standardization for highschool e-learning

1

standardization for highschool e-learningdidactical-scenario-based suggestions for interoperability-standards for e-learning-sequences to support highschool-teachers as authors

print-version

2 | 30

introduction...just show me a website!

Authoring tool

2 | 30


Authoring toolFirefox 6.0

2 | 30


Authoring toolFirefox 6.0

Internet Explorer 9

3 | 30

approach possible research questions next steps

agenda

learning-technology-standards overview state-of-the-art the interoperabilty-problem

ideas „functionalities“ in learning platforms specialization – enhancement – modification substandard-clustering

issues cluster-criteria didactical scenarios grid of functionalities | did. scenarios

4 | 30

learning technology standardstechnical standards – definition and example

“A technical standard is an established norm or requirement about technical systems.

It is usually a formal document that establishes uniform engineering or technical criteria, methods, processes and practices.”

definition:

Source: [wits2011]

example:

view: Adobe Reader Evince FoxitReader ...

create: Adobe Acrobat Open/LibreOffice MS Office (> 2003) ...

.pdf-file

5 | 30

learning technology standardswhy learning technology standards?

e-learning sequence e-learning platform

exportimport

authoring tool

might already be a learning platform

publish

repository

import uselts

6 | 30

learning technology standardslearning-technology-standards - state-of-the-art

“established” e-learning standards

type titleversion / last

released

content Content Package (CP)1.2 (03/2007)

testsQuestion and Test Interoperability

(QTI)2.1 PD (06/2006)

“hybrid“

Shareable Content Object Reference Model

(SCORM)2004 4th Edition (03/2009)

Learning Design (LD)1.0(01/2003)

Common Cartridge (CC)1.1(01/2011)

7 | 30

learning technology standardscontent aggregation (e.g. SCORM content aggregation model)

repository

assets

+metadata

SCO

SCO

SCO

content aggregation

content element

block element

content element

content element

content element

references

shareable content objects

slide not inpresentationversion !!!

8 | 30

learning technology standardscontent packaging

interchange packet

manifest

metadata

organizations

resources

(child manifests)

files(e.g. HTML-files, video, audio, control

files ...)

external ressources (interchange packages, manifests,

metadata, files)

adopted from: [cpim2007]

(e.g. IMS Content Package)


9 | 30

learning technology standardsoverview learning-technology-standards

content andorganization

learning flowmanagement

tests, test itemsassessments

contentauthentification

...

communicationpackage LP↔

Common Cartridge

CP*IMS Content

Package

BLTIBasic Learning

Tools Interoperabilty

QTI***IMS Question and

Test Interoperabilty

AWSAuthorizationWebservice

...

!

SCORM

CAMContent Aggregation

Model

RTERuntime

Environment

S/N**Sequencing and

Navigation

!

* just one organization possible** only in Level C*** not all question types

10 | 30

learning technology standardsoverview learning-technology-standards

SCORM Learning Design Common Cartridge




contentauthentification

...


Model

CPIMS Content

Package

CP*IMS Content

Package


RTERuntime

Environment

BLTIBasic Learning


S/N**Sequencing and

Navigation

SSIMS SimpleSequencing

QTIIMS Question and Test Interoperabilty



AWSAuthorizationWebservice

... ... ...

!

!


11 | 30

learning technology standardsissues – summary

existing learning technology standards are technically determined and have no pedagogical focus.

“established“ standards are either outdated or lack important elements (for highschool-scenarios).

12 | 30

learning technology standardsissues I

Source: [koeh2010] (01/2011)

successfully importedencoding problems

not fully supportedno import possible

import of e-learning sequences / tests

13 | 30

successfully exportedencoding problems

no export possible

Source: [koeh2010] (01/2011)

learning technology standardsissues II

export of e-learning sequences / tests

14 | 30

learning technology standardsissues III

praxis of interoperability(WebCT/Blackboard OPAL via SCORM & QTI)→


15 | 30

learning technology standardsissues – summary

existing learning technology standards are technically determined and have no pedagogical focus.

