DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION OF THE EXTENDEDLEARNING UNIT MODEL FOR ONLINE COURSE

CONSTRIJCTION IN UNIMAS

GOH KOK LUONG

A thesis submittedin fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of

Master of Science in Information Technology

FACULTY OF COMPUTER SCIENCE AND INFORMATIONTECHNOLOGY

UNIVERSITI MALAYSIA SARAWAK2003

DECLARATION

No portion of the work referred to in this report has been submitted in support of anapplication for another degree or qualification of this or any other university OIins t i tu t ion of higher learning.

Goh Kok Luong98-02-0256April 2003

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First, I would like to thank my supervisor, Assoc. Prof. Narayanan Kulathuramaiyer forhis guidance and patience during my studies. Then, I would like to thank my entirefamily, and all my friends for their incredible support during the long journey of mystudies. I would also like to thank the Faculty of Computer Science and InformationTechnology for the research facilities, and provide friendly research environment.Finally, I acknowledge the financial support that I received from the P&n Tin&akanPembangunan Tcknologi Perindustrian (PTPTP) and Graduate Studies & ResearchSupport Division, University Malaysia Sarawak.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contents

DECLARATION

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

DEDICATION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES

LIST OF TABLES

ABSTRACT

ABSTRAK

Page

ii

iii

iv

”

ix

xi

xii

xiii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Knowledge Economy

1.2 Course Authoring System

1.3 Learning Unit Model

1.4 Weaknesses In the Learning Unit Model

1.4.1 Standardization Of Content Format Is Not Specified

1.4.2 Variations In The Levels Of Reusability

1.4.3 Detailed System Implementation Of Framework Is NotSpecified

1.4.4 High Development Overhead 4

1.4.5 User Oriented View Required 4

1.4.6 Need For Standardized Authoring Support 4

1.4.7 Standardized M&data Attributes 5

1.5 Current E-learning System 6

1.6 Research Aims 6

1.7 Objectives 7

1.8 Thesis Organization 7

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 8

2.1 Introduction 8

2.2 Courseware Component Terminology 8

2.3 E-learning Standards 9

2.3.1 Tools For Implementing Standards 15

2.4 Learning Technology System Architecture (LTSA) 16

2.5 Related Works 17

2.5.1 Adaptation 21

2.5.2 Template 23

2.5.3 Content Representation Format 23

2.5.4 Me&data 24

2.5.5 Body Of Knowledge 24

2.5.6 Legacy Content 25

2.5.7 Pedagogical Issue 25

2.6 Conclusion 26

CHAPTER 3: FRAMEWORK FOR EXTENDED LEARNING UNIT

3.1 Introduction

3.1.1 MediaLayer

3.1.1.1 Digital Library

3.1.1.2 Question Bank

3.1.2 Learning Unit Layer

3.1.2.1 Incorporating Pedagogy Elements With LearningUni ts

3.1.2.2 Prescriptive Learning Unit

3.1.2.3 Adaptive Learning Unit

3.1.3 Lesson Layer

3.1.4CourseLayer

3.2 Metadata

3.3 Course Creation Process

3.3.1 Instructional Design

3.3.2 Analysis Phase

3.3.3 Design Phase

3.3.4 Development Phase

3.3.5 Implement~tionlDelivery Phase

3.3.6 Evaluation Phase

3.4 Packaging Of Lessons/Courses

3.5 wrapper

28

28

30

31

33

34

35

36

36

38

39

40

42

42

43

44

45

46

48

48

49

vi

BIBLIOGRAPHY 89

Appendix 95

Appendix A: Example Of Media Element Representation In XML 9s

Appendix B: Learning Unit In XML Format 91

Appendix C: Transformation Coding Using Scripting Language 98

Appendix D: Transformation Coding Using XSL 99

Appendix E: Detail Of User Interview 100

Appendix F: Template Comparative Study Chart 113

Appendix G: Interviewees’ Response On The Ability Of Layering Approach 114

Appendix H: Interviewees’ Response On Availability Of Media Repository 114Will Help Them Developing Learning Resource

Appendix I: Interviewees’ Preference On The Prescriptive And Adaptive 11sLearning Unit

Appendix J: Interviewees’ Response On Whether Taking Consideration Of 115Learner’s Preference During Learning Resource Development

Appendix K: Interviewees’ Response On Whether Taking Consideration Of 116Learner’s Reference Is Important Or Not

Appendix L: Interviewees’ Response On Ability Of Prototype System To 117Delivery Learning Unit That Adapt To Learner

Appendix M: Interviewees’ Response On Benefit Of Wrapper 117

RELATED CONFERENCE PAPER AND PRESENTATION 118

APPENDIX N: Goh Kok Luong & Narayanan Kulathuramaiyer. Extending 118the learning unit framework for flexible course authoring. Proceedings of thepostgraduate colloquium in Science and Technology 2002, page 70 Kuching,Sarawak.

