11Slide e1 --- Gargi Banerjee* Sahana Murthy* *Interdisciplinary Program in Educational Technology,...

11Slide e1

--- Gargi Banerjee* Sahana Murthy*

*Interdisciplinary Program in Educational Technology, IIT Bombay, Powai.

Model for Rapid, Large-Scale Development of

Learning Objects in Multiple Domains

IEEE International Conference on Technology for Education (T4E)

IIT Madras, Chennai

July 14-16, 2011

22Slide e2

• Operational definition adopted – L’Allier’s Definition, since it has education as its focus.

• Definition :“The smallest, independent structural experience that contains an objective, a learning activity and an assessment.” [L’Allier,1997]

What are Learning Objects (LOs)?

Sample LO

33Slide e3




Sample LO

44Slide e4




Sample LO

55Slide e5




Sample LO

66Slide e6




Sample LO

77Slide e7

Why Learning Objects (LOs?)

• Learning objects (LO) have become valuable educational resource

a. Fit into different instructional settings

b. Ideal for spreading higher education in India

•Learning Object repositories (LORs) have increased rapidly in recent times

88Slide e8

GOALS OF PROJECT OSCAR (IIT Bombay)

• To create a repository of good quality open-source courseware of LOs

• Educational Level targeted – Tertiary Level

• Multiple Domains – Varied domains like Bioscience, Civil Engg., Chemistry, Earth Sc., Electrical Engg., Physics etc.

• High production rate – 100 LOs in 1 year

• Total of 300 LOs to be produced in 3 years

• A ‘National Mission on Education through ICT’ (NMEICT) initiative • Funded by Ministry of Human Resources, GOI

99Slide e9

How are LOs Produced ?

SME

Pedagogy expert

Interface Designer

Coders/Animators

• Synchronous models studied – TEAL*1,MIDOA*2, PhET*3

•Good quality LOs produced but in restricted domains

• Production Rate - 100 LOs in 4-5 years (approx.)

TYPICAL LO PRODUCTION PROCESS

1 J. Belcher, “Studio Physics at MIT”. 2001, Available at: http://web.mit.edu/physics/news/physicsatmit/physicsatmit_01_teal.pdf2 S. Arturo Barajas, A. Jaime Muñoz, R. Francisco J Álvarez., and G. Alma R.García, “Developing Large Scale Learning Objects for Software Engineering Process Model through MIDOA Model”, Mexican International Conference on Computer Science, September 20093 W. K Adams., S. Reid, R. LeMaster, S.B. McKagan, K.K. Perkins, C.E. Wieman, “A study of educational simulations Part I – Engagement and Learning”, Journal of Interactive Learning Research., 19(3). 397-419, 2008

1010Slide e10

Problems faced in adopting a Synchronous Model

• Scaling along numbers --

Working simultaneously in multiple domains

Team size increased

Team geographically dispersed

Synchronous discussion hampered

• Scaling along domains --

a. Finding faculty in each domain willing to devote so much time

b. Developers’ lack of domain knowledge aggravated ‘distance in communication’ problem

Conclusion :

• Synchronous model will not work, if LOs are to be developed: a. in parallel in multiple domains b. when there is a time constraint to production of good quality LOs c. when a large development team is involved

1111Slide e11

Broad Research Questions

1. What process to be adopted to create LOs in multiple domains at the tertiary level of education while maintaining high quality and high production rate?

2. Can an asynchronous, distributed development model replicate the efficiency of synchronous development model?

1212Slide e12

Write IDD ppt

Review IDD

Developanimation

Reviewanimation

Propose concept

Review proposal

• ConceptProposer

• Reviewer

• IDD writer DevelopDesign

Review Design

• Designer

• Reviewer

• Developer

Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4

• Reviewer • Reviewer

Production Process Adopted

1313Slide e13

Write IDD ppt

Review IDD

Developanimation

Reviewanimation

Propose concept

Review proposal

• ConceptProposer

• Reviewer

• IDD writer DevelopDesign

Review Design

• Designer

• Reviewer

• Developer


• Reviewer • Reviewer

Production Process Adopted

• Various asynchronous models of LO development tried -

A. Online Distributed Model C. Fully Outsourced Model

B. Individual Faculty Model D. Domain Owner

• In each of the models tried, the variable changed was : who was responsible for a specific task

1414Slide e14

A. Online Distributed Model

Process –

Write IDD ppt

Review IDD

Developanimation

Reviewanimation

Propose concept

Review proposal

• ConceptProposer = Online community

• Reviewer = OSCAR

• IDD writer = Online community

DevelopDesign

Review Design

• Designer = OSCAR

• Reviewer = OSCAR Visual Design Expert

• Developer = OSCAR


Advantages –

• LOs developed by a community of teachers and learners.

Limitations –

• Content quality of the IDD biggest problem in this model.