„established“ standards are either outdated or lack important elements (for highschool-scenarios).

import and export-functionalities of learning technology standards are poorly implemented in learning platforms.

16 | 30

ideas„functionalities“ in learning platforms

content

learning flow management

user datatracking data

discussion forum

selftest

test for consolidation

assessment

conditional release

glossary

typographical convention

functionality: storeable data in the learning-platform belonging to the e-learning-sequence (and user?).

wiki

discussion forum

17 | 30

ideasexamples: I – specialization

HTML-content and typographical conventions:

math-examples: definition, theorem, corrolar, cite, ...

HTML (incl. CSS) can do this already, but not in a standardized way.

suggestion: fix elements and use xml-namespaces or defined css-classes in the standard.

18 | 30

ideasexamples: II – enhancement

glossarys:

is also possible at the moment: e.g. using JavaScript popup-glossaries.

also: not included in any standard

suggestion: store package-wide glossary / glossaries.

19 | 30

ideasexamples: III – modification

meshed organization of content:

possible is just a tree-structure.

suggestion: alter standard to make meshed organization possible

organizationcontent element

block element

content element

content element

content element

20 | 30

specialization:

adds functionalities to the standard that could be represented before, but not in the standard itself.

compatible with the standard (?)

enhancement

adding new features to the standard it did not represent before.

modification

alters things the standard does already represent (in another way).

not compatible with the standard at all.

ideasspecialization – enhancement - modification

21 | 30

ideassuggestions for a possible solution

spezialisation

enhancement

modificationsu

b-st

anda

rd 1

sub-

stan

dard

2

sub-

stan

dard

n

...

–

–

– –

–

22 | 30

issues„functionality“-clustering

option:technical cluster-criteriae.g. set of multiple/single-choice questions:

+ question-based feedback

+ test-based feedback

no feedback

but keep in mind:would be good for implementation!


23 | 30


option:didactical cluster-criteria

→ didactical scenarios

Source: [heye2006]

24 | 30


Requirements of a cluster-criteria

planning preparation execution evaluation

Source: [pete2000]

manageable number of dimensions pre-planning arbitrable (avoid “ping-pong-effect”)

Recursive- and “black-hole”-free (bijective)


25 | 30


functionalities

did. scenarios

grid of functionalities / scenarios

didacticalfunction

“prosa”description

26 | 30


functionalities

did. scenarios

preferable grid

scenarios have “something” in common

one sub-standard

27 | 30

are there attributes – and if yes, which – so that didactical scenarios can be mapped to functionalities in learning-platforms?

how must technical functionalities be described, in order that the mapping of scenarios to functionalities is bijective?

what kind of consequences can didactical standardization have for e-learning scenarios in schools?

approachpossible research questions

possible?

28 | 30

further research on existing learning-technology-standards

build collection of did. Scenarios (e-learning and school – capable)

collect capabilities in learning-platforms for functionality-collection

describe needed information for each functionality

build xml-scheme or class-diagram for functionalities

approachnext steps

29 | 30

[baum2004] Baumgartner, P.: Didaktik und Reusable Learning Objects (RLO's). In: Campus 2004 - Kommen die digitalen Medien an den Hochschulen in die Jahre? 2004

[baum2006] Baumgartner, P.: E-Learning-Szenarien. Vorarbeiten zu einer didaktischen Taxonomie. In: Gesellschaft für Medien in der Wissenschaft (Hg.): E-Learning - alltagstaugliche Innovation? Münster: Waxmann, S. 238–247.

[baum2007] Baumgartner, P.: Didaktische Arrangements und Lerninhalte - Zum Verhältnis von Inhalt und Didaktik im E-Learning. In: Überwindung von Schranken durch E-Learning, 2007

[bhm2002a] Baumgartner, P., Häferle, H., Maier-Häferle, K.: E-Learning Standartds aus didaktischer Perspektive. In: Campus 2002: Die virtuelle Hochschule in der Konsolidierungsphase. G. Bachmann, O. Haeferli und M. Kindt. Münster, Waxmann. 18: 277-286.

