWTH Aachen University, Germany<br />2 Center for Teaching and Learning, University of Vienna, Austria<br /><br />…<br />
  2. 2. Context<br />Adoption ofstandards & specs<br /> Technical interoperability in TEL<br />Here: focus on instructionalmodeling<br /> Future gazing<br /> Mapping androadmappingfor TEL<br />
  3. 3. Instructionalmodeling<br />Process of producing instructional models (IM)<br />IM can be teaching method, assessment method, conrete teaching and assessment units.<br />Involves different artifacts and tools<br />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 …<br />
  4. 4. Objective: Standards-based Sharing<br />Formal abstractdescriptionsofteachingand/orlearningsituations – interoperabilityandreuse!<br />Manytoolsthatimplement a standardmodelinglanguage(Reload, ReCourse, MOT+, ASK-LDT, etc)<br />Manytoolsenableintegratedcommnuityfeatures(egCompendiumLD, LAMS etc)<br />The intersectionisverysmall<br />Objective: Standards-basedimplementationofcommunityusecasesseamlesslywithinthemodelingtool<br />
  5. 5. Instrucitonalmodelingcommunityusecases<br /> Search<br />Retrieve<br />Annotate<br />Enrich<br /> Share<br />
  6. 6. Implementation: OpenGLM<br />PROLIX GLM – modelingonly; based on Reloadcodebase<br />OpenGLMimplemented on top of PROLIX GLM<br />Sharing space: Open ICOPER Content Space<br />
  7. 7. Open ICOPER Content Space (OICS)<br />
  8. 8. Open ICOPER Content Space (OICS)<br />
  9. 9. Artifacts<br />
  10. 10. “Intelligent” LOM record construction<br />“Electronic forms must die!” <br />Title (1.2), general description (1.4) from IMS LD manifest<br />Lifecycle (2.*), meta-metadata (3.*) from OICS/OpenGLM user data<br />Educational description (5.10) from activity descriptions<br />Resource type (5.2) is LD if content objects attached, otherwise TM<br />Relations (7.*) extracted from OICS learning objects used and TMs implemented<br />Intended learning outcomes (ext. 5.12) from IEEE RCD compliant outcome definitions<br />
  11. 11. Application<br />Examplescenario:<br />Reuse existing instructional models to develop a new LD for an “Academic writing” course<br />
  12. 12. Search andimportsomethingtobuild on<br />
  13. 13. Editinggeneralinfo<br />
  14. 14. Adaptingintendedoutcomes<br />
  15. 15. Definingactivities<br />
  16. 16. Add content<br />
  17. 17. Upload torepository<br />Couldbe a personal repository, an open/publicrepository, an institutionalrepository, a program-specificrepository, …<br />
  18. 18. End-user evaluation<br />2 universities, 11 users<br />Performdesgintask, thenstructured interview<br />Findings:<br />Work integration: real-liferelevance?  portfolios, workloadcalculation<br />Training: helprequired  stafftraining<br />Terminology: sometimesconfusing  adapttoinstitution<br />Content quality: unsure, lack ofinfo  qualitycontrolledrepositories<br />Sharing & development: wellreceived  discourse on teaching<br />
  19. 19. Benefits<br />Reuse of IMs, LODs, content – building on goodpractice<br />Shared LOD pool<br />Institutionalcontrol<br />Outcome-basedcommunities<br />Institutionalrepositories<br />Workflow supportat different managementlayers<br />Documentation, interoperability and visibility of teachingpractices<br />
  20. 20. Limitations<br />IT literacy<br />Obstaclestosharing<br />Lack ofmotivation, <br />Lack ofcriticalmass, <br />Lack ofqualitycontrol<br />IPR<br />$$$<br />
  21. 21. Conclusion<br />Strong opportunities of supporting instructional modeling CoPs, personal and organizational <br />What’s needed?<br />Institutionalized provision and quality control<br />Higher impact of teaching on academic career<br />Effective spaces for sharing of good practice<br />Join the conversation on shaping TEL futures<br /> “TEL-Future” tab<br />
  22. 22.<br />