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

1. print-version
standardization for highschool e-learning
1
didactical-scenario-based suggestions for interoperability-standards for e-
learning-sequences to support highschool-teachers as authors

2. introduction
...just show me a website!
Authoring tool
2 | 30

3. introduction
...just show me a website!
Firefox 6.0
Authoring tool
2 | 30

4. introduction
...just show me a website!
Firefox 6.0
Authoring tool
Internet Explorer 9
2 | 30

5. 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

approach

possible research questions

next steps
3 | 30

6. learning technology standards
technical standards – definition and example
definition:
“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.” Source: [wits2011]
example:
create: .pdf-file view:

Adobe Acrobat 
Adobe Reader

Open/LibreOffice 
Evince

MS Office (> 2003) 
FoxitReader

... 
...
4 | 30

7. learning technology standards
why learning technology standards?
e-learning export
e-learning platform
sequence import
pu
bllts import use
ish
authoring tool repository
might already be a
learning platform
5 | 30

8. learning technology standards
learning-technology-standards - state-of-the-art
“established” e-learning standards
version / last
type title
released
1.2
content Content Package (CP)
(03/2007)
Question and Test 2.1 PD
tests (QTI)
Interoperability (06/2006)
2004 4th
Shareable Content Object
(SCORM) Edition
Reference Model
(03/2009)
“hybrid“ 1.0
Learning Design (LD)
(01/2003)
1.1
Common Cartridge (CC)
(01/2011)
6 | 30

9. slide not in
presentation learning technology standards
version !!! content aggregation (e.g. SCORM content aggregation model)
assets
repository
+metadata
content aggregation shareable
content
content element objects
block element
content element
references
SCO
content element SCO
content element SCO
7 | 30

10. slide not in
presentation learning technology standards
version !!! content packaging (e.g. IMS Content Package)
interchange packet
manifest
metadata
external
organizations
ressources
resources (interchange
packages,
(child manifests) manifests,
metadata, files)
files
(e.g. HTML-files, video, audio, control
files ...)
adopted from: [cpim2007]
8 | 30

11. learning technology standards
overview learning-technology-standards
SCORM Common Cartridge
content and CAM CP*
Content Aggregation IMS Content
organization Model Package
tests, test items QTI***
! IMS Question and
assessments Test Interoperabilty
communication RTE BLTI
Runtime Basic Learning
package ↔ LP Environment Tools Interoperabilty
learning flow S/N**
Sequencing and !
management Navigation
content AWS
Authorization
authentification Webservice
... ...
* just one organization possible
** only in Level C
9 | 30 *** not all question types

12. slide not in
presentation learning technology standards
version !!! overview learning-technology-standards
SCORM Learning Design Common Cartridge
content and CAM CP CP*
Content Aggregation IMS Content IMS Content
organization Model Package Package
tests, test items QTI QTI***
! IMS Question and IMS Question and
assessments Test Interoperabilty Test Interoperabilty
communication RTE BLTI
Runtime Basic Learning
package ↔ LP Environment Tools Interoperabilty
learning flow S/N** SS
Sequencing and IMS Simple !
management Navigation Sequencing
content AWS
Authorization
authentification Webservice
... ... ... ...
10 | 30

13. learning technology standards
issues – 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).
11 | 30

14. learning technology standards
issues I
import of e-learning sequences / tests
successfully imported not fully supported
encoding problems no import possible
Source: [koeh2010] (01/2011)
12 | 30

15. learning technology standards
issues II
export of e-learning sequences / tests
successfully exported no export possible
encoding problems
Source: [koeh2010] (01/2011)
13 | 30

16. slide not in
presentation learning technology standards
version !!! issues III
praxis of interoperability
(WebCT/Blackboard→ OPAL via SCORM & QTI)
14 | 30

17. learning technology standards
issues – 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.
15 | 30

18. ideas
„functionalities“ in learning platforms
wiki conditional
discussion
forum release
typographical
user data convention
tracking data
learning flow
management discussion forum
selftest assessment
content
test for
consolidation glossary
functionality: storeable data in the learning-platform
belonging to the e-learning-sequence (and user?).
16 | 30

19. ideas
examples: 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.
17 | 30

20. ideas
examples: 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.
18 | 30

21. ideas
examples: III – modification
meshed organization of content:

possible is just a tree-structure.

suggestion: alter standard to make meshed
organization possible
organization
content element
block element
content element
content element
content element
19 | 30

22. ideas
specialization – enhancement - modification
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.
20 | 30

23. ideas
suggestions for a possible solution
1
2
n
da -
da -
da -
...
rd
rd
rd
an b
an b
an b
st su
st su
st su
spezialisation –
enhancement – –
modification – –
21 | 30

24. slide not in
presentation issues
version !!! „functionality“-clustering
option:
technical cluster-criteria
e.g. set of multiple/single-choice questions:
+ question-based feedback
+ test-based feedback
no feedback
but keep in mind:
would be good for implementation!
22 | 30

25. issues
„functionality“-clustering
option:
didactical cluster-criteria
→ didactical scenarios
Source: [heye2006]
23 | 30

26. slide not in
presentation issues
version !!! „functionality“-clustering
Requirements of a cluster-criteria
manageable number of dimensions
pre-planning arbitrable (avoid “ping-pong-effect”)
planning preparation execution evaluation
Source: [pete2000]
Recursive- and “black-hole”-free (bijective)
24 | 30

27. issues
„functionality“-clustering
grid of functionalities / scenarios
functionalities
didactical
function
did. scenarios
“prosa”
description
25 | 30

28. issues
„functionality“-clustering
preferable grid
functionalities
one sub-
standard
did. scenarios
scenarios have
“something” in common
26 | 30

29. approach
possible research questions

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? possibl
e?

what kind of consequences can didactical
standardization have for e-learning scenarios in
schools?
27 | 30

30. approach
next steps

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
28 | 30

31. references
[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
29 | 30 [zech2007] Zech, B.: Ist IMS Learning Design "pädagogisch neutral"? In: Zeitschift für e-learning, 2007.

32. thank you for your
exit kind attention!

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?
functionaliaties
SCORM Common Cartridge
CAM CP*
content and
Content Aggregation IMS Content
organization
Model Package
QTI***
tests, test items
! IMS Question and
assessments
Test Interoperabilty
RTE BLTI
communication did.
Runtime Basic Learning
package ↔ LP
Environment Tools Interoperabilty
scenarios
S/N**
learning flow
Sequencing and !
management
Navigation
30 | 30