Appendix 0: Goh Kok Luong & Narayanan Kulathuramaiyer. Flexible 122course authoring system. International Conference on Higher Education forthe 21”’ Century, September 2002, Curtin University Sarawak, Miri,Sarawak, Malaysia

Appendix P: Goh Kok Luong & Narayanan Kulathuramaiyer. The Role of 131Standards in the Development of E-Learning. South East Asian AssociationFor Institutional Research (SEAAIR) Conference, October 2002, Ku&Lumpur, Malaysia

GLOSSARY 132

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 Mapping metadata elements between different E-learning metadatastandard (Mapping between DCMI with LOM is extracted fromIEEE LOM (http://ltsc.ieee.org/doc/index.html))

Table 2.2 Summary of related works

Table 2.3 content model of various model

Table 3.1 Four layers of extended learning unit model

Table 3.2 Mapping between DCMI metadata elements with metadata elementsfrom extended learning unit model

Table 5.1 The analysis between the steps in comparing the 2 approaches

Table 5.2 Chunking learning content into learning unit

Page13

18

19

29

41

76

77

xi

ARSTRACT

E-learning is becoming widely adopted as a means of teaching-learning in manyeducational institutions. A course authoring system plays an important role in thedevelopment of course contents fov an E-learning system. Current authoring systemsare facing a number of problems in providing flexible authoring capability to enable theshar ing and reusab i l i t y o f learn ing conten t .

A flexible course authoring system based on component level authoring that addressesthe problems faced by current systems has been introduced. Learning unit model(Zahran & Zaidah, 1094), which based on component level authoring, has beenemployed in development of courseware in UNIMAS; however, existing learning unitmodels exhibit certain constrains such as standardization of content representationfoormat, variation of reusability, lacking of template, less standardization of metadata andmore on systemic view rather than user oriented view.

Thercforc, an extended learning unit model leas been proposed to overcome the aboveproblems, which will enable reusability, shamble, interoperability and manageability.Exploration of tbc incorporation of instructional design methodology enables thedevelopment of a user-centered learning unit model will be carried out in this study.

Besides that, the application of templates in assisting users to create user orientedlearning units and techniques for dealing with proprietary representations formats oflearning content have also been explored in this study.

A prototype of the extended learning unit lnodel has been designed and developed. Casestudies have been performed using the prototype system. The usability of the extendedlearn ing un i t mode l had been assessed us ing in te rv iew. The resu l ts ob ta ined are veryencouraging. Finally, several recommendations for future enhancement are suggested atthe end of the thesis.

xii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Knowledge Economy

According to Trigg (ZOOl), the current economy is evolving from product-basedeconomy to knowledge-based economy. In the knowledge age, the life of knowledgeand human skills is shorter than cve~, increasing the pressure to remain at the forefrontof education and training throughout a career. In the midst of globalization andtechnological revolution, four-year degree is just the beginning of a continuing journeyof lifelong learning.

As lifelong learners, people need to learn at all stages of their life, they can acquireknowledge through conventional ways such as at tending causes in ins t i tu tes /col leges orthrough in-house training provided by their own organization. However, theseconventional methods cannot be accessed anywhere, anytime. Therefore, electroniclearning (e-learning) has been proposed as a solution. E-learning can be defined as aweb enabled learning environment that brings learning resources to the learner whereverand whenever they require i t in order to facil i tate the learning process.

1.2 Course Authoring System

The production of learning resources is one of the key components in e-learning. Theeffectiveness of courseware development practice is important in producing high qualitycourseware. A course authoring system plays an important role in the development OFlearning resources for an e-learning system. Current course authoring systems face anumber of problems in providing flexible authoring capability. They need to addressamong other issues of sharing and reuse of existing content, enabling collaborativeauthoring, and catering to personal learning styles. Problems faced by existing courseauthoring systems are summarized below:

1) Representation of courses in non-modularform that prohibits reusabilityNowadays knowledge has a shorter life than a century ago (Gazette, 2001), and there isalways a need to update learning material from time to time. However, current learningmaterials developed for specific purposes tend to be static, and non-modular.Maintenance of these courses can be time consuming and costly. Besides that,reusability of the existing learning material is also restricted.

2) Non-compliance to standardsCompliance with the emerging standards becomes a major consideration, as the need tomake connection with other institutions is on the increase, in order to be able to exploitexisting resources to the fullest. As new standards are emerging and the existingstandards arc continuously evolving, it becomes a challenge for educational institutionsto keep abreast of these and maintain compliance.

Introduct ion

?? Experiential Unit (EU): Emphasizes the real life application of acquiredknowledge and skills, and arc the opportunities created via project work, workexperience or industry residency.