• Challenging to maintain communication channels between the developer, reviewer and the IDD writer (the person who originally proposed the idea)

Lesson Learnt -

• Only if developer knew the domain could LOs under this model get developed

• Reviewer = IITB Faculty


1515Slide e15

B. Individual Faculty Model

Process –

Propose concept

• ConceptProposer = IITB Faculty

Write IDD ppt

Review IDD

• IDD writer = IITB Student


DevelopDesign

Review Design



Developanimation

Reviewanimation

• Developer = OSCAR


Advantages –• Content quality of LOs ensured right from the beginning.

Limitations –

• Difficult to map a set of LOs to a course• Content review took a very long time due to faculty time constraint• Communication gap between the faculty SME and the developer

Lesson Learnt:

• Importance of standardizing instructions in asynchronous mode to replicate effectiveness of face-to-face interactions.


1616Slide e16

C. Fully Outsourced Model

Process –

Write IDD ppt

Review IDD

Developanimation

Reviewanimation

Propose concept

Review proposal


• Reviewer = OSCAR

• IDD writer =Vendor

SME

DevelopDesign

Review Design



• Developer = Vendor




Advantages –• Production cost low• LO coding time reduced

Limitations –• LOs dispersed over various content areas, not coursewise• Gap in expected content standards between IITB SME and vendor SME. • Overall production time increased• Review process of IDD very lengthy • Vendor was constantly required to adapt to different expectations.

Lessons Learnt - Content writing cannot be outsourced

1717Slide e17

D. Domain Owner ModelProcess –

Write IDD ppt

Review IDD

Developanimation

Reviewanimation

Propose concept

Review proposal


• IDD writer = IITB

Student

DevelopDesign

Review Design



• Developer = Vendor




Advantages –• Review time for both IDD and LO reduced• Instructional Designing training given to ID writers.

Limitations –

• Time lag between completion of the content generation phase and start of the LO coding phase

1818Slide e18

D. Detailed Domain Owner Process

Instructional Design Document

Detailed Design

LO Development

Design Review

IDD Review

Review of concept proposal

Concept Proposal

Stage

Verify design

Validate requirement

Validate concept proposal

DesignerDesign Reviewer

IITB students

SME

Pedagogy expert + IDD writer

OSCAR

Pedagogy Pedagogy

review

Instructional Designer

IITB Faculty

LO Review

IITB FacultyVendor Developer

Final LO Released

Validate pedagogy

Validate LO

Index: SME = Subject Matter expert, can be a faculty or a post-graduate/doctoral student; SB= Storyboard/IDD; LO = Learning Object

1919Slide e19

D. Domain Owner

Features:

1. Domain Owner model proved most successful within the constraints of cost, schedule and quality

2. Content creation done in-house, by faculty and students at our Institute

3. IDD development outsourced to animation companies

4. Vendor did not have to contend with different SME teams

5. Mean production time fell to 0.375 months for each LO without affecting quality [Table 1]

2020Slide e20

Results: Comparative Analysis Of Different Asynchronous Model

Model No. of IDDs submitted per month

No. of approved IDDs

submitted/month

Mean Time taken

for creating

1 approve

d IDD [month]

Mean Time taken to

animate 1 approved

IDD [month]

Mean Time taken for 1 entire LO = approved IDD + LO

development[month]

Mean Cost of

LO creation (Rs.) / LO

Online 0.3 0 ∞ - - -

Individual Faculty

2 2 0.5 3mos/6LOs = 0.5mos

1 months 61,358/-

Fully Outsourced

6 1 1 4mos/20LOs = 0.2mo

1.2months 24,600/-

Domain Owner

4 4 0.25 2mos/16LOs = 0.125mos

0.375months 35,530/-

Index: mos = months

Table 1: Development Data for all the models

2121Slide e21

Results: Comparative Analysis Of Different Asynchronous Model

2222Slide e22

CONCLUSION

• Domain Owner model seeks to harness the expertise of both academia and industry to create quality LOs

• Content creation part of the LO production life-cycle is the most crucial

•Social Impact of this model is enormous –

a. OSCAR LOR is able to make LOs from advanced Science and Engineering domains accessible to students in every corner of India.

b. Students and research scholars of our Institute, many of whom are faculty of the future, become aware of pedagogical issues

2323Slide e23

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

• The authors would like to thank the following organizations and people for their contribution, help and support:

NMEICT , Ministry of Human Resources & Development, Govt. of India

IIT Bombay

Project OSCAR team : PIs, Project Managers, ID writers, Designers, Animators

IIT Bombay faculty

All Domain Owners in Project OSCAR

2424Slide e24

THANK YOU !

11Slide e1 --- Gargi Banerjee* Sahana Murthy* *Interdisciplinary Program in Educational Technology,...

Documents

Transcript of 11Slide e1 --- Gargi Banerjee* Sahana Murthy* *Interdisciplinary Program in Educational Technology,...