[bhm2002b] Baumgartner, P., Häferle, H., Maier-Häferle, K.: E-Learning-Praxishandbauch: Auswahl von Lernplattformen. Studienverlag, Inssbruck, 2002.

[czap2008] Czaputa, C.: Didaktische Szenarien und IMS Learning Design - Analyse zur Einschätzung einer Koppelung Didaktischer Szenarien nach Baumgartner mit der Spezifikation IMS Learning Design. Master Thesis, Krems, 2008.

[cpim2007] IMS GLC: IMS Content Packaging Information Model. Version 1.2 Public Draft v2.0, 2007.

[ccim2011] IMS GLC: IMS Common Cardridge Profile: Overview. Version 1.1 Final Specification. 2011.

[ehle2006] Ehlers, U. D.: E-Learning-Standards nachhaltig anwenden - Potenziale ausschöpfen durch Qualitätskompetenz. In: Zeitschift für e-learning, 2007

[glah2002] Glahn, C.: Wie Bildungsprozesse standardisiert beschrieben werden können. Konzepte, Perspektiven und Grenzen von IMS Learning Design. Innsbruck, 2002.

[goan2009] Gonzales-Barbone, V.; Anido-Rifon L.: From SCORM to Common Cartridge: A Step Forward, Computers & Education 54, 2009.

[heye2006] Heyer, S.: Didaktische Szenarien und deren Verhältnis zu Lernmaterialien. CampusContent (Forschungsprojekt), 2006.

[kerr2001] Kerres, M.: Multimediale und telemediale Lernumgebungen: Konzeption und Entwicklung. Oldenbourg, 2001.

[koeh2010] Köhler, R.: Untersuchung von Komponenten und Standards freier Lernmanagementsysteme sowie Entwicklung und Umsetzung einer geeigneten Darstellungsform für Standards. Belegarbeit. Dresden, 2011.

[ldim2003] IMS GLC: IMS Learning Design Information Model. Version 1.0 Final Specification, 2003.

[obhe2007] Oberhuemer, P., Heyer, S.: Probleme bei der Umsetzung didaktischer Modelle in IMS Learning Design: eine Anwenderperspektive, In: Zeitschift für e-learning, 2007.

[pawl2001] Pawlowski, J. M.: Das Essener-Lern-Modell (ELM): Ein Vorgehensmodell zur Entwicklung comnputergestützter Lernumgebungen. Dissertation, Essen, 2001.

[pete2000] Peterßen, W. H.: Handbuch Unterrichtsplanung. Ehrenwirth, München, 2000.

[ried2004] Riedl, A.: Grundlagen der Didaktik, Franz Steiern Verlag, München, 2004.

[scor2006] ADL, SCORM 2004 3rd Edition Overview, Version 1.0, 16.11.2006.

[schul1997] Schulmeister, R.: Grundlagen hypermedialer Lernsysteme, 2., aktualisierte Auflage, München, Wien, 1997.

[wits2011] English Wikipedia, „technical standard“, 20.08.2011. PermaLink: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Technical_standard&oldid=436201979

[zech2007] Zech, B.: Ist IMS Learning Design "pädagogisch neutral"? In: Zeitschift für e-learning, 2007.

references

30 | 30





Common Cartridge

CP*IMS Content

Package

BLTIBasic Learning




!

SCORM


Model

RTERuntime

Environment

S/N**Sequencing and

Navigation

!

functionaliaties

did.

scenarios

exitthank you for yourkind attention!exit

are there attributes – and if yes, which – so that didactical scenarios can be mapped to functionalities in learning-platforms?

how must technical functionalities be described, in order that the mapping of scenarios to functionalities is possible?

standardization for highschool e-learning

Education

Transcript of standardization for highschool e-learning