Learning units are topical, with variable sizes dictated by topic coherence rather thanarbitrary constraints. A set of LUs may address some basic concept but each in adifferent way, perhaps under different problem contexts or instantiations, butnevertheless having a high degree of independence. LUs arc interrelated throughprerequisite structures, and peer and complementary structures, and can be combined invarious ways to form courses. Instructors use a variety of tools such as officeapplications, authoring systems to develop learning unit with media element supportfrom their own media element repository (Zahran & Zaidah, 1994).

With the learning unit model, an instructor in a university can construct a course fasterand easier through assembling required learning units into a course and furthermorecourses can be adapted to learner needs through negotiated learning (customizedinstruction). Course maintenance is easy as additional learning units can be added orremoved from the course without affecting others. In principle, sharing of learning unitthroughout the universi ty is possible i f learning units are s tored at central reposi tory.

1.4 Weaknesses In The Learning Unit Model

Although the learning unit model as defined above provides a flexible means ofconstructing cowses, reusing existing learning units from a repository and the ease ofcourse maintenance, however it still exhibits a number of shortcomings, which includes:

1.4.1 Standardization Of Content Format Is Not Specified

Earlier learning unit implementations were developed using proprietary authoringsystem such as Toolbook, Authorware, etc prohibiting the sharing and reusability.

I These proprietary data formats became inadequate as they restricted learning units’sharability and reusability. Therefore standardization is needed. Although many

/ standards have emerged, full compliance may still be a challenge. Standards acceptance/ also requires long periods.

i1.4.2 Variations In The Levels Of Reusability

A learning object can be defined at a macro and micro level (Shepherd, 2000). At themicro level, it is represented as media assets such as images, paragraphs of text,questions, audio clips, etc. At the macro level on the other hand, it can be regarded as afull set of self-contained pieces of instruction, including information, practice andassessment. The learning unit model discussed above concentrates on the macro leveland with a lessen emphasis on the micro level, making it difficult for users to reuse andassemble media element into content .

3

Chapter One

1.4.3 Detailed System Implementation Of Framework Is Not Specified

The model described has provided an abstract conceptual framework in applyinglearning unit in courseware development, However, it lacks the detailed systemspecification for the implementation of such a framework in courSeware development.Therefore, exploration of how to implement learning unit model will be performed inthis study.

1.4.4 High Development Overhead

As mentioned above, learning units can be categorized as a KU, AU or EU. Differenttypes of learning resources can be attached with each of these types of learning units.This feature is important for instructors whereby they can select learning resources thatmeet the instructional strategy to teach a course/lesson. From the learner’s perspective,the delivery of learning units can be adapted to learner’s learning style and preference.However, a lot of effort (time and cost) is needed in developing personalized learningrtxouxes and this makes sharing of components between authoring systemcumbersome.

1.4.5 User Oriented View Required

In supporting lifelong learning, the focus is more on the learner. Lifelong learningsupports the learner by taking into account the different ways people learn and the needto provide for a range of learning styles (British Council, 2001). However, the learningunit model described above provides a systemic view, which concerns a system as awhole with interrelated components to solve a specific goal rather than a user-orientedview. Development of user oriented learning units overlooked deeper consideration ofuser needs such as learning style, pm-requisite knowledge, etc. in order to deliverlearning content that is able adapt to users.

1.4.6 Need For Standardized Authoring Support

Typically, instructors use an editor to create lecture notes and then upload them onto thecourse folders. Most of the lecture notes are developed using office automation tools(e.g. Word and MS PowerPoint) and in a lesson length format. This approach providesbenefits to instructors as they can use their preferred tool to create lecture notes.However, this approach also provides drawbacks whereby there is no standard way ofcontent presentation throughout an organization and lesson length lecture notes is hardto reuse by other courses or contexts. Therefore, there is a need to promote standardizedpresentation of learning content in an organi:~ation.

4

Introduction

1.4.7 Standardized M&data Attributes

Presently, there are no standard m&data attributes defined to describe lessons/coursesas part of the adopted learning unit model.. As shown in Figure 1.1 and Figure 1.2,different metadata names have been used to describe the lesson/course. Withoutstandardized metadata, it causes difficulty in maintaining lessons/courses.

Chapter One

1.5 Current E-learning System

Currently UNIMAS is using Hyperwave as a course repository to store lecture notes(Figure 1.3). Instructors will use an editor to create lecture notes and then upload intoHyperwave server. Besides Hyperwave, Lotus Quickplace has been adopted byUNIMAS as a platform for development of online learning environment over the pastfour years. More than 100 cowses have been developed throughout the university.However, contents are not structured as learning units, sharing of contents andcollaborative e-learning content development is not possible. Therefore, the researchwill provide. insight into the development of learning content management system.

1.6 Research Aims

Based on the problems discussed above, this research aims to explore the extensions andrefinement to the learning unit framework, in order to enable reusability, sharability,interoperability and manageability. It will explore how the macro and micro levels canbe integrated to provide a structured view for instructors. In addition, it will alsoexplore the incorporation of instructional design methodology to enable thedevelopment of a user-centered learning unit model.

Reviewing the state of art of learning objects in terms of its terminology of definition isneeded because many deiinitions of learning objects exist and their composition are.varied. The reviewed information will help to validate and refine the learning unitmodel.

6

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

This chapter will first provide the background for learning objects and componenttechnology in cour~e~axe development. E-learning standards will then be furtherdiscussed in teIms of their implications for organizations involved in the development ofe-learning systems. Finally, a comparative study between learning unit and other relatedworks would be presented with additional discussion in terms of their strengths andweaknesses.

2.2 Courseware Component Terminology

Learning unit is synonymous to the concept of learning object, which is a buzzword inrecent e-learning and knowledge management literature. The term “learning object”was coined a decade ago largely attributed to Wayne Hodgins, who got the idea ofbuilding blocks for learning objects from observing his children playing with Lego setin 1992. Several groups such as CEDMA (CEDMA, 2002) started working with earlyconcepts of learning objects from 1992 to 1995. Subsequently, IEEE (IEEE, 2002),IMS (IMS, 2002) and ARIADNE (ARIADNE, 2002) were formed to standardizelearning object as building blocks for courses. Besides that, Oracle developed anauthoring environment, Oracle Learning Application (OLA) using learning objects inbetween 1994-95. CISCO on the other hand has released its white paper on reusablelearning objects (RLO) (CISCO, 2000) in 1998 with the efforts of the Tom Kelly andChuck Bar& That paper, in conjunction with the work of the industry standards andspecifications bodies, did much to move RLOs to the forefront of industry-wide systemsby 2000.20Ol(lacobsen, 2001).

According to Maish (2001), a learning object is the smallest independent instructionalexperience that contains an objective, a learning activity~ and an assessment. Learningobject can be any entity, digital or non-digital, which can be used, r-used or referencedduring technology supported learning (IEEE, 2002). According to Shepherd (2000),learning object can be a component that can he selectively applied - alone or incombination - by computer software, learning facilitators or learners themselves, tomeet individual needs for learning or performance support.

Although there are variations in terminology used in the literature such as learning units(LU) or learning objects or reusable learning objects (RLO), etc, all of them refer tomodular and self-contained chunks of learning contents that allows coursecustomization and reusability.

These component architectures also take into consideration issues of portability BIXXSplatforms, durability xxoss evolving versions of operating systems, sharability acrossauthoring systems and wide accessibility via the Web, which will decrease thedevelopment cost (Shepherd, 2000). As such compliance to standards becomes

Chapter Two

. ADL (ADL, 2002)Advanced Distributed Learning initiative is a joint White House/US. Department ofDefense (DOD) initiative. SCORM (Shamble Content Object Reference Model) i. ~~~~s theADL’s most widely known initiative, which is a reference model for standardizing thereusability and interoperability of learning content.

. AICC (AICC, 2002)The Aviation Industry CBT Committee is an industry consortium that has producedmany important “guidelines and recommendations” (i.e. specifications) for computerbased t raining.

? ARIADNE (ARIADNE, 2002)The Alliance of Remote Instructional and Distribution Networks for Europe has createdspecif icat ions and technology for online learning.

? EDNA (EDNA, 2000)Education Network Australia (EDNA) disseminates and participates in the creation ofan extensive set of technical standards example are EDNA m&data.

? IEEE LTSC (IEEE, 2002)The Institute for Electronic and Electrical Engineers Learning Technology StandardsCommittee is an Accredited standard body deal ing with learning technology standards.

. IMS (IMS, 2002)IMS Global Learning Consortium produces specifications and also offers workshops,developer support, and executive briefings. IMS is in the process of creating aconformance and testing program intended to be licensed by industry and nationalconsort ia and organizat ions.

. PROMETEUS (PROMETEUS, 2002)Promoting Multimedia access to Education and Training in EUropean Society aims atbuilding a common approach to the production and provision of e-learning technologiesand content in Europe.

. DCMI (DCMI, 2002)Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI) is an open forum engaged in the developmentof interoperable online m&data standards that support a broad range of purposes andbusiness models .

The above are just some examples of organizations/groups involved in c-learningspecification, and there are still others, which can be found at (CETIS, 2002; Svensson,2001; Sun Microsystems, 2002a; Eduworks, 2002).

According to Eduworks (2002), there are different organizations involved in creating e-learning standards, and those standards can be broadly categorized into a number ofcategories. It can be a standard that defines how the learning content is described,packaged, delivered, executed and tracked by learning management system (LMS